[Franek Grabowski]

??????????????????????????????????????????
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.

You did it eg. in the article concerning III/4 Dywizjon, you do it here.

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?

Fired and chased that means combat anyway. Three aircraft - you escaped from the question, how to fly finger four having seven aircraft (document you quoted). You also wrote.

In fact the pilots of III/4 saw no differences between a Do 17 and a Bf 110. They even didn`t know what a Bf 110 was.
For them both types - the unknown Bf 110 as well as the Do 17 - were just Do 17`s (look to the 2th September 1939 fightings were all Bf 110`s of ZG 1 were described as Do 17`s).

I Agree, and that means Lachowicki clearly meant Me 109s as he was not awared of any other Messerschmitts at the time. The same way, there were Dorniers mentioned in documents, as there were no other Dorniers known, see the scan above.

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. (!)

Cynk wrote that the diary and high level documents for unknown reason mention Ju 87 but he finds a claim for Do 17 more likely, especially in spite of Dorniers being mentioned in other documents. His supposition is, that someone simply misunderstood hastilly written Pniak's report, especially as no particular type was mentioned there. This is either your lack of knowledge of Polish or purely your own manipulation in hope that most of the readers here cannot understand Polish and cannot verify Cynk's text. I may provide a scan of respective part of book to prove my words.

The diary of III/4 is stating about "Dorniers" what means completely nothing.

Means two engined aircraft, either Do 17s or Me 110s.

One example from German war diaries. Some crews reported Polish Curtiss-fighters or Potez 63.

I am not discussing German diaries.

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.

It was you, who claimed those aircraft could not have been Dorniers. You cannot provide a diary of I/ZG1 to prove they were not there either, so I assume those were I/ZG1 Messerschmitts.

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.

There were no single engined Dorniers in the Luftwaffe and the pilots were awared only of Do 17 family. This means Do 17/215 is equal to twin engined aircraft with a twin tail. I suppose some Germans believe Poles are unable to count to two, but it is their problem, not mine.

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.

Two days before Pniak reported a Do 17 destroyed. If he claimed a twin engined aircraft, he doubtless meant an aircraft he did not recognise as Dornier, but rather unkown type. The only unknown type used by the Luftwaffe was Me 110.

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.

I wrote that before and if you cannot understand that, re-read the thread.

We both know very well that such a document does not exist.

You know, that makes a difference. It also makes the difference, you never have been in the Polish Institute and never looked at the Polish documents.

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).

If you have been able to read the book, you would find that Cynk clearly states that documents concerning 5 and 6 September are often contradictory. Also, you cannot understand, that in the book there is only a fraction of documents published. Finally, it is not true that Cynk believes later accounts more that documents. In the mentioned Pniak's case, he clearly noted he is tending to believe primary document (report) and not secondary one (kill confirmation). He is just only awared that documents contain errors, and that sometimes accounts are just more accurate. You did not notice an obvious error in the scanned document, so what is the discussion about?

When you take into consideration German records you can get out many interesting things about the Polish action.

Just like KTB of I/ZG1 or German combat reports? Or perhaps extracts from propaganda pieces? I have checked both your bibliography and BAMA catalogue. Laughable.

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.

Who are the many? I found several errors there but was told it makes no sense to write a letter to the editors. I will include all comments toward this and other your articles and books in a text, I am gradually working on. Be patient.

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?

Provide the document. Provide any document giving time of I(J)/LG2. Provide anything but your suppositions. This is the basics. Only then we may discuss any errors, like combats with Polish fighters after 17 September, when they all were in Rumania.

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.

My argumentation is based on original documents. As yet you failed to provide any document supporting your views. You have provided no scans nor ref. nos. You stated

The first victory is my own speculation.

and this is the clou of your research. It is speculative.

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?

I wrote that before and if you cannot understand that, re-read the thread.
I am not going to participate in this disscussion any more. It is a waste of time, especially as it looks some of your unspecified personal problems seriously affect your research. Bye.