Combat Report Forgeries

[Andy Saunders]

An interesting link with discussion here:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=94575

A large number of phoney RAF Combat Reports (all Battle of Britain) have been coming onto the collectors market lately. Not only are these just "fake" in their own right, but the text does not always even reflect an actual event!

I think the example in the thread you will find at the above link (Sgt Frantisek on 11 September 1940) is a made-up event. At least, I have been struggling to make any sense of it. Or can somebody else confirm that the event(s) described did/did not happen?

One for VoyTech?

[Peter Cornwell]

Andy,

I am no expert on artifacts so won't offer any opinion on whether this is the genuine article or not particularly as I cannot handle it. However, it does describe documented historical events accurately which I hope will come as some relief to its present owner. The actual date is September 2, 1940, which is shown as a Roman two rather than Arabic. This confusion has been further compounded by the rubber-stamped date indicating September 11. However, it strikes me that a forger would be pretty stupid to blatantly fabricate events rather than simply stick to the facts.

[Andy Saunders]

Peter

Interesting! At last some sense out of the conundrum. I agree that a forger would be pretty stupid to make up events. However, from possibly the same source I have seen one to Flt Lt R Rimmer of 229 Squadron made out for a supposed action on 7 October 1940. Since Rimmer was killed on 27 September I think that the only explanation is a clanger by the forger. I suppose, though, it could be a genuine mis-date....October instead of September?

Your input might offer some comfort Peter, although I am pretty convinced this Frantisek one is not original.

Thank you, Peter.

I should have thought to look more closely at the Feric connection, but was blind-sided by the apparent 11 September date.

[Ota Jirovec]

Hello Andy and Peter,

I am no expert on artifacts either, but I believe I can support your suspicion that the František´s Combat Report in question is a forgery. I have photocopies of some of his Combat Reports (obtained directly from National Archives webpage) from September 1940, including that from 11 September 1940 and the given time and location are different as well as other details including the text of the General Report and František´s hand-written signature. Peter, I do not believe the actual date is 2 September, written in Latin digits - all other František´s reports I have seen have the date written with Arabic numbers. But I may be wrong, of course...

Hope this might help a little,

Ota

[Andy Saunders]

Ota

Thanks for that. The plot thickens!

VoyTech has pointed out that a report for Frantisek of 2 September 1940 is, in fact, available on line from Kew.

I have ordered (purchased) a copy. Then we can go compare.

[Peter Cornwell]

Ota/Andy,

Forgery or not, according to the ORB the events described took place on September 2,1940, and the date on the Combat Report is self-evidently given as II September and not 11 September.

[Andy Saunders]

Peter

Yes, I agree totally! Sorry. My last post may have given the impression that I was unconvinced this was the 2nd and was, in fact, the 11th.

No doubt that it was the 2nd, but still doubt in my mind that this is original.

[Peter Cornwell]

Andy,

No problem - my comments were mainly intended for Ota.

[Andy Saunders]

I am sure that VoyTech will not mind me posting this link. Post 76 from VoyTech refers:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/sho...t=94575&page=3

To an extent, some of the details contained within the forged Combat Report are accurate. But only partly so. I am afraid it appears we cannot, after all, say that this describes documented historical facts accurately.

Truly incredible.

[Peter Cornwell]

Andy,

I do not hold copies of these Combat Reports, but detailed notes that I transcribed during personal inspection of the originals when still held by the AHB over 30 years ago (I am older than God's dog) - long before they were released into the public domain to be plundered so enthusiastically. These notes conform exactly with both content & wording of the ROGOWSKI document for September 2, 1940.

However, quite apart from the absence of any AHB accession number usually pencilled in the top right corner, I note several differences with the FRANTISZEK version that I suspect could be significant ? My notes read as follows: 'G2 P3975 FRANTISZEK chased 109 towards France. 109 firing @ HENNEBERG smoking. Crashed in sea 2 - 3 km out.' That is all I extracted from FRANTISZEK's original Combat Report as filed at AHB and while it is entirely possible that I may have omitted to note details of the elevator and dinghy for sake of brevity, I certainly did not imagine the HENNEBERG reference nor the fact that he was flying as Green 2 and not Green 3. So, it would appear, I inspected an entirely different document.