[Franek Grabowski]

Marius

Originally Posted by Marius

Pawlak published Skalski`s origin report (Samotne zalogi, page 82. Look also Lotnictwo 5/05). In the report there is only one crash of a German aircraft - certainly Bf 110 of Müllenheim-Rehberg, also attacked by Lesniewski. The other attacked aircraft flew away in formation and Skalski couldn`t chase it. Will you deny it?

I have a copy of the original report, as well as I think most of the other ones of the unit (all from the combat). They clearly note Skalski and Leśniewski fought with two different formations. Fullstop. Skalski had a clash with a defensive circle while Leśniewski attacked a formation flying in a vic. The aircraft seen fly away by Skalski were from the other formation, not the one he fought with. It is clear when comparing his report, his report from the UK and his memoirs. The report does not mention if the second aircraft crashed but it does not have a comment it did not. The latter was present in his other reports from 4 September. It is clear he forget in haste to add the sentence.

Sorry, but I don`t understand. Why do you think this? Page number please.

You made the quote in III/4 article and put in doubt an account of Rolski.

Franek, one of Skalski`s report was written in 1941 (!!), as many others too. You are writing about Polish documents written in France (earliest October/November 1939). That is right. And therefore you confirm that most of the origin Polish documents were going lost!

Many were lost but a lot survived, though in varying degree depending on unit. For III/4 there is a nice set of documents, there are some for Brygada Pościgowa and there is some for the bomber units. There are also numerous diaries written at the time of combats like Ferić's diary. Many of the reports written in France and UK were based on personal notes and documents hold by the airmen. For example, Rolski's report. You do not have such a complete set of narratives for the German units.

This is not the answer to my question! Please give the page number.

So you confirm that Polish authors wrote fairy-tales? Great...
Did you find something that is contradictory to my research? Source? Document? Please give more details.

I clearly wrote that most of the books were written without access to archival stuff which was and is held in London. Therefore they were based mostly on memories and as such contain several errors.

My dear! Even the GQM records are relating about one man parachuted of I./ZG 1 (in the origin FSA what means Fallschirmabsprung - bale out). Also Hans Weng survived the war and reported later about his baling out and captivity in Poland (see for example one of the Jägerblatt issues).

GQM notes it was Muehlenheim-Rehberg who reputedly baled out. It does not read FSA by the way. You mention an account of Weng but obviously it was written several years after the war. Why do you consider it accurate? The one of Steffens (gunner of Hammes) is not very accurate.

I cleared my mistake with KG 3 later in my answer to J.B.Cynk. In the meanwhile I have found the archive documents of Prof.Trenel (BA/MA Freiburg), who confirms that there were no engagemnets between KG 3 and Polish fighters on 2.9.

You noted that you cannot verify if KG3 suffered any losses. Nevermind. The question is, what was the unit engaged by the Polish fighters. As long as you cannot identify it, you cannot write they suffered no losses.

What bomber type? Who reported this? What is the name of the airman? What unit?

Leśniewski, he identified the aircraft as a Do 17. They were flying in a vic of 5.

Okay. Who else reported about two-engined aircraft? Source, page number?

Diary of the unit, p. 5 & 6, report of Rolski, p. 7 & 8. Actually there were only two reports filed after the second combat, one by Pniak and one by Skalski. The latter mentions Ju 87s only, although in the later accounts he identified his opponents as Me 109s.

Okay. So you mean they didn`t recognized the types of German aircraft one year later in England, but they did it already in France 1939/40 (see above)?

In Poland they were apparently not awared of the presence of the type. Concerning England, note such types like He 113 or P-36 appearing on claim lists of both sides.

And so your conclusion is III/4 fouhgt on 4.9. with Bf 110 of ZG 1??

No. My conclusion is that I cannot exclude it was I/ZG1.

Okay. See Cynk "Polskie Lotnictwo..." page 247. Bajan`s list on 4.9.:
kpt. Lesniewski 1 Me 110.

See the book and check when the Bajan's list was prepared.

So read about the fighting with Ju 87 on 1 and 2 September between III/2 and I./StG 2.

In your article? Later, I do not have it at hand.

Okay, thank you very much. You are really helpful.

I do have copies of documents, Me 110 was added by Rolski already in France. Previously there were only Do 17s!

Oh yes... in France, but not in Poland. That is the big difference.

When filing the report in Poland he was apparently not awared of the type. So simple.

Surely it was for Germans very difficult to differ P.11 and P.24. They are very similar and the German pilots was told the Poles were flying the newest aicraft. But no way. It makes a bigger difference when you cannot differ fighter from bomber aircraft.

Then compare dimensions and silhouette of Me 110 and Do 17, the latter in typical Bleistifft variant with inline engines as appearing in the aviation press of the period.

On 4.9. I.(J)/LG 2 surely fought with III/4. Or could you report another Polish squadron did?

There were two separate combats of III/4. I cannot exclude I.(J)/LG2 took part only in one of them. Anything on your side to verify time of the mission?

We know I./ZG 1 is a problem. But there is no evidence of downed Bf 110 on this day. In Poland Bf 110`s operated as "Rotte" (two-aircraft formation). Pniak reported about 3 aircraft that were attacking him. Certainly a "Kette" - 3 Ju 87 of III./StG 2, not 3 Bf 110`s. I think Pniak didn`t recognized the aircraft right. Your argumentation is weak. Other sources for twin-engined aircraft?

What makes you believe Me 110s flew in sections of two and no other formation? Rolski describing tactics of Me 110s mentioned sections and not pairs, he also described an attack of three Me 110s on Leśniewski.

Oh, you are wrong about Pniak. See Cynk Polskie Lotnictwo... page 182 for 2.9. Pniak reported that his victim - a Dornier - hit the ground.
On 4.9. see page 242. Pniak reported the aircraft he attacked hit the wood. Both reports are origin combat reports written on 4 September!
III./StG 2 had one aircraft totally lost and this one was downed by Lachowicki-Czechowicz. Perhaps Pniak wasn`t a black sheep but only had a big fancy...

I thought you are reffering to 4 September combat only. The phrase used by Pniak literally does not mean hit the wood, rather fell down over the wood. Pilots reported various things, how about claims of I(J)/LG2? Only one P.11 was destroyed, the one of Leśniewski. How would you describe them? Liars or black sheeps?

I explained many things and gave sources and page numbers. Now it is your turn writing something more logical.

All the time I reffer to original documents. You have their reference numbers in my reply in Lotnictwo.