Clostermann official score

[Franek Grabowski]

I would suggest to not to discuss the book, but documents. In the Broadhurst document there is no mention of Me 262.
I do not quite get it, how would Broadhurst have to sign a document not containing the truth to his best knowledge. So, unless it is all fake, and as yet there is no evidence, it is, there is a question of discrepancies between the document and other records.

[RodM]

Hi Franek,

I have managed to look at TNA AIR 37/5: 2nd. T.A.F. Log of Casualty Claims, Assessments and Losses, which is more or less the final word on Clostermann's official claims while flying in the 2nd TAF.


274 Squadron

1 Messerschmitt 109 destroyed in the air (5/3/1945)
Claimed: 1 x Me.109 DES in air
Final Assessment: 1 x Me.109 DES (air)
Remarks: 4 Me's met in HENGELO area at 0 ft.

1 Messerschmitt 109 destroyed in the air (14/3/1945)
No such claim

1 Messerschmitt 109 probable in the air (14/3/1945)
No such claim


1 Messerschmitt 109 probable in the air (14/3/45)
No such claim


56 Squadron

1 Fieseler 156 destroyed in the air (28/3/45)
Claimed: 1 x Fi.156 DES on the ground
Final Assessment: 1 x Fi.156 DES (gnd)
Remarks: A/R's RHEINE-MUNSTER-HANNOVER. E/A destroyed on ground A.8989. 1 a/c, 3 Sqn, hit by flak pilot safe.

1 Focke Wulf 190 destroyed in the air (2/4/45)
2 Junkers 188 damaged on ground (2/4/45)
Claimed: 1 x FW.190 DES in the air, 2 x Ju.88 DAM on the ground
Final Assessment: 1 x FW.190 DES (air), 2 x Ju.88 DAM (gnd)
Remarks: A/R. FW after taking off and Ju.88's in dispersal at VECHTA A/F.

1 Junkers 88 destroyed in the air (5/4/45)
No such claim


2 Focke Wulf 190 damaged in the air (5/4/45)
Claimed: 2 x FW.190 DAM in the air
Final Assessment: 2 x FW.190 DAM (air)
Remarks: Patrols OSNABRUCK-UCHTE. 7 FW's seen at OSNABRUCK and chased to HAMELN. 1 Cat E due to flak pilot safe 80 Sqn.

1 Junkers 188 probable on ground (5/4/45)
No such claim


3 Junkers 88 damaged on ground (5/4/45)
No such claim


3 Squadron

2 Heinkel 177 probably dest. on ground (19/4/1945)
No such claim


2 Heinkel 177 damaged on ground (19/4/1945)
No such claim


2 Focke-Wulf 190 destroyed in the air (20/4/1945)
Claimed: 2 x FW.190 DES in the air
Final Assessment: 2 x FW.190 DES (air)
Remarks: Patrol. 12+ FW.190's at zero ft S.2530.

1 Focke Wulf 190 destroyed in the air (3/5/1945)
2 Focke Wulf 190 damaged on ground (2/5/1945)
May 3rd.
Claimed: 1 x FW.190 DES & 2 x FW.190 DAM on the ground
Final Assessment: 1 x FW.190 DES (gnd) & 2 x FW.190 DAM (gnd)
Remarks: A/R. 2 Fi.156's seen in air at N.7723. 8 Fw's seen on camouflaged strip at O.1337.

2 Dornier 24 destroyed in the air (3/5/1945)
1 Junkera 252 destroyed on t.o. (3/5/1945)
1 Blom & Vhoss 138 destroyed on ground (3/5/1945)
1 Junkera 352 destroyed on ground (3/5/1945)
2 Arado 232 damaged on ground (3/5/1945)
Claimed:
1 x Do.24 DES & 1 x Do.24 DAM on the ground
2 x Bv.138 DAM on the ground
2 x A2.232 DAM on the ground
1 x Ju.352 DAM on the ground
Final Assessment:
2 x Do.24 DES (gnd)
2 x Bv.138 DAM (gnd)
2 x Ar.232 DAM (gnd)
1 x Ju.352 DAM (gnd)CORRECTION: 1 x Ju.352 DES (gnd)
Remarks: A/R. Kiel area. 100+ E/A parked on land and Seaplane base at GROSSENBRODE.

2 Dornier 18 destroyed on ground (4/5/1945)
2 Dorniers 18 damaged on ground (4/5/1945)
Claimed: 2 x Do.18 DES on the ground
Final Assessment: 2 x Do.18 DES (gnd)
Remarks: A/R's. All a/c attacked on water at SCHLESWIG Seaplane base, except Me.110 on ground at SCHLESWIG A/F.

NOTE - the remarks in the log distinguish between aircraft attacked in the air or on the ground. Any aircraft getting airborne is usually noted.

Thus, the distinction between "in the air" / "(air)" and "on the ground" / "(gnd)" is my addition based on the document remarks (and TNA AIR 37/692, which does implicitly state if a claim was on the ground). The tabular list of claims and assessments in TNA AIR 37/5 doesn't distinguish between air and ground claims.

ADDENDA:

Franek, in response to your original question:

1 Focke Wulf 190 destroyed in the air (2/4/45)
2 Junkers 188 damaged on ground (2/4/45)
Claimed: 1 x FW.190 DES in the air, 2 x Ju.88 DAM on the ground
Final Assessment: 1 x FW.190 DES (air), 2 x Ju.88 DAM (gnd)
Remarks: A/R. FW after taking off and Ju.88's in dispersal at VECHTA A/F.

I./NJG4 possibly had Ju88s at Vechta on 2.4.1945. They were in the process of withdrawing from Vechta and Diepholz at that time. There were four Ju88G1s left at Vechta on 30.3.1945. At least one of these was flown out on 1.4.1945.

Sadly, the rich body of ULTRA material for I./NJG4 (in the TNA HW 5 series) dried up after 30 March 1945, so there is no confirmation of any Ju88s lost or damaged with that Gruppe.

BArch RL 2-II/389, which usually details bombing and strafing attacks against Luftwaffe airfields, has no information on such airfield attacks on 2.4.1945. This will simply be an omission due to the war situation.

[Stig Jarlevik]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

I always wondered why he had that letter from Broadhurst. I don't remember reading that any other 2TAF pilot had (or requested) one, or did every successful pilot receive such a letter from the Air Marshal?

I have hesitated to join this discussion, but since most of us have our own opinion about Clostermann
and his claims, here I go...

I think we need to look at the post war political situation in France where
a) the Communist Party/cause was quite strong
b) de Gaulle desperately trying to hold on to power.
At that point it would no do to have the French top ace to be someone from the
Eastern Front - Normandie Niemen - to take that credit.

Since no Western political leader wanted to have any bonus coming the communist way,
de Gaulle probably asked Churchill to provide him (Clostermann) with a document
proving he was the top ace!
Remember that Clostermann was very much a de Gaulle man himself.

Broadhurst, willing or not, was tasked to produce the by now infamous document and that is
where the official French view now rests.

Cheers
Stig

[Franek Grabowski]

Hi Rod
Many thanks for that. I think that the last check should be Cardex records, just to assure, what is there.
I am well aware of late war quality of records. I wonder about other victories, still.


Stig
The claim that Broadhurst produced a false document is a serious allegation. If forced indeed to produce one, I would guess that there should be something in his papers, but where are they?
Then, I am fully aware of political situation in France, but I do not quite get, why relatively unknown pilot, who vanished in civilian life would have been favouret more than Albert or Demozay, both also from FAFL?
This does not add up, unless there is something we do not know about Clostermann.


Franek

[Stig Jarlevik]

Franek

One could look at the problem facing France in 1945 from many perspectives.
Just looking at the "aviation" situation it is very clear that Clostermann was an ardent supporter
of de Gaulle.

Aviators were very much individual heros at that time and to have (or create) the top ace must
after all have been, if not a top priority, at least pretty high on the list of things to do.

Albert was out, he had been in the N-N unit and was probably as far from de Gaulle as anyone could be.
DeMozay is an unwritten card for me. I believe he died pretty soon after the war ended and what
the Republic needed was a living hero.
Perhaps he was no great supporter as such of de Gaulle? No idea really.
The point is, he was not chosen, Clostermann was!

Since we by now know that there is no way Clostermann could have scored 33 victories, how else
do you explain the supposed written document by Broadhurst?
How do you explain why it was (had to be) written in the first place?

I am not actually pointing any fingers at Broadhurst as such. He most likely did what he was
ordered to do. The Germans have a pretty good sentence for it. Befehl ist befehl, but that does not mean
you have to like it....

BTW has anyone actually seen that document? Would be interesting to know when it was dated.

But again Franek, we are all entitled to have our own opinions, you as well as I
Cheers
Stig

[Franek Grabowski]

Stig


The document is stamped 1 November 1945. At the time Demozay was still alive and on a senior position. Albert was FAFL and was send to Soviet Union by de Gaulle. He was not, like others, ex-Vichy pilot. His career seems undisturbed.
At the time Clostermann was just another pilot, who left military service, and there is nothing to indicate he was considered any extraordinary at the time.
So I do not get the point, and really not sure why Broadhurst woul have to produce the paper. I think it is a unique case, exceptional.


Franek

[Stig Jarlevik]

Well Franek

When you (or anyone else) find the reason/solution, please tell us about it.

Cheers
Stig

[Franek Grabowski]

Stig


I have no slightest idea, but while I cannot exclude some sort of conspiracy, I find existing conspiracy theories completely unfounded.


It is interesting case, as while we have had some cases of frauds during the war by claiming false victories for gongs, and growing number of successes well after the war, this case is much different.


Franek