[Marius]

Franek,


Documents are perfectly clear. Skalski separated from the Eskadra flying towards the bombers flying in vics of 5 and attacked another formation of about 9 flying line astern and then reforming into the circle.

Nevertheless, there is no other loss of a second Bf 110 or another aircraft. It is also possible that Skalski overcoloured the fate of the aircraft he shot at, similar to Pniak (?), yes, why not?
If we would accept two separate formations, so nevertheless no trace of bombers. The only solution I see: two squadrons of Bf 110`s of I./ZG 1. 3.Staffel as high cover and the other preparing for attacks on the ground. If Skalski attacked another aircraft than of 3.Staffel, so he surely overcoloured the result. All this only hypothetical.
I cannot exclude that Lesniewski and Skalski saw the same aircraft crash on the ground, when I will believe what Skalski wrote in the original report.

Quote:
Oh yeah, he forgot to report that the aicraft crashed on the ground... Perfectly. And also the Germans forgot to report about their Bf 110 crashing on the ground. The names of the air crew were also forgotten. And the graves of the German air crew disappeared after the liberation 1945...
Who told you there were any graves? The Me 110 could have been damaged in a forced landing behind the German lines. Generally, your interpretation is that if an aircraft force landed with say 50% damage, the Polish pilot who claimed it is a bloody liar.


No, this wouldn`t be the aircraft Skalski shot at. An aircraft that force landed on enemy territory would have been reported as missing. They did not fight behind German lines.
I never spoke about "bloody liars". The reports of Pniak for 2.9. and 4.9. are suspect in many matters. I think due to my research about these combats Polish historians could try - if they want - to research Pniak`s victories he claimed in England.


Quote:
About the documents for III/4, Pursuit Brigade and Feric`s diary you can find a lot of things in the book written by Cynk (Polskie lotnictwo...). Also nothing really surprising me.
You are wrong commenting the German documents in this way (by the way; in my book there is no bibliography for Kampfflieger, but for Jagdflieger again - a mistake made by the publisher).
I needed several years to check what I found in Bundesarchiv. And this is not the question of quantity of the documents. More important is the quality and reliability of them. Though all mentioned above origin Polish documents are confirming what I am writing in my books and articles - if you interpret them in the right way with German documents in the other hand, but you won`t accept it. Obviously you will do anything to deny any information coming from Germany.
Your interpretation in the right way means to ommit anything that do not fit to your theories. Just like with the mysterious Oberst Henschke.


I was researching for Oberst Henschke in German archives and I have found nothing.



Quote:
Yes indeed, according to GQM Mühlenheim-Rehberg baled out, but this means an original report. The German fellows saw one man baled out and directly after the combat they believed it was their Gruppenkommandeur. But in fact it was his radio operator Weng. Later Weng confirmed that he baled out. And the story is true, because the pilot fell to death in the crashed aircraft. There is no reason for darkening these facts. Just simple information you have to interpret in the right way.
Your whole interpretation is based on a post-war account of Weng. I am not denying that Weng bailed out but only trying to show how weak your proofs are.


???!!!???
If one Bf 110 was shot down and one man baled out and one man got into captivity and this man returned later to his unit and confirmed he was the one who baled out so what is here weak? The story is based on German documents, not only on the post-war account. As we know for sure Weng was the Bordfunker of Müllenheim-Rehberg. Any more questions?


Quote:
I couldn`t do before some years, but now I can. KG 3 didn`t had any losses on 2.9. If you don`t believe it see in my book Kampfflieger, where I detailed describe the action of every German bomber unit. Otherwise Luftwaffe lost in September 1939 78 bombers. You will find in my book the fate of every single aircraft with date, location, cause and so on.
By the way I identified the unit III/4 fought with. It was only I./ZG 1.
Well, you could not make such a definite statement earlier this year. And I am afraid your statement about ZG1 remains unproved.


The article about III/4 was send to Lotnictwo one year before it was published (!). In my answer to Cynk earlier this year I corrected my mistake with KG 3 and stated III/4 fought on 2.9. with I./ZG 1 only. Right?


Quote:
My god! This was the Bf 110 of Müllenheim-Rehberg. You don`t understand this fact? Or you won`t understand? Do you have a better interpretation of this aerial fighting? Give it up, it is senseless to deny the simpelst facts.
As yet it is you, who deny the simpliest facts. Once again, there were two separate formations!


It`s like a defensive circle... Okay, maybe two formations, but no trace of bombers. Possibly indeed two squadron`s of Bf 110`s of I./ZG 1. Furtheron only one loss of a Bf 110.



Quote:
Also Cynk (Polskie lotnictwo...) is writing about Me 110 as according to the diary of the unit. But I asked for the term "twin-engined aircraft". If there is nothing about twin-engined aircraft, but only about Me 110`s or whatever other type, so my interpretation is better one than yours. As I wrote formerly the pilots described the single-engined fighters as "Bf 110`s". And on 2.9. the Bf 110`s as "Do 17`s". Tne conclusion is: they couldn`t describe the aircraft as what they really were called. And perhaps they didn`t all over the war. This isn`t a new information. Many authors wrote about these problems, even Cynk.
There is no interpretation on my side. Diary clearly mentions Ju 87s and Do 17s. Man, you are boring! Please stop writing those nonsenses or provide me with a copy of a document confirming your version.


???!!!???
So is there in the diary something like that: "twin-engined aircraft" or not?


Quote:
And in origin reports Pniak was credited with 1 Ju 87 destroyed (!!). Cynk is writing about this fact and is wondering himselves about Pniaks "two-engined aircraft".
Pniak was 'credited' with a Ju 87 in a diary. Cynk was wondering, why a difference between the diary and the report occured.


In Pniak`s report there is no trace of any type of aircraft. He saw seven "twin-engined aircraft" and when climbing to them he was attacked by 3 others which he describes as of the same type. So we know nothing. But German documents of III./StG 2 confirm the type written in the diary (Ju 87).
By the way, Pniak could have seen a reconnaissance Do 17P and thought all the rest was of the same type. One or two Do 17P always flew with a Stuka formation to make target photos.



Quote:
Oh yes, great. And you think in France he remembered exactly every single day, correctly every single aircraft he saw in Poland?
He had all the documents of the Dywizjon. What is the problem to recall the situation, when having the documents?


The problem is nevertheless visible. According only to Polish documents we never could find out with what type of aircraft III/4 really fought. That is the point.


Quote:
Yes, but again, later he remembered it exactly and every single day. Sorry, this is much to less for seroius discussion.
You have not read his report nor the other documents. So how we can discuss the matter seriously?


Perhaps you could write here down what might be very important for the discussion? Until now I only heared many times that I didn`t read Polish reports and I didn`t read this and I didn`t read that and again I didn`t read Polish reports. What is so decisive in these Polish reports?




Quote:
Yes, I can explain that. The first combat at appr. 12:30 was fought with Ju 87`s of 8. and 9.Staffel/StG 2.
The second combat, about one hour later, was fought with 7.Staffel/StG 2 and 1.(J)/LG 2. Even origin Skalski`s report is confirming that. He evidently damaged an aircraft of 7.Staffel of which the Bordfunker bale out to his death. Skalski reported exactly the same thing.
You have changed your interpretation after my reply. Please provide me copies of documents that confirm time of both missions.


Okay: combat flight for the 8. and 9./StG 2: 11:50-13:10
7./StG 2 and 1.(J)/LG 2 time not known, but later than 8. and 9.Staffel..
We know (Polish documents are confirming this) there were two engagements. First at appr. 12.30 (here was shot down the only Ju 87 of 9.Staffel) and the other combat appr. an hour later with much more aircraft of III/4 (see for example Cynk - Polskie lotnictwo..., page 240-244). Here Skalski damaged the Ju 87 of 7.Staffel of which one man baled out to his death. There is no doubt that Bf 109 pilots claimed here their 3 victories (one not confirmed).


Quote:
See for example the origin document of the experiences of I.(Z)/LG 1 published in Jagdflieger. German fighter units (Bf 109 and Bf 110) generally never operated with 3 aircraft. But the bombers did. And Polish units did it also. Nevertheless 3 Me 110 (surely Me 109) behind Lesniewski is possible (but only exceptionally).

Actually, there is a number of reports confirming Jagdwaffe flew section of 3 formations as late as Battle of Britain. Also, Skalski clearly described the German formation in his article about fighter tactics.


Perhaps this occured now and then - exceptionally, but the general German fighter formations were: Rotte (2 aircraft) and Schwarm (4 aircraft). No doubt.


Quote:
Franek! My wife was teaching Polish language and she says: it means that the aircraft "fell into the wood" and you have to understand it also as if the aircraft "crashed into the wood". I am very sorry, but my wife exactly knows what she says.
Sorry, but I am native speaker.


My wife is native speaker and graduate of Polish philology.


Quote:
I.(J)/LG 2: if all 3 pilots had reported their aircraft hit the ground, and I could exclude that they all shot at the same aircraft of Lesniewski, so I would say that there is a black sheep under them. Why not?
So, why do you not do so?


I do not possess the original reports of the pilots of I./LG 2 engaged in this fight. So I don`t know if both of them saw their victims crash on the ground or not. So simple. On the other hand we know what Pniak originally reported and we know the German units and losses. So simple.


Quote:
Again you are refering to Pniak. You can be sure on 2.9. Pniak did not shot at the same aircraft as Lesniewski. Nevertheless he saw his victim crash on the ground.
The reasons of overclaim were often discussed on this forum. You still cannot identify the aircraft Pniak was firing at, however.


No, but I can surely exclude that the aircraft crashed on the ground. German documents do confirm this.


Quote:
According to German documents there was only 1 Bf 110 lost. This is confirmed not only by one, but by several documents: GQM loss list and Fliegerdivision 1 loss list. But also by Fliegerdivision 1 daily loss list, where 1 Bf 110 was reported lost until 16:00 hours. The same fact is reported by Prof. Trenel who during the war saw other documents (perhaps even the war diary of I./ZG 1).
Correct me, but I believe the aircraft that failed to return will not be listed as a loss until it is confirmed it not landed anywhere.


I will correct you again. It would be listed as missing. The only way I see - the aircraft force landed at base and remains damaged under 60%. Such things were not often listed in high staff documents. But nevertheless, for luck, I possess a Fliegerdivision 1 document with daily strenght and leaving (08:00 and 16:00 hours). I have proofed it and "leaving" means seriously damaged and lost aircraft also. For 2.9. I./ZG 1 16.00 hours you can read: 1 aircraft less. This is surely the lost aircraft of Müllenheim-Rehberg. This means also - there were no other aircraft lost or seriously damaged.


Quote:
I described above (with explanation of my wife) what Pniak reported on 4.9. On that day III./StG 2 lost only one aircraft which indeed crashed on the ground. Even Pawlak (Samotne zalogi, page 91) and Cynk (Polskie lotnictwo, page 241) confirm what I am talking about and what German documents are talking about. The authors wrote something about personal papers of Wilhelm Berschneider, exactly the pilot who fell in the crashed aircraft according to German documents.
You do not even know what they wrote. It is noted in the diary that some items were found on hte crashsite just near the airfield.


???!!!???
See Cynk - Polskie lotnictwo..., page 241. Found on the crash site: diploma of pilot Wilhelm Berschneider.


Quote:
So in 3 days Pniak reported about two aircraft he claimed shot down and which - as he described - in the result fell or crashed on the ground. Unfortunate accident? Do you think under Poles there was no one who could report after combat about things that never happened? Yes I see, one time the pilot could have seen too much. But two times in three days? I will call a little bit suspect.
Both claims were made in fierce dog-fights. Following your logic, we may call all the Jagdwaffe pilots blatant liars after their show in the Battle of Britain.


No, I only want to say that in every single air force (also in German Luftwaffe and others) you can find pilots who overcoloured their successes., perhaps even lied. Your problem is that you cannot imagine a Polish fighter pilot could have deliberately reported something he didn`t achieved. But the Poles are no "outsiders from space", also human beings as many others.
I mean it makes me really sad that such ace like Skalski, two years after the September 1939 campaign could have tried to rise his personal score of destroyed German aircraft with a colorized report. Perhaps I interpret it wrong, but at least we cannot exclude such a possibility.
On the other hand Skalski could better have reported he was not sure if he saw the aircraft even crashed (and we had no discussion here). So did many others and survived the war without any claimes. I know personally such a German Jagdflieger.

Marius