New information on the Experte Schwarm

[harrison987]

Thanks Bryan!

That is exactly what I was talking about...

;D

Mike

[Nick Beale]

Bryan, I'm supposed to be a moderator round here but words like the following come close to provoking an immoderate response:

The authors of FOTD ... in my opinion, were sloppy ... They didn’t use complete records. When I asked one of the FOTD authors he confirmed that he never had full access to RAF records in the first place.

I hope it isn't news to you that almost every historian who ever lived didn't use "complete records" because the records are almost never complete, or if they are there's still much they can't tell you. You do the best with the evidence you have. By your argument no Luftwaffe history should even be attempted because almost all its records were destroyed.

You may also have noticed that we are crossing a threshold now: many more documentary sources have been discovered or declassified while the number of living participants rapidly reduces. Whatever the inevitable imperfections of work done 40 or more years ago, that pioneering effort is what all contemporary researchers build on.

Still, you have probably managed to bring the version of events in "Fighters Over The Desert" to the attention of far more people than would have seen a copy otherwise.

[harrison987]

To this day, many people believe that ALL Germans were Nazis...and therefore "any" act of humanity cannot be true.

The Allies had a great propaganda machine, as with the Germans. All we hear or see on TV today is how evil all Germans were, and how good the Allies were...and the moment any event of humanity and kindness is brought to the light, the first reaction is, "that cannot be true"...

The same propaganda has trained most to believe the Swastika means "Nazi", when in reality, it means "Good Luck". It has so for thousands of years, in MANY cultures, which is why the Nazi Party adopted it to being with. But...can my next door neighbor who moved from India to start a better life in the US hang a Swastika above his door? No...because people ONLY identify this 1000+ year emblem with a 6 year time period of war, when ALL Germans were apparently "all evil and inhumane".

When the Hood was destroyed by Bismark, there was an immediate resounding joy from the Germans. The exact same joy the Brits felt when they sunk the Bismark in revenge.

However...almost immediately, both sides felt a sudden rush of extreme sadness...human emotion...due to the amount of people that were just killed or are now floating helplessly in the water - regardless of what side they were on.

In the heat of the moment, they were fighting the ship...not the many 19 year old kids who were manning the radio, aiming the guns, or who were the resident cooks.

German sailors saved Allied sailors from the water...and Allied sailors saved German.

This is a proven fact.

The event with Stigler is no different, and not at all as "uncommon" as one would think.

There was a great respect and camaraderie between pilots (even today), and I doubt any of you claiming "the event could not be true", have ever fought in war, or been in a 6 year non-stop air battle.

Regardless what "side" those were on in WW2, or what events transpired, we are all human beings with emotions. Depending on the situation, someone will act or react - many people will do so differently from one another.

Stigler made a decision, based on human emotion.

Stigler did not "escort" the B-17 to the North Sea to see him home...but rather flew next to him because in his mind...with the blood, chaos, and damage done to the B-17, FlaK or anyone else downing it would be like "shooting at a parachute".

I bet if the story's were reversed, and it was a US pilot initiating an "Act of kindness" towards a German, no one would ever be questioning it.

Mike

[CJE]

Originally Posted by ValorStudios

When we asked Franz about this he laughed and said "Of course we did, the new guy had some ammo left over so Vogel had him "shoot the shadow" as we often did to practice gunnery."

Not keen to fuel in the debate, but I'd like to understand why, if this was such a common practice, this fact was reported by Lt Stahlschmidt to his Kommandeur?

[ValorStudios]

Gentlemen,

By all means, don’t get the wrong impression. In my prior post I should have been clear—I'm not trying to pretend the Experte Scwharm didn't exist or didn't overclaim. It clearly happened. In fact, in "A Higher Call" we devoted an entire chapter to discussion of it. And it’s honestly a fascinating bit of history.

And it’s based on new research. Of course, G.R. Morrison, I've had access to all the same data that Prien/Shores/Ring reported so those victory tallies aren't new to me. The victory claim times I used for August 16 are from Wood's compilation which also match FOTD.

Nick, when I mentioned having the "complete records" I'm referring to the RAF Form 441, which are the sortie reports for each squadron, filled out after each mission. FOTD used the form 440 which was the monthly summary. I consider the use of both documents together as "complete records" since you can't get any more specific than the form 441.

My goal with this post was to make one indisputable point - on a day when the Experte Schwarm has been accused of “inventing combat,” the Form 441 records show they were in fact in combat with 5 SAAF.

The records confirm this. And Russell said it best, "all of the main players could and had shot down aeroplanes."

My urging is that people consider first hand sources for this story, which are available now. It appears that everything written to date about the Experte Schwarm was devised without talking to a single pilot involved in the incident. Did anyone consult with Roedel (who handled the investigation of the Experte Schwarm), or Stigler, or Bendert, or Vogel who were all alive well into the post war years? I think not.

For "A Higher Call," we did rely on first hand perspectives, from Stigler and Rodel. And we discovered a new perspective. The Expert Flight may have been a flight of 4 but it often operated in rottes (elements). And who’s to say that each pair did not behave differently? Franz said they did.

Franz and Sawallisch would fly as wingmen at times, just the two of them. Whereas Vogel and Bendert would fly independently at another time. Russell can surely show the RAF records on Aug 10th that prove Franz and Sawallisch were in combat with 4 SAAF, there's detail of the combat and planes being downed and damaged. Whereas later that same day, Vogel and Bendert, flying alone, attacked 2 SAAF and RAF 80 and both squadrons reported "no results" and "ineffective attacks." Despite this, Vogel and Bendert each claimed two victories.

Franz and Rodel both held true to the statement that the impropriety came from the top, down. Vogel was the acting Gruppe leader at the time. Bendert was one of the highest scoring aces in the desert. Swallisch was new, transferred from the Eastern Front. And Franz was still a rookie, having been in combat just over three months.

Here's what Rodel's interview had to say about Vogel/Bendert:

“I do not think that it was a matter of intentionally lying about their victories, but it was proven to have been gross negligence in claiming victories simply because a pilot shoots at an aircraft, maybe getting hits, but not confirming the crash or the pilot getting out. The situation stained all involved in the Group and that flight, and even Stigler and I were questioned. Bad business really.”

Up to the day of his death, Franz truly believed in his victories. Roedel believed in them as well. So did Galland who allowed Franz to join JV-44. And Franz went to JG-27 reunions up to his dying day and never received anything but camaraderie and praise from his comrades who were there.

Why is it impossible for us 65+ years later to be open to the possibility that Franz Stigler flew and fought with honor? Yes, he found himself in a flight with two of the most senior pilots of the desert, who engaged in excessively lose claiming. Why does that make him guilty? Isn’t that guilty by association? And is that fair?

Russell, I’m so glad to hear that your team is working on a new version of FOTD that will include all the RAF records now available. I’ll be more than happy to send you the materials we’ve compiled including both Franz and Roedel’s commentary, what do you say? It’s my great hope that a fair and honest accounting can finally be presented, using all sources available.

- Bryan

[John Beaman]

OK, guys, interesting discussion here, which is why this forum exists.

However, some posts are bordering on personal attacks, which are not allowed. Be VERY careful and keep the discussion strictly limited to facts, or, if speculation, clearly label it as such. Do not massage "facts" to fit your speculation.

[Rob Romero]

FOTD was a FANTASTIC, incredibly well researched book for it's time (1969); a pioneering work in the gritty details of aerial combat for an entire theater of war over an extended length of time; given the scope of the work it is inevitable that there were errors -perhaps some were glaring. But SHAME to anyone who suggests this was a poorly reaserched effort.
Aside from the additional details of combats included in this thread, what REALLY interests me here are indications that a revised edition of FOTD is in the works; I've heard rumblings of this for more than a decade; and here we have confirmation. I'm dying to know when this might see the light of day!

Thanks

[Nick Hector]

Rob,

The book HAS BEEN RELEASED. A previous thread on this forum led me to that fact and I have an order placed with a mate of mine who runs his own specialist book and model shop. I am eagerly awaiting its arrival as we speak - just as Russell is.

It will be good for us all to read and update our own personal researches/knowledges/databases and provide ourselves with some basis of documented facts.

...Certainly a whole lot better than simply putting lists together based on who has said what about certain pilots over the chinese whispers of the internet.

[Frank Olynyk]

Rob,
Check the thread "New Books from Chris Shores" in the Books and Magazines section of TOCH (now on page 3), to see the scope of The Mediterranean Air War. Volume one was published last June, volume two should appear "sometime" this year.

Enjoy!

Frank.

[ahafan]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

Bryan, I'm supposed to be a moderator round here but words like the following come close to provoking an immoderate response:

The authors of FOTD ... in my opinion, were sloppy ... They didn’t use complete records. When I asked one of the FOTD authors he confirmed that he never had full access to RAF records in the first place.

I hope it isn't news to you that almost every historian who ever lived didn't use "complete records" because the records are almost never complete, or if they are there's still much they can't tell you. You do the best with the evidence you have. By your argument no Luftwaffe history should even be attempted because almost all its records were destroyed.

You may also have noticed that we are crossing a threshold now: many more documentary sources have been discovered or declassified while the number of living participants rapidly reduces. Whatever the inevitable imperfections of work done 40 or more years ago, that pioneering effort is what all contemporary researchers build on.

Still, you have probably managed to bring the version of events in "Fighters Over The Desert" to the attention of far more people than would have seen a copy otherwise.

Hi
well they were fighting for the -third Reich..Nick;