Thank you as well Jaap
Yes it is undoubtedly an interesting aspect you bring up.
However, we then have to make three 'changes' in de Scitivaux's report instead of two.
a) He had no real grasp where he was.
b) He had no real good idea what aeroplane he was shooting at.
c) He was unable to determine accurately if this was a twin-engined or three-engined aircraft, meaning his knowledge of German aircraft was very basic.
However I agree with you that his statement of an 'Arado type' may indicate a floatplane, and it is a great pity this was not clearly stated in his combat report.
While I have never been shot at by a 7.92mm machine gun (or any gun come to think of it...
), so I don't know my reactions, but from the combat report de Scitivaux attacked the aircraft five times, which indicates he was both quite courageous and very determined, plus this should also have given him ample time to actually identify his intended victim.
Since I have no idea regarding the detailed education of Aeronatique Navale pilots, the war had been going on for slightly more than eight months and even if aircraft recognition always was (at least it seems that way) on a low priority I would say some basic skill had to be known by all individuals including de Scitivaux.
Again I have to applaud our Dutch friends on this forum for being able to come up with two possibillities. Again I also have too admit defeat since I cannot really say anything against this theory of Jaap either.
Perhaps a reply by Pieter?
Cheers
Stig