Loss of 3 Hurricanes of 85 Sqn 20 May 1940

[Brian]

Hi Peter

I have to respond. As you are aware, I do have an axe (albeit a little one) to grind. You say that you have little interest in what was published back in 1995 - obviously referring to 'Twelve Days in May' - but that did not prevent you from having access to all our research material (many years of mainly original research from many primary sources), which has apparently not been acknowledged in your book (sorry, I haven't seen a copy so this may be incorrect).

Of course errors were made in 'Twelve Days' and, as you say research moves on, but mangnanimity is surely free. I don't wish to continue the fall-out, so that's my final word (I hope!)

Amen
Brian

[Peter Cornwell]

Brian,

Your final word ? I hope so to. My comments on this thread to date have been in relation to incorrect details posted in good faith by Alex Smart, but as you now seem to wish to broaden the debate I will take issue.

When I queried your sources for some of the RAF serials as published in Twelve Days in May you were unable to explain them other than to confirm they came from your co-author Heinrich WEISS. You suggested that he may have compiled them from German Intelligence reports on RAF crashes. As many of the serials concerned were lost in the Channel I knew full well this was disingenuous rubbish so I was satisfied that I could safely ignore them & rely on my own findings or, more to the point, the complete lack of them.

You subsequently sent me two packages of material compiled during your research. This was an entirely voluntary & generous gesture on your part as I did not request any such help, so how I could have 'prevented' it I am unsure. Amongst these papers were several extracts from Heinrich WEISS that did allow me to conclude (correctly as it later transpired) that the hitherto unrecorded RAF serials that troubled me were seemingly based upon simple gap-analysis of information culled from HALLEY's books on RAF Serials. There was, therefore, no contemporary source I had failed to consult which was my sole concern.

You will find the full extent of your co-operation fully acknowledged in my foreword to The Battle of France Then & Now. Magnanimity (if that is what is meant) is rarely free, its expression can sometime cost dear but I believe that I have, thus far, demonstrated it in Spades.

I've just realised your post was on April 1st - any significance ?

[Alex Smart]

Hello Robert,

You partly replied - to say that all three hurricane's were lost in combat with II/JG3 at 15.30hrs and one (P2555) was lost to a Bf110 at 10.15hrs.
Can you elaborate on who the Luftwaffe pilots in II/JG3 and the BF110 were or do you accept the names/details as given in the fourth post by Peter ?

Thank you
Alex

[robert]

Hi Alex,

my post was based on Peter`s book.
The involved German pilots were:
- morning combat probably somebody from the stI/ZG26 (Hptm.Makrocki?)
- afternoon combat: Hpt.von Selle (2 claims) Lt. von Werra (1) both from the stII/JG3 and Lt.Heymann (1) from the 4/JG3.

Regards

Robert

[Brian]

Peter

I have to respond once again. Your remark that Heinrich Weiss' research work/conclusions are "disingenuous rubbish" do you no favours. Please retract this. He cannot defend himself and I am sure that you uncovered much original information among his copious notes now safely in the hands of Larry Hickey.

Although I have yet to see your tome, I feel confident that I will find omissions and errors - as will others (as they did in 'Twelve Days in May') - but we would surely refrain from doubting your overall ability as an aviation historian/researcher/writer.

Please record your apology here for all to see. Heinrich was a remarkable researcher and is sorely missed. His work - sans a few errors - will stand the test of time.

Brian

(Please don't oblige me to write 'another' final word on the subject!)

[Peter Cornwell]

Brian,

Sorry but I'm afraid you are mistaken & entirely misrepresent my remarks. If you care to re-read my comments you will see that my reference to 'disingenuous rubbish' was in respect to your suggestion that Heinrich WEISS may have compiled his information from German Intelligence reports on RAF crashes, not his work or conclusions. I hope this clarifies matters.

[laurentbiblio]

Hi,
Did someone knows how to find photo of Peacock and Shrewsbury. I live in Arras and go on their graves but would like to know more about them

Thanks

Laurentbiblio

[Yellow 6]

Peter,

I would support the view that Michael Peacock was only Acting or given a field promotion and his movement from 601 Squadron was precipitated by Squadron Leader Oliver's move to HQ. We do know that on May 20th 1940, No. 85 Squadron received orders to destroy its ciphers and records; in all probability the postings in/out of the Squadron, records of promotions etc. did not survive to enable us in confirming the theory.

I wrote to CWGC last year indicating my suspicion that the records were possibly incorrect but without the necessary proof, the History will for the time being remain as it is.

An intriguing situation nontheless.

[Stig Jarlevik]

Gentlemen

I have one question regarding this interesting debate.
"Acting" S/L Peacock is stated by Peter to have received his posting on May 20th to No 85 Sq, that is the same day he was killed! How come he is then listed with No 85 Sq both as S/L and member when he bailed on May 19th?

Cheers
Stig

[Yellow 6]

Stig,

could I ask where the source of information was derived regarding the bale out? I saw a similar entry on a website stating this date and also that Sergeant Crozier, No. 85 Squadron, was killed after a bale out. Our records indicate the contrary that he was wounded and returned to the UK.

As in a large number of cases it is difficult for us to establish facts so long after the events of 1940. According to which sources you read "Fighter Squadron at War" by A.J. Brookes, Squadron Leader Peacock arrived on 20 May to take command, later in the same chapter his loss having failed to return from offensive patrols and finally it is stated that the Squadron had lost its new C.O the day after he arrived.

Acting ranks, immediate movements of personnel, destruction of records; such is the confusion created in the fog of war. We have to cross examine the evidence from all sources and ultimately form our own conclusions.

I still hold firm to the belief that the Flight Lieutenant Peacock of 601 Squadron buried in Arras, is one and the same person as Squadron Leader Peacock, 85 Squadron. CWGC records indicate no other casualty of that surname for the month of May 1940.

While the facts evade us the mystery will no doubt continue.