Amiot no 93 GB I/34 October 1939
 

Hello

This aircraft usually listed in secondary sources as lost on 15 October. However Lagebericht West Nr. 57 says this aircraft was shot down in the early hours of 17 October. I am curious about what Armée de l'Air records says about the loss of this aircraft?

PS of course Amiot 143 no 94 is the plane in question

Flak, 15 October Amiot no 93 GB I/34 October 1939
 

According to Paul Martin in the book "Invisibles vainqueurs" (1991) Amiot 143 N° 94 (not 95) was shot down by Flak on 15 October. Martin used the French air force archive at Vincennes. 5 men POW including 2 wounded.

Re: Amiot no 93 GB I/34 October 1939
 

Now this is becoming interesting

According to Ribeiro/Ledet in their L'Amiot 143 (Lela Presse)

No 93:E-320 GB III/21 in Oct 1936; 14 GAA in July 1937 to 27.3.1939; GB I/34 in March 1939; shot down by Flak during the night 14/15.10.1939 and its crew captured in Germany.

No 94: E-321 GB III/21 in Oct 1936; 14 GAA in July 1937 to 27.3.1939; 34 EB in March 1939 (probably a misprint for 34 GB?); surveyed (authors use the word recensé) 20.7.1940 at the base Bergerac and classified as not available for flight (to be repaired); stored at Clermont-Ferrand (no info regarding the beginning of its storage) but the report was dated 5.9.1942

From available crash photos it is not possible to see which one it is.

Before this topic came up, I was not aware of this discrepancy between the two sources. Guessing/thinking aloud, I can only suppose there is something wrong with the French records. It would not surprise me if they do say No 94 was the aircraft shot down by Flak, but then other records makes No 94 pop up again. Possibly, since No 93 and No 94, followed each other to every unit until one of them was lost, Ribeiro/Ledet figured it had to be No 93 that was in fact lost and not No 94? A printing/writing error back in 1939?

I don't know this Lagebericht Andrei refers to, but it seems it is mistaken with regard to the date this incident happened.
Fledgling Eagles (Shores et al) also list 14/15 Oct
The BoF then and now (Cornwell) says the same thing, incidentally giving No 94 as well. If he has looked into any French archives or lifted it from previous sources, I don't know.

Cheers
Stig

Re: Amiot no 93 GB I/34 October 1939
 

Thank you both for your responces

It appears that serial of this aircraft is another uncertainity.

While searching for any clues I've found a table which show both no 93 and no 94 as lost in very similar circumstances, the latter without a specified date. In fact it is the same incident that listed there as the cause of loss of no 93 and no 94 as there were no other crashes of Amiot 143 in Germany with the capture of the whole crew
https://www.passionair1940.fr/Armee%...toriques-2.htm

But only one aircraft was lost.

The place of the crash not near Mainz as stated but near Burgfarrnbach.

Re: Amiot no 93 GB I/34 October 1939
 

Andrei

The French site you list is usually quite good. Very useful in fact.
However with the No 93 and No 94 we are interested in, they are clearly confused, and if I have to choose I would take the Lela Presse book.

Cheers
Stig

Amiot 143 no 94
 

Stig:

"No 94: E-321 GB III/21 in Oct 1936; 14 GAA in July 1937 to 27.3.1939; 34 EB in March 1939 (probably a misprint for 34 GB?);"

Probably not for the number - here 34 - following / is the number of the escadre (wing) comprised of several groupes like I/34 or II/34. EB means Escadre de bombardement, GB Groupe…

The Lela book is much more recent than Martin's data (25 years or more) so possibly it contains more accurate details (?).

Re: Amiot 143 no 94
 

Not sure I follow you here.
If you look at No 93 it was assigned to GB I/34 and since I am pretty convinced these two aircraft followed each other to GB 34 as well, I think also No 94 went to the same unit, but the remaining records only says GB 34 and not I/34.

I know nothing about the French Escadre/Wing system, but it makes little sense to me to assign an aircraft (unless a hack) to such a unit.
Since I don't have any French order of Battle for Sep 1939 it seems these Escadre were gone on 10 May 1940 since Jean Liron and Raymond Danel states the wings were called Groupement de Chasse, Bombardement etc followed by a number. For instance GB I/34 belonged to Groupement de Bombardement No 9. No mentioning of any wing with number 34.

Yes, the Lela Presse is much more recent, but that does not make it gospel just because of that. The only benefit of being more recent is that you may benefit from more/other documents located, fruitful teamwork/discussions/forums (like TOCH) but in the end you can still interpret things wrong....
It is not easy to be an aviation historian....:)

Cheers
Stig

Amiot 143 no 94
 

- Well, I feel there can be two explanations for this:

1. A simple, ordinary error by a clerk when writing. This was not uncommon in all countries to say the least.

Sometimes I make some incredible errors myself when writing. I discover them when checking my texts, or so I hope.

Stig: I know nothing about the French Escadre/Wing system,

- Quite simple. As I already mentioned it's much the same as the German system, for ex. II./KG 27 or III./JG 53. In German this dot plays the same rôle as the English th (609th), but I think the RAF never used it (?) for unit numbers. You can make a comparison:

II./KG 27
GB II/34

EB (escadre - wing - de bombardement had no /, only its number: EB 34 (same in the Luftwaffe: KG 3, 21, 55 etc.). There was a slight difference between both countries: in France the actual combat units were the groupes (in general 12 aircraft for twin-engined bombers or recce AC). The Germans often engaged Staffeln or Gruppen but they never hesitated to engage a whole Geschwader of 80 bombers (but they were not all serviceable, i.e. usable, at the same time). If necessary the French engaged several groupes from the same escadre (wing, Geschwader) or from several different escadres.

Sig: but it makes little sense to me to assign an aircraft (unless a hack) to such a unit.

- I'm not sure I understand you correctly. Which unit: a GB or an EB? And why does it make little sense? It could happen that an EB knew it needed one replacement AC but without knowing, yet, to which GB they would send it. There could be many reasons like, for ex., losses, battle damage to be repaired (one or more AC not available for a while), AC complement considered insufficient… I can imagine that a clerk forwarded the wish for one AC to GB 34 but without knowing more (groupe I, II or perhaps III) and only EB (bomber wing) staff would assign it to a particular groupe.

Stig: Since I don't have any French order of Battle for Sep 1939 it seems these Escadre were gone on 10 May 1940 since Jean Liron and Raymond Danel states the wings were called Groupement de Chasse, Bombardement etc followed by a number. For instance GB I/34 belonged to Groupement de Bombardement No 9. No mentioning of any wing with number 34.

- I can't remember if this was done before or shortly after the German onslaught. These "groupemants" were large pools of various units, presumably to facilitate the engagement of numerous bombers or fighters, or both (fighters escorting bombers). for the same mission. All nuits still existed as before and a few new ones were created. Before that these various units could have "belonged" to several different sectors, regions, HQs etc. Afterwards they all were the responsibility of the same HQ and general(s). They resembled German "Luftflotten" (Air Fleets) like Luftflotte 2 and 3.

"It is not easy to be an aviation historian....:)"

- How right you are! But many people are not aware of this or don't believe it, or they don't care. This is how a so-called French "historian" wrote that the Bloch 152 had a weak armament. Actually the Bloch 152 had a formidable armament by 1940 standards: 2 light machine-guns and above all two superlative French 20 mm cannon (my assessment is that one French HS 404 cannon was worth at least 3 German MG FF in battlle, and the RAF had chosen it, and used it as soon as possible, in a hurry, renaming it "Hispano cannon"). The same clown wrote that 7 French fighter pilots (Morane 406s), several of them being experienced ones including a captain, had thought that RAF Fairey "Battles" were nice Henschel 126s and shot down 4 "Battles" plus one French LeO 45 twin-engined, twin-fin bomber which was thought to be a perfect Hs 126 too… (by the way, this proves that French fighters were not as ineffective as many Britons, and others, think…). This is not hilarious enough for this guy is adament that a fighter's firepower was… the number of rounds carried for its guns, so that 1940 the "Hurricane" (he didn't mention the "Spitfire", which had the same armament of 8 light MGs) was by far the fighter (all countries together) with the most formidable firepower of 2,400 or "2,600" rounds or some… Actually "even" a Morane 406 had a firepower 20 % higher than a "Hurricane" because of the formidable cannon. 20 % is still insufficient for the ballistic qualities of the French cannon made its fire very accurate and terribly devastating thanks to the high muzzle Velocity. As I said, I think that one French cannon was worth at least 3 German 20 mm MG FF.

Re: Amiot no 93 GB I/34 October 1939
 

Stig

So would I. As for the date of loss I'll stick to Lagebericht, at least until information from French primary sources showing the other date would be available.
My guess is that someone got wrong the date when the aircraft took off on its last flight. It was not 15 but 16 October as character 5 easily could be mistaken for 6. It was not the night 14/15th but the night 16/17th October

Re: Amiot no 93 GB I/34 October 1939
 

Aha

So what you are saying is that is was GB I/34 but EB 34?
Since no source I rapidly could check actually use the word Escadre I was mentally connecting Escadre with the Swedish meaning, which is a much larger controling unit.

But I still think both aircraft went to GB I/34! :)

Andrei

Not saying you are wrong, but here it is a choice if the French recorded date is correct or if the German recorded date is. Since Theo Boiten in his new version of Nachtjagd, the early years part 1 does not mention the incident at all, I have no other "independent" source to check this out. All previous authors have however chosen the French date....

Cheers
Stig

Re: Amiot no 93 GB I/34 October 1939
 

One of the principles of source criticism is: primary source is more reliable than a secondary source. We have none of French primary sources available. That said I'm well aware that primary sources in general and Luftwaffe documents in patricular are not immaculate. It would be very interesting to know what Armée de l'Air records says about this incident

French archive
 

You could try the French archive:

SHD

(service historique de la défense), "Air" or "Armée de l'Air" dpt.

I understand some documents, or many, were digitized and are available online. If not you always can send an inquiry per surface-mail or e-mail.

Everything is in French, probably, but a written inquiry in English could be processed too (?).

I am not really interested in those old dinosaurs, which is why I am not researching this myself. If necessary I can translate SHORT texts into French for you guys. I'm very short of time.

Re: Amiot no 93 GB I/34 October 1939
 

Hi Andrei,

According to the primary source - Journal de Marche et des Opérations de la 1ère Armée Aérienne - (diary) on date of 16 october 1939 they wrote that three a/c were lost : one is Amiot 143 of 34ème Escadre with Lamblin/Chable/Bondu/Begueret/Nomerange ; the two others losses were P63 of GR 1/33 and 1/52 and a British a/c.

We can guess that the losses occured night of 15/16 october

HTH

Bertrand

Re: Amiot no 93 GB I/34 October 1939
 

Fascinating Bertrand

All previous second hand sources says 14/15 Oct
Andrei, using a German report, says 16/17 Oct
Now you are actually quoting a French document saying it was the 15/16 Oct !.

Not easy for an outsider to be judge and jury on this one.....
Cheers
Stig

Re: Amiot no 93 GB I/34 October 1939
 

rof120

Many thanks for pointing out to SHD archive! I was not aware that documents of Armée de l'air were digitized.

Bertrand

Thanks a lot! I think we can put the puzzle together now.
I do not know what time frame was covered in French reports. But in similar LW daily reports (well known Lageberichte IV. Fl.Korps, for example) all missions which started before midnight are covered so that in report, say, for 16 October, the missions of 16th and the night 16/17th would be described.

Both Potez 637's were lost during the day of 16, not during the night. Both of these losses do match with Flak and fighter claims. We could presume that the British aircraft mentioned is Whitley of 77 Sqn lost during the night 15-16 October, but most probably it was Blenheim of 57 Sqn shot down by fighters in the afternoon of 16th. So Amiot 143 most probably also took off some time in the evening of 16 October and failed to return.
To sum it up French Journal de Marche confirms information from Lagebericht and the correct date of loss is the night 16-17 October

Re: Amiot no 93 GB I/34 October 1939
 

Hi Andrei,

Of course the documents of Armée de l'air at SHD are not digitized ; you must do it yourself as I have done for many years.

From the JMO of GB 1/34 they wrote that the a/c took off at 20h40 on 16/10/1939.

HTH

Bertrand

Attachment 18528

Re: Amiot no 93 GB I/34 October 1939
 

Bertrand

Thank you very much for posting this fragment of Journal de Marche et des Opérations! I very much appreciated it!

Re: Amiot no 93 GB I/34 October 1939
 

Bertrand

But this cannot be a report dated on the 16th?

This is a summary report dated much later and could well have discrepancies.
I have seen other of these summary reports before and without knowing the date they were actually written, it is impossible to make any 100% conclusions at all. Like all summary reports they were written by uninterested clerks given most likely a bunch of papers to make something out for somebody higher up.

I would say from French point of view we are back to square 1 again, since this is not what other French historians have used to either determine the actual aircraft (no s/n listed) or the date in question. So what did they use??

Cheers
Stig

Re: Amiot no 93 GB I/34 October 1939
 

Hi,

following reports were filled by various German command posts on 16.9.39:

Morning report Civilian Administration to AOK1
Today at 01.00 hrs and 08.15 hrs busy flak activity in the area of Main-Rheine-Mulhouse.
At 01.00 hrs an English observation aircraft was shot down S of Trebur, district of Groß-Gerau and after 08.00 hrs a second English observation plane was shot down near Mannheim.


Daily report of AOK1
Enemy aerial activity was decreasing in relation to yesterday. 18 sorties had been flown by friendly aircraft. 4 enemy aircraft were shot down (2 in the area of Neunkirchen including one, which crashed in Warndt; 1 near Rüsselsheim, 1 during the low-level attack against bridge in Gernsheim).

There some more but I want to keep them for our forthcoming publication.

Robert

Re: Amiot no 93 GB I/34 October 1939
 

Robert

Whitley of 77 Sqn.

Potez strafing a bridge at Gernsheim

The total number of flak and fighter claims for 16 October was six. Type, location and time for each of these claims is known. Amiot is not amongst them, as it was lost in the early hours of 17 October

Re: Amiot no 93 GB I/34 October 1939
 

Well maximal flying endurance of Amiot 143 was approx. 4-5 hours so I don`t think it was lost in the early hours of 17.10.39. Anyway I did not find yet any flak or another report concerning this a/c. Perhaps it was not victim of flak?

Re: Amiot no 93 GB I/34 October 1939
 

Location in which the aircraft was shot down (Burgfarrnbach) was too far away from the target area and from the border so the crew most probably had already lost their bearings. It also explains why the aircraft was still over German airspace in the early hours of 17th.
I think relevant claim is absent in AOK 1 records because Burgfarrnbach was most probably outside AOK 1 area of operations

Small corrections: Amiot no 93 GB I/34 October 1939
 

Sorry for a few typos (see below). I have to add that when writing here online in English I Always see how my text is subjected to automatic corrections, the "correct spelling" being French. Some words suddenly begin with a capital, like "Always" in the preceding sentence. Sometimes you forget to correct all the nonsense. Here two corrections:

Stig: Since I don't have any French order of Battle for Sep 1939 it seems these Escadre were gone on 10 May 1940 since Jean Liron and Raymond Danel states the wings were called Groupement de Chasse, Bombardement etc followed by a number. For instance GB I/34 belonged to Groupement de Bombardement No 9. No mentioning of any wing with number 34.

- I can't remember if this was done before or shortly after the German onslaught. These "groupemants" were large pools of various units, presumably to facilitate the engagement of numerous bombers or fighters, or both (fighters escorting bombers) for the same mission. All nuits still existed as before and a few new ones were created. Before that these various units could have "belonged" to several different sectors, regions, HQs etc. Afterwards they all were the responsibility of the same HQ and general(s). They resembled German "Luftflotten" (Air Fleets) like Luftflotte 2 and 3.

1. Please read groupements not groupemants. I am responsible for this typing error.

2. The system here Always changes "units" and makes a "nuits" instead (nights). This is quite unnerving. Here we got Always again instead of always (I had to correct the last one before the brackets, it got an automatic A too).

Many words are adorned with a capital initial and it's quite unpredictable. Sometimes English words are Simply (see?) replaced with French words including with the letter é.

Clearly I (or we all) should write offline only to avoid these automatic "corrections" but sometimes we're in a hurry or whatever. I noticed that other authors of posts here are victims of these "corrections" too.

I apologise but luckily it's easy to detect the wrong corrections when reading.