[rof120]

Originally Posted by Stig Jarlevik

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.Stig

- 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.