Luftwaffe Fighter Claims - 27 July 1940

[Peter Cook]

Nick, I think I might have resolved this as a date issue for von Aspern. The following lists a Hurricane claim at the same time, but S. of London, instead of W. London, only on 27/9/40. Looks like a simple transcription error of a 9 with a 7.

O.K.L. Fighter Claims (Wood)
Oblt. Roloff von Aspern: 13 - 5./JG 54
Hurricane - S. of London: 4.500 m. - 10.20 (9.20 BST) - 27/9/1940
OKL+JFV d.Dt.Lw. 4/II-121B

[Stig Jarlevik]

Nick/Peter

Checked Prien et al, but as far as I can judge they only list the two claims we already have. Nothing on a third.

I sent Johannes an e-mail so he can check this thread and hopefully revert with his details

Cheers
Stig

PS: Sorry Peter, failed to see your mail (was on a second page....)

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Stig Jarlevik

Nick/Peter

Checked Prien et al, but as far as I can judge they only list the two claims we already have. Nothing on a third.

I sent Johannes an e-mail so he can check this thread and hopefully revert with his details

Cheers
Stig

PS: Sorry Peter, failed to see your mail (was on a second page....)

Hi Stig,

I’m certainly not arguing that a second Spitfire was shot down on the 27th. I just saw the discussion and thought I’d check what the sitrep said, now I seem to be involved! Since I’m here, though, was there a Spitfire claimed in the Falmouth area sometime just before that date (the sitrep was finalised at 10.00 German time on 28 July)? Or any incident that might account for such a claim? (ULTRA is no help by the way).

[Stig Jarlevik]

Peter

Good thinking, but I must say I doubt it.
Reason is that 27 Sept was a big day for II./JG 54. From the claims given that day, it seems they flew three missions, where von Aspern claimed aircraft in two of them (the first and the third)

Both Johannes and Team Prien have these three victories in their books, which I interpret that the claims lists must be very clear on that day.

To lift one of von Aspern's claims out of this context and backdate it two months to fit our problem on the 27th of July, is a bit too much for my liking, since it means a lot of mistakes were done, not only at the time but also by those 70 years or so later trying to interpret the facts.

No I still think we need the opinions of both Johannes and Team Prien to get any further. Johannes has a final total of 19 for von Aspern, while Team Prien just list 18.

Hi Nick

Sorry to say, I have only secondary sources, so right now I am stuck without help from others.
There are days when investigating second hand sources can be almost as difficult as digging inside the remaining archives....

Cheers
Stig

[Johannes]

Hi Peter

I can resolve this one for you. Stig e.mailed me about it. Looking at von.Aspern's abschüßelist my first thought was it is a duplication for that of 27.09.1940.
This is exactly what it is, I checked the sub-mikrofilm for that date, this mikrofilm is for problem claims, it is marked as A.S.M, can be several reasons for this, but most probably he didn't have an air-witness, but it seems to have been confirmed later, an altitude of 4500 metres was recorded. Therefore is total of CONFIRMED claims is now eighteen.
These A.S.M claims seem to be treated in a different fashion by the RLM, seems the claimants Staffelkapitän/Kommandeur thought the claim was good so it was passed on to the RLM. However clumped together on mikrofilms were these A.S.M, v.n.e-a.s.m claims, this makes me wonder if these questionable claims were dealt with by a slightly different department. I have all the JG52 A.S.M claims, the actually paperwork evolved and became more informative over time, ending with a detailed explanation of the sortie, wingman and the actual combat, if there was a witness, therefore some other reason to question the claim, then sometimes the witness had since died, and it is recorded, and the witnesses counter claim form I would guess was accepted. I would think the the reason why the death of the witness was recorded is because he could no longer be contacted, therefore later questioning did sometimes occur.

Kind Regards

Johannes

[Stig Jarlevik]

Hi Johannes (and Peter)

Thanks for confirming it is a duplication and the reasons for that.

(Oh well Peter, one cannot be right all the time.... )

Will make a correction in the books....

Cheers
Stig

[Stig Jarlevik]

All

I have had some further correspondance with Johannes since I felt very uneasy about II./JG 54 flying an offensive mission in the first place on 27 July (the unit was more or less resting the whole month and basically only flew defensive missions along the Dutch/Belgian coastline)

It seems we are actually back on square 1 again with regard to the third claim on the 27th.

Hopefully Johannes is checking again the data and revert with the correct details.

Cheers
Stig

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

If it helps, this is an extract from the daily sitrep at the TSAMO German Docs in Russia site.

Nick,
Is that extract that you posted for Luftflotte 2?

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

Nick,
Is that extract that you posted for Luftflotte 2?

The first one I posted was the day's totals for the western theatre, »Gesamtverlust (Flugzeuge) a) EIGENE … b) FEINDL.«

The second one came under the heading »GROSSBRITANNIEN (Lfl. 2, 3 und 5)«.

They weren't broken down beyond that.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

The first one I posted was the day's totals for the western theatre, »Gesamtverlust (Flugzeuge) a) EIGENE … b) FEINDL.«

The second one came under the heading »GROSSBRITANNIEN (Lfl. 2, 3 und 5)«.

They weren't broken down beyond that.

It's just that they looked identical to the entries in the Luftflotte 3 KTB.

Might it be the case that that archive actually hold the information for Luftflotte 2 for the Battle of Britain?