New book 'Fury', by Arnaud Gillet

[dave gaydon]

Dear Iain
here is the attachment which didn't go on the last post.
David.

[Iain Torrance]

I have had a look over the QT-H question.

I attach two images (in one file). By looking closely at markings on the fuselage (note particularly to the left of the ‘H’ plane code) I am confident the images are of the same plane.

One image shows the propeller unbent and the camouflage netting stakes in the background and, significantly dirt piled on the wing – all consistent with the image Dave (G-ASEA) posted.

On the other image the front of the plane is not visible but the surrounding trees are in the background. The dirt piled on the wing in the foreground is deceptive and gives the appearance of the wing not being present.

Could this be the answer to Many’s QT-H photo question?

I’ll do another posting on Dave Gaydon's question, hopefully this weekend.

(also hopefully I’ve now mastered up loading files to this site!!)

Kind regards

[Many Souffan]

Hello Ian
The photo I have is exactly the photo you show (upper side) in your file, and I think also it is the same plane that the G-ASEA show.

Maybe the difference between the photo of G-ASEA and mine, the first, the Germans tried to use some woods to lift up the plane.

And for mine the dust or sand recovered the wings, with the feelings that the Battle has not his wing. And was taken early before...

Thank you (and sorry for my bad English)

[Iain Torrance]

Dave

Responding on your question re QT-H and L5231.

Firstly I am always cautious on 142 Squ IDs due to the ORB not being contemporary and the errors in plane IDs for 14 May, compounded by the difficulty of reading Srl Nos on photos (indeed anybody got a Srl for QT-L or QT-I???).

However I was surprised that L5231 was proposed as QT-H

My response is that the Roth plane is certainly QT-G crashed at between Longeau and Messancy just inside the Belgium - Luxembourg Border. There is a photo of this plane at p182 of Then and Now. I have seen your tail shot showing the srl no L5231 before and it was attributed to this plane, consistent with ORB.

So on the face of it difficult to explain how the same tail shot is now attributed to QT-H?

However I attach a photo of QT-H in similar position to the QT-H photo you attached. I make the following points.

- the prop of ‘your’ QT-H appears unbent, so not a likely crash
- note in the attached the paint damage on the H plane code consistent with photo of QT-H in standing previously attached in this thread
- there is a lack of damage on the tail plane in the attached which conflicts with the serial no ID photo (though this is not conclusive evidence they are of different planes)
- importantly the trees in the background of the attached are not at all consistent the background in the serial no ID photo

So on balance I suggest the tail shot with L5231 is correctly attributed to QT-G.

Hope that helps – happy to listen to other ideas, see other evidence….

Kind regards

Iain

[dave gaydon]

Dear Iain

Thank you for your response and the time taken to answer my query. I was curious to the possibility but i can now see that the photos, although they were grouped together, are of two seperate aircraft.

Kindest regards
David.

[arnaud]

I like this article :

http://www.lunion.presse.fr/article/...le-14-mai-1940

[Bernard]

Arnaud,
For sure you like it.
I guess that the man who wrote this, went to KEW and checked german archives before to write this.......
You are spoiling the memory of men who lived events in the real life but not in your imagination. I am sure some day ( and it will be soon ) you will have to assume it.
Sincerely yours.
Bernard.

[arnaud]

Peace...

[Bernard]

and truth....
Bernard.

[Many Souffan]

Hello.

Just few words to say that my article about the 14th may and the possibly friendly fires of French fighters is printed out since yesterday in Avions n°177. (11pages)

Thank you