[Marius]

George,
many thanks! I hope so...


Franek,

Marius

Quote:
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.


No doubt, but the original combat report of 2.9.1939 and the later of 1941 have important differences according to the fate of the second "Do 17". In the first the attacked enemy aircraft flew away in formation with others - Skalski then gave up. In the report written in 1941 this same aircraft crashed on ground and kept fire! How will you explain that? I don`t wanna say Skalski coloured all clames he was credited with. But here is it more than clear. And you even don`t need here German documents. For the eventuality of proof by a commission (what indeed happened) it looks better when both attacked aircraft crashed on the ground. As a commissioner you must believe they were surely destroyed.


Quote:
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.


The standard bomber formation was a Kette of 3 aircraft, not 5. A Squadron of I./ZG 1 started with 5 aircraft would also fly in a 5 aircraft vic formation. Perhaps it looked like bombs were falling somewhere, but sometimes pilots saw much to more things which in reality didn`t happened. For example Palusinski from Pursuit Brigade attacked on 1.9.1939 Bf 110`s of I.(Z)/LG 1 and saw how they dropped their bombs down on the fields !!


Quote:
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.


Based on? Where exactly should both aircraft have crashed?
I don`t think so. When aircraft fly with performances between 300-400 km/h than 1 or 2 kilometres or more is no distance for them.


Quote:
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 repeat, no trace of a second crashed aircraft. You are going much too far here. There is nothing confirming that. Just a speculation without any serious detail.


Quote:
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.


I wrote about that in my book. No chance for Oberst Henschke. Gruppenkommandeur of I./JG 21 was a Major!
But there was an Uffz. Henschke of III.(K)/LG 1 lost to AA fire on 10.9. (the crew was later interned in Riga).


Quote:
???!!!???
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.


You are making here a big mistake. We discuss here about a loss of an aircraft and its crew, what really occured. And you are comparing this with a claim credited to a pilot. Even if a fighter pilot would claim 10 victories, we (as historians) must look to the documents on the other side and proof this. And maybe than you will not find any aircraft lost to the guns of this pilot, maybe you will find 5, or maybe all 10. But loss and claim is not the same.



Quote:
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.


The problem is the following; I am looking to the losses and say there was 1 German aircraft shot down by Polish fighters. Then I look who claimed the victory or how many victories were claimed and compare these informations (for 2.9. - according to German documents 1 German loss and according to Polish documents 7 victories).
You are operating the other way round. You are looking there are 7 claims (never officially proofed!) and if they all will not be confirmed by German documents you say that it cannot be true, German documents cannot be complete. And then you are beginning starting your fantastical theories how the Germans hided lost aircraft.
This is totally irrational, because Poland was defeated in a really short time and the air force leaved the country after 17 days of fighting. All the Polish claimes could not have been investigated by higher commands or whatever. The first and last try was made 1945 by the Bajan Commission. So the claimes never leaved the squadron or group level. Most of them were later surprisingly credited as confirmed (126 victories!!). But everybody knows that after the Polish campaign the pilots could colorize their reports (see Skalski) to make the claimes more weighty. The Bajan Commission was uncritical, but what other could it be? The fact that the claimes were not investigated makes it not easier. But you can be sure that at least 50% of them wouldn`t stand such an investigation. My research is confirming this. Maximum 50-60 victories are confirmed by German documents (totally destroyed and force-landings).


Quote:
???!!!???
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.


First point: Do 17 and Ju 87 never flew together on target missions in Poland. Exceptionally against Warsaw where twin-engined bombers and Ju 87 operated one formation after another.
Second point: Also Me 109 and Me 110 never flew together - exceptionally again Warsaw, but only one time on 1.9.
Third Point: every bomber formation was escorted by one fighter or destroyer group (or Squadron). Me 109 and Me 110 never escorted together (one exception 1.9. Warsaw as above).
Do 17, Me 110 and Ju 87 (all together) in the war diary III/4 means only one: nothing! The pilots were not sure of the types, so the diarist noticed all that was claimed. Nothing unusual.
In the German war diaries you can find: Blenheims, Potez 63, Curtiss, Polish twin-engined fighters and so on. Even aircraft with RAF markings! All over Poland 1939!!



Quote:
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!


They didn`t even knew how the Me 109 looked out! So how could they report of them?


Quote:
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.


Reading all Polish documents and reports and memories will not rise the German loss rate shot down by Polish fighters. No chance. The evidence is done here on the forum.
No doubt, as I will write a history of Polish squadrons in Poland 1939 I surely will visit London and read all documents needed.



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


War diary III./StG 2 and a log book of a pilot of 8.Staffel.


Quote:
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!


As I remember only 3 or 4 Polish fighters were up on 12:30. One hour later started appr. 10 PZL. Right?



Quote:
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.


A combat report is not a kind of prose and the pilot no prose writer, but just a simple pilot. I think you interpret much to much in every single word. Just after combat the pilots didn`t reflected on the words they choose. This is also the reason that Skalski wrote about shooting at the German pilot who hang under his parachute on 3.9. Just how it really was. Later he changed his mind and after the war "forgot" it completely.


Quote:
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.


But it doesn`t mean the pilot or the witness had to see the crash of the enemy aircraft. By the way Skalski wouldn`t be credited with any claim on 2.9. because he had no witnesses. I cannot understand that both claims were later confirmed by the Bajan Commission based on his colourized report only - without a witness.
I think the German system was much better. For example on 4.9. I.(J)/LG 2 had one unconfirmed claim (of 3). III./StG 2 claimed 3-4 victories. They all were later reduced to "damaged" (!!). On the other on side on 2.9. the Poles claimed 7 Do 17 in one combat. All 7 claims remained confirmed until day.


Quote:
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.


???!!!???
Have you found the German loss which confirms your fata morgana claims?


Quote:
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.


This is only one document among others. Your argumentation is like a cementation.


Quote:
???!!!???
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.


This one yes, why not? There are even more, but not all.


Quote:
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.


No, not everybody. But I cannot maintain all human beings are sincere and all is perfectly. Skalski`s both reports is the best proof you are searching for. And known German documents are confirming he had colourized his claims.
My research is surely not perfectly, but based on many documents and many years of intensive study. Not the German documents are weak, but you, because you are blinded in what you want to see.


Quote:
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.


Who officially credited Skalski with the kill on 2.9.? And who credited him with the second kill on 2.9.?
My dear, it is clear that everything you do and everything you sign can be verified one day. But otherwise why not to try report more claims when nobody saw your combat? Perhaps it comes through... and you will be an ace and famous...


Quote:
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.


Yes, maybe, I do not say he colourized everything in his life. But it has to be said where he may done it and where it is obviously.
What about the photo of a Bf 110 you shortly wrote?

Marius