Wilhelm Johnen's book - true or fake?

[Lagarto]

Resently I bought a memoir "Battling The Bombers" by Wilhelm Johnen (initially of 3./NJG 1). This is the American edition of the English version titled "Duel Under The Stars". There's something fishy about this text, it just doesn't sound like it was written by a true Luftwaffe fighter pilot. Could anyone confirm/deny my suspicions?

[Delmenhorst]

Whats fishy about the txt ??

[Lagarto]

I just thumbed through the book but several things cought my interest. At one moment he says:
"The British machine was like a blazing torch but at the same moment Wegener received a burst of enemy fire from another direction. The bombers were obviously still in formation and protecting each other"
In formation? At night??

A few pages later, while he flies his Me 110, his radiooperator, "peering through his glasses at the night sky" (huh?), calls out a bomber "right ahead and level with us". It's beyond my imagination how a rear gunner in a Me 110 could spot an aircraft flying ahead of them... Or did they fly a Mosquito perhaps?

[Graham Boak]

I suspect translation defects rather than fake, although perhaps you are right to be careful.

re formation, although the bombers were not actually in formation, they were close to each other in a bomber stream and it is not unheard of for one bomber's gunners to see a nightfighter attacking another. It rather depends upon the darkness of the night.

Ahead and on the level doesn't have to mean directly ahead or identical altitudes. I take it as a loose description. People look for stars using binoculars, why not bomber exhausts? Perhaps having seen a faint light, he was attempting to magnify it and see if it had partners? Not common though, I'd have thought.

[Griffon]

ehm, I would suggest some more reading about night fighter ops

Johnen´s book is as true as can be, what you think to be fishy is in fact true.

as Graham said, while the RAF bombers did not fly in tightly packed boxes like the USAAF bombers, they did fly in loose formation, and on clear nights, it was possible for one bomber to see an attacking night fighter and even shoot at that fighter, provided the guns could be brought to bear.

concerning the binocular story-the 110 did fly with a crew of three at times, and the radio operator sitting right behind the pilot, facing in flight direction, while the third man, the gunner was sitting with back to back to the radio operator.
so it should have been indeed possible for the radio operator to look ahead and spot planes.

"My crew, Bordfunker (wireless/radar operator) "Schani" Pinter [Austrian] and our so-called "third man" Emil Mathan have already arrived at the hangar by crew truck."

from this article here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...06/ai_n8956884

cheers
phil

[WEISNER]

I personally thought it was a great book, written in the 1950's when the mind was still fresh. I suggest picking up a copy and reading it as I found certain parts very exciting.
Kevin

[Sergio Luis dos Santos]

A few pages later, while he flies his Me 110, his radiooperator, "peering through his glasses at the night sky" (huh?), calls out a bomber "right ahead and level with us". It's beyond my imagination how a rear gunner in a Me 110 could spot an aircraft flying ahead of them... Or did they fly a Mosquito perhaps?

Humm... Havent´you turned you head enough to almost see what´s on your back when doing a reverse with a car? Just imagine the gunner looking around, front, sides, above and bellow searching for targets or an enemy. If the target is distant you can see it even being ahead, the exhaust flames can be seen at night from long distance.

[Nick Beale]

Isn't the point that it would be quite difficult to see past the pilot of a 110 if you were behind him? Narrow cockpit, lots of glazing bars on the canopy etc. Something literally dead ahead and level would probably be obscured by the pilot unless the 110 was weaving.

The binoculars aren't a problem, lots of RAF sortie reports talk about the observer using "night glasses."

I don't think the points that were mentioned undermines Johnen's book though. More likely they're quirks of translation or memory, as others have suggested.

[George Hopp]

I don't blame you, Lagarto, for your comments. For the literal-minded reader, some of these translations can cause raised eye-brows. But, in the early days of translating German stories into English, problems often arose in dealing with German slang and technicalese.

A few pages later, while he flies his Me 110, his radiooperator, "peering through his glasses at the night sky" (huh?), calls out a bomber "right ahead and level with us".

The radio operator faced forward, so no problem there. And, "right ahead" I have taken to mean "at close range" rather than directly ahead. So, he could be seeing a bomber at close range, ahead of them and level. Once the target was in the transmission pulse of the radar, the radar was of no further value, and so the radop could help the pilot look for it.

[Lagarto]

Yes, quirks of translation or memory - perhaps both. By the way, bombers' rear gunners are called "Tail-end Charlies" in the book. Was this phrase ever used in such a context?

Anyway, I'm glad to find out that, after all, the book is not a fake