German Claims in Poland 1939

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi, guys.

Just posting a comment regarding documentation which I feel is important to get right. Ruy, if You read this, maybe there could be room for posting a permanent message regarding this issue - the RLM damage assertion system.

First - Marius, Franek and all You other guys - it is important to understand the bureaucratic systems we analyze before making assumptions or conclusions based on them...

With regards to the RLM loss reporting system there is one major flaw - we DO NOT have the entire series of documents ranging from Sept 1939 through May 1945...

Why is this important - and why is it such a major flaw? The main reason is that one cannot really trust these records 100% without a secondary confirmation - due to the way these were made:

The unit reported their losses to a higher headquarter which in turn reported these to the so-called 6. unit of the Generalquartiermeiser of the Luftwaffe. (this was also called the Statistical unit for a period of time during the war).
This unit reported all losses in the well known listings we have probably all studied, and there must have been a loop involved here - thus the reporting units must have had some way of reading the 'results' because amendments and corrections were made as follow-ups where necessary.

And this is the clue! I have all these corrections in my database system, and as an example I have corrections for 1940 reported in the last batch of corrections available for 1943, the one for report date 29.12.1943! Thus this correction were made nearly THREE YEARS after the incident.

But Franek, before You go ballistic there is one thing that is worth to mention: These are the extremes, and not the usual situation. What is also nice is that the guys or girls that filled out these reports made the corrections in red coloured pencil (colour of course not visible on the microfilmed records, but they are on the originals, as seen in Bundesarchiv/Militärarchiv) on the relevant record. Thus for a given correction for a name or a WNr, the original would be corrected or stricken out and the corrected information added in handwriting. This is often hard to read on the microfilmed records, and thus it is necessary to have control over the corrections before working with the loss listings. (Fortunately I have all these stored in my database....!!!)

Further - a 100% loss can be two situations:

1. An aircraft totally destroyed beyond any repair or even useable for parts.

2. An aircraft with an unknown destiny!

The latter is extremely important, as I have frequently seen aircraft damaged 100% reappear... the reason for this is quite simple and can be seen quite often in the loss records:

Just an example here:

Uffz. Beck, Obgfr. Bölling mit Flzg.unverletzt zurück. Streiche: 2 Vermißte. Ändere Bruch von 100% in 40%. Streiche: 1 Flzg.total. Setze: 1 Flzg.beschädigt. (Ar 66, Werk-Nr. 281).

Thus the above mentioned aircraft was first reported as 100% loss (misiisng), then the crew returned with their aircraft which was damaged, and the damage was changed from 100% to 40%. Other examples show that the aircraft changed from 100% (missing) to 0% (undamaged), usually when a pilot had made an 'Aussenlandung' late in the war.

We must also be aware of one thing - the Luftwaffe seldom used a damage percentage below 10% in a report. Thus a slightly damaged aircraft, typically damage from small calibre firearms would not be reported at all. There are numerous examples of corrections as the two shown here:

Streiche ganz (1 Flzg.besch. Ju 52, 2879), da Bruch unter 10%.

Streiche ganz (1 Flzg. besch. Bf 109 G6, 230145), da Bruch unter 10%.

In my personal opinion, a so-called aerial kill should force the aircraft or crew in question to be lost as a useful asset by the air force operating it for a minimum amount of time.

I feel that the situation where a crew returned with their aircraft to territory controlled by own forces and the aircraft sustained a small damage would not count as a kill. In that case most of the bombers in the 8th Air Force would be counted as kills...

However - an aircraft damaged beyond repair even when landing in own territory should count as a kill.

In this discussion I feel we have one major problem, and that cannot be solved if Franek doesn't change his position, I will try to elaborate on this:

There seem to be no discrepancies regarding the fact that mr. Skalski opened fire on 3 aircraft during this aerial battle.

One of these aircraft can be identified as lost by the German Luftwaffe.

Mr. Skalski was awarded 2 aerial kills by the Polish Air force for his actions on this day.

These are the established facts as far as I can read from the discussion.

Now - there should really be NO reason for namecalling in any direction when Marius says that he can only document one of these aircraft as lost by the Luftwaffe. The easy way out is for Franek to say that 'Yes, the solution to this is probably that the second aircraft fired upon by Skalski was able to put out the fire and return slightly damaged, a damage below 10%, and that is the reason we cannot find a corresponding loss in the records. The Polish Air Force thus awarded one aerial victory too much. This we now can see after all these years based on documents from BOTH sides.' Case closed...

No person is perfect - certainly not in a stressful situation - and as I stated earlier - to be able to have total 3D control of all events during an aerial dogfight is not humanly possible - errors are made. On this backdrop I feel You have to reconsider, Franek, and try to be a bit scientific about Your undoubtly very interesting work regarding the history of the Polish Air force during WWII.

I also feel that if Marius has stated (something I would like to have confirmation from sources other than Franek about) that Skalski was all the bad words Franek says he used, this is also uncalled for of course.

My best tip is to cool off and try to find as much of the factual evidence as can be found, and restart the discussion with a clean slate and a reference material at hand - in Polish, English, German and whatever language.

And please also bear in mind: An author is by no means perfect either!!! A published book is at best this persons interpretation of what happened, in most cases the person never witnessed what he is writing about and is basing his story on documents and eyewitness accounts which can't be taken as more than that... Catch whatever, right??

Regards,
Andreas