Why did 10./JG 2 bomb a school in Catford?

[John Vasco]

Tony,
This matter of I./LG 1 in the Polish campaign being a driver for future fighter-bombers. You see, as the Polish campaign developed, other Bf 110 units went over to the ground attack role also. It was something that developed naturally as the campaign evolved (Schenck, Victor Mölders, interviews). So it wasn't a purely I./LG 1 thing. Also, the same thing happened in the Western campaign in the Spring of 1940 (Schenck, Victor Mölders & Richard Marchfelder interviews, to name but some). Towards the end of the Western campaign, in early June, Victor Mölders and a couple of others in 1./ZG 1 were taking up Bf 110 C-6s with the specific mission orders to attack ground targets. The introduction of fighter-bombers was simply the evolution of what had been going on before. What we see, I think, is an evolutionary process. Whereas the thinking of turning the fighters of the day into fighter-bombers had been some months in preparation, no doubt, the actuality was that the factories were a little unprepared for the change. What happened was that several of the D-0 'Dackelbauch' machines had the Dackelbauch whipped off and a pair of bomb racks fitted within a small fairing under the fuselage, these becoming the first batch of fighter-bombers issued to Erprobungsgruppe 210 upon its formation.

As for what may be termed 'terror attacks', Erprobungsgruppe 210 moved to dusk raids in late 1940/early 1941 on land targets (check 'success' claims by Forgatsch & Boxhammer, for example), no doubt hitting civilian as well as military targets. These kind of raids obviously pre-date the mid-war efforts the subject of this thread.

Whereas I can follow what you said about Eric Brady, and his conviction that the Luftwaffe were out to get him, I cannot possibly comment on what his medical condition might be classified as, and cannot therefore make the leap of faith to calling Fw 190 Jabo attacks 'V0'. Erpr. Gr 210 and SKG 210 were making those kind of attacks (albeit it possibly on a reduced scale) in early 1941 in the lead-up to their transfer from the Western front to the east in preparation for the start of the Russian campaign.

I think we may be moving closer in our views as the posts progress...

John V.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Brian Bines

John,

Fully agree with you I was just trying to make the point if such a classification exsisted for manned raids there would be a lot more of them ie Steinbock, Baedekker raids of 1942, or even the London bombings of 1940.
While the double agent theory does not seem applicable to the original theme of this thread although Tony does not agree, I did read about it if reference to the V1 attacks. It was claimed a double agent working for Britain sent false information about where the V1's were landing so the Germans shortened the range so they fell before hitting the Capital ( Wikipedia Eddie Chapman ). One assumes this would only work in the short term because the Germans must also have had a lot of info. from neutral sources to check against what their agents double or otherwise sent.
Was the V used in aircraft development a different word to that for the V of V1/V2 Versuch ? as opposed to Vergeltungs (my German is pretty limited ). Once again to agree with your point the term Vergeltungswaffe applied to the V1/V2 indicates a revenge weapon not a revenge campaign,

Regards

Brian Bines


PS anymore books on the way, was anything produced from your interviews with Wolfgang Schenk ? If one has its one I missed

Brian,

Regarding the 'V0', the point I was trying to make was that it was perhaps dangerous to start attaching self-made terms to matters/missions that had never previously had the title ascribed to them, neither by the force which carried out the missions, nor the recipient of those attacks. In simple terms, the mid-war Jabo attacks were not 'V0'. Period.

No more books to come. Only thing I'm doing now is helping Larry with his EoE project on Bf 110 related matters, when requested.

[Kutscha]

In WW1 there was Jabos, both single seaters and two seaters. WW2 jabos were just a continuation from WW1.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

Brian,

No more books to come. Only thing I'm doing now is helping Larry with his EoE project on Bf 110 related matters, when requested.

Why not go to M.I.5. and, if there is anything, write it up.

Tony

[tagjagd]

Dear Tony,

Originally Posted by tcolvin

Why not go to M.I.5. and, if there is anything, write it up.

According to yesterday's Daily Mail, DNA tests have shown that Hitler's skull fragment in the Russian State Archive actually belonged to a woman. I personally suspect that he and Eva escaped to South America and had a big family.

Why not go there and, if you find anything, write it up.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by tcolvin

'Helpful' in what way, Nick?

What would be the purpose of making these distinctions?

Are you suggesting different uses had different origins?

Or am I missing something in your comment?

Tony

1. Helpful because your original question was speculating as to motive, not means.

2. See above. In attempting to analyse policy, the fighter bomber per se is not the point, the point is what you the owner tries to achieve with it.

3. Quite obviously the numerous uses of the fighter bomber had their respective origins in different sets of circumstance and the pursuit of a variety of objectives.

4. Conceivably.

5. Why don't you try National Archives file KV4/66, "Formation and minutes of the Twenty Committee in connection with Double Cross agents: 1943 Feb 25-1943 Oct 21"?

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

Tony,
..........
I think we may be moving closer in our views as the posts progress..

Yes, but I feel big differences remain.
This Jabo topic is frankly mind-bending for me. I wish it would go away.
But as they say, 'no pain, no gain'.

Where are we?
1. There is the LW/Heer component, with Kesselring taking seriously his responsibility to help the Wehrmacht - and to retain operational control of his fighters.
2. There is Kutscha's statement that there were Jabos in WWI, and that WWII Jabos were 'just a continuation'.
3. There is your statement that Jabo development was 'evolutionary' and 'natural'.
4. There is Brian's suggestion that perhaps there was not one Jabo but many Jabos depending on their use.

Like most, I have strong views on all of this, and would like the matter resolved.
There is, AFAIK, no definitive study of this topic, although a lot has been published and is known because of the work by distinguished members of this forum.
My approach is different, coming from a study of Wehrmacht/SHAEF comparative effectiveness in 1944/5 when "the (Allied) air side stank beyond belief' (page 49 of Beevor's 'D-Day').
A major key to understanding this stench is the Luftwaffe, and particularly the Jabo development in 1939/40.

If participants are interested in thrashing this subject out, then surely a new thread should be started.

I am interested in answering these questions, among others;
What is a Jabo? (For example, should the definition in 1944 include the Hs 123 of 4./SG 2 and the Hawker Typhoon 1B of 193 Squadron - both retired air-superiority fighters fitted with bombs to save them from the scrap-heap - and Schenck's Me 262s of KG 1?)
Why did von Richthofen in 1917 refuse to partake in ground attack, and state; 'The duty of the Jaeger is to patrol his area of sky, and shoot down enemy fighters in that area. Everything else is rubbish.'
Why did Galland state in 1940; 'We Jaeger looked upon the violation of our aircraft with great bitterness. We had done everything to increase our performance.... the fighter was made into a Jabo as a stopgap and a scapegoat'.
How did Yakovlev get away with refusing to add bomb racks to his Yak 9 and instead designing a Yak 9B Jabo?
Why did the RAF, with British and US industry to call upon, imitate the LW's ersatz Jabo?

Tony

[John Vasco]

A 'Jabo' is a fighter that carries bombs. Jagd-bomber = fighter-bomber. I would therefore suggest that all fighters carrying bombs were fighter-bombers.

von Richthofen & Galland: almost certainly (being 'pure' fighter pilots) had an aversion to doing anything else other than flying a fighter. I can summise nothing more complicated than that.

Can't comment on the Russian side of things, as I am not well-versed in Russian aviation.

Why did the RAF follow the 'Jabo' idea? Probably because they saw it as the ultimate way forward. The primary modern strike aircraft is the fighter-bomber. Has been for decades. The Vulcans over Port Stanley in 1982 were but a pinprick in the overall scheme of aerial fighting in that campaign. The Argentinians simply filled in the bomb craters and carried on.

That's my take on your last paragraph, Tony.

[Brian Bines]

Some of the RFC pilots had an aversion to trench strafing in WW1. However skilled a pilot you are its no help from ground fire.

[Juha]

Hello Tony
a small detail. Hs 123 was designed as dive-bomber and after the emergence of Ju 87 it was used as ground attack plane, so it wasn't a fighter bomber like He 51 during later part of Spanish Civil War, or Bf 109E-x/B or Typhoon during 44-45.

Juha