May 14th 1940 and few little things

[Many Souffan]

Hello Mr Gillet;

Thank you for your answer.

Your answer seem's to me cryptic, enigmatic.

You begin by "unfortunately... and you finish by; "you are Perhaps right"

I don't care if I am right or not, this discussion for me is to understand how it came to you this hypothesis that 7 french Pilots have shot 4 Battle for 4 Hs 126. Your sources are too evasives. to write S H A A, it for me the same thing to find a ship in the ocean without instruments...

Please be sure, I do not want to make dirty, your reputation, or to not respect your work, but to advance and to have written your hypothesis without evidence, you have put some damages for the memories of these pilots (French, British or germans).

I repeat, I would like to understand

have a nice day

[Peter Cornwell]

I, for one, am tired of this ‘pissing contest’. Arnaud has no evidence, worthy of the name, which lead him to arrive at the conclusions he did but, apparently, now makes the biggest climb-down since King Kong fell off the Empire State Building. Many, meantime, is equally unable to provide any proper evidence to corroborate his own version of events. So, as I am purely interested in arriving at the truth of the matter, until such time as someone can provide tangible evidence as to these events I urge a hiatus on these increasingly tedious exchanges.

[arnaud]

M Many Souffan,

Thank you for your answer. So I think you will correct me and publish soon an article about this mission.

Will it be published in the next Avions magazine ?

Yours sincerely

Arnaud Gillet

[Andy Saunders]

Without wishing to add to what Peter so rightly describes as "these tedious exchanges", I would like to say a resounding "Hear, hear!" to Peter Cornwell's comments. There has been rather a lot of heat and little light, but plenty of blustering and rather infantile exchanges. Save for very few posts in this thread worthy of this excellent forum the rest has been just an exchange of dross and name calling. I respect much of the work done by Arnaud and Many but, please gentlemen, cannot you now - both of you- call a truce? You do yourself no favours and reduce to ridicule any credibility you may still have. If this is outspoken, then I suppose that is what I intend although I rarely put my head above the parapet (on this forum, at least!!) to make such bald or bold statements.

This is an excellent and extremely valuable forum, with heavyweight contrubutions from the likes of Peter Cornwell, Larry Hickey et al, but this thread is descending into nonsense. What Peter says, and has said elsewhere in this thread, is bang on. I, for one, am interested in this particular thread topic. I am extremely disinterested in some of the drivel it has generated. I doubt I am alone!!

[Stephen Smith]

" I, for one, am tired of this ‘pissing contest’. Arnaud has no evidence, worthy of the name, which lead him to arrive at the conclusions he did but, apparently, now makes the biggest climb-down since King Kong fell off the Empire State Building "

What a pleasure to read a forthright and honest appraisal of this tread that as in my opinion prattled on for far far too long.

Not my area of expertise hence no involvement or posts, but please lets put this tread out of its misery. !

[Many Souffan]

Hello, Hello Peter.
What is your problem?
I can understand that you are tired by this story, and maybe also stimulated by a little angriness, (maybe against me?), because, you are in this story like a collateral damage.
Because you follow the wrong assertion of Mr Gillet, without trying some correlations and it is difficult for you. And I I respect sincerely your difficulty...
It mist the loss of 5 Hs 126 for only the 14th may in your book, and I can say a minimum 16 other Henschel Hs126 are not in your book for the aeras of Sedan, Marne and Champagne… As for example the Hs 126 B the 2.(H)/12 of 6 Army Corps (VI. AK of Gen Förster) which forced landed with 65% damage south of Bouillon, the 26th may, without injuries for the crew, shot by “Cobber” Kain…. Because you didn’t know as many other serious searchers that the losses were with the Heer.

I like very much your book, and I am serious when I write this. Your book is a “must” and it has to appear at the right place in the good bookcase (library) of a person who is interested in the air war in the Western Europe during the WWII. It is not a problem for me if it missed some losses, nothing is perfect, your book is useful, honest, important & easy to read.

Many, meantime, is equally unable to provide any proper evidence to corroborate his own version of events.
Why to write that, I have the proofs and you will read themprecisely in my article in Avions. And I can help you also to correct some French losses, if you want, naturally…

Please I have nothing against you, and I respect you as I respect your work.

For the readers tired, who think it is infantile, or it's too much for this thread, sorry I am too serious maybe, but I like to be respected as It is more important to respect the memories of these pilots. I invite them to read again my posts from the beginnings they will have already an answer of why of my determination.
Nobody is perfect, firstly me

Ps Peter I will try to send you a private email...

Thank you for, and again sorry for my English and if it is too long.

[Ruy Horta]

As our two french friends are slowly coming to an agreement of sorts, I'd suggest a breathing pause.

It would be very unfortunate to start a new argument as the previous one has just died down...

The point has been clearly made.

Thank you.

[Peter Cornwell]

Ruy/Many,

I have no desire to perpetuate this thread for reasons already stated but as Many addresses me direct I feel it is only polite to respond. So, thank you Many for the further post and for your comments. I am not angry, (a foreign emotion – my sang is well and truly froid), merely bored by the recent exchanges between yourself and Arnaud which offer nothing of substance to advance mutual understanding of events. And, frankly, still don’t.

You are wrong to suggest that I simply followed Arnaud’s work without question. The fact remains that 1) there are no German fighter claims to correspond with the loss of the four Battles, and 2) there are no Hs126 losses listed in the Lw Quartermaster General’s Returns to correspond with the French fighter claims. For me, these are both important omissions that deserve better explanation than has been provided to date. But given this, I could see how Arnaud arrived at the conclusion that he did. And while I (still) fail to comprehend how such a thing could have happened, in the absence of any information to the contrary, and given the facts as described, I accepted those findings with an appropriate acknowledgement and suitable caveat.

Your own version of events may make more sense (to me) but I need a lot more help than has been forth-coming so far in order to discount the simple facts outlined above. Hence my comment that you have been unable to provide any evidence to substantiate your statements. And if your now much-publicised article for Avions (and good luck to you) fails to include some original contemporary documentation by way of corroboration this will remain so. Amen.

[Alex Smart]

Thank you all ,

This has been a great discussion but at times has almost been lost.

However, I would just like to say that in the heat of battle and in reporting the actions afterwards is just that it is always from memory.

To support my remarks.

From either "Buffalos over Singapore" or "Hurricanes over Singapore" ( I forget which).
It is written that Pilots reported that they had sighted or had been attacked by Messerschmitts.
This was of course impossible but the reports were made at the time in good faith and from memory just after the event.

So it is equaly possible that those surviving Battle aircrew reported being shot at by Messerschmitts. When they were actualy shot at by French aircraft. Equally they could have reported that they were shot at by friendly aircraft when they had indeed been shot at by the enemy.

All the very best to you all
and thanks
Alex

[Birgir Thorisson]

Messerschmitts were not just seen over Malaya, but even reported during the battle of the Coral Sea, by a most experienced and competent senior american pilot Lt.Cmdr. Paul H. Ramsay, (Co. VF-2) The Messerschmitt was in US identification manuals, thus influencing expectations of what you would see.

However, I must agree with Many, for one pilot to believe that a Battle is actually a Hs-126 is weird, but may happen, but for seven men to share the delusion is perverse. Confusing Hs-126 with Lysanders or Mureaux is understandable, but the Battle?

A short comment aimed mainly at Brian Cull, not related to the preceding discussion about events in France on May 14th 1940.
Prompted by the mentioning of Messerschmitts in Malaya.
Could it all be "friendly fire" incidents?
In researching the actions there, did you look into the possibility of the Messerschmitts actually being Hurricanes, (and for that matter, mistaking Ki-27 for "Zeroes" actually being Buffaloes?)

Birgir Thorisson.