[Franek Grabowski]

Marius

Please, do not write about the things, you have no slightest idea about!

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?

Apparently your math knowledge is lacking. Is that deficiency of a German education system?
Could you explain me how a formation of approx. 9-11, attacked by Skalski who claimed 2 and according to you - 1 aircraft, could have been reduced to 5? For me 9-2=7. Even if we assume that Skalski was wrong and attacked the same formation as the others, this means at least 3 aircraft dissapeared from the formation - were downed.
The point is, however, that all known accounts of Skalski: 1939 report, 1941 report and 1957 memoirs describe the events in the same way and clearly indicate the 5 aircraft formation was a completely different one. It is only your problem that you cannot understand this.

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.

The Bajan Commission was established on 15.12.1944, more than three years since Skalski filed his report. Could you explain, how could he know a few years earlier, that victories will be scrutinised?

The standard bomber formation was a Kette of 3 aircraft, not 5.

Kette is not vic! In my reply published in Lotnictwo you have a refference to a source detailing German bomber formations of the period. I see you are not only lacking a basic information about German tactics but also have not read my reply.

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 !!

Please note exactly in which account Palusiński claims he saw falling bombs!!!

Based on?

Once again, personal combat reports filed after the combat.

Where exactly should both aircraft have crashed?

Skalski - Chełmża Unisław area, Leśniewski - Grudziądz area.

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.

They completely separated and were unable to reform. With such a performances they can easily fly into a different directions and in quite a distance.

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.

As yet I see speculations on your side. Can you provide me WNrs of lost aircraft?

I wrote about that in my book. No chance for Oberst Henschke. Gruppenkommandeur of I./JG 21 was a Major!

G/C Pawlikowski downed on 15.05.1943 had a higher rank than W/C with whom he flew. He was not even a pilot of the Wing!

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).

Oh, I see we are discussing another dimension. Apparently Uffz. Henschke lost his Handschue over Eastern Poland and the wind blew it to Warsaw, where it landed 10 days before being lost, among a remains of a wreck. Reverse passing of time caused Henschke was promoted to Oberst! Be serious.

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.

Claim really occured and was really confirmed. I have copies of documents and I am not doing any mistake.

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.

Yup, one of my such fantastical theories is a Fighter Command report stating that on the developed film a parachuting German airman can be clearly seen. German documents of the very same combat mention there were no losses. In similar fashion, I have found a German pilot downed by Poles, the loss being not mentioned in documents, despite of his wounds. Not 1939 related but shows the problem.

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.

Approx. 50% overclaim ratio is not a bad result but as I noted, your research is too sloppy to be regarded seriously.

My research is confirming this. Maximum 50-60 victories are confirmed by German documents (totally destroyed and force-landings).

It is a different number than previously 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.

Excellent! You have just provided me with supporting thesis to support my point of view. It is apparent the first attacj was done by Ju 87 with Me 109s and due to heavy opposition, another formation of Ju 87 was send, this time with Me 110s. Everything fits perfectly.

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!!

And you dare to claim the German accounts and documents are rliable?

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

No, according to your logic, there were no 109s in this combat. No Dorniers nor 110s as well. Only Stukas.

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.

I am not doing any evidence, I am a historian.

No doubt, as I will write a history of Polish squadrons in Poland 1939 I surely will visit London and read all documents needed.

It would be good if you try to read published sources. I see you have problems even with this.

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

So KTB does not mention separate missions that are clearly confirmed by Polish documents. Hence we may consider this German document as inaccurate. If KTB of III/StG 2 is inaccurate, how can we be sure that other documents of this and other units are correct?

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

3, so what?

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.

Pniak in his report clearly states he did not see crash of the German aircraft. It is not my interpretation. He says more less: I saw the German aircraft falling on the wood and I did not care about him anymore. Simple and lear and if you cannot understand this, perhaps it is the time to see a doc.

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.

This was explained in a letter to Lotnictwo. Skalski did not forget the event and described it in detail. When asked about those suppositions, he was really surprised. 'Why I should do this?' In any way, I expect an answer, how an airman hit by a 7,92 Mauser rifle bullet and clearly bleeding, was able to run?

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.

How do you know a witness was necessary? I have never seen any document concerning crediting victories in 1939.

I think the German system was much better. For example on 4.9. I.(J)/LG 2 had one unconfirmed claim (of 3).

And none actually downed - 7:1 is still better ratio than 3:0.

III./StG 2 claimed 3-4 victories. They all were later reduced to "damaged" (!!).

Excellent - another proof of my thesis. Any names of victorious pilots?

On the other on side on 2.9. the Poles claimed 7 Do 17 in one combat. All 7 claims remained confirmed until day.

As all the victories confirmed during WWII.

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

I am not looking for it but I clearly see that your documents do not allow to exclude anything. Could you provide me with full crew list of the ZG1 airmen taking part in the battle?

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

So list the documents, as yet you failed to do so. Cynk lists Polish documents and gives their refference nos.

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

Quite interesting. Variable reliability.

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.

Apart of your unfounded accusations toward Skalski, what are the German documents? Could you list them at last?

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.

Certainly.

Who officially credited Skalski with the kill on 2.9.? And who credited him with the second kill on 2.9.?

Likely płk.pil. Bolesław Stachoń, commander of aviation and air defence of Pomorze Army.

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...

I think at the moment it is you who try to be famous. I am more interested in what had actually happenned.

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.

If he was not doing that trough the whole war, why should he do that in this one, relatively unimportant dog-fight? He had multiple occasions to increase his scoreboard but he did not.

What about the photo of a Bf 110 you shortly wrote?

I have checked that it is of the same ZG1 aircraft that is in your book but wrongly captioned.

The discussion with you is a quite interesting experience. Your approach is that you know better what is written in documents I have in my hands and in my mother tongue.
Finally, I would like to ask you to fuck off from Skalski. He passed away and cannot defend himself and with his deeds and fate he really does not deserve such treatment.