French fighter scores, mainly 1939-1940

[rof120]

Oh no, it is not like this. I know there were some, or even many, idle days both in the BoB and in the French Campaign. How many times - I can't remember - have I read about operations in May-June 1940 that bad weather made flying impossible: possibly fog, low clouds, airfields (no concrete runways 1940...) soaked with water, making take-off and landing impossible, aircraft which sank in mud… This is true of both campaigns/battles. With the help of meteorological and air force archive in France and in England we could find out on how many days, in both cases, combat aircraft were not able to fly. I guess it would be about even for the season and the weather were approximately the same, with dry, even hot periods too.

[rof120]

1. Sorry I forgot the other causes of "idle days". These were relatively numerous. I think all idle days, whatever the causes, were more or less even in France and later in the BoB, taking the duration into account. The more so for often, after an idle period like 2-3 days or more, they had had time and resources to repair damaged AC and receive replacement ones after losses, so that they could compensate for the idle days with corresponding missions, at least partially.

2. I am fully aware that Hurricane-airfields in France were more directly in the battle area and in the path of numerous German attacks, which gave them more opportunities of seeing their airfields attacked, of taking off under attack, of winning victories and suffering losses. In a nutshell, in the "British" area (so chosen because it was closer to England, which was more convenient for receiving supplies, new aircraft, personel etc.) the air war was probably more intensive with corresponding more victories than if based somewhere else, and also more losses, for there is no doubt that the average German fighter pilot was far better in training and in flying and combat experience than the average RAF pilot (often green), not to mention the terrible official tactics and formations (tight vic of three etc.) for which RAF pilots were not responsible but the RAF was.

[Nick Beale]

“rfo120” if you persist with posts that are wholly or largely off-topic, then expect them to be edited accordingly. It would also be welcome if you were to abandon your tired practice of erecting straw men (in the shape of what you claim everyone else believes) simply to demonstrate what you apparently imagoine to be your superior knowledge by demolishing them.

[rof120]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

“rfo120” if you persist with posts that are wholly or largely off-topic, then expect them to be edited accordingly. It would also be welcome if you were to abandon your tired practice of erecting straw men (in the shape of what you claim everyone else believes) simply to demonstrate what you apparently imagoine to be your superior knowledge by demolishing them.

Added a little later: I don't get it.
------------------------------------------
What's the matter with you Nick? What wrongs did I do?

Clearly a fighter's performance, especially in speed and climb, is a function of its engine and has a direct influence on its pilot's score. So I can't see what disturbs you. Fighter aircraft engines are NOT off topic when discussing their pilots' scores. It is not coincidental that 1940 fighters equipped with the best engines were the most effective fighters in air combat: Spitfire, Me 109 E, Hurricane too, and also Dewoitine 520. This was still true 1944-45 with the Merlin-equipped Mustang P-51 Ds and several German types like Fw 190-D, Ta 152 and more.

I am just trying to inform possibly interested readers about the tremendous fight put up 1940 by - among others - French fighter pilots. The Germans lost MORE aircraft in the 38-day air French Campaign than in the 83-day Battle of Britain. There must be some Reason for this and the by far main reason is the fight of about 1,000 French fighter aircraft and 700 pilots, one thousand including replacements. They were not alone, I know this, but their contribution was mumerically much greater than British fighters' (approximately 100 fighters or less, 250 during the 9 days of the Dunkerque evacuation, very weak forces afterwards, i.e. from June 4, 1940, on), other nations' fighters', AAA etc. - all these not being negligible of course, far from it. French fighter pilots would not have achieved much if their fighter aircraft had been "so few" as so many people claim and as poor as the same people keep repeating, which is simply not true. "Even" Morane fighters shot down dozens and dozens of Me 109s and 110s and a grand total of well over 100 German combat aircraft, not to mention other fighter types (see other posts above and in the preceding pages 1-5). What I wrote and am writing here is entirely or partly new to most people in the world. Nick, don't you like me to tell the truth? Is the RAF the only force worthy of mentioning? Oh, I know the British magazines: FlyPast and Aeroplane: RAF, RAF and RAF again, of course with a pinch of Luftwaffe for they need some villains to look like heroes.

I don't need answer your heavily off-topic remarks. You should delete them in order not to look… hmmm… accordingly.

I never claimed that "everyone else believes" something. Most people making TV-programs on WW II and air combat have a limited knowledge on these things and talk nonsense all the time, this is a fact. Every single TOCH-member knows this. Most of the TV-people, not all of them. I insist it is terrible to see French fighters, type Morane 406 (aka Morane), all the time in all possible TV-programs on the Battle of Britain and other battles too, and to see large twin-engined, twin-fin Japanese bombers in almost all (not quite in all) TV-programs about Pearl Harbor. Such ridiculous errors are a disgrace and can't be accepted. Those who collect film footage for such programs watch each other very jealously and imitate each other without even trying to know if it's right or wrong to show Moranes in the Battle of Britain.

What do you - TV-viewers all over the world - say on this? Hmmm? No opinion?

I never imagined I had a "superior knowledge" but I certainly claim to be serious and try to write messages which are as accurate as possible and do not contain such ludicrous nonsense as MS 406s in the BoB. It takes more time to be cautious and try to eliminate any errors for the benefit of all readers (about 7,400 views up till now and still going strong).

Could it be that you contributed to such TV-programs as a counsellor and expert, and feel targetted by me? I didn't target anybody in particular. I gave no names. If you feel that my criticism applies to you this is your privilege and your private pleasure. I gave no names of historical TV-"experts" who show us a Fw 190 shot down 1940 in the Battle of Britain. Aviation enthusiasts have been laughing at this, and at other bullshit, for DECADES but it didn't change anything in the minds of TV-"experts".

So be reassured: Nick Beale is not targetted in my criticism of poor TV-authors. No hard feelings, hey?

[edwest2]

Then write that book. Correct those mistakes. My father fought for Poland and went to the US after the war. When I was watching a war movie in the 1960s, I asked him if that was what it was like. He said: "No son. It wasn't like that at all."



Best,
Ed

[rof120]

Originally Posted by edwest2

Then write that book. Correct those mistakes. My father fought for Poland and went to the US after the war. When I was watching a war movie in the 1960s, I asked him if that was what it was like. He said: "No son. It wasn't like that at all."
Best,
Ed

Thanks Ed. You're okay. "Write that book"? I'm doing just that all the time even if you're not aware of it. Most of what I posted here and of what I wrote to some French friends (not the same texts) you'll find in that forthcoming book some day (if I live long enough, which in no way is certain so it's better to make sure at TOCH first). Please leave it to me to assess if it's not worth it to inform as large an international audience as possible on a few fundamental facts of the 1940 air war (French Campaign, Battle of Britain). I know most people have absolutely no idea. For example, who is aware at all that the Germans lost more aircraft in 38 days of French Campaign than in 83 days of Battle of Britain (July 10 through September 30)? 1,469 vs 1,428 (figures can vary slightly). All figures were published long ago but it seems that nobody took notice. See, among others, Len Deighton's books "Blitzkrieg" (France and Benelux) and "Fighter" (BoB), in which he published these figures.

I had a very good friend in the USA, about 2 years younger than me. I fear he's dead by now for he never replied for over 2 years. He had served with the US Air Force for a very long time and he was highly interested in the air war 1939-45 including, in particular, 1940. He was really quite knowledgeable on this but after I explained about the same things as here in this thread he wrote to me: "I had no idea (over the air fighting in May-June 1940)". Among other things he figured that after the Dunkerque evacuation (it ended on June 3) it was all over. Actually the French Campaign (totalling 6 weeks and 4 days) went on for over 3 more weeks until June 24 with some of the fiercest air fighting on several occasions like June 3 (German attack of the aero-industry and airfields in the Paris area, a bloody failure), June 5 (Heinz Nowarra wrote some very admiring comments on the French Air Force's combat on this day - by then the French fighters were very strong indeed and even Major Werner Mölders was shot down by a young French "Pilot Officer" (lieutenant), June 8, 9 and 21... I am aware that these facts are almost totally, or totally, unknown to most people in the world including… in France itself.

This is why I am trying to explain how it was in reality, not in the dreams of jingoistic English authors like Stephen Bungay (and many others) in his book "The Most Dangerous Enemy", who wrote that "of course French aircraft designs were not as good" (as German and British designs). This statement is of a rare stupidity and shows that this "historian", who lives close to France, did not bother in the least to ask around himself and learn the facts. Excellent, remarkable French aircraft designs were the following (several ones were produced in hundreds of models): LeO 45 bomber, Breguet 693-695 light assault bomber, Bloch 155, Dewoitine 520-523 and Arsenal VG-33, 36 and 39 fighters, Bloch 174 superlative recce AC, Bloch 175 light bomber and more. The UK had ONE remarkable AC, the Spitfire. Likewise Germany (Me 109 E).

I feel this Bungay-statement alone is enough evidence that I have to correct this nonsense here too (and you know it). Don't worry for I am almost through.

It is obvious that my long explanations (6 TOCH-pages up till now) interest our audience here (look at the number of views to the right of the first post of this thread). To many a reader this was a discovery. British fighter forces in France were feeble on May 10, 1940 and afterwards. Their pilots did their best.(At the time they (about 150 pilots flying those 100 "Hurricanes") claimed 700 victories in 12 days; see book "Twelve Days in May" by Brian Cull, who lowered this figure to 300 IIRC - still not really modest and realistic - in 46 days those 700 claims would have meant 2,800 victory claims for 100 fighters, double the Fighter Command score in 83 days for about 600 fighters). John Foreman came to the same conclusion as myself: the RAF fighter overclaim rate was about 5 but some people including some Frenchmen very loudly claim that RAF fighters downed many more German AC than the 1,000 French fighters. I really wonder how this could have been possible at all.

Well, rest in peace and live another day. I'll write that book, period.

[edwest2]

Please don't use the word jingoistic in your book should you live to write it.