Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain

[John Vasco]

Cannot disagree with anything you say in the above post, Ed.

Chapter 3 read.

'The phoney war' with extracts from several letters and quotes from various people.

Still not a single mention of the Battle of Britain...

[Chris Goss]

What about photos John Anything new and their source?

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Chris Goss

What about photos John Anything new and their source?

Some new, general, ones. A couple of well-known 109 photos and a couple I had not seen before, and a well-known photo (to me) of aircrew with a 2./ZG 26 Bf 110 in the background.

[John Vasco]

Chapter 4 read.

Denmark and Norwegian campaign. For anyone who has read up on this north European campaign, I do not see anything new. The usual quotes from letters of completely unknown people writing home, with no connection to the BoB, and also from the odd aircrew and 'higher-ups'.

[John Vasco]

Chapter 5 read

The Western Campaign from 10th May.

Page 79: 'The Bf 110 Zerstörer (Destroyer) - a twin-engined fighter that had previously seen great success in Poland, Denmark and Norway - numbered around 350 at the beginning of Case Yellow; by the start of Dynamo, its units had lost more than 40 per cent of the operationally ready Bf 110s.'

So, 40% of 350 = 140 Bf 110s LOST.

The start of Case Yellow was 10th May; the start of 'Dynamo' was 26th May, so the pertinent dates are 10th May to 25th May.

The information I have regarding losses & damaged encompassing those two dates is as follows:
70 Bf 110s 100% write off
26 Bf 110s damaged but repairable
7 Bf 110s damaged state not known.

My loss/damage figures for Bf 110s from 10th May to 25th May include those in the far north of Europe, not involved in the Western Camapign.
Even allowing for a certain number being under service on 10th May (and therefore not 'combat-ready'), the statement of 40% losses is simply wrong. 140 Bf 110 losses, or thereabouts, is totally incorrect. The reference for this information is 'Ibid', and given there are copious entries in 'Further notes and References', I haven't a clue who she is referencing for this information.
What annoys me is that people will read this kind of thing and take it as 'gospel' because Dr. Taylor has written it.

In this chapter it's the same old same old. Quotes from unknown soldiers, the odd quote from aircrew. Battle of Britain? Don't be silly...

[FalkeEins]

John, thanks for the update, following with interest. Five chapters in already. Hopefully not a potential prelude to referencing the 'so-called' BoB.

Ed, thanks for your post #94, I appreciate your explanation and perspective...

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by FalkeEins

John, thanks for the update, following with interest. Five chapters in already. Hopefully not a potential prelude to referencing the 'so-called' BoB.

Ed, thanks for your post #94, I appreciate your explanation and perspective...

You're welcome.

[edwest2]

I do hope someone posts a detailed review on Amazon. From what I've seen written here so far, this book needs correction so that readers have some idea. A large canon has been built up for the BoB.
It should be based on the facts, nothing more.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by edwest2

I do hope someone posts a detailed review on Amazon. From what I've seen written here so far, this book needs correction so that readers have some idea. A large canon has been built up for the BoB.
It should be based on the facts, nothing more.

I will be doing that when I have finished the book...

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

The information I have regarding losses & damaged encompassing those two dates is as follows:
70 Bf 110s 100% write off
26 Bf 110s damaged but repairable
7 Bf 110s damaged state not known.

My loss/damage figures for Bf 110s from 10th May to 25th May include those in the far north of Europe, not involved in the Western Camapign.
Even allowing for a certain number being under service on 10th May (and therefore not 'combat-ready'), the statement of 40% losses is simply wrong. 140 Bf 110 losses, or thereabouts, is totally incorrect.

OKW figures of 12 October 1940 include for Zerstörer:

Serviceable 10 Aug: 375
Serviceable 10 Oct: 174
Paper establishment: 448
Net change: -201

These figures are attached to one of the Lagemeldung West daily reports at German Docs in Russia (TSAMO) but I neglected to note which one, and can I find the blasted thing again … ?