Identifications of German victories over East Prussia in October 1944

[Stig Jarlevik]

PS: Looking at Wood's list I wonder why the claims are written as they are?

Obviously the NJG 5's claim has nothing to do with III./JG 52' claims and should be on a separate line.

Also Batz' claim 10.43H is out of line and should be listed after his 10.33H claim and not after his afternoon claims.

As far as III./JG 52 goes, looking at the times, they thus flew one morning mission and one afternoon mission.
Unless the Germans were still shooting up the clouds or thin air it begs the question what morning missions
did the Soviets fly?
I cannot see any relevant details in your summary of 1VA
If the Soviets did not fly any missions in that period the German claims are not overclaiming, they are plainly falsified!

Cheers
Stig

[Laurent Rizzotti]

10h30 German time = 12h30 Moscow time, so a part of 1 VA activity is close to the German claims hour.

Ad for Wood's list I have downloaded them a dozen years ago and compiled in one Word file heavily reworked in the past years, but I have apparently never work on 23 October 1944 as my setup is the same.

If we exclude the claims of JG 51 (N of Warsaw), II./JG 52 (in Hungary) and NJG 5 (night claim), the German claims over East Prussia according to the Wood list are:

23.10.44 Hptm. Wilhelm Batz Stab III./JG 52 LaGG  25 388: 300 m. [SSE Gumbinnen] 10.30 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. -
23.10.44 Fhr. Dembeck III./JG 52 Il-2 m.H.  25 382: 300 m. [SE Gumbinnen] 10.30 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. -
23.10.44 Hptm. Wilhelm Batz Stab III./JG 52 LaGG  25 523: 1.000 m. [SE Gumbinnen] 10.33 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. -
23.10.44 Hptm. Wilhelm Batz Stab III./JG 52 LaGG  25 533: 1.300 m. [SE Gumbinnen] 10.43 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. -

23.10.44 Maj. Werner Dörnbrack Stab I./SG 4 Yak-9  Location: 1500 m.[East Prussia] 13.00 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 15

23.10.44 Uffz. Arras 9./JG 52 LaGG  25 319: 400 m. [N Gumbinnen] 13.58 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. -
23.10.44 Ltn. Hans-Joachim Birkner 9./JG 52 LaGG  25 314: 400 m. [NW Gumbinnen] 14.00 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. -
23.10.44 Hptm. Wilhelm Batz Stab III./JG 52 LaGG  25 397: 800 m. [SE Gumbinnen] 14.00 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. -

23.10.44 Hptm. Wilhelm Batz Stab III./JG 52 LaGG  25 389: 4.000 m. [SE Gumbinnen] 14.39 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. -

So at least four distinct air battles:
Around 1030-1040 hrs (1230-1240 Moscow time): SE of Gumbinnen III./JG 52 vs Il-2 & "LaGG"
Around 1300 hrs (1500 Moscow time): unknown location, I./SG 4 vs "Yak-9"
Around 1400 hrs (1600 Moscow time): III./JG 52 vs "LaGG" (around Gumbinnen)
Around 1440 hrs (1640 Moscow time): III./JG 52 vs "LaGG" (SE Gumbinnen)

Please note that Batz' claim at 1400 hrs is in the same area than his claim of 1439 hrs, and not in the same area than other III./JG 52 claims at the time, so probably something is wrong there, either time or location

German losses in JG and SG were limited according to the Luftwaffe summary losses database: only one aircraft of III./JG 52 was destroyed by gunfire from enemy aircraft.

[HGabor]

"If the Soviets did not fly any missions in that period the German claims are not overclaiming, they are plainly falsified!"

It happened in Hungary too. One day in November, 1944 the weather was so bad that the Soviets had only a single A-20G Boston recon. sortie during the entire day (which by the way returned OK), all of their other planes stayed on the ground, yet the Germans claimed 'aerial victories'.

Surely these claims were reported way before the age of the Internet and public access to the military records of the other side.

Gabor

PS: I am not saying that only the Germans did such things, but now we are talking about them.

[Stig Jarlevik]

Laurent

Excluding the SG 4 claim, I only see III./JG 52 making two missions.
No way Bartz is making a claim 14.00 going back to refuel and up again in a new combat 40 minutes later making a new claim. Just don't buy that.

The Germans early claims are extremely marginal vs the reported Soviet mission times.
Somehow I need better details than that....

Cheers
Stig

[ZhekaB]

Hi Stig!
Don't you think that Batz could make claime soon after take off at 14:00 and then 14:00 few minutes befor return, both in one sortie?
Nevertheless, more details neded endeed. Especialy I wonder why so few data about Schlachgrupen action?
By the way, Group Army "Mitte"'s day report aprove Tony Wood's list staying that 23 october fighters got 15 kills in area Serock and Gumbinnen. (2 by IV./JG 51 in Serock and 13 by others in Gumbinnen, exept 1 night kill).

[Stig Jarlevik]

Originally Posted by ZhekaB

Hi Stig!
Don't you think that Batz could make claime soon after take off at 14:00 and then 14:00 few minutes befor return, both in one sortie?

Oh yes I can
But that is not the point I am making.
I don't believe Batz was on his second mission at 14.00H and his third at 14.39H. I believe he was on one and the same mission when claiming his two afternoon victories.

Cheers
Stig

[Courtois Laurent]

Originally Posted by Stig Jarlevik

If the Soviets did not fly any missions in that period the German claims are not overclaiming, they are plainly falsified!

Cheers
Stig

There remains the possibility that the German pilots attacked weather reconnaissance and reconnaissance flights. Each Soviet regiment sends out a patrol at the beginning of the day to test the weather. Despite the absence of Soviet losses, it is therefore possible that shots were fired against Soviet planes, which were very easily able to escape due to bad weather conditions.

We could therefore be more, as the 2:39 claim shows, in overconfidence than in pure fictional victories.

[NagaSadow]

The claims of J.G. 52 were all seems to have been directly above or at least in the general area of Fsch.Panzerkorps Hermann Göring apart from the Birkner & Arras claims. The daily report of the Korps to A.O.K. 4 mentions one German attack starting 0930 in the Plicken/Kettenberg area and Soviet attacks with strong air support during the mid-morning hours ("...während des Vormittags unter bisher größtem Luftwaffeneinsatz...") against the eastern flank of the corps and against Schweizerau and Mattischkehmen. The 1030-1043 claims seemed to have been directly above or within a few km of the frontline. For the afternoon strong Soviet attacks with air support are reported for 1430 in the Groß Trakehnen/Wildau area. Further German attacks are mentioned in the hours before and after 1530 in the Birkenhöhe/Brückental/Girnen area (Batz 1400 & 1430). Generally regarding aerial activity Fsch.Panzerkorps HG reported strong Luftwaffe support at hotspots of the fighting and strong enemy air attacks by ground attacks and fighter units throughout the day against the front/main combat line and heavy weapon positions. (“Die feind. Luftwaffe griff während des ganzen Tages mit starken Schlacht- und Jagdflugzeugverbänden HKL und die Stellungen der schw. Waffen an.“)

[Courtois Laurent]

24 October 1944

This day the germans claim 7 victories on the Gross trapez 25 of the 25 Ost Map. 6 of them, in the Mitteltrapez 253, i.e. the gumbinnen's area and one in the Mitteltrapez 255 i.e. the goldap's area.

4 of them take place in the same period of time (12:49 p.m. to 12:51 p.m.) and in the same Mitteltrapez (253) which corresponds to the Gumbinnen sector and Kleintrapez (2538) which corresponds to the Gross Walterkehmen sub-sector ( before 1938, toponym used by the Soviets) ie Gross Waltersdorf (post 1938 toponym used by the Germans). With the German victories, it is thus necessary to seek a Soviet attacks along the Rominte river between Augstupönen (Hochfliess) and Walterkehmen (Gross Waltersdorf). This sector corresponds to the counter-offensive sector of the 5th Panzer Division and 5th Heavy Panzer Detachment.

20 minutes (12:33) earlier in the same sector, Friedrich Simon of 9./JG 51 claims a LaGG-5 in PlQu 25383 Skardupchen

still in the same time slot 24 Oct 44, Joachim Brendel of Stab III./JG 51 claims an Il-2 Sturmovik at 12:45 15 km North-East (25511-Krauzleidszen)

At 3:38 p.m., Karl Gratz of Stab /JG 52 claimed LaGG 5 km NW of Gumbinnen (25373 – Angerek).

For their part, the Soviets (1 VA) deplore the loss of 6 planes, including 2 due to enemy aviation (1 Il2 and La5), 2 Il2 shot down by the Flak and 2 Il2 missing.

7 claim for 6 losses everything seems to be fine, but looking at the details, it will appear some problems.

The Germans claim 4 il-2, so we will look at ShaD activity:

1 Gv Shad: in reserve.

311 ShaD: carrying out reconnaissance in the Gross Trakehnen sector and combat and reconnaissance missions in the Goldap region do not report having encountered any enemy aircraft.

277 ShAD, performs reconnaissance flights from 7:43 a.m. to 6:05 p.m. and combat missions from 11:40 a.m. to 6:05 p.m. under the protection of planes of the 129 ShaD equipped with La-5. in the sectors of:
Plawischken (5 km N of Goldap), Gross Gudellen, Eszergallen (10 km N of Goldap), Gawaïten, Kariotkehmen (15 NW of Goldalp).
No battle losses.


182 Shad regrets the loss of 2 Il2 destroyed by Flaks, 1 destroyed by AI and 2 missing. It carries out two assault missions from 2:15 p.m. to 2:40 p.m. and from 5:10 p.m. to 5:20 p.m. Sector Walleykehmen, Jentkutkampen (25333) Brakupönen-Karmohen (10 km NW Gumbinnen – 2 km south of Pillkallen).

Report of the 182nd ShAD: The tasks of the division: during the day 24.10.44. by successive strikes of groups of six aircraft in the period from 12:00 p.m. to 12:45 p.m., destroyed artillery pieces, enemy troops in the sectors of Schilleningken (25414), Schwirgallen (25414), Uszdeggen (25336), target No. 59 (10 km NW Stallupönen) with the task of assisting the ground troops offensive. At 2:35 p.m., the first six 397 ShAPs appeared over the target, followed by six IL-2 64 ShAPs, then the groups arrived at the target with an interval of 15 minutes, the action of the aircraft of attack in formation of combat in a free circle at an altitude of 300 to 1100 mt. of 3-4 rotations making 5-6 attacks. The enemy provided strong opposition with flak and fighter fire.
In total 19 groups composed of 111 aircraft (flight time of 109 hours 10 m.)
Our losses - 6 crew did not return from the combat mission, 1 crew in the Gumbinen area was shot down by enemy fighters, 3 crew in the target area were hit by flak fire and two crew were missing.

397 Shap:
Losses: Cptn MALEVANNOGO Danil


We are therefore faced with a problem, the losses of Il-2 taking place N of Stallupönen around 12:30 p.m. (10:30 a.m. for the Germans) and the German claims to the S of Gumbinen at 2:50 p.m. (12:50 p.m. for the Germans).

The only unit carrying out a reconaissance-attack mission with 6 il-2s protected by fighters (Yak9 from memory) in the Gross Waltterke sector is the 311 ShaD, but it did not encounter any enemy aircraft.

So the question is who did the Stab/JG51 attack?



Now let's try to identify victories and combat between fighter aircraft.

303 IAD: 4 combats no losses.

129 IAD: performs protection missions for the benefit of the 182nd and 277th ShAD.
3 combat losses of an La-5 -
Our losses: Shot down during an air battle during the Il-2 escort of the 182 ShAD, the pilot Ltn KOKURIN of the 863rd IAP. Fallen in enemy territory 10 km west of STALLUPENEN.





Although we don't know Ltn Kokurin's time, the circumstances and theirs suggest that the time must be around 12:30 p.m., or 10:30 a.m. German. Which does not correspond to any claim of the Luftwaffe.




805 IAP: protect during the day the 64th ShAP AND 539th Shap of the 182nd ShAD. 1 combat against 4 Fw 190 and 2 Me 109, without result.

130 IAD: 2 fights without loss or victory

240 IAD: two combats having opposed 4 Yak-9 (133rd Gv IAP) to 4 Me 109 and 4 FW 190. without losses or results.

Conclusion: Although reading the available Soviet archives did not allow us to identify the battles that led to German claims, it appears that none of the German claims could be linked to a loss of Soviet aircraft.

[HGabor]

"Conclusion: Although reading the available Soviet archives did not allow us to identify the battles that led to German claims, it appears that none of the German claims could be linked to a loss of Soviet aircraft."

Interesting conclusion and (although I have not researched it), I think it can be true. But to avoid the false impression that the Germans just made up their claims we have to admit that very often the German pilots hit their opponents very hard indeed, but some Soviet airplanes were even harder and returned to their bases with serious damages where they were repaired in 1-2 days and returned to combat service. It is possible that in the wild circumstances the Germans could not, or did not want to waste their time (and life) verifying the burning Soviet planes on the ground, so they reported their claims based on their impression which now turned out to be wrong. This could be a reasonable explanation for the numbers.

Gabor