[Marius]

Franek,

You are personally and frequently attacking Mr Cynk, not only on this board.

??????????????????????????????????????????
This is a serious reproach. So how about a source? Title, page and so on. I am sure you can quote something "very bad"... (?). Please do it.

Have you been able to read Polish, you would find that after downing this very Stuka, Lachowicki-Czechowicz fought with Messerschmitts, according to his original combat report of 4.09.1939.

It seems my Polish is better than yours. Franek, 3 (!!) "Messerschmitts" shot at him coming from ahead. It is very interesting how you are deleting so important details. Again these damned 3 aircraft...
I doubt Lachowicki-Cz. correctly recognized these aircraft. He tried to get behind one, but all 3 fled at a very low level. I see no reason to believe these were Bf 109`s. The word "Messerschmitt" is clearly showing he was unable to say what it really was. Bf 109, Bf 110 or whatever?

I am quoting it because it is extremelly clear with statement twin engined aircraft.

In fact nothing is clear (even Mr Cynk is doubting the twin engined version). So how will you explain the fact Pniak was credited with a Ju 87? He should be credited with a "twin engined aircraft", right? But he was not. The twin engined aircraft does appear in the report no more. (!)
The diary of III/4 is stating about "Dorniers" what means completely nothing.
One example from German war diaries. Some crews reported Polish Curtiss-fighters or Potez 63.

Polish pilots reported about all types of German aircraft they had heard and mostly they were wrong. Surely for Rolski it wasn`t easy to decide what aircraft they really fought against. But to believe now these "Dorniers" had exactly to be Bf 110`s is unintelligible for me.

Another example: the original document of the Pursuit Brigade 5.9.1939, which you have declared as one among many (surely falsified (?), because contrary to what you want to have), is reporting about 3 Do 215`s. They were in fact Ju 87`s of IV./LG 1. This is nothing unusual, but showing Polish pilots didn`t know German aircraft types. There is no reason to believe, if someone wrote "Dornier" in the diary it had to be a "twin engined aircraft". In fact it could be everything.

It makes a big difference if I am reporting about a Dornier, Bf 110 or on the other side about a one engined or two engined aircraft. The sentence "two engined aircraft" appears in Pniak`s report only and at the very beginning of it.

I have had never claimed, I have copies of every Polish document.

So how can you declare here Polish documents are clearly stating also the 111 eskadra fought against Ju 87`s on the midday of 5th. Sept.? I really don`t understand what your problem is.
We both know very well that such a document does not exist. I know you have read Mr Cynk`s book. The autor mixed the action of the Pursuit Brigade for 5th and 6th Sept., because he believes more the pilots memories than the original documents (this is again not a personal attack, but simple truth and of course - criticizm). When you take into consideration German records you can get out many interesting things about the Polish action. Among others the fact that original Polish documents are not bad and surely not falsified. They are confirming what I have published. I wrote a voluminous article about the Pursuit Brigade for Kagero (Militaria XX wieku 5-2005, page 5-17). Many Poles are stating this is the best work about the unit they ever read.

Even if I would find the war diary of I./ZG 1 and this document would confirm what I wrote here, you would comment it as incomplete or falsified, right?
Further discussion about 4th Sept., the unit III/4 and possible claim of I./ZG 1 on this days is senseless. Your argumentation is very weak, Franek. I doubt you can convince anybody with it.

But I repeat my request for a proof about my personal attacks on Mr Cynk. And please show me your real source about the action of 111 eskadra on the 5th Sept.1939. Isn`t it just Mr Cynk`s book?

Marius