Tempests over Remagen: fact or 'alternative fact'?

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

There's a lot and that makes it a brilliant book to read. It also gives a convincing (to me) picture of how it felt to be flying at that time. It's not so much use as an accurate account of historical events though.

Just like many other memories. Clostermann is no exception in this regard.

I agree that events get confused but all the business about huge formations of Ar 234s with Me 262 escorts attacking at low level don't match the extensive records in German daily reports and in ULTRA.

I cannot say if there were any other bridges attacked so intensely. Otherwise, I can imagine someone taking a liberty and violating the rules to have a closer look. Though of course, it is quite likely the bit has been added to bring some drama.

There are many German records of combats with American fighters during the Remagen bridge campaign. These usually took place away from the bridge, I guess because the Germans were intercepted early and possibly because the USAAF had the good sense to keep away from the powerful 'friendly' anti-aircraft defences round the bridgehead.

Still, there were numerous cases of confusion in the air with the effect of wrong aircraft being bounced. For some reason records were sanitised of such cases, perhaps to avoid embarassement.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Just like many other memories. Clostermann is no exception in this regard.

From the preface of my copy of The Big Show:

So every evening I used to write down for them the events of the day in a fat Air Ministry notebook, stamped 'G.R.' … This notebook went with me everywhere, crumpled by the weight of my parachute in the cockpit, stained with tea in the mess, or beside me at Dispersal during the long, dull hours of readiness. From the Orkneys to Cornwall,from Kent to Scotland, from Normandy to Denmark through Belgium, Holland and Germany, these notes—by the end of the war they filled three books—were always with me … It is precisely because they are true, because they were written in the flush of action, that I have made no attempt to re-touch these notes.

So how did he manage to place himself over Remagen, on an operation not mentioned in his Squadron's ORB and over a battlefield where 2TAF never intervened? The next major bridge battles in 2TAF's area were Stolzenau on the Weser (6 April) and Lauingen/Artlenburg on the Elbe (27 April).

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

From the preface of my copy of The Big Show:

So every evening I used to write down for them the events of the day in a fat Air Ministry notebook, stamped 'G.R.' … This notebook went with me everywhere, crumpled by the weight of my parachute in the cockpit, stained with tea in the mess, or beside me at Dispersal during the long, dull hours of readiness. From the Orkneys to Cornwall,from Kent to Scotland, from Normandy to Denmark through Belgium, Holland and Germany, these notes—by the end of the war they filled three books—were always with me … It is precisely because they are true, because they were written in the flush of action, that I have made no attempt to re-touch these notes.

So how did he manage to place himself over Remagen, on an operation not mentioned in his Squadron's ORB and over a battlefield where 2TAF never intervened? The next major bridge battles in 2TAF's area were Stolzenau on the Weser (6 April) and Lauingen/Artlenburg on the Elbe (27 April).

I have memories of a pilot who refers to his log book. The problem is, I have a copy of the latter...
That said, many moons ago I have been in touch with a friend of another pilot. He recalled that when the pilot submitted his memories to a publisher, he got them rejected with a suggestion that he should add some dramatic events and sex.
People want to read good stories, not necessarily true stories.
That said, the entry in the log book sounds intriguing, and falls outside of nice story category, if not added years later, of course.

[Stephen M. Fochuk]

Originally Posted by MW Giles

Really?

Yes. They would provide the areas of their sweep or coverage.

[MW Giles]

The orders are not the only way to tell what happened, as demonstrated by Nick. Hence my comment - Really?

In fact orders are a very poor way of telling what happened

1. They only tell you what was intended, not what actually happened

2. Lots of orders are given, but never carried out - they are altered or cancelled.

3. Orders tend not to survive the first clash with the enemy

4. Many of the orders have not survived - a good way of ending a line of enquiry - the only way to find something out is to look at a document nobody has access to. Unless we see that document then anything is possible! So endeth all discussion.

The squadrons wrote ORBs and submitted reports after a sortie to the Wing and so to Group and from there to 2 TAF, who then reported to SHAEF.

Closterman's problem is that many of the actions he talks about involved other squadrons flying in a wing. Surprisingly those records agree and they agree with the daily summary collated at 2 TAF. Are all the squadrons in on the joke?

A quick look at SHAEF daily summaries that cover 8th, 9th, 1TAF, 2TAF, Fighter Command, Mediteranean Air Forces etc each day do not show 2TAF straying into 9th AF air space.

On the day we were talking about, the sweep 274 Sqn is recorded as flying did not get within 75 miles of Remagen.

Without seeing the orders I think we can show a negative

Martin

[MW Giles]

Regarding Closterman I think he wrote the best account I have read of fighter operations in NW Europe in WW2



Martin

[Stephen M. Fochuk]

Originally Posted by MW Giles

The orders are not the only way to tell what happened, as demonstrated by Nick. Hence my comment - Really?

In fact orders are a very poor way of telling what happened

1. They only tell you what was intended, not what actually happened

2. Lots of orders are given, but never carried out - they are altered or cancelled.

3. Orders tend not to survive the first clash with the enemy

4. Many of the orders have not survived - a good way of ending a line of enquiry - the only way to find something out is to look at a document nobody has access to. Unless we see that document then anything is possible! So endeth all discussion.

The squadrons wrote ORBs and submitted reports after a sortie to the Wing and so to Group and from there to 2 TAF, who then reported to SHAEF.

Closterman's problem is that many of the actions he talks about involved other squadrons flying in a wing. Surprisingly those records agree and they agree with the daily summary collated at 2 TAF. Are all the squadrons in on the joke?

A quick look at SHAEF daily summaries that cover 8th, 9th, 1TAF, 2TAF, Fighter Command, Mediteranean Air Forces etc each day do not show 2TAF straying into 9th AF air space.

On the day we were talking about, the sweep 274 Sqn is recorded as flying did not get within 75 miles of Remagen.

Without seeing the orders I think we can show a negative

Martin

All I am referring to is the orders would have identified their assigned task and route to be taken. From that and the after action report, which often is not captured in the 541, would provide more details of the supposed engagement.

Stephen