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,

[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

[MW Giles]

Following were POWs

Sgt H Ruse (pilot), Sgt TK May (second pilot) and LAC HA Jones (gunner) all from N2936

F/O P A Wimberley (pilot) N2888

AC1 GW Geddes (gunner) N2889 (died following day from injuries)

I thought you had Chorley's book?

Regards

Martin

[Marius]

Larry,
I am waiting for more material. I will check it step by step first instead of bringing in further wild speculations.
Heinrich Weiss manuscript is no help, because his interpretations were published in "Fledgling Eagles" already.
I have R. Holmes` book now. But as I see so far it is not well done. I don`t see what is authors interpretation and what is coming from documents.

Apparently some things are still concealed from the public because Holmes is not giving us the complete information about the mission. For example the route back of the leading formation seems to be completely wrong. I will check it in detail again. But if it really is some authors interpretations were gone the wrong way for sure.

Regards,