Losses German Bight 18.12.1939

[Marius]

Originally Posted by Larry Hickey

According to the KTB of Seenotzentrale Nord, the air sea rescue seaplanes could be not operate that day due to icing conditions. Only one took off to try and locate a German fighter pilot who bailed out of a Bf109. No British airmen were rescued.

Hi Larry, this is correct! I don`t believe in rescued RAF-crews also.

After several hours last night researching material I do have, for me it is clear now here arose two big problems which are affecting the official story of the attack.

The first one is the Britsh point of view including the mission details which are given not correctly by no one historian. The Heinrich Weiss manuscript is containing exactly the same story – an interpretation – as published in “Fledgling Eagles” in 1991. No revelations then.
J. Prien wrote several years ago something about possible participation of 148 Sqd and about 30 serial numbers of bombers he apparently knows. This seems to be false.
On the other hand the mistakes and speculations done in the last 20-30 years allow to look forward for example in the direction of RAF OTU units and more – as well as Obstlt. Carl Schumacher supposed just after the battle. So I didn`t want to exclude such possibilities first. But now I do.

The second one is the formation consisting of 22 hostile bombers which appears in German documented material: well, it seems “22” was just doubled somewhere because two formations were seen at all – no matter if right or wrong. But this is the reason for several upcoming interpretations and mistakes ending with the effect of too less refused claims by German officials. The massive attack with "22 x 2" or even 52 bombers – as the POWs related – made the mass of victories just more believable and the confirmation was going its own way. It was an overclaiming but not caused by the phantasies of German pilots. The victory tall was doubled because the whole formation was doubled – and this happened obviously accidentally. Just a false interpretation following one another false interpretation.

My conclusion is simple. The participation of 9, 37 & 149 Sqd only is fully correct (38 & 148 Sqd as some authors wrote have nothing to do with). But the whole description of the mission`s carrying-out is almost completely wrong. I would say: too much speculations instead of attentive reading of documents.



Regards,