"Zerstorer" Hardback by John Vasco and Peter Cornwell - Coming from Wingleader in 2025

[Jukka Juutinen]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

'...The Telling:
OKW Directive signed by Hitler on 1st March 1940.
"The development of the situation in Scandinavia makes it necessary to prepare for the occupation of Denmark and Norway by formations of the Armed Forces ('Case Weser-exercise'). This would anticipate English action against Scandinavia and the Baltic, would secure our supplies of ore from Sweden, and would provide the Navy and Air Force with expanded bases for operations against England."
Source: Trevor-Roper: Hitler's War Directives
i.e. nothing at all to do with "securing Germany's exposed northern flank against possible invasion."...'


If you actually believe that, then all I can say is that you are an apologist for the Third Reich! You are beginning to show your true colours...

Wow! Whenever someone starts hurling Nazi accusations to a critic, it is clear the person hurling those has lost the factual argument. An intellectual shot in one's own foot.

[Nick Beale]

John,

How about for once in your life dropping the ‘I’m a straight-talking regional stereotype’ act? Let's remind ourselves of how the review you’ve lashed out at so furiously actually opened and closed, since there are some bits you seem to have missed:

'… many more photographs and the quality of their reproduction has been improved significantly … the two authors have invested an enormous amount of effort through several decades in the execution of this extremely demanding project … putting together even an update of a study this broad and ambitious might have become a totally exhausting task …

'… there is a great deal here to be most grateful for in this large, beautifully produced and most handsomely illustrated volume, but regrettably the many slips still included mean this is unlikely to be regarded as the final definitive account. Excellent but still, unfortunately, an opportunity missed.'

To me your vehement response — and we all know just how much you appreciate good, honest plain-speaking — is more reminiscent of some self-regarding theatrical who can only accept unqualified adulation than it is of a serious historian. Some examples of what you were able to summon by way of a reasoned rebuttal to a few politely-stated criticisms:

’an apologist for the Third Reich! ‘

‘ I'm calling you out, Nazi.’

‘Take me on, coward!’

‘You're just a shit-stirring clown.’

‘You'll crap yourself.’

‘And who are you, coward? Still smacks of a Nazi sympathiser through and through’

‘Are you famous? Or just a no-mark?’

Tell us, were those words intended to provide insight into events in 1940 or into the recesses of your own character?

By contrast, here are comments you made recently about another author whose work you disliked:

‘… all I got was that e-mail loaded with accusations’

‘Here is someone who, IMO, is not interested in accepting that others can point out errors in her book.’

‘I do take exception to an individual who, because I posted the truth about the content of her book, turned on me and started laying false allegations against me.’

‘… do you think her reply would be all sweetness and light?’

‘They (the posts) have been honest. And that is what she apparently does not like. As someone said in the last day or so, “If you cannot take the heat, get out of the kitchen”.’

‘You put it out there, and you take the bouquets and brickbats equally. The fact she did not take kindly to some of the objective criticism speaks volumes.’

Given those statements, can you honestly claim to be meeting your own high standards for resilience in the face of criticism?

[John Vasco]

This is it in a nutshell:
'...The Telling:
OKW Directive signed by Hitler on 1st March 1940.
"The development of the situation in Scandinavia makes it necessary to prepare for the occupation of Denmark and Norway by formations of the Armed Forces ('Case Weser-exercise'). This would anticipate English action against Scandinavia and the Baltic, would secure our supplies of ore from Sweden, and would provide the Navy and Air Force with expanded bases for operations against England."
Source: Trevor-Roper: Hitler's War Directives
i.e. nothing at all to do with "securing Germany's exposed northern flank against possible invasion."...'


The above, far from demolishing the point in the book, makes the point exactly. That is, to see it in the overall broad context of the previous years, in so many words: 'I (Hitler) have taken Austria & Czechoslovakia. I have taken Poland by force in conjunction with the USSR.' Then you have the quoted OKW directive of 1st March 1940 which basically says the Scandinaviain countries are the next we go into. Reason? Secure supplies of ore from Sweden and provide the Navy and Air Force with expanded bases for operations against England. The person has quoted that. So it wasn't just a nice little holiday jaunt. It was the next planned campaign, period. And this person seeks to defend it, while shooting himself in the foot at the same time with their quote. Their final sentence of this section confirms it: '...i.e. nothing at all to do with "securing Germany's exposed northern flank against possible invasion...' What! Hoist by his own petard, as the expression goes. Blew their cover big time! Wake up and smell the coffee, Nick, FFS...

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

John,

How about for once in your life dropping the ‘I’m a straight-talking regional stereotype’ act? Let's remind ourselves of how the review you’ve lashed out at so furiously actually opened and closed, since there are some bits you seem to have missed:

'… many more photographs and the quality of their reproduction has been improved significantly … the two authors have invested an enormous amount of effort through several decades in the execution of this extremely demanding project … putting together even an update of a study this broad and ambitious might have become a totally exhausting task …

'… there is a great deal here to be most grateful for in this large, beautifully produced and most handsomely illustrated volume, but regrettably the many slips still included mean this is unlikely to be regarded as the final definitive account. Excellent but still, unfortunately, an opportunity missed.'

To me your vehement response — and we all know just how much you appreciate good, honest plain-speaking — is more reminiscent of some self-regarding theatrical who can only accept unqualified adulation than it is of a serious historian. Some examples of what you were able to summon by way of a reasoned rebuttal to a few politely-stated criticisms:

’an apologist for the Third Reich! ‘

‘ I'm calling you out, Nazi.’

‘Take me on, coward!’

‘You're just a shit-stirring clown.’

‘You'll crap yourself.’

‘And who are you, coward? Still smacks of a Nazi sympathiser through and through’

‘Are you famous? Or just a no-mark?’

Tell us, were those words intended to provide insight into events in 1940 or into the recesses of your own character?

By contrast, here are comments you made recently about another author whose work you disliked:

‘… all I got was that e-mail loaded with accusations’

‘Here is someone who, IMO, is not interested in accepting that others can point out errors in her book.’

‘I do take exception to an individual who, because I posted the truth about the content of her book, turned on me and started laying false allegations against me.’

‘… do you think her reply would be all sweetness and light?’

‘They (the posts) have been honest. And that is what she apparently does not like. As someone said in the last day or so, “If you cannot take the heat, get out of the kitchen”.’

‘You put it out there, and you take the bouquets and brickbats equally. The fact she did not take kindly to some of the objective criticism speaks volumes.’

Given those statements, can you honestly claim to be meeting your own high standards for resilience in the face of criticism?

I stand by all of my remarks. I accepted the errors mentioned, and countered the incorrect things that were said.


As for the other author, my comments of which you have quoted, I stand by them as well, because they are factual. That other author DID lay false accusations and allegations against me - I have the e-mail, and saved the post on 'X'. As far as I know, YOU did not get any reply from her - yes? I wonder why?


Maybe you can get RLM to come out and say who he/she is, but I'm not holding my breath...

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

Wow! Whenever someone starts hurling Nazi accusations to a critic, it is clear the person hurling those has lost the factual argument. An intellectual shot in one's own foot.

Not at all. You've got to study what is posted very carefully, and determine where the individual is coming from.

All explained in my last paragraph of post #63.

[twocee]

As they say, "Serving the anonymous critic is a fool's errand". Whoever INM is, I don't think that he deserved any response.

[INM@RLM]

One of the other questions asked in post #52 was "What are the errors in the table on page 97?"

Well, this table purports to be a listing of commanders and bases for the Zerstörer units that in "early July" 1940 were "based in northern France for the opening atacks on Britain".

First, the errors amongst the commanders, each accompanied by three page references from elsewhere in 'Zerstörer' where these commanders were linked accurately to their units:

Stab ZG 76 = Major Walter Grabmann (52, 62/4 & 107) - so not Hptm Erich Groth
II./ZG 76 = Hptm Erich Groth (76, 136 & 158) - so not Hptm. Friedrich-Karl Dickoré
the missing III./ZG 76 (96,136 & 158) = Hptm. Friedrich-Karl Dickoré

Turning to the bases of early July, the only Zerstörer units incontrovertibly based in France in that period were these:

Stab/ZG 76 at Laval (first Channel combat mission flown ??)
III./ZG 76 also at Laval (first Channel combat mission flown 11th July), arriving at Laval from Trier-Euren
V.(Z)/ZG 1 at Alençon-Nord (first Channel combat mission flown 9th July), arriving at Alençon from Sainte-Marie-Cevigny in Belgium, via Le Mans (27-29 June). Operated under command of Stab/ZG 76.
The above three units were all part of Luftflotte 3 with its Zerstörer Kanalkampf force based in Brittany and commanded by v. Richthofen, GOC VIII.Fliegerkorps (evidenced in a FK Erfahrungsbericht) concentrating on the bottleneck formed by the Cotention Peninsula.
So this table is not correct in showing Stab ZG 76 as part of Luftflote 2 with its two subordinate Gruppen in Luftflotte 3.


III./ZG 26 at St.Omer-Arques, aka St.Omer-Fort-Rouge - see Roba's history of III./ZG 26 (so not at Barley as tabled). First Channel combat mission flown 9th July. This was an entirely new airfield just set up by the Germans.
This Gruppe was part of Luftflotte 2 with its Kanalkampf force based in the Pas-de-Calais under command of Fink, OC KG 2, temporarily appointed Kanalkampfführer); concentrating on the bottleneck formed by the Straits of Dover

As to the other Bf 110 units mentioned here:
First, Erpr.Gr. 210 was not even formed until 1st July (p.110), and that was at Köln-Ostheim in Germany. The Gruppe only arrived at Denain on 10th July (again p.110). (First Channel combat mission flown 13th July)
The rest of the Zerstörer all arrived much later:
II./ZG 76 is not mentioned as being at Le Mans in Brittany until 31st July. (First Channel combat mission flown 12th August)
Stab & I./ZG 26 were first based in France at St.Omer-Clairmarais (so not at Lille and Yvrench as tabled), but this was another completely new airfield just developed by the Germans and was not available until August. (First Channel combat mission flown 8th August)
II./ZG 26 (First Channel combat mission flown 18th August?)
Stab I. & II./ZG 2 also did not arrive in the Paris area until end-July/early-August, II./ZG 2 apparently transferring there from Böblingen. (First Channel combat missions flown 8th August)
So looking at the first half of August dates each of these other units first flew their initial BoB combat missions the greater likelihood is that during early July all were re-equipping at airfields within Germany. Detailed research is needed here.

One other comment in passing regarding a base: 'Zerstörer' p.65 has III./ZG 26 suffering low-level attacks at Rouen-Boos during 19th and 20th May. Rouen is near the mouth of the river Seine, and the German lines at this point were on the northern bank of the river Somme, some hundred kilometres to the north east. To have at this date based a Zerstörer Gruppe this far behind the French front would have been quite a logistical feat. One wonders where these attacks actually took place.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by INM@RLM

Turning to the bases of early July, the only Zerstörer units incontrovertibly based in France in that period were these:

German signallers' spelling of personal and place names is far from incontrovertible, but anyway …

ULTRA CX/JQ/89: It was reported at 0800/27/6 to Major Kapmann of II./ZG 76 that V.(Z)/LG 1 was wrongly stated to be in Ste. Marie, 20 km E of Arlon. Its HQ had been in Ste. Marie 10 km N of Neufchâteau, but it should have been on the move since 26/6, and its new HQ were [sic] not known.

CX/JQ/90: It was reported about midday 27/6 that III./ZG 26 had landed at aerodrome Barly.

CX/JQ/91: On 27/6 following strength return from ZG 26 … Stab at 'Authielle' [Authuille nr. Thiepval?]; I./ZG 26 at Abbeville-Drucat; II./ZG 26 at Ligescourt.

CX/JQ/93: ZG 26 made on 28/6 following return … I. and II. at Abbeville-Drucat, III. at Barly.

CX/JQ/99: At 2245 on 29/6 orders were given that ABBEVILLE-DRUCART [sic] was to be evacuated by command of Luftflotte 2 and ZG 26 was to move Gruppe I to a suitable reserve aerodrome (Ausweichhafen) on 30/6.

CX/JQ/100: At 2100/30/6 ZG 76 asked Fliegerkorps IV to send on 2/7/40 a Ju 52 for V./LG 1 at Alençon …

CX/JQ/102: Fliegerkorps 2 wished to know at 1300/1 whether II./ZG 26 and III./ZG 26 have been transferred to Berlin.

CX/JQ/108: On 3/7 a strength return seen at HQ ZG 26 read as follows … Stab at Authielle, I. at Yvrench, II. at Crécy-en-Ponthieu; III. at Barly … 'At 0230/3/7 ZG 26 … as above but II./ at Ligescourt.'

CX/JQ/111: It was learnt on 4/7 that the signals officers of KG 51, KG 54 and KG 55 had been instructed by Fliegerkorps V to report to ZG 2 at Châteaufort for a conference.

CX/JQ/129: ZG 2 will move one Group to Caen-Carpiquet from 12/7 on for escort of bombing units.

[INM@RLM]

THANK YOU, Nick. All MOST, most interesting and very much appreciated. Your database is working well.

V.(Z)/LG 1 - to start with the easiest case
Some context on ULTRA CX/JQ/89. There were three different airfields named St. Marie in use by the Luftwaffe at this point. The information in Eimannsberger is detailed from logbooks and shows V.(Z)/LG 1 at St.Marie-Chevigny throughout the period 20th to 28th May. (This is indeed the St.Marie north of Neufchateau.) So the first part of this message to my eyes looks to be about resolving a confusion between which was the actual St.Marie in question. The second part of the message is absolutely accurate regarding the current base move which was to Le Mans on the day after the 27th June date of this message. (All locations are as I stated above.)
CX/JQ/100 also aligns with what I wrote above. It is also prima facie evidence that throughout this period V.(Z)/LG 1 was operating under the command of Stab/ZG 76.
So the V.(Z)/LG 1 case is clear and corroborates what I already set out.

ZG 26
I think it is easy now to see the origin of the confusions in this period regarding Barly (not Barley), Yvrench and Crécy-en-Ponthieu, all so neatly set out in CX/JQ/108 of 3rd July. All are valid but these are actually the bases of occupation for ZG 26 at the end of the campaign in the west. So all of ZG 26 was indeed incontrovertibly still in France in early July, but the combat record still evidences that only III./ZG 26 was allocated to Lfl. 2's Kanalkampf force in this period and for this it was based at the newly completed airfield at St.Omer-Arques (Fort-Rouge). As anyone can verify, Arques in the Pas de Calais was far, far closer to the Straights of Dover, whereas the bases noted for ZG 26 on the 3rd July are all well to the south in Picardy and also very much further inland from the Channel. The balance of the Geschwader was evidently non-operational at this time. CX/JQ/102 is then a pointer to a large part of this Geschwader being subsequently transferred from France back to Germany a little later in July.

ZG 2
Particularly intriguing. There was definitely an intent then to employ ZG 2 operationally in France in the first half of July. However although we have these and one other early sign of preparations for such a deployment, there is absolutely no evidence that any of this actually happened before the end of that month, and no evidence of any combat use before the August dates I mentioned.
We know a lot about most of the aircraft on the strength of ZG 2 in the first half of August 1940, and quite a number of them were from Messerschmitt's June deliveries of a very new variant. That and the initial deployment of ZG 2 c. the start of August to the Paris area (Toussus-le-Noble & Guyancourt) rather than Normandy, suggest (a) throughout July there were still insufficient forward airfields to make use of ZG 2 with its current equipment, and (b) the decision was instead made to upgrade the Geschwader as far as possible with early examples of the very new Bf 110 D-0, Rüstzustand II (the variant fitted to carry underwing drop tanks instead of a Dackelbauch).

Most helpful. More breadrumbs still needed though.

[INM@RLM]

Correction to #69.
ZG 26
Please disregard "CX/JQ/102 is then a pointer to a large part of this Geschwader being subsequently transferred from France back to Germany a little later in July."
In replacement "CX/JQ/102 indicates that at the start of July consideration was being given to the transfer of a large part of this Geschwader from France back to Germany. However in the event none of this actually happened."

The evidence behind this change of heart is spotting the loss of a 3./ZG 26 aircraft on 6th August during a flight from Barly (III./ZG 26 base) to Yvrench (I./ZG 26 base). This suggests that all of ZG 26 did remain in France throughout July, but the parts remaining far from the coast in lower Picardy were held back as non-operational. Individual Gruppen were then progressively fed into the battle over Britain as each of the airfields around St.Omer was made operational, arriving in the sequence:
III./ZG 26 to St.Omer-Arques in July (to a wholly new airfield),
and in August Stab & I./ZG 26 to St.Omer-Clairmarais (another wholly new airfield), and lastly II./ZG 26 to St.Omer-Wizernes (aka St.Omer-Longuenesse, a renovated French Air Force airfield). It was possibly a part of this that the Germans laid down the concrete runway at Wizernes.