Sgt Puda claim 20 May 1940

[David Sumerauer]

Hello all,

Just received my copy of Peter Cornwell "Battle of France Book", and must congratulate to brilliant and comprehensive work. I have many questions regarding Czech pilots and will start with shared claim of sgt. R. Puda (GC II/4) given on May 20,1940.
I have not found any information related to this claim from Czech sources, what is evidence supporting the claim given in the book.

Best regards.
David Sumerauer

[robert]

Hi,

this claim is also listed in "Les Victories de l`Aviation de Chasse Francaise" Vol.2 by Arnaud Gillet.
And this combat is also described in War Diary of SPA155.

Regards

Robert

[David Sumerauer]

Thanks Robert,
for your quick answer, but was this claim submitted during the war, or the loss was connected to known combat post-war? I have checked the biography of G. Baptizet ( LES AS FRANCAIS DE 1939-1940,
Première partie : d’ACCART à LEFOL, by Christophe CONY & Alain COSTE, 2007) and there is no victory given for him on the May 20, 1940 as well.

Regards David

[robert]

Hi,

Perhaps this is post-war statement? The pilots didn`t observe the subsequently fate of attacked Heinkel, which escaped into the clouds and Baptizet must abandon the chase due Heinkel`s defense fire, which damaged his engine.

Regards

Robert

[Petitpoucet]

Hi,

To be more precise, the 20th may 1940, five Curtisses from GC II/4 started a mission over Reims, berry-au-Bac, Rethel. Two of them had propeller failure and leaved, so they were at least three (S/Lt Blanc, S/Lt Baptizet, C/C Puda) to intercept a lonely Heinkel 111. But because of heavy clouds, they lost it after the first attacks (Heinkel's, and other German bombers, resisted well against the 7,5mm guns of the Curtiss H-75). So, no claim, no victory.

In his Work, Arnaud Gilled just explained he found in German archives that a gunman was killed, and it could be one of this Heinkel. It's not sure, but really possible.
Alain Coste and Christophe Cony, friends of mine, made an excellent work, and if they not listed this claim, it's just because it was not.

More details, more informations, if you can wait two or three weeks for my own book about the french Curtiss H-75's...

Yours,

Lionel Persyn

[Peter Cornwell]

Hello David,

By way of further clarification to what Robert has already said, I confirm that my source for the Puda claim on May 20, 1940, in The Battle of France Then & Now was indeed Gillet VCF Vol.2 p190. Given the available evidence it seemed a safe, logical, & likely conclusion to me. Thanks for your comments on the book, I am glad that you are enjoying it.

[Petitpoucet]

Hi Peter,

It's a shame my English is so bad that you couldn't understand my last message... It seems that it couldn't be better in French ...
Page 190, les victoires de la chasse française vol 2 by A. Gillet, i can read one Heinkel 111 damaged. So what about your safe and logical conclusion ?

[Peter Cornwell]

Hello Lionel,

I think that I understood your mail perfectly well thank you. If you refer to the losses as presented in The Battle of France Then & Now the Heinkel He111 in question returned to base damaged with one crewman killed. A situation wholly consistent with the fighter attack as described by Gillet. So what exactly is your point ?

[David Sumerauer]

Peter and Lionel,

thanks for your additional useful comments. No offence is needed from anyone, I never said that the loss of Heinkel is described as confirmed destroyed in the book and the victors are definitely identified. But the possibility of combat between given adversaries is of a high probability and Puda participation in this combat is for interest for Czech readers (I am not a researcher).


Kind regards.

David

to Lionel - I am expecting your book with great interest

to Peter - In older literature I have noticed losses of Hs 126 on the June 8, 1940 and your books does not lists any, were there any losses of Hs 126 (including non combat) on June 8, 1940?

[Petitpoucet]

Hello Peter,

My point of view is in fact the same than yours. No claim and no victory (!).

With the second message of David (he spoke about a victory and a loss), i thought you listed this one as a victory. Sorry.
And in French Armée de l'Air, claim for a damaged aircraft does not exist, that's why it does not appear in the publications David spoke about.

Thanks David for your interest,

Regards