Quote:
|
Interesting about Dahmer's report, Mirek - I followed Bergstrom's line & assumed that it was 'us' that he attacked,
|
Tim, no way, he had used his memories, fixed it to the history of 151. Wing, which is wrong of course (his book from 2007, p. 79-80). He is writing about bouncing on 17.09.41 by "3 Me 109 F".
But Dahmer written about attack done by 6 Me 109 Ts against 6 Hurricanes (which is incorrect, there were 3 in fact), which were all shot down - second fact. He had wrong matched this two stories in one making now such problems.
Read carefuly both pages, it is evident Bergstrom's huge mistake!
Yes, I think about Griffith's books (my error), which is nice, I have it too, good written. It is interesting, that his book was printed in 1941 (if I am right) very fast indeed, he could returned to UK on November/December 1941. He had to send whole material a little bit earlier?
Quote:
|
I hasten to add, some of the probables were 'confirmed' later by the Soviet Observation Corp so this was why the numbers exceeded mine.
|
Yes, in his book there are 12 certain victories, which were paid by Russian. So, Soviet had to confirmed these 2 probables as certain victories (so this Me 110 from 15.09, which was not counted by RAF but counted by Soviet should be included?).
It was important due to money reward. In his book it is 12000 rubles (1000 rubles for one certain victory).
Quote:
The Luftwaffe seem to not always list every loss. It was used as a list to obtain replacements - not listing loses for loss sake. It seems some units hid there loses if they thought they were high.
There is at least one Bf109 E on the 12th that was 100% lost but could not be found on the Luftwaffe returns.
|
There were not so many planes, so it was difficoult to do this. Rather commander had written deliberatly wrong loss qualification not combat loss but engine problems, which also could happend. Units had rather old planes, used. This way he gave higher commander information about faster replacment by new ones.
Regards,
mirekw