[Franek Grabowski]

Marius

Originally Posted by Marius

Perhaps both pilots didn`t attack at exactly the same minute. The Polish reports mean two formations, because Lesniewski and Skalski didn´t attacked together. Nevertheless they could have attacked the same formation from different directions. I think Skalski shot at the same aircraft Lesniewski attacked a while earlier (of which one man baled out). "Defensive circle" of the Bf 110`s - or whatever it was - could have been made after the attack by Lesniewski. And after that appeared Skalski on the scene (from other direction) and shot at the aircraft where still onboard was Müllenheim-Rehberg. Than Skalski saw Müllenheim-Rehberg`s aircraft crash on the ground. Lesniewski saw the (same) aicraft crash on the ground.

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.

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.

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.

It makes a big difference if the author is writing a whole fairy-tale or if he makes some errors. These errors are much visible when you study origin German documents. And you will see this in the future. Also the (until now) undiscovered origin Polish documents (if they really exist) surely will confirm the German documents. The Polish documents mentioned above do it and all the others will do it. Why? Because I am reproducing what origin German documents say. So simple. Otherwise there are many differences when you compare what was written later in France and England. Even this is not only clashing with original German but also with original Polish documents from September 1939. Skalski`s different reports make this problem clearly visible.

Polish documents do not confirm your theories.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

The Bajan`s list was prepared on documents they had at that time (1945). According to the origin diary of III/4 it was a "Me 110", wasn`t it? So what again is your problem?

Was not. Me 110 annotation was probably added by Rolski in France.

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?

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?

That is not the point. For German pilots it wasn`t important if they fought with P.7, P.11 or P.24. Practically these types were the typical charasterictic Polish fighter aircraft. No matter how they called it. The misinterpretation by Poles of Me 110 for Do 17 had bad consequenses for themselves when they attacked the Messerschmitt in the front of 2 canons and 4 machine guns.

Me 110 and Do 17 looked like a typical twin engined aircraft and that is why they were confused with all the consequences. The latter has nothing to the fact errors occured.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

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.