Losses German Bight 18.12.1939

[Marius]

Well gentlemen,
The idea of I./ZG 76 forming the ghost formation, yes, very interesting. But not serious. Several Messerschmitts were patrolling in the air and the unit had 23 Bf 110 at all on this day, as I remember.

I believe you all that there is nothing in the documents you can look inside.
Regular bomber units attacked the target flying via Heligoland to Wilhelmshaven. This is correct and was described in several Operation Records Books.
Maybe it is the wrong trail. Let me say the following: I don`t think on a regular RAF-unit.

For the second ("ghost") formation it could have been a "training flight" or whatever else. At this stage of war I can imagine the arrogance of militaries starting such noncence and riskful missions, for just showing its own power. Maybe the whole formation consisted of completely unexpierenced crews and all Wellingtons were shot down between 14.40-15.06. In such a case it would be much easier to conceal true losses from the public. Especially if it was a shortly and fast created "command" of school crews.

Here is the most important part of the Lagebericht West 119 from 19 December 1939 r., I mean the second part is very, very interesting, when you compare it with the German victories documented by Luftgaukommando XI (as well with Toni Woods claims list).

Im Bereich der Luftflotte 2:
Abschliessende Meldung vom 18.12.1939, 2130 Uhr:
Um 1343 Uhr wurden etwa 12 feindl. Flugzeuge 55 km nordwestl. Helgoland, 1356 Uhr etwa 10 feindl. Flugzeuge nördl. Helgoland im Anflug nach Südost gemeldet. Beide Staffeln flogen die Weser- und Jademündung an und wurden, nachdem sie bei Wilhelmshaven von Flak beschossen waren, bei Wangerooge und westl. davon in einen Luftkampf verwickelt. Abflug nach Westen.
1445 Uhr flogen etwa 22 weitere feindl. Flugzeuge nordwestl. Borkum die ostfries. Westküste an. Der größte Teil dieser Flugzeuge flog längs der ostfriesischen Inseln nach Osten, 6 Flugzeuge über das Festland bei Norden auf Wangerooge. Auch diese Flugzeuge wurden in einen Luftkampf bei Wangerooge verwickelt.

Regards,

[Andrei Demjanko]

Originally Posted by Marius

The idea of I./ZG 76 forming the ghost formation, yes, very interesting. But not serious.

It's not only most serious, it's obvious. Again, we can't ignore what the other side says. From RAF records it's clear - these aircraft were not British. But it's also hard to believe German observers reported non-existent aircraft. The only explanation - German observers made an error about nationality of these. Your quote from document just confirmed it. The aircraft flying from the west joined the battle in the Wangerooge area. As for the numbers - some double counting still could be present.

[John Beaman]

Andrei, I appreciate your comments, but in your last sentence, you ask, "In this case why we should believe any records from any side?" The difference is that all nations engaged in propaganda for daily consumption by the public and the press. It is another thing to fake official records that were not open to the public--this is not a Freedom of Information time frame like today. No one could see the records and no commander would fake records of losses, etc. because he would not get replacements that would enable his unit to get back to full strength. This is a classic case of overclaiming and the propaganda people took over and ran with it.

Marius, many posters have overwhelmingly refuted your arguments about "ghost" formations and RAF special units, arrogance, etc. The records of what you are saying are just not there. If you want to believe there are still "secret" documents out there that would prove your point, fine, I cannot argue. But that means they are still secret and we cannot know. Further speculation is pointless.

If you want to continue down this path, then I will shut this thread down and you can go to another forum.

[Larry Hickey]

John et.al.,

One last note here. I've sent to Marius the translation of the Heinrich Weiss manuscript account of the Heligoland Bight action on 18.12.39. Heinrich compiled from every source available to him AND FROM THE GERMAN PERSPECTIVE, a detailed summary of this action. While noting discrepancies with some of the German reports, his account is entirely consistent with what has been put forward here as the events of that day. He concluded that the discrepancies were due to over-claiming and erroneous reporting. He found no reason to create an alternative story of what happened. Keep in mind that this is a very experienced researcher who compiled a 6000+-page manuscript on LW operations in the west from the beginning of the war to mid-1941. You don't get much more experience working with the source documents and information than that.

If Marius doubts the conventional story of what happened I think that it is up to him to produce the evidence. When and if he has this, I think that we will all take his objections to the conventional story very seriously. Otherwise, there isn't anywhere else we can take this other than pure speculation, which gets us nowhere.

Regards,

Larry Hickey
EoE Project Coordinator

[Andrei Demjanko]

John, my post was not about faking official records or propaganda. 'In this case why we should believe any records from any side?' - I've mean we can't believe RAF records and at the same time disregard similar Luftwaffe records or vice versa, as you could see in this topic. My point is to obtain true picture we should correlate reports from both sides.

[Marius]

Many historians have doubts on the British story. Here is a short example:
"...nach Gefangenenaussagen sollte es sich nur um einen Navigations- und Übungsflug mit propagandistischem Nebenauftrag gehandelt haben. Fest steht, dass im Gebiet um Wilhelmshaven bei diesem Angriff keine Bomben fielen..."
J.Prien/P.Rodeike - Einsatz in der Reichsverteidigung von 1939 bis 1945 Jagdgeschwader 1 und 11 Teil 1 1939-1943, Eutiin 1993, p. 11.

I can confirm this, as it is indeed mentioned so in German documents; for example British demonstrative mission was supposed.

Larry & John, Heinrich Weiss tried to combine both sides or the information he could get at that time - German and British. He made an interpretation but could not explain the differences for example what I cited a few hours ago from Luftlagebericht West Nr.119. This is an original document and you have to bring the evidence (not me!) that it is falsified or whatever. I like more the assumption about 22 German aircraft (where is the evidence?) than "pure speculation which gets us nowhere".
The differences are hard to explain today but I do not believe we will find the truth with "you can go to another forum". I am really shocked about that.

Best wishes for all,

[Andrei Demjanko]

Originally Posted by Marius

...the assumption about 22 German aircraft (where is the evidence?)

Evidence:

1)There were aircraft flying along the coast from west to east at the time of the battle (Lagebericht West 119, posted by yourself)

2) There were no British aircraft flying in that direction at the time (ORB's of RAF squadrons, all already mentioned in this topic)


ORB 38 Sqn gives some coded references as the area of their sweep, but stating that the route was clear of the Dutch coast. Time of mission between 12.37 and 15.50. But as the 38 Sqn did not sighted anything means they not pressed on to Heligoland Bight turning for home earlier.

It's clear that the aircraft flying eastwards from Borkum to Wangerooge could be only German. Germans expected the British aircraft would be flying from the west along the coast (38 Sqn) and know nothing about actual streight of formation detected approaching from the west, so when they observed aircraft flying they cast no doubt about nationality of these.

[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,

[Larry Hickey]

Marius,

It seems that we now agree with the results and participants of this air battle, and that there were no other participants on the British side.

However, I'm a little puzzled with your statement:

"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."

Do you mean the German description of the mission is wrong, or do you think that the British account is also wrong? What exactly do you mean by this statement?

Since John Beaman prefers that we not continue discussion in this thread, please send me your reconstruction of the events that day where it differs from the Heinrich Weiss account. I'm highly interested in where you differ with his interpretation of the story. Also, you refer to claims by British PoWs of many more British a/c involved. As near as I can tell there was only part of one crew that was captured by the Germans--the one from the Wellington that I posted the photo of earlier. Do you know of more PoWs that the three members of the crew of 37 SQ LFoJ: Sergeant Herbert Ruse (Pilot), Sergeant T. May, and Leading Aircraftsman H. A. Jones? Considering the number of Wellington's lost, this is only a very small number of PoWs, and none of them were officers or leaders who might more likely be in a position to have a lot of knowledge about the big picture of the mission.

Regards,

Larry Hickey
EoE Project Coordinator

[RodM]

Originally Posted by Marius

Maybe it is the wrong trail. Let me say the following: I don`t think on a regular RAF-unit.

Hi Marius, by way of example, ORBs for the operational squadrons have been quoted in this thread, but what everyone is saying equally applies to non-operational units.

I reiterate that being a "home" command, the records of Bomber Command survived the war intact. If the "ghost" formation was actually real then there would be a multitude of archived records that would point to its' existence.

There are no missing or hidden documents that would magically explain the "ghost" formation.

Many, many researchers before us have worked extensively through the Bomber Command archives since 1972, and if there was a hint of documentation that supported your claims then such documents would have been brought to light well before now. Ditto with the records of other RAF Commands, as well as the CWGC documents and individual aircraft records.

Cheers

Rod