Tempests over Remagen: fact or 'alternative fact'?
 

In 'The Big Show' Pierre Clostermann included a characteristically vivid story of leading a patrol to Remagen and engaging with Ar 234s, Me 262s and long-nose Focke-Wulfs but doesn't give a date.

There is even a 'carefully researched' Nicholas Trudgian painting including a Tempest with JJ squadron letters yet nothing appears to be said about this mission in the March 1945 ORBs of either 274 or 56 Squadrons (both of which Clostermann served with in March), nor in Shores & Thomas's '2nd Tactical Air Force, Volume Three' (Classic, 2006). Nor does any of the German daily sitreps mention Tempests being encountered at Remagen.

So … am I safe in concluding that Clostermann was indulging in dramatic licence or is there some basis for the RAF (with or without Clostermann) intervening over Remagen at any point?

Re: Tempests over Remagen: fact or 'alternative fact'?
 

Just been through the 2TAF daily ops reports

All I can find in daylight is 2 x 130 Sqn Spitfires that did a Weather Recce between Bonn and Remagen on the 8th March

At night there are sorties by 138 and 140 Wing Mosquitoes attempting to interdict reinforcements and supplies to German troops trying to retake/destroy the bridge at Remagen. Remagen is specifically mentioned on 10/11 March and 11/12 March, but there are similar sorties in areas like Koblenz on other nights

Martin

Re: Tempests over Remagen: fact or 'alternative fact'?
 

Thanks, Martin.

Re: Tempests over Remagen: fact or 'alternative fact'?
 

Smith and Creek have this incident down on March 7th, 1945 in volume 3 of Me.262. However, checking No.274's ORB entry for that date, nothing conclusive.

Stephen

Re: Tempests over Remagen: fact or 'alternative fact'?
 

The scouts of the 89th Recon Sqn did not see the bridge until 12:56 on the 7th March and the US forces of A/27/9 AIB did start out to take it until 13:50 hrs, arriving in Remagen 30 minutes later. They did not take the bridge for some time, including the failed attempt to blow it up. News that the bridge had been captured started going up the US chain of command from around 17:00 hrs

Therefore 2TAF would not have known about the bridge until sometime after that. (Neither would the Lw) Therefore why direct Tempests over US lines to counter something they could not know about?

The 274 Sqn sortie 14:35 to 16:00 swept Nienburg-Hannover-Hamm-Wesel and involved the three squadrons of 122 Wing (80/274/486) all doing the same thing. 3 and 56 Squadrons swept Rheine-Bremen-Bielefeld

Closterman strikes again.

Martin

Re: Tempests over Remagen: fact or 'alternative fact'?
 

Only the operational order(s) issued to the RAF would provide further clues.

Re: Tempests over Remagen: fact or 'alternative fact'?
 

Really?

Re: Tempests over Remagen: fact or 'alternative fact'?
 

It gets better … Christophe Cony's article about Clostermann in Avions #227 (Jan/Feb 2019)says that on the afternoon 14 March 1945, Clostermann's section broke away from a 274 Sqn. sweep and (my translation):

halfway to Bremen, 30 Messerschmitts fell on them from above, near Hoya aerodrome. After ‘a big fight with German fighters’ he was able to record in his logbook that he accounted for three of them: one confirmed, one probably destroyed [confirmed destroyed on 24 May 1945] and one damaged, adding that despite reinforcement by other Tempests ‘We lost three chaps but the Squadron shot down 2-2-4; 1-1-1 for me.’

Cony (who says he had access to a copy of Clostermann's second logbook) continues:

This time it was too much! [274's CO] grounded [Clostermann] and … had all mention of the results of this mission omitted from the ORBs of the Squadron and the Wing. Pierre’s combat report having disappeared from the archives of the Public Record Office — like so many others at the end of the 1980s — it is difficult to learn more about these victories, even if [the CO] confirmed them personally by countersigning his logbook on the line where they were written down …

There is indeed nothing in the ORB's of either particpitating Squadron and no indication of personnel casualties, nor that any Tempest was lost or damaged (and nothing in the notes I took many years ago from TNA AIR 37/5: 2nd Tactical Air Force, Log of casualty claims, assessments and losses). Are we to believe that the records of multiple different authorities would be falsified to cover up one local case in of indiscipline?

Should we also believe that the Luftwaffe took part in the cover-up? The Evening Report West for 14 March (Bundesarchiv RL 2-II/842, page 0123) mentions only one Bf 109 operation over the northern sector:

Landing protection for KG 76
II. and III./JG 27 (14. Flieger Division)
24 Me 109, 15.55–16.55 [GMT+1], no sighting of enemy, no losses.

ULTRA says nothing and neither does the daily Air Operations Watch Report (based on ULTRA and Y-Service information) in TNA HW 13/42.

The Bletchley Park Archive (BLEP 0362 6: PEARL/ZIP/GAT German Air Traffic Reports Nos. 391–464 (28 Feb–12 May 1945) has intercepted Flak Liaison messages for the Jagdkorps II area and these are the only items mentioning operations by formations of Bf 109s (times GMT):

4) 1340: [number unknown] Me 109 starting 13?? from GP, GQ, free-lance patrol in same area [i.e. taking in III./KG 76's base at Achmer].
5) 1430: 50 Me 109 starting 1440 from GP, GQ, free-lance patrol in same area.
6) 1610: Ref. 1430, a/c landed 1600.
7) 1615: Ref 1340, a/c landed 1510.

So I haven't found any independent corroboration of what Cony says was claimed in Clostermann's log book.

Re: Tempests over Remagen: fact or 'alternative fact'?
 

There is a bit of artistic licence in The Big Circus but I would consider another bridge another time being confused with Remagen. Not unusual in memories. Re the dog fight, it seems USAAF also operated in the area, and this may explain disappearance of records.
Franek

Re: Tempests over Remagen: fact or 'alternative fact'?
 

There's a lot and that makes it a brilliant book to read. It also gives a convincing (to me) picture of how it felt to be flying at that time. It's not so much use as an accurate account of historical events though.

I agree that events get confused but all the business about huge formations of Ar 234s with Me 262 escorts attacking at low level don't match the extensive records in German daily reports and in ULTRA.

There are many German records of combats with American fighters during the Remagen bridge campaign. These usually took place away from the bridge, I guess because the Germans were intercepted early and possibly because the USAAF had the good sense to keep away from the powerful 'friendly' anti-aircraft defences round the bridgehead.

Re: Tempests over Remagen: fact or 'alternative fact'?
 

Just like many other memories. Clostermann is no exception in this regard.


I cannot say if there were any other bridges attacked so intensely. Otherwise, I can imagine someone taking a liberty and violating the rules to have a closer look. Though of course, it is quite likely the bit has been added to bring some drama.


Still, there were numerous cases of confusion in the air with the effect of wrong aircraft being bounced. For some reason records were sanitised of such cases, perhaps to avoid embarassement.

Re: Tempests over Remagen: fact or 'alternative fact'?
 

From the preface of my copy of The Big Show:

So every evening I used to write down for them the events of the day in a fat Air Ministry notebook, stamped 'G.R.' … This notebook went with me everywhere, crumpled by the weight of my parachute in the cockpit, stained with tea in the mess, or beside me at Dispersal during the long, dull hours of readiness. From the Orkneys to Cornwall,from Kent to Scotland, from Normandy to Denmark through Belgium, Holland and Germany, these notes—by the end of the war they filled three books—were always with me … It is precisely because they are true, because they were written in the flush of action, that I have made no attempt to re-touch these notes.

So how did he manage to place himself over Remagen, on an operation not mentioned in his Squadron's ORB and over a battlefield where 2TAF never intervened? The next major bridge battles in 2TAF's area were Stolzenau on the Weser (6 April) and Lauingen/Artlenburg on the Elbe (27 April).

Re: Tempests over Remagen: fact or 'alternative fact'?
 

I have memories of a pilot who refers to his log book. The problem is, I have a copy of the latter...
That said, many moons ago I have been in touch with a friend of another pilot. He recalled that when the pilot submitted his memories to a publisher, he got them rejected with a suggestion that he should add some dramatic events and sex.
People want to read good stories, not necessarily true stories.
That said, the entry in the log book sounds intriguing, and falls outside of nice story category, if not added years later, of course.

Re: Tempests over Remagen: fact or 'alternative fact'?
 

Yes. They would provide the areas of their sweep or coverage.

Re: Tempests over Remagen: fact or 'alternative fact'?
 

The orders are not the only way to tell what happened, as demonstrated by Nick. Hence my comment - Really?

In fact orders are a very poor way of telling what happened

1. They only tell you what was intended, not what actually happened

2. Lots of orders are given, but never carried out - they are altered or cancelled.

3. Orders tend not to survive the first clash with the enemy

4. Many of the orders have not survived - a good way of ending a line of enquiry - the only way to find something out is to look at a document nobody has access to. Unless we see that document then anything is possible! So endeth all discussion.

The squadrons wrote ORBs and submitted reports after a sortie to the Wing and so to Group and from there to 2 TAF, who then reported to SHAEF.

Closterman's problem is that many of the actions he talks about involved other squadrons flying in a wing. Surprisingly those records agree and they agree with the daily summary collated at 2 TAF. Are all the squadrons in on the joke?

A quick look at SHAEF daily summaries that cover 8th, 9th, 1TAF, 2TAF, Fighter Command, Mediteranean Air Forces etc each day do not show 2TAF straying into 9th AF air space.

On the day we were talking about, the sweep 274 Sqn is recorded as flying did not get within 75 miles of Remagen.

Without seeing the orders I think we can show a negative

Martin

Re: Tempests over Remagen: fact or 'alternative fact'?
 

Regarding Closterman I think he wrote the best account I have read of fighter operations in NW Europe in WW2



Martin

Re: Tempests over Remagen: fact or 'alternative fact'?
 

All I am referring to is the orders would have identified their assigned task and route to be taken. From that and the after action report, which often is not captured in the 541, would provide more details of the supposed engagement.

Stephen