[Franek Grabowski]

Marius

Originally Posted by Marius

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?

While Skalski's post war memories (about after 1960s) are a little bit faded and confused, there is no reason not to believe his wartime accounts. Generally he was considered a modest claimant and it was underlined by his friends and colleagues.
Finally, one point. Skalski was credited with the victory in 1939. He was not credited with the ones he clearly stated he saw no crash of enemy aircraft but the case of Ju 87, which was confirmed only after a report of ground troops.

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.

Well, all I can comment here is that the aircraft attacked by Leśniewski and his section flew in 5 aircraft vic. This was a standard bomber formation. Some aircraft were seen to bomb Fordon and Vistula bridges. I am not awared of Me 110s capable to carry bombs at the time.

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.

No, the combats and crashplaces reported were in quite a distance from each other.

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.

The combat was just near the frontline. Skalski was chasing his second victim for a while, so it could have crashed on the German side or on the one that was soon captured.

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.

Claims in the Battle of Britain are usually hard to confirm. Of his record of 4,1/2-2-1,1/2 three aircraft may be confirmed as definetely destroyed - a Me 109 of 7./JG26 and two Fiat BR.20.

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

But this does not mean the story is invented. Even if the rank or name were misunderstood, I see no reason to doubt that the glove was indeed found at the crashsite.

???!!!???
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?

By your standards it is just as weak as Skalski's report of 1941 or even weaker.

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?

I cannot tell when it was send, I know when it was published.

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.

I would put that in other words. You have found only one loss of a Me 110. If it has been written this way, I would make no comment at all.

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

The diary clearly states 30 Ju 87 and Do. Rolski's report says 18 Do 17, 18 Me 110 and 9 Ju 87. Twin engined aircraft are clearly mentioned.

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).

One of the types! Please note that no Me 109s were reported!

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.

Poles reported more than one Do 17.

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.

This applies to all combat reports. I have seen several guncam films and we have discussed one of them some time ago on this forum. Quite often I was unable to determine the type, depsite being quite knowledgeable on silhouettes and having plenty of time to look at them.

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?

Decisive is the fact that you misquote them.

Okay: combat flight for the 8. and 9./StG 2: 11:50-13:10

Based on?

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).

Why there is no doubt if there were dogfights in the first combat? You do not have anything to support your thesis!

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

I may agree that the smallest formation was a pair but it does not mean anything in the bigger ones. German pilots later in the war often flew in uneven formations, how would it be possible in finger four formation? I would also suggest to read articles about tactics by Skalski and Bieńkowski, the latter recently published in Lotnictwo.

My wife is native speaker and graduate of Polish philology.

Then you may tell her that I disagree. Fell down is not as definite as crashed, it may be falling down or fell down. Here I would rather read it in the way the aircraft went down and was in hopeless situation, rather than crashed. Especially as Cynk erroneously transcribed the report, which is very hard to read. Nonetheless it must have been considered a crashed aircraft, as the kill was credited.

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.

I understand it was crucial in the German victory system to have witnesses confirming destruction(!) of an enemy aircraft. Apparently it did not happen as only one aircraft was lost, according to Poles due to Me 110 action.

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

No, just only you have not found any loss.

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.

Well, the combat was at about 15:00. They knew one aircraft was lost but I see no point putting there an aircraft which was as yet neither reported to land or crash.

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

And also ID plate from the aircraft plus some more other stuff. Polish documents are quite precise.

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.

Then, following your logic, every fighter pilot is a liar because overclaim exists. I see no reason to call anyone making a deliberate false claim, at least as long as I cannot prove it. I see nothing wrong when it is found that there was an overclaim on the Polish side but I would like to have it clearly explained, with accounts of witnesses of both sides, etc. I do not consider your research a clear one.

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.

Skalski's scoreboard was not increased! He was credited with the kill already in 1939! When he was writing the report he was not awared his claim will be verified in any way. He just wrote a detalied report of his activities in Poland - have you read it? He wrote an additional report when the list of kills was published but this is another, not related story.

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.

How do you know what he saw? Actually, I have went through his every air combat and I consider him a very reliable claimant, who was shooting from a moderate distance and rather not in great battles, where overclaim was considerably higher.

By the way, a photo of overturned P.11 in your book is of a well known camouflaged '3' crashed by Antoni Joda of 152 EM.