View Single Post
  #54  
Old 11th September 2005, 23:51
Marius Marius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 286
Marius is on a distinguished road
Re: German Claims in Poland 1939

Franek,


Quote:
Originally Posted by Marius
Really? So were are the other destroyed German aircraft by III/4? Unit? Killed or wounded crew?

What the German aircraft have to the Polish ones?


They fought against each other. In many aerial battles was made an overclaiming. Also on 2.9. between III/4 and I./ZG 1.


Quote:
You will find the sources in appendixes (books, archives and other).
Nope, neither book nor articles are footnoted.


Jagdflieger, page 255-257.

Quote:
???
I do not deny anything. I mean for the discussion about III/4. More details please!
Skalski's combat on 4.09 for example. He claimed a Do 17 damaged. No comment on your side at all - you just have not found it.


Damaged means not shot down. It is not a kill.
Skalski damaged a Do 17 together with Lesniewski and Pniak in the Solec (Zlotoria) region. Are you surprised now about what I have found?

Quote:
Franek, you are manipulating here an original combat report!
I am not manipulating it! It is translated word by word.


And what about the missing sentence?! Please comment it!


Quote:
The missing sentence is only in your phantasy.
So Mr know better, please explain me, why such sentences are in the every other Skalski's report?


Which reports? If there exist another one report written by Skalski on 2.9.1939 so please show it.

Quote:
In the 1939 report and later in 1941 as well Skalski wrote about two separate aircraft he fought against. If he would attack a third which (reportet 1939) he couldn`t bring down so he would report it 1941 also. But he does not. The second attacked aircraft crashed on the ground due to 1941 report only.
He did not attack a third one!


Yes that is the point! Therefore there is no missing sentence in the original report.


Quote:
And what makes you sure he fought with another formation?
Apart of later accounts, 11-2=9 and it is not 5. First class of math in a basic school I think.


Perhaps the other aircraft fought with other PZL of III/4 or came down to attack ground targets? You think simple math is enough to show it was another formation?! Perhaps you could tell us what German unit it was?


Quote:
Skalski was credited with two kills in September 1939, because somebody in the unit ment "fire burst from the port wing" is enough to credite the aircraft as personal kill for the pilot.
Provide a supporting document for your thesis. Apparently it was not enough as Skalski was initially not credited with a Do 17 on 4.09.


Sorry, I mean the fight on 2.9. with I./ZG 1 and the attack on the second aircraft due to the original report.


Quote:
Surely, this aircraft may has been damaged, but there exist no evidence for another missing or force landed aircraft. In German RLM nobody would credite Skalski with two kills, because he had no witnesses.
RLM credited German pilots with far too many kills. That is the one thing. Another is that as yet you cannot prove anything in either way.


Yes surely, but how many kills would arise if there wouldn`t exist the RLM? That is the point concerning Polish (confirmed!) claims in September 1939.

Quote:
?????
Do you mean this kind of intimidation is the basis for a serious discussion between two adult men interested in air war history?
I mean it goes outside of the scope of historical research and is a serious accusation.


?????
So why don`t you try it with a serious argumentation?


Quote:
On German documents as Polish as well - published for example by J.B.Cynk.
So you agree that the German documents are not complete and must be supplemented by the Polish ones.


Regarding Polish claims it must be just the other way round. Polish kills must be verified by German documents.



Quote:
Why not? I have seen and analyzed all here in our Bundesarchiv. There are only two documents which do not mention all action times of each squadron. III./StG 2 and I./ZG 76. Therefore they are a little bit inaccurate, because the squadrons operated not together (mostly). On the other hand there survived one thin book for each unit only. So you must take the log books of pilots and you can fill the time gaps again.
And how can you verify times given in KTBs?


You can compare the times with personal log books of air crews. Or you can compare the times given by KTB of a fighter unit with one of a bomber unit escorted by it.

Quote:
?????
?????
Yup. You have no slightest idea, what has been written in Pniak's report.


Certainly. You mean the aircraft did not crash in a wood, but nevertheless Pniak was credited with a kill. What a contradiction!


Quote:
The different levels (thanks for the word, I was not at home) complete one another very well.
Really? What level of documents do you have?


For example: War diary of Luftflotte 4, War diary of Fliegerdivision 2, War diaries of separate units - even squadrons, OKL loss lists, personal loss lists of WaSt and so on and so on...

Quote:
A damaged aircraft is not a destroyed aircraft. Polish pilots claimed also probables and damaged, right?
Not in 1939, those claims were ammended at a later date. Otherwise a damaged or probably destroyed aircraft is still an aerial victory. Especially if force landed.


This is your own personal definition of a kill. There exist many different definitions. J.B.Cynk`s definition of a kill is: each aircraft destroyed by Polish fighters as related in German documents as 60-100% loss.
My own personal definition: each aircraft recorded as lost 60-100% or force landed due to damage caused by Polish fighters. Therefore I wrote about maximally 50-60 kills: 40-45 aircraft 60-100% and about 10-15 damaged and force landed, but not destroyed.



Quote:
And you lie again Franek, because I wrote about all known damaged aircraft also, but not listed them separately together with 60-100%`s..
Your list of damaged aircraft is far from complete.


I never mentioned it is complete.


Quote:
?????
Why this? Such aircraft were posted as missing.
Would you scrap a slightly damaged aircraft worth of some thousands of RM???


Who said slightly damaged aircraft were scrapped? Therefore Germans used the procentual system of damage - under 60% repairable.
Only J.B.Cynk did it - to rise the kills of Polish pilots to 100 (see his article in Lotnictwo 5/05).


Quote:
Great! Long after the war he wrote something and right now you need it... What about other evidences?
So you claim that Moelders lied?


No, but it seems to you to be very important what Moelders wrote after the war. Other evidences?


Quote:
I never expressed an opinion about Polish pilots. German documents did.
German documents do not mention the fact radial engines of PZLs had over 300 hrs of flight time each for example.


So what about this?
Polish fighters, if not outnumbered to German Kette (3 He 111), did not attack.
War Diary of II./KG 26.


Quote:
?????
What is this?
This is a difference. I know that Poles claimed 7 Do 17, you just guess it. I do not know what were the units they fought against but you guess it.


?????
?????
I know it also, but was not at home at that time.


Quote:
...crazy bureaucratic system is better than confirmation by a "General" to rise the morale of losing army.
This bureaucratic system was as inaccurate as the one of losing army.


I doubt it!


Quote:
So who exactly - what institution - credited Polish pilots with kills?
When?


?????
?????
In Poland 1939.


Quote:
Oh, I truly believe that Stachons document exist. But for you this is the hard evidence for the wrecked German aircraft?!
I do not need any German aircraft here. The question was, with how many aircraft Skalski was credited in 1939.


?????
Sure, you content with destroyed ghost aircraft confirmed by a "General", everybody knows what for.
The question was how many aircraft Skalski (and other his fellows like Pniak) really destroyed. On 2.9. against I./ZG 1 they claimed 7 kills. In German documents you can find only 1 lost Bf 110.
I am not seriously interested how many kills Skalski wanted to have claimed, but what in fact was destroyed according to German documents. This is more important than your comments on plk. Stachon who confirmed what he never saw.



Quote:
I`m sorry, but so mentioned in many German documents. By the way, a simple human reaction.
Interesting, as there were exactly the same comments on the Polish side in regard of the Germans.


Where? In Polish original documents?
Yes, why not? If I would fly in a Hs 126 and I would have been attacked by a Polish fighter - for sure I would flee as fast as I can. You not?


Quote:
Sorry, but this man is frightened by people like you. Perhaps you will ask J.B.Cynk? He is an authority and should know about these things.
I will. But I do not expect any knowledge on things that never happenned.


What never happened?


Quote:
Please give the exactly date for each claim in September 1939.
Why, you have them in Cynk's book?


Please do it for other readers not understanding Polish language (like me).


Quote:
So surely you have a different photo.
Different one of the same aircraft.


So look at the photo in my book Jagdflieger, right side of the plane. What is it, darkened ground under the right wing and forward fuselage where apparently was a problem with right engine (look at the propellers!)?


Quote:
Again you write about the German Bordfunker of Muehlenheim-Rehberg: Hans Weng. For what?
So again you claim Leśniewski and Skalski shot at the same aircraft. Sorry, discussion with you is nonsense if you cannot understand what is in the Polish reports.


?????
Again you just avoid what you don`t like.
Only Lesniewski reported about a parachuted aircrew. Skalski did not. Right?


Quote:
Yes, of course. Even in OKL lists they are posted as shot down on enemy territory or lost 100%.
This does not mean the aircraft was not recategorised, repaired and returned to the service.

So maybe in fact Polish fighters destroyed only about 10 German aircraft? What do you mean?

Marius