searching for details on, I./ZG 76 Hauptmann Werner Restemeyer

[Larry deZeng]

Robert wrote in part:

He was escorting a raid by KG 26 to attack the airfield at Dishforth, Yorkshire. Restemeyer was the first to fall when they were intercepted by 72 Squadron: this was some 30 miles northeast of Holy Island which is some 50 miles north of County Durham.

Could it be, Robert, that the Mason account and your account are both correct? Perhaps the initial interception occurred 30 miles northeast of Holy Island, was drawn out over a number of miles, and R's Bf 110 was eventually splashed by the Spits off County Durham? Is the evidence empirical that his aircraft actually went into the sea c.30 miles NE of Holy Is.? Mason's fine, ground-breaking work published by McWhirter Twins Ltd. in 1969 no doubt has many errors in it considering what he had to work with back 40 years ago. I wonder what the more recent (1988?) volume 1 of The Blitz Then and Now has to say about it? I have volumes 2 and 3 or this work, but not volume 1.

Larry

[Peter Cornwell]

RESTEMEYER's loss is not included in The Blitz Then & Now Vol.1 as it falls outside the criteria we adopted for inclusion i.e. 'only those German aircraft which fell in or close to Britain'. Thus, if an aircraft did not come down in the UK or no crew were recovered from an aircraft that crashed in the sea they were not included. More complete coverage of Lw losses for the period can be found listed in the earlier work The Battle of Britain Then & Now (1980).

[northeagle]

Hi Larry,
I am aware of the quality of Mason's 'Battle Over Britain' and i am not knocking it. Number 72 Squadron were the first to intercept the German formation well north of Holy Island. Flt Lt Ted Graham, CO 72 Sqdn, led the attack on the bombers and in his words...'I fired one long burst at a He 111, passed through the formation my ammunition expended, I went home.' Therefore, his battle lasted all of 14 seconds.
Desmond Sheen was told to attack the fighters and he was to state: I led the attack on the Me 110s. One turned towards me, I fired and it blew up in my face.' Again, literally seconds. All of 72 Squadron had returned to Acklington before the German formation got anywhere near half way down the coast of Northumberland..79 Squadron then took over.
Peter Cornwell is correct, the account appears in the 'Battle of Britain Then and Now'. This states, of Restemeyer:'Failed to return from sortie to east coast of England off Newcastle.' Same for Oblt Loobes however, both were to fall north of Holy Island.
It looks as if one writer has merely copied what an earlier one had written. Obviousely they have no sense of geography as the coast of Northumberland is some 50 miles long. Certainly the battle raged down the coast but not with one squadron: 79 and 605 Sqdns had had a piece of the action before 607 Squadron went into action over Whitley Bay and that is on the southern end of Northumberland.

Best Wishes.
Robert.

[Larry deZeng]

Thank you Robert and Peter.

It appears then that Mason and the author of the 1980 book took their loss information exclusively from the Gen.Qu.(6.Abt.) Verlustmeldungen and did not corroborate it again the relevant RAF ORBs and related documentation in the archives.

Although it is certainly welcome to have the truth as best it can be determined after so many years, I am inclined to forgive Francis K. Mason and his successor. We all know how difficult and costly it is to double- and triple-check every single detail in a massive undertaking such as this, and that's why historical accounts of a given subject so often tend to progress over time from the broader overview to the more particular and detailed.

Thanks again for your account of this incident.

Larry

[Peter Cornwell]

Larry,

Thank you for your comments. I cannot answer for Frank Mason but your assumption that the information as published by me in BoBT&N (1980) was taken directly from the Gen.Qu.(6.Abt.) Verlustmeldungen is correct. The suggestion that I copied Mason is so far from the truth it is risible but disappointing given that I was at pains to do exactly the opposite. You also display a greater appreciation than others on the sheer practicalities of research of this kind which, I would point out - though not in mitigation, was undertaken over three decades ago and, thus, before the bulk of the essential source materials were even in the public domain.

[Larry deZeng]

Originally Posted by Peter Cornwell

Larry,
Thank you for your comments. I cannot answer for Frank Mason but your assumption that the information as published by me in BoBT&N (1980) was taken directly from the Gen.Qu.(6.Abt.) Verlustmeldungen is correct. The suggestion that I copied Mason is so far from the truth it is risible but disappointing given that I was at pains to do exactly the opposite. You also display a greater appreciation than others on the sheer practicalities of research of this kind which, I would point out - though not in mitigation, was undertaken over three decades ago and, thus, before the bulk of the essential source materials were even in the public domain.

As a researcher and author myself, I couldn't agree more. If one considers a number, date, place name, personal name, rank, event, etc., as stand alone factual elements, then any one of the books we have been discussing here contains many tens of thousands of them. Accordingly, the chance and probability for error predicated on sheer volume alone is extraordinarily high. A good researcher and historian can only do his best to present as accurate account as possible.

[northeagle]

Originally Posted by Peter Cornwell

Larry,

Thank you for your comments. I cannot answer for Frank Mason but your assumption that the information as published by me in BoBT&N (1980) was taken directly from the Gen.Qu.(6.Abt.) Verlustmeldungen is correct. The suggestion that I copied Mason is so far from the truth it is risible but disappointing given that I was at pains to do exactly the opposite. You also display a greater appreciation than others on the sheer practicalities of research of this kind which, I would point out - though not in mitigation, was undertaken over three decades ago and, thus, before the bulk of the essential source materials were even in the public domain.

Hi Peter,
That comment of mine was not aimed at either you or 'Battle Of Britain Then And Now' It was a generalisation and nothing more. Had I listed every publication the list would have run off the page.

Best Wishes.
Robert.