German Claims in Poland 1939

[Franek Grabowski]

Marius

Originally Posted by Marius

Nevertheless, there is no other loss of a second Bf 110 or another aircraft. It is also possible that Skalski overcoloured the fate of the aircraft he shot at, similar to Pniak (?), yes, why not?

While Skalski's post war memories (about after 1960s) are a little bit faded and confused, there is no reason not to believe his wartime accounts. Generally he was considered a modest claimant and it was underlined by his friends and colleagues.
Finally, one point. Skalski was credited with the victory in 1939. He was not credited with the ones he clearly stated he saw no crash of enemy aircraft but the case of Ju 87, which was confirmed only after a report of ground troops.

If we would accept two separate formations, so nevertheless no trace of bombers. The only solution I see: two squadrons of Bf 110`s of I./ZG 1. 3.Staffel as high cover and the other preparing for attacks on the ground. If Skalski attacked another aircraft than of 3.Staffel, so he surely overcoloured the result. All this only hypothetical.

Well, all I can comment here is that the aircraft attacked by Leśniewski and his section flew in 5 aircraft vic. This was a standard bomber formation. Some aircraft were seen to bomb Fordon and Vistula bridges. I am not awared of Me 110s capable to carry bombs at the time.

I cannot exclude that Lesniewski and Skalski saw the same aircraft crash on the ground, when I will believe what Skalski wrote in the original report.

No, the combats and crashplaces reported were in quite a distance from each other.

No, this wouldn`t be the aircraft Skalski shot at. An aircraft that force landed on enemy territory would have been reported as missing. They did not fight behind German lines.

The combat was just near the frontline. Skalski was chasing his second victim for a while, so it could have crashed on the German side or on the one that was soon captured.

I never spoke about "bloody liars". The reports of Pniak for 2.9. and 4.9. are suspect in many matters. I think due to my research about these combats Polish historians could try - if they want - to research Pniak`s victories he claimed in England.

Claims in the Battle of Britain are usually hard to confirm. Of his record of 4,1/2-2-1,1/2 three aircraft may be confirmed as definetely destroyed - a Me 109 of 7./JG26 and two Fiat BR.20.

I was researching for Oberst Henschke in German archives and I have found nothing.

But this does not mean the story is invented. Even if the rank or name were misunderstood, I see no reason to doubt that the glove was indeed found at the crashsite.

???!!!???
If one Bf 110 was shot down and one man baled out and one man got into captivity and this man returned later to his unit and confirmed he was the one who baled out so what is here weak? The story is based on German documents, not only on the post-war account. As we know for sure Weng was the Bordfunker of Müllenheim-Rehberg. Any more questions?

By your standards it is just as weak as Skalski's report of 1941 or even weaker.

The article about III/4 was send to Lotnictwo one year before it was published (!). In my answer to Cynk earlier this year I corrected my mistake with KG 3 and stated III/4 fought on 2.9. with I./ZG 1 only. Right?

I cannot tell when it was send, I know when it was published.

It`s like a defensive circle... Okay, maybe two formations, but no trace of bombers. Possibly indeed two squadron`s of Bf 110`s of I./ZG 1. Furtheron only one loss of a Bf 110.

I would put that in other words. You have found only one loss of a Me 110. If it has been written this way, I would make no comment at all.

???!!!???
So is there in the diary something like that: "twin-engined aircraft" or not?

The diary clearly states 30 Ju 87 and Do. Rolski's report says 18 Do 17, 18 Me 110 and 9 Ju 87. Twin engined aircraft are clearly mentioned.

In Pniak`s report there is no trace of any type of aircraft. He saw seven "twin-engined aircraft" and when climbing to them he was attacked by 3 others which he describes as of the same type. So we know nothing. But German documents of III./StG 2 confirm the type written in the diary (Ju 87).

One of the types! Please note that no Me 109s were reported!

By the way, Pniak could have seen a reconnaissance Do 17P and thought all the rest was of the same type. One or two Do 17P always flew with a Stuka formation to make target photos.

Poles reported more than one Do 17.

The problem is nevertheless visible. According only to Polish documents we never could find out with what type of aircraft III/4 really fought. That is the point.

This applies to all combat reports. I have seen several guncam films and we have discussed one of them some time ago on this forum. Quite often I was unable to determine the type, depsite being quite knowledgeable on silhouettes and having plenty of time to look at them.

Perhaps you could write here down what might be very important for the discussion? Until now I only heared many times that I didn`t read Polish reports and I didn`t read this and I didn`t read that and again I didn`t read Polish reports. What is so decisive in these Polish reports?

Decisive is the fact that you misquote them.

Okay: combat flight for the 8. and 9./StG 2: 11:50-13:10

Based on?

7./StG 2 and 1.(J)/LG 2 time not known, but later than 8. and 9.Staffel..
We know (Polish documents are confirming this) there were two engagements. First at appr. 12.30 (here was shot down the only Ju 87 of 9.Staffel) and the other combat appr. an hour later with much more aircraft of III/4 (see for example Cynk - Polskie lotnictwo..., page 240-244). Here Skalski damaged the Ju 87 of 7.Staffel of which one man baled out to his death. There is no doubt that Bf 109 pilots claimed here their 3 victories (one not confirmed).

Why there is no doubt if there were dogfights in the first combat? You do not have anything to support your thesis!

Perhaps this occured now and then - exceptionally, but the general German fighter formations were: Rotte (2 aircraft) and Schwarm (4 aircraft). No doubt.

I may agree that the smallest formation was a pair but it does not mean anything in the bigger ones. German pilots later in the war often flew in uneven formations, how would it be possible in finger four formation? I would also suggest to read articles about tactics by Skalski and Bieńkowski, the latter recently published in Lotnictwo.

My wife is native speaker and graduate of Polish philology.

Then you may tell her that I disagree. Fell down is not as definite as crashed, it may be falling down or fell down. Here I would rather read it in the way the aircraft went down and was in hopeless situation, rather than crashed. Especially as Cynk erroneously transcribed the report, which is very hard to read. Nonetheless it must have been considered a crashed aircraft, as the kill was credited.

I do not possess the original reports of the pilots of I./LG 2 engaged in this fight. So I don`t know if both of them saw their victims crash on the ground or not. So simple. On the other hand we know what Pniak originally reported and we know the German units and losses. So simple.

I understand it was crucial in the German victory system to have witnesses confirming destruction(!) of an enemy aircraft. Apparently it did not happen as only one aircraft was lost, according to Poles due to Me 110 action.

No, but I can surely exclude that the aircraft crashed on the ground. German documents do confirm this.

No, just only you have not found any loss.

I will correct you again. It would be listed as missing. The only way I see - the aircraft force landed at base and remains damaged under 60%. Such things were not often listed in high staff documents. But nevertheless, for luck, I possess a Fliegerdivision 1 document with daily strenght and leaving (08:00 and 16:00 hours). I have proofed it and "leaving" means seriously damaged and lost aircraft also. For 2.9. I./ZG 1 16.00 hours you can read: 1 aircraft less. This is surely the lost aircraft of Müllenheim-Rehberg. This means also - there were no other aircraft lost or seriously damaged.

Well, the combat was at about 15:00. They knew one aircraft was lost but I see no point putting there an aircraft which was as yet neither reported to land or crash.

???!!!???
See Cynk - Polskie lotnictwo..., page 241. Found on the crash site: diploma of pilot Wilhelm Berschneider.

And also ID plate from the aircraft plus some more other stuff. Polish documents are quite precise.

No, I only want to say that in every single air force (also in German Luftwaffe and others) you can find pilots who overcoloured their successes., perhaps even lied. Your problem is that you cannot imagine a Polish fighter pilot could have deliberately reported something he didn`t achieved. But the Poles are no "outsiders from space", also human beings as many others.

Then, following your logic, every fighter pilot is a liar because overclaim exists. I see no reason to call anyone making a deliberate false claim, at least as long as I cannot prove it. I see nothing wrong when it is found that there was an overclaim on the Polish side but I would like to have it clearly explained, with accounts of witnesses of both sides, etc. I do not consider your research a clear one.

I mean it makes me really sad that such ace like Skalski, two years after the September 1939 campaign could have tried to rise his personal score of destroyed German aircraft with a colorized report. Perhaps I interpret it wrong, but at least we cannot exclude such a possibility.

Skalski's scoreboard was not increased! He was credited with the kill already in 1939! When he was writing the report he was not awared his claim will be verified in any way. He just wrote a detalied report of his activities in Poland - have you read it? He wrote an additional report when the list of kills was published but this is another, not related story.

On the other hand Skalski could better have reported he was not sure if he saw the aircraft even crashed (and we had no discussion here). So did many others and survived the war without any claimes. I know personally such a German Jagdflieger.

How do you know what he saw? Actually, I have went through his every air combat and I consider him a very reliable claimant, who was shooting from a moderate distance and rather not in great battles, where overclaim was considerably higher.

By the way, a photo of overturned P.11 in your book is of a well known camouflaged '3' crashed by Antoni Joda of 152 EM.

[George Hopp]

Keep up the good work, Marius. I hope we can get those two books of yours in either English or German some day.
All the best,
George

[Marius]

George,
many thanks! I hope so...


Franek,

Marius

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marius
Nevertheless, there is no other loss of a second Bf 110 or another aircraft. It is also possible that Skalski overcoloured the fate of the aircraft he shot at, similar to Pniak (?), yes, why not?

While Skalski's post war memories (about after 1960s) are a little bit faded and confused, there is no reason not to believe his wartime accounts. Generally he was considered a modest claimant and it was underlined by his friends and colleagues.
Finally, one point. Skalski was credited with the victory in 1939. He was not credited with the ones he clearly stated he saw no crash of enemy aircraft but the case of Ju 87, which was confirmed only after a report of ground troops.


No doubt, but the original combat report of 2.9.1939 and the later of 1941 have important differences according to the fate of the second "Do 17". In the first the attacked enemy aircraft flew away in formation with others - Skalski then gave up. In the report written in 1941 this same aircraft crashed on ground and kept fire! How will you explain that? I don`t wanna say Skalski coloured all clames he was credited with. But here is it more than clear. And you even don`t need here German documents. For the eventuality of proof by a commission (what indeed happened) it looks better when both attacked aircraft crashed on the ground. As a commissioner you must believe they were surely destroyed.


Quote:
If we would accept two separate formations, so nevertheless no trace of bombers. The only solution I see: two squadrons of Bf 110`s of I./ZG 1. 3.Staffel as high cover and the other preparing for attacks on the ground. If Skalski attacked another aircraft than of 3.Staffel, so he surely overcoloured the result. All this only hypothetical.
Well, all I can comment here is that the aircraft attacked by Leśniewski and his section flew in 5 aircraft vic. This was a standard bomber formation. Some aircraft were seen to bomb Fordon and Vistula bridges. I am not awared of Me 110s capable to carry bombs at the time.


The standard bomber formation was a Kette of 3 aircraft, not 5. A Squadron of I./ZG 1 started with 5 aircraft would also fly in a 5 aircraft vic formation. Perhaps it looked like bombs were falling somewhere, but sometimes pilots saw much to more things which in reality didn`t happened. For example Palusinski from Pursuit Brigade attacked on 1.9.1939 Bf 110`s of I.(Z)/LG 1 and saw how they dropped their bombs down on the fields !!


Quote:
I cannot exclude that Lesniewski and Skalski saw the same aircraft crash on the ground, when I will believe what Skalski wrote in the original report.
No, the combats and crashplaces reported were in quite a distance from each other.


Based on? Where exactly should both aircraft have crashed?
I don`t think so. When aircraft fly with performances between 300-400 km/h than 1 or 2 kilometres or more is no distance for them.


Quote:
No, this wouldn`t be the aircraft Skalski shot at. An aircraft that force landed on enemy territory would have been reported as missing. They did not fight behind German lines.
The combat was just near the frontline. Skalski was chasing his second victim for a while, so it could have crashed on the German side or on the one that was soon captured.


I repeat, no trace of a second crashed aircraft. You are going much too far here. There is nothing confirming that. Just a speculation without any serious detail.


Quote:
I was researching for Oberst Henschke in German archives and I have found nothing.
But this does not mean the story is invented. Even if the rank or name were misunderstood, I see no reason to doubt that the glove was indeed found at the crashsite.


I wrote about that in my book. No chance for Oberst Henschke. Gruppenkommandeur of I./JG 21 was a Major!
But there was an Uffz. Henschke of III.(K)/LG 1 lost to AA fire on 10.9. (the crew was later interned in Riga).


Quote:
???!!!???
If one Bf 110 was shot down and one man baled out and one man got into captivity and this man returned later to his unit and confirmed he was the one who baled out so what is here weak? The story is based on German documents, not only on the post-war account. As we know for sure Weng was the Bordfunker of Müllenheim-Rehberg. Any more questions?
By your standards it is just as weak as Skalski's report of 1941 or even weaker.


You are making here a big mistake. We discuss here about a loss of an aircraft and its crew, what really occured. And you are comparing this with a claim credited to a pilot. Even if a fighter pilot would claim 10 victories, we (as historians) must look to the documents on the other side and proof this. And maybe than you will not find any aircraft lost to the guns of this pilot, maybe you will find 5, or maybe all 10. But loss and claim is not the same.



Quote:
It`s like a defensive circle... Okay, maybe two formations, but no trace of bombers. Possibly indeed two squadron`s of Bf 110`s of I./ZG 1. Furtheron only one loss of a Bf 110.
I would put that in other words. You have found only one loss of a Me 110. If it has been written this way, I would make no comment at all.


The problem is the following; I am looking to the losses and say there was 1 German aircraft shot down by Polish fighters. Then I look who claimed the victory or how many victories were claimed and compare these informations (for 2.9. - according to German documents 1 German loss and according to Polish documents 7 victories).
You are operating the other way round. You are looking there are 7 claims (never officially proofed!) and if they all will not be confirmed by German documents you say that it cannot be true, German documents cannot be complete. And then you are beginning starting your fantastical theories how the Germans hided lost aircraft.
This is totally irrational, because Poland was defeated in a really short time and the air force leaved the country after 17 days of fighting. All the Polish claimes could not have been investigated by higher commands or whatever. The first and last try was made 1945 by the Bajan Commission. So the claimes never leaved the squadron or group level. Most of them were later surprisingly credited as confirmed (126 victories!!). But everybody knows that after the Polish campaign the pilots could colorize their reports (see Skalski) to make the claimes more weighty. The Bajan Commission was uncritical, but what other could it be? The fact that the claimes were not investigated makes it not easier. But you can be sure that at least 50% of them wouldn`t stand such an investigation. My research is confirming this. Maximum 50-60 victories are confirmed by German documents (totally destroyed and force-landings).


Quote:
???!!!???
So is there in the diary something like that: "twin-engined aircraft" or not?
The diary clearly states 30 Ju 87 and Do. Rolski's report says 18 Do 17, 18 Me 110 and 9 Ju 87. Twin engined aircraft are clearly mentioned.


First point: Do 17 and Ju 87 never flew together on target missions in Poland. Exceptionally against Warsaw where twin-engined bombers and Ju 87 operated one formation after another.
Second point: Also Me 109 and Me 110 never flew together - exceptionally again Warsaw, but only one time on 1.9.
Third Point: every bomber formation was escorted by one fighter or destroyer group (or Squadron). Me 109 and Me 110 never escorted together (one exception 1.9. Warsaw as above).
Do 17, Me 110 and Ju 87 (all together) in the war diary III/4 means only one: nothing! The pilots were not sure of the types, so the diarist noticed all that was claimed. Nothing unusual.
In the German war diaries you can find: Blenheims, Potez 63, Curtiss, Polish twin-engined fighters and so on. Even aircraft with RAF markings! All over Poland 1939!!



Quote:
In Pniak`s report there is no trace of any type of aircraft. He saw seven "twin-engined aircraft" and when climbing to them he was attacked by 3 others which he describes as of the same type. So we know nothing. But German documents of III./StG 2 confirm the type written in the diary (Ju 87).
One of the types! Please note that no Me 109s were reported!


They didn`t even knew how the Me 109 looked out! So how could they report of them?


Quote:
Perhaps you could write here down what might be very important for the discussion? Until now I only heared many times that I didn`t read Polish reports and I didn`t read this and I didn`t read that and again I didn`t read Polish reports. What is so decisive in these Polish reports?
Decisive is the fact that you misquote them.


Reading all Polish documents and reports and memories will not rise the German loss rate shot down by Polish fighters. No chance. The evidence is done here on the forum.
No doubt, as I will write a history of Polish squadrons in Poland 1939 I surely will visit London and read all documents needed.



Quote:
Okay: combat flight for the 8. and 9./StG 2: 11:50-13:10
Based on?


War diary III./StG 2 and a log book of a pilot of 8.Staffel.


Quote:
7./StG 2 and 1.(J)/LG 2 time not known, but later than 8. and 9.Staffel..
We know (Polish documents are confirming this) there were two engagements. First at appr. 12.30 (here was shot down the only Ju 87 of 9.Staffel) and the other combat appr. an hour later with much more aircraft of III/4 (see for example Cynk - Polskie lotnictwo..., page 240-244). Here Skalski damaged the Ju 87 of 7.Staffel of which one man baled out to his death. There is no doubt that Bf 109 pilots claimed here their 3 victories (one not confirmed).
Why there is no doubt if there were dogfights in the first combat? You do not have anything to support your thesis!


As I remember only 3 or 4 Polish fighters were up on 12:30. One hour later started appr. 10 PZL. Right?



Quote:
My wife is native speaker and graduate of Polish philology.
Then you may tell her that I disagree. Fell down is not as definite as crashed, it may be falling down or fell down. Here I would rather read it in the way the aircraft went down and was in hopeless situation, rather than crashed. Especially as Cynk erroneously transcribed the report, which is very hard to read. Nonetheless it must have been considered a crashed aircraft, as the kill was credited.


A combat report is not a kind of prose and the pilot no prose writer, but just a simple pilot. I think you interpret much to much in every single word. Just after combat the pilots didn`t reflected on the words they choose. This is also the reason that Skalski wrote about shooting at the German pilot who hang under his parachute on 3.9. Just how it really was. Later he changed his mind and after the war "forgot" it completely.


Quote:
I do not possess the original reports of the pilots of I./LG 2 engaged in this fight. So I don`t know if both of them saw their victims crash on the ground or not. So simple. On the other hand we know what Pniak originally reported and we know the German units and losses. So simple.
I understand it was crucial in the German victory system to have witnesses confirming destruction(!) of an enemy aircraft. Apparently it did not happen as only one aircraft was lost, according to Poles due to Me 110 action.


But it doesn`t mean the pilot or the witness had to see the crash of the enemy aircraft. By the way Skalski wouldn`t be credited with any claim on 2.9. because he had no witnesses. I cannot understand that both claims were later confirmed by the Bajan Commission based on his colourized report only - without a witness.
I think the German system was much better. For example on 4.9. I.(J)/LG 2 had one unconfirmed claim (of 3). III./StG 2 claimed 3-4 victories. They all were later reduced to "damaged" (!!). On the other on side on 2.9. the Poles claimed 7 Do 17 in one combat. All 7 claims remained confirmed until day.


Quote:
No, but I can surely exclude that the aircraft crashed on the ground. German documents do confirm this.
No, just only you have not found any loss.


???!!!???
Have you found the German loss which confirms your fata morgana claims?


Quote:
I will correct you again. It would be listed as missing. The only way I see - the aircraft force landed at base and remains damaged under 60%. Such things were not often listed in high staff documents. But nevertheless, for luck, I possess a Fliegerdivision 1 document with daily strenght and leaving (08:00 and 16:00 hours). I have proofed it and "leaving" means seriously damaged and lost aircraft also. For 2.9. I./ZG 1 16.00 hours you can read: 1 aircraft less. This is surely the lost aircraft of Müllenheim-Rehberg. This means also - there were no other aircraft lost or seriously damaged.
Well, the combat was at about 15:00. They knew one aircraft was lost but I see no point putting there an aircraft which was as yet neither reported to land or crash.


This is only one document among others. Your argumentation is like a cementation.


Quote:
???!!!???
See Cynk - Polskie lotnictwo..., page 241. Found on the crash site: diploma of pilot Wilhelm Berschneider.
And also ID plate from the aircraft plus some more other stuff. Polish documents are quite precise.


This one yes, why not? There are even more, but not all.


Quote:
No, I only want to say that in every single air force (also in German Luftwaffe and others) you can find pilots who overcoloured their successes., perhaps even lied. Your problem is that you cannot imagine a Polish fighter pilot could have deliberately reported something he didn`t achieved. But the Poles are no "outsiders from space", also human beings as many others.
Then, following your logic, every fighter pilot is a liar because overclaim exists. I see no reason to call anyone making a deliberate false claim, at least as long as I cannot prove it. I see nothing wrong when it is found that there was an overclaim on the Polish side but I would like to have it clearly explained, with accounts of witnesses of both sides, etc. I do not consider your research a clear one.


No, not everybody. But I cannot maintain all human beings are sincere and all is perfectly. Skalski`s both reports is the best proof you are searching for. And known German documents are confirming he had colourized his claims.
My research is surely not perfectly, but based on many documents and many years of intensive study. Not the German documents are weak, but you, because you are blinded in what you want to see.


Quote:
I mean it makes me really sad that such ace like Skalski, two years after the September 1939 campaign could have tried to rise his personal score of destroyed German aircraft with a colorized report. Perhaps I interpret it wrong, but at least we cannot exclude such a possibility.
Skalski's scoreboard was not increased! He was credited with the kill already in 1939! When he was writing the report he was not awared his claim will be verified in any way. He just wrote a detalied report of his activities in Poland - have you read it? He wrote an additional report when the list of kills was published but this is another, not related story.


Who officially credited Skalski with the kill on 2.9.? And who credited him with the second kill on 2.9.?
My dear, it is clear that everything you do and everything you sign can be verified one day. But otherwise why not to try report more claims when nobody saw your combat? Perhaps it comes through... and you will be an ace and famous...


Quote:
On the other hand Skalski could better have reported he was not sure if he saw the aircraft even crashed (and we had no discussion here). So did many others and survived the war without any claimes. I know personally such a German Jagdflieger.
How do you know what he saw? Actually, I have went through his every air combat and I consider him a very reliable claimant, who was shooting from a moderate distance and rather not in great battles, where overclaim was considerably higher.


Yes, maybe, I do not say he colourized everything in his life. But it has to be said where he may done it and where it is obviously.
What about the photo of a Bf 110 you shortly wrote?

Marius

[Marcel Hogenhuis]

Hello Marius, hello Franek,

First my compliments for having such a wonderful and interesting discussion!!! How often such discussions become a dog fight where not the weight of arguments count, but the desire to be the winner of the discussion whatever the evidence available may tell us... I do sincerely hope, that you will continue to exchange arguments and (perhaps) accepting alternative options.

Well, I do have an account, written in May 1945 by the former Waffenmeister H.Stahn who was in the I.ZG 1 as well before it became the nucleus of I.NJG 1.
Stahn also refers to HANS WENG and his bailing out and even adds the following: WENG quickly dismounted a MG from the crippled Bf110, took some ammunition and jumped. Thus he was able to return safely to his unit.
At least this small detail tells us that whatever story WENG told AFTER the war, the basics were already written down in May 1945.

All the best, Marcel Hogenhuis (Venlo airfield in WW-2, I.NJG 1, Nachtjagd)

[Franek Grabowski]

Marius

Please, do not write about the things, you have no slightest idea about!

No doubt, but the original combat report of 2.9.1939 and the later of 1941 have important differences according to the fate of the second "Do 17". In the first the attacked enemy aircraft flew away in formation with others - Skalski then gave up. In the report written in 1941 this same aircraft crashed on ground and kept fire! How will you explain that?

Apparently your math knowledge is lacking. Is that deficiency of a German education system?
Could you explain me how a formation of approx. 9-11, attacked by Skalski who claimed 2 and according to you - 1 aircraft, could have been reduced to 5? For me 9-2=7. Even if we assume that Skalski was wrong and attacked the same formation as the others, this means at least 3 aircraft dissapeared from the formation - were downed.
The point is, however, that all known accounts of Skalski: 1939 report, 1941 report and 1957 memoirs describe the events in the same way and clearly indicate the 5 aircraft formation was a completely different one. It is only your problem that you cannot understand this.

I don`t wanna say Skalski coloured all clames he was credited with. But here is it more than clear. And you even don`t need here German documents. For the eventuality of proof by a commission (what indeed happened) it looks better when both attacked aircraft crashed on the ground. As a commissioner you must believe they were surely destroyed.

The Bajan Commission was established on 15.12.1944, more than three years since Skalski filed his report. Could you explain, how could he know a few years earlier, that victories will be scrutinised?

The standard bomber formation was a Kette of 3 aircraft, not 5.

Kette is not vic! In my reply published in Lotnictwo you have a refference to a source detailing German bomber formations of the period. I see you are not only lacking a basic information about German tactics but also have not read my reply.

A Squadron of I./ZG 1 started with 5 aircraft would also fly in a 5 aircraft vic formation. Perhaps it looked like bombs were falling somewhere, but sometimes pilots saw much to more things which in reality didn`t happened. For example Palusinski from Pursuit Brigade attacked on 1.9.1939 Bf 110`s of I.(Z)/LG 1 and saw how they dropped their bombs down on the fields !!

Please note exactly in which account Palusiński claims he saw falling bombs!!!

Based on?

Once again, personal combat reports filed after the combat.

Where exactly should both aircraft have crashed?

Skalski - Chełmża Unisław area, Leśniewski - Grudziądz area.

I don`t think so. When aircraft fly with performances between 300-400 km/h than 1 or 2 kilometres or more is no distance for them.

They completely separated and were unable to reform. With such a performances they can easily fly into a different directions and in quite a distance.

I repeat, no trace of a second crashed aircraft. You are going much too far here. There is nothing confirming that. Just a speculation without any serious detail.

As yet I see speculations on your side. Can you provide me WNrs of lost aircraft?

I wrote about that in my book. No chance for Oberst Henschke. Gruppenkommandeur of I./JG 21 was a Major!

G/C Pawlikowski downed on 15.05.1943 had a higher rank than W/C with whom he flew. He was not even a pilot of the Wing!

But there was an Uffz. Henschke of III.(K)/LG 1 lost to AA fire on 10.9. (the crew was later interned in Riga).

Oh, I see we are discussing another dimension. Apparently Uffz. Henschke lost his Handschue over Eastern Poland and the wind blew it to Warsaw, where it landed 10 days before being lost, among a remains of a wreck. Reverse passing of time caused Henschke was promoted to Oberst! Be serious.

You are making here a big mistake. We discuss here about a loss of an aircraft and its crew, what really occured. And you are comparing this with a claim credited to a pilot. Even if a fighter pilot would claim 10 victories, we (as historians) must look to the documents on the other side and proof this. And maybe than you will not find any aircraft lost to the guns of this pilot, maybe you will find 5, or maybe all 10. But loss and claim is not the same.

Claim really occured and was really confirmed. I have copies of documents and I am not doing any mistake.

The problem is the following; I am looking to the losses and say there was 1 German aircraft shot down by Polish fighters. Then I look who claimed the victory or how many victories were claimed and compare these informations (for 2.9. - according to German documents 1 German loss and according to Polish documents 7 victories).
You are operating the other way round. You are looking there are 7 claims (never officially proofed!) and if they all will not be confirmed by German documents you say that it cannot be true, German documents cannot be complete. And then you are beginning starting your fantastical theories how the Germans hided lost aircraft.

Yup, one of my such fantastical theories is a Fighter Command report stating that on the developed film a parachuting German airman can be clearly seen. German documents of the very same combat mention there were no losses. In similar fashion, I have found a German pilot downed by Poles, the loss being not mentioned in documents, despite of his wounds. Not 1939 related but shows the problem.

This is totally irrational, because Poland was defeated in a really short time and the air force leaved the country after 17 days of fighting. All the Polish claimes could not have been investigated by higher commands or whatever. The first and last try was made 1945 by the Bajan Commission. So the claimes never leaved the squadron or group level. Most of them were later surprisingly credited as confirmed (126 victories!!). But everybody knows that after the Polish campaign the pilots could colorize their reports (see Skalski) to make the claimes more weighty. The Bajan Commission was uncritical, but what other could it be? The fact that the claimes were not investigated makes it not easier. But you can be sure that at least 50% of them wouldn`t stand such an investigation.

Approx. 50% overclaim ratio is not a bad result but as I noted, your research is too sloppy to be regarded seriously.

My research is confirming this. Maximum 50-60 victories are confirmed by German documents (totally destroyed and force-landings).

It is a different number than previously mentioned.

First point: Do 17 and Ju 87 never flew together on target missions in Poland. Exceptionally against Warsaw where twin-engined bombers and Ju 87 operated one formation after another.
Second point: Also Me 109 and Me 110 never flew together - exceptionally again Warsaw, but only one time on 1.9.
Third Point: every bomber formation was escorted by one fighter or destroyer group (or Squadron). Me 109 and Me 110 never escorted together (one exception 1.9. Warsaw as above).
Do 17, Me 110 and Ju 87 (all together) in the war diary III/4 means only one: nothing! The pilots were not sure of the types, so the diarist noticed all that was claimed. Nothing unusual.

Excellent! You have just provided me with supporting thesis to support my point of view. It is apparent the first attacj was done by Ju 87 with Me 109s and due to heavy opposition, another formation of Ju 87 was send, this time with Me 110s. Everything fits perfectly.

In the German war diaries you can find: Blenheims, Potez 63, Curtiss, Polish twin-engined fighters and so on. Even aircraft with RAF markings! All over Poland 1939!!

And you dare to claim the German accounts and documents are rliable?

They didn`t even knew how the Me 109 looked out! So how could they report of them?

No, according to your logic, there were no 109s in this combat. No Dorniers nor 110s as well. Only Stukas.

Reading all Polish documents and reports and memories will not rise the German loss rate shot down by Polish fighters. No chance. The evidence is done here on the forum.

I am not doing any evidence, I am a historian.

No doubt, as I will write a history of Polish squadrons in Poland 1939 I surely will visit London and read all documents needed.

It would be good if you try to read published sources. I see you have problems even with this.

War diary III./StG 2 and a log book of a pilot of 8.Staffel.

So KTB does not mention separate missions that are clearly confirmed by Polish documents. Hence we may consider this German document as inaccurate. If KTB of III/StG 2 is inaccurate, how can we be sure that other documents of this and other units are correct?

As I remember only 3 or 4 Polish fighters were up on 12:30. One hour later started appr. 10 PZL. Right?

3, so what?

A combat report is not a kind of prose and the pilot no prose writer, but just a simple pilot. I think you interpret much to much in every single word. Just after combat the pilots didn`t reflected on the words they choose.

Pniak in his report clearly states he did not see crash of the German aircraft. It is not my interpretation. He says more less: I saw the German aircraft falling on the wood and I did not care about him anymore. Simple and lear and if you cannot understand this, perhaps it is the time to see a doc.

This is also the reason that Skalski wrote about shooting at the German pilot who hang under his parachute on 3.9. Just how it really was. Later he changed his mind and after the war "forgot" it completely.

This was explained in a letter to Lotnictwo. Skalski did not forget the event and described it in detail. When asked about those suppositions, he was really surprised. 'Why I should do this?' In any way, I expect an answer, how an airman hit by a 7,92 Mauser rifle bullet and clearly bleeding, was able to run?

But it doesn`t mean the pilot or the witness had to see the crash of the enemy aircraft. By the way Skalski wouldn`t be credited with any claim on 2.9. because he had no witnesses. I cannot understand that both claims were later confirmed by the Bajan Commission based on his colourized report only - without a witness.

How do you know a witness was necessary? I have never seen any document concerning crediting victories in 1939.

I think the German system was much better. For example on 4.9. I.(J)/LG 2 had one unconfirmed claim (of 3).

And none actually downed - 7:1 is still better ratio than 3:0.

III./StG 2 claimed 3-4 victories. They all were later reduced to "damaged" (!!).

Excellent - another proof of my thesis. Any names of victorious pilots?

On the other on side on 2.9. the Poles claimed 7 Do 17 in one combat. All 7 claims remained confirmed until day.

As all the victories confirmed during WWII.

???!!!???
Have you found the German loss which confirms your fata morgana claims?

I am not looking for it but I clearly see that your documents do not allow to exclude anything. Could you provide me with full crew list of the ZG1 airmen taking part in the battle?

This is only one document among others. Your argumentation is like a cementation.

So list the documents, as yet you failed to do so. Cynk lists Polish documents and gives their refference nos.

This one yes, why not? There are even more, but not all.

Quite interesting. Variable reliability.

No, not everybody. But I cannot maintain all human beings are sincere and all is perfectly. Skalski`s both reports is the best proof you are searching for. And known German documents are confirming he had colourized his claims.

Apart of your unfounded accusations toward Skalski, what are the German documents? Could you list them at last?

My research is surely not perfectly, but based on many documents and many years of intensive study. Not the German documents are weak, but you, because you are blinded in what you want to see.

Certainly.

Who officially credited Skalski with the kill on 2.9.? And who credited him with the second kill on 2.9.?

Likely płk.pil. Bolesław Stachoń, commander of aviation and air defence of Pomorze Army.

My dear, it is clear that everything you do and everything you sign can be verified one day. But otherwise why not to try report more claims when nobody saw your combat? Perhaps it comes through... and you will be an ace and famous...

I think at the moment it is you who try to be famous. I am more interested in what had actually happenned.

Yes, maybe, I do not say he colourized everything in his life. But it has to be said where he may done it and where it is obviously.

If he was not doing that trough the whole war, why should he do that in this one, relatively unimportant dog-fight? He had multiple occasions to increase his scoreboard but he did not.

What about the photo of a Bf 110 you shortly wrote?

I have checked that it is of the same ZG1 aircraft that is in your book but wrongly captioned.

The discussion with you is a quite interesting experience. Your approach is that you know better what is written in documents I have in my hands and in my mother tongue.
Finally, I would like to ask you to fuck off from Skalski. He passed away and cannot defend himself and with his deeds and fate he really does not deserve such treatment.

[Marius]

Franek,
stay cool! I don`t want to attack anybody. I only want to say, Skalski had evidently colorized the later report - so the question is how many else did (is a generous problem to all nationalities). Nobody is perfect!
Will answer in a few days, because I have no much time now.

According to the Bf 110 on the photo. I suppose it was the aircraft flown by Major Huth transferring with his unit to Griesslienen on the 4.9. The Bordfunker Josef Schauster was talking about this accident in Jägerblatt many years ago. The damage is indeed considerable. And apparently the aircraft was on fire as stated by Schauster.

You believe that I./ZG 1 lost on 2.9. more aircraft than found in the actual known documents. So how will you explain the only total loss of 12 Bf 110 for the period September 1939 as documented on many other staff levels?
I will list these aircraft below (total losses):
2.9. 1 Bf 110 of I./ZG 1, 2 Bf 110 of I./ZG 76
3.9. 3 Bf 110 of I.(Z)/LG 1 (1 to German Flak)
4.9. 1 Bf 110 of I.(Z)/LG 1, 1 Bf 110 of I./ZG 1 (Huth landing accident)
6.9. 1 Bf 110 of I./ZG 1
7.9. 1 Bf 110 of I.(Z)/LG 1
9.9. 1 Bf 110 of I./ZG 76 (accident?)
17.9. 1 Bf 110 of I./ZG 76

12 at all, 3 in accidents or by friendly AA fire. No place for more totally destroyed Bf 110`s.

Marius

[Franek Grabowski]

Marius

Originally Posted by Marius

stay cool! I don`t want to attack anybody. I only want to say, Skalski had evidently colorized the later report - so the question is how many else did (is a generous problem to all nationalities). Nobody is perfect!

Skalski over the war never colourised his reports. All his claims, but two - one damaged and one probable, from the Battle of Britain can be linked to the German losses. His later claims cannot be all verified because of losses of documents on the German side. There are several his 'claims' that were not claimed by him due to lack of evidence, I think a total of about five or more aircraft. One Skalski's claim was downgraded although it seems it is confirmed by the German losses. Another was not credited to him by no apparent reason.
A very important point is that all the reports filed in 1939 are the reports done just after the sorties. Most of the surviving ones, eg. from RAF or USAAF that are known to researchers were wrote by IOs a few days after actual sorties. There is no comparison.

According to the Bf 110 on the photo. I suppose it was the aircraft flown by Major Huth transferring with his unit to Griesslienen on the 4.9. The Bordfunker Josef Schauster was talking about this accident in Jägerblatt many years ago. The damage is indeed considerable. And apparently the aircraft was on fire as stated by Schauster.

The photo does not show any trace of fire. It shows considerable damage to the fuselage but I cannot say it was enough to consider it as a write off.

You believe that I./ZG 1 lost on 2.9. more aircraft than found in the actual known documents. So how will you explain the only total loss of 12 Bf 110 for the period September 1939 as documented on many other staff levels?

I do not believe anything. I expect you to nail down the aircraft shot up by Skalski. As long as you cannot do it, I do no take your comments that nothing happenned to it.

I will list these aircraft below (total losses):
2.9. 1 Bf 110 of I./ZG 1, 2 Bf 110 of I./ZG 76
3.9. 3 Bf 110 of I.(Z)/LG 1 (1 to German Flak)
4.9. 1 Bf 110 of I.(Z)/LG 1, 1 Bf 110 of I./ZG 1 (Huth landing accident)
6.9. 1 Bf 110 of I./ZG 1
7.9. 1 Bf 110 of I.(Z)/LG 1
9.9. 1 Bf 110 of I./ZG 76 (accident?)
17.9. 1 Bf 110 of I./ZG 76
12 at all, 3 in accidents or by friendly AA fire. No place for more totally destroyed Bf 110`s.

How about aircraft of Hammes and Nagel? Were they write offs or not? Hammes' aircraft looks almost untouched, I have seen more damaged aircraft returned to flying condition.
There is also a photo of burned out Me 110 taken from an overflying aircraft, have you identified this one?

[G. Warrener]

Hello

I only received Cz II yesterday (herzlichen Dank) so I have not had much time to read it, and have it undermine everything I have accepted to date....

With any bombing - there will always be the matter of collateral damage.
The bombs which fell on the Villa Centros at Anin-Otwock on the 1 Sept, 1939 killed 7 children and injured 25 more. They were Jewish & handicapped.

Their future had ceased on 1st September 1939 - despite the Luftwaffe.

Graham

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi, Franek

Interesting comment You had in a recent post regarding Skalski...

I guess that this is a one-way street, then, since most of the German pilots which exploits You are constantly doubting using quite harsh words and carateristics are also dead. The same goes for the guys that constructed and fought in the Soviet airforce, and their equipment. You seem to have no problem with this.

My thought was always that we should treat deceased fighting men we study on either side with respect, but You see this in an other way?

Regards,
Andreas

[Franek Grabowski]

Andreas
There is a difference between discussion about exploits, level of training or technical development and calling someone liar or murderer. The latter goes to a court - see how it ended with a certain French ace for example. Mr Emmerling constantly uses a offensive language towards the Polish airmen, not only Skalski. It is not a matter of finding any overclaim, different view, poor training, etc. but calling them liars, cowards and murderers in those or another words. Please, have in mind that you cannot read the articles, as Mr Emmerling published them in Polish.