Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum  

Go Back   Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum > Discussion > Allied and Soviet Air Forces

Allied and Soviet Air Forces Please use this forum to discuss the Air Forces of the Western Allies and the Soviet Union.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 2nd January 2020, 17:58
rof120 rof120 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 252
rof120 is on a distinguished road
Re: Book(s) on the 1940 aerial French Campaign

Quote:
Originally Posted by FalkeEins View Post
400 produced, what proportion serviceable or even combat-ready ? 'Avions' no 143 article on GC II/7 page 51 and 'Avions' No 52 page 18 provide some 'context' - my translation. The picture is far more mitigé than you suggest;

" The Dewoitines were being delivered to us piecemeal ('..au compte-goutte..') Finally five pilots and five mechanics flew to Toulouse on board a Bloch 220 on the afternoon of May 14. Once there more surprises awaited us - the aircraft were not ready for a variety of reasons..(...) ..during the spring GC I/3 in Cannes had been tasked with operational testing of the D.520 ("expérimentation opérationelle") and had established a listing of no fewer than 132 changes that would have to be made to production machines before they were suitable for service.** Obviously this had an impact on the rate of production of the aircraft. More seriously however, the CGT (communist trade union and 'maitresse d'oeuvre' at the Toulouse factory) had received an order from the PCF (French communist party) to 'go-slow' on the production of the D.520 as a direct result of the German-Soviet non-aggression pact. The airfield at Francazal was literally awash with aircraft that we couldn't use while our pilots continued to die at the controls of their Ms 406s...our five pilots finally returned with their aircraft ten days later on the 24th.."

(générale de brigade aérienne Duval)

**see Danel/Cuny P66-73 "..l'application des modifications 'bon de guerre'.." - 228 D.520 produced by May 10..only 75 in Armée de l'air service - of which 28 were declared 'non bon de guerre'. By 05 June a total of 138 D.520s had been declared 'bon de guerre' of which 68 (50%) had already been lost..

Quote:
Originally Posted by rof120
34 D.520s took part in the fighting from May 14 on (GC I/3), 68 from May 15 on (GC I/3 and II/3), about 102 on June 1 (add GC II/7) and so forth (units, like for example GC III/6, newly reequipped with D.520s, came back to the front all the time - totalling 5 Groupes de chasse, each with 34-36 D.520s, totalling a complement of 170 D.520s in first-line units. Losses were compensated for without any difficulty (production exceeded 400, "one an hour", as "Flying" put it about 1959).
400 produced, what proportion serviceable or even combat-ready ? 'Avions' no 143 article on GC II/7 page 51 and 'Avions' No 52 page 18 provide some 'context' - my translation. The picture is far more mitigé than you suggest;

" The Dewoitines were being delivered to us piecemeal ('..au compte-goutte..') Finally five pilots and five mechanics flew to Toulouse on board a Bloch 220 on the afternoon of May 14. Once there more surprises awaited us - the aircraft were not ready for a variety of reasons..(...) ..during the spring GC I/3 in Cannes had been tasked with operational testing of the D.520 ("expérimentation opérationelle") and had established a listing of no fewer than 132 changes that would have to be made to production machines before they were suitable for service.** Obviously this had an impact on the rate of production of the aircraft. More seriously however, the CGT (communist trade union and 'maitresse d'oeuvre' at the Toulouse factory) had received an order from the PCF (French communist party) to 'go-slow' on the production of the D.520 as a direct result of the German-Soviet non-aggression pact. The airfield at Francazal was literally awash with aircraft that we couldn't use while our pilots continued to die at the controls of their Ms 406s...our five pilots finally returned with their aircraft ten days later on the 24th.."

(générale de brigade aérienne Duval)

**see Danel/Cuny P66-73 "..l'application des modifications 'bon de guerre'.." - 228 D.520 produced by May 10..only 75 in Armée de l'air service - of which 28 were declared 'non bon de guerre'. By 05 June a total of 138 D.520s had been declared 'bon de guerre' of which 68 (50%) had already been lost..

REPLY

As I underlined already in the very first line of this thread and repeated some time later,

(Exact quotation) “The scores of French fighter pilots (not the aces only) are a difficult field of research.”

Obviously this remark is valid of their aircraft, the serviceability of these etc. and the whole context.

I’ll start with your last words: “By 05 June a total of 138 D.520s had been declared 'bon de guerre' of which 68 (50%) had already been lost.”

I hope you’ll admit that 138 D.520s (most probably) delivered to first-line units by June 5 is higher a figure than the 30 propagated all over the Internet by well-meaning but misguided amateurs. The real number was 4.6 times higher than 30. Not a bad increase is it. (The real number on May 10 was 57 but only GC I/3's 34 fighters could be engaged as early as this (first mission on May 13). What’s more, it was in no way the end of it for deliveries of D.520s which were fit for combat continued all the time and increased by the day. In a TV interview (“Histoire de l’aviation” – this was one of the few worthwile minutes of this TV-programme) Émile Dewoitine said that he was able to double production if asked to. As you know production took place in the Toulouse factory and there was a “shadow factory” at Saint-Martin-du-Touch (or Tarbes, I'll check on this).

“68 had already been lost” (by June 5). Yes this is quite possible. You cannot wage war without sustaining any losses. What about German losses to D.520s? They were certainly much higher including the fighter losses alone. May I draw your attention on the fact that the loss of 68 of these superlative fighters is an indication of an aircraft complement of the units flying them much higher than 68. (This is valid of the fighter strength of virtually all warring parties). For the moment I am unable to have a closer look at your figures but they could be pessimistic as usual as soon as the FRENCH air force is concerned. See for example 138/30,,,

Heavy losses are not surprising because French Air HQ used the D.520s, as often as possible, in hard missions and air battles, and they often flew top cover for other fighter types. Flying top cover was even more dangerous, and resulted in higher losses, than other types of missions for clearly in most cases German fighters attacked the top cover first (in the BoB too).

1991 Paul Martin (in the book “Invisibles vainqueurs”) published figures of 32 D.520s lost in combat including 1 (one) to Flak on June 16, plus 4 in accidents (plus one before the French Campaign started on May 10). In 2000 he raised combat losses by 56 %, which means combat losses of 50. I can’t remember whether his figure for accidents was raised too. A total figure of 68 is possible indeed, taking into account the AC which came back with heavy damage, were sent to the rear and never were repaired because they were not considered worth repairing.

The negative experiences suffered by five pilots of GC II/7 on May 14 – this was only the 5th day of a campaign which lasted for 46 days - are not very surprising. The mass production of D.520s had just actually started after trials, checks (including by GC I/3) etc. There was teething trouble as usual when you start an industrial mass production anywhere in the world, in particular of such a complex product as a state-of-the-art fighter aircraft, even though the D.520 had been especially designed for easy, rational mass production needing as few manhours as possible.

I understand even at the end of the campaign around mid-June GC III/6, newly equipped with D.520s and facing menacing Italy (God knows why – D.520s would have been much better employed against the Luftwaffe for against Italian AC Morane 406s and Bloch 152s would have done the job) shot down comparatively numerous Italian AC without suffering any own losses. So even near the end first-line units were receiving D.520s which proved themselves in combat. Two or three more groupes de chasse (GC) received D.520s too but too late to see action in June and they were ordered, like all other units having the range, to fly to North Africa.

The communists (1940)

Everybody knows, or ought to know, that all communists including the French ones did their best to help Nazi Germany fighting the democracies of Western Europe because Hitler and the USSR led by the other mass-murderer Josef Stalin had signed a so-called “non-aggression pact” so the Nazis and the Communists were allies and good friends. I don’t know any words, in any language, which could express my anger, my disgust and my contempt strongly enough. There are no words. The communists started to fight Hitler’s Nazi Germany first after Germany had attacked the USSR on June 22, 1941, and they did so because Moscow had given them the order. In France after WW II they screamed everywhere, and they are till doing so, that they are “Le parti des fusillés” – to make it short, the party of the Résistance fighters. Ha ha ha. They fought for Russia not for France.

Yes 1940 the French communists hindered the French war effort as best they could, in particular in aircraft factories. Only two of these traitors were shot for this. The importance of this systematic sabotage against “the capitalist war” should not be overestimated however. French authorities were fully aware of the communist behaviour, intelligence was satisfactory on this and corresponding measures were applied. The country was at war so government had every right to force workers to work properly (no strike allowed) and to watch what they did in the factories and elsewhere. The communist traitors did some damage, it is true, but this damage was not really significant. Their propaganda and other actions among infantry soldiers were probably much worse and effective.

Have a look at the fantastic book “l’aviation de chasse française…” by the same authors as for “Le Dewoitine 520”, Raymond Danel and Jean Cuny. By the way, on May 10, 1940, French units had not got 30 or 34 D.520s but 57 (almost twice 30). On page 191 you can see that after the fighting had ended the Italian-German armistice commission counted 170 remaining D.520s in the non-occupied part of France (about 1/3 of the territory, in central, West and South France except the Atlantic coastal area). This does not include dozens of AC of the same type which were still in the occupied 2/3 of the French territory. Approximately 165 more had been flown to North Africa so there were about 280-300 remaining D.520s (not counting those which were destroyed).

All this hardly can confirm a complement of “30” D.520s in the French Campaign. In fact they were as numerous (or even more) as the “Spitfires” in the Battle of Britain, for which the British industry had one more month to continue and increase production.

Sorry – I have to attend a lot of urgent business now. Typing errors etc, will be corrected a little later, or so I hope.

Last edited by rof120; 5th January 2020 at 15:00.
  #52  
Old 2nd January 2020, 20:18
rof120 rof120 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 252
rof120 is on a distinguished road
An error

CORRECTION:

I discovered that most GCs equipped with Bloch 152s had not got 25-36 aircraft but rather approximately 20-26.
(Later: Okay, I gave the exact aircraft complements of all French fighter units which were engaged in the Sedan air battle in post # 42, page 5.)
  #53  
Old 10th January 2020, 18:54
rof120 rof120 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 252
rof120 is on a distinguished road
Fighter pilots and AA – Netherlands 1940

In another post of this thread I already mentioned the magnificent fight put up by the Dutch armed forces : army, especially artillery but infantry too, anti-aircraft forces, air force (fighters, bombers and recce units) and I understand the Dutch navy fought very well too (but I’m not an expert at naval forces). As you know the Netherlands were a comparatively small and NEUTRAL country with a rather small population, hence comparatively small armed forces. All this did not prevent Hitler in the least from attacking this neutral, peaceful little country with the utmost violence and ferocity, bombing and machine-gunning everything without any warning. (Even several decades later the Dutch did not intend to forgive the Germans for this – I don’t know when they did, possibly in the 1980s or 1990s.)

When looking for details in Peter Cornwell’s well-known big book “The Battle of France Then and Now” (published 2008, often mentioned as TBOFTN) I could not possibly fail to notice the very heavy aircraft losses inflicted on the Luftwaffe by the gallant Dutch forces fighting very fiercely. The terrible Ju 52 losses are well-known (many photographs of Ju 52-wrecks in this book and sometimes for sale at ebay; as a whole 188 of these were destroyed in action (according to Williamson Murray’s table III) and many more damaged (damaged AC are a loss too). According to Murray only 8 were damaged in action but I consider this figure much too low to be possible. Something is wrong here. I’d guess about 70-100 were damaged in action. Dutch forces shot at the 52s with everything they had: an excellent, very effective AAA (anti-aircraft artillery), normal artillery on the airfields where the 52s had landed in order to disembark troops, hundreds of machine-guns and of course those fighters which had not been destroyed in the first surprise-attack (most of the fighters escaped: about 50 Fokker D.XXI and G.1A; obsolete fighter types fought too) as well as some bombers, which were cannon-armed and really did shoot down some German combat AC.

What particularly drew my attention in TBOFTN was the numerous mentions of Ju 88 losses. This excellent aircraft type still existed in limited numbers in the Luftwaffe, which makes these heavy losses at the hands of Dutch air and ground forces even more remarkable. About 150 Ju 88s were engaged over the Netherlands including 15 for reconnaissance. AT LEAST 9 of the comparatively rare Ju 88s were shot down by Dutch AC and 5 more by AA, 3 more damaged. These are the lowest possible figures and it is quite possible that the real figures are twice as high as these or higher for in very numerous instances P. Cornwell did not get all details and the causes of many losses are not known. Of course this is no criticism aimed at PC: he did as best he could with existing documents and possibly witnesses and veterans still alive, both German and Dutch.

To sum up, taking the adverse circumstances into account, all Dutch forces fought with great distinction and with very good results. The following is possibly obvious but those who were busy destroying almost 200 Ju 52s were not able to destroy other German aircraft types at the same time and the global results are really remarkable. It is a great pity that the Netherlands ceased fighting after only 5 days - I'm not blaming them, not at all - for otherwise they would have given those nazis an even better taste of their own medicine, in particular in the air, shooting down dozens more of German aircraft and their swastikas.

Of course various Allied forces made an important contribution too including Belgian fighters and AA but all modern Belgian fighters (11 Hurricanes) were destroyed on the ground even before they could fire one single shot; other Belgian fighters were relatively numerous but obsolete (Gladiators, Fiat CR 42s, Fairey “Fox” and “Fury”s, and others). Their pilots fought very bravely too and quite a few were killed. The British and French air forces intervened massively over Belgium and the Netherlands too (the Luftwaffe had launched massive bomb attacks on many French airfields but with very limited results – contrary to the legend repeated for 80 years by incompetent, unserious authors - and with heavy German losses). French and mainly British AC (fighters and bombers) destroyed part of the Ju 52s, possibly one or two dozen, mainly on the ground after they had landed haphazardly. Obviously the Dutch had the best opportunities to destroy Ju 52s, which they did. Allied AC shot down the rest and finished them off, so to speak, even though about half the engaged Ju 52s were able to fly back to base, but a loss rate of about 50 % in one single operation is fairly satisfactory for Germany’s opponents.

Mr. Jochen Prien uses to strongly stress that May 10, 1940 was the day of WW II in which the Luftwaffe suffered their by far worst losses: well over 300 aircraft destroyed (about 365 or something; I can’t remember exactly). Even after deducing the Ju 52s, of which most were lost in very particular circumstances, the LW lost about 163 combat AC on this single day, which should be a record too. French fighter units (not the pilots themselves) claimed a total of 36 “certain” victories and about 6-9 “probables” (this is only my evaluation). Once more the claims of French fighters don’t really look like wild overclaims – quite on the contrary. About 500-600 French fighters were involved on this day (an estimation too), mainly over France I guess, but they were very active over Belgium and the Netherlands too.

Last edited by rof120; 11th January 2020 at 16:44.
  #54  
Old 19th January 2020, 19:05
rof120 rof120 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 252
rof120 is on a distinguished road
An error: First combat mission of GC I/3 was on May 13, 1940

In a previous post I mentioned that GC I/3 (equipped with 34 Dewoitine 520s) flew their first mission on May 14, 1940, in the Sedan area, winning 10 victories (including 2 Me 109s and 4 Me 110s) and losing 2 of their number (2 pilots killed). In fact they flew a mission on May 13 already, shooting down 3 Hs 126s and 1 He 111 for no loss.

Sorry for this error.
  #55  
Old 25th February 2020, 22:12
rof120 rof120 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 252
rof120 is on a distinguished road
Messerschmitt 109, Spitfire, Dewoitine 520

Hello all faithful readers,

In spite of all information to the contrary many people, possibly a strong majority, still believe that the Supermarine “Spitfire” was the only British fighter in the Battle of Britain (as I could hear recently myself in a poorly researched and managed TV-program), or almost the only one. These persons, and many unqualified authors of historical TV-programs, don’t even know that Hawker “Hurricane” fighters represented roughly 2/3 of Fighter Command’s aircraft in the BoB (excluding Bristol “Blenheim” IF twin-engined slow “fighters” and Boulton-Paul “Defiants”, both of which hardly played any significant part in the battle) and that these “Hurricanes” won roughly 2/3 of the British victories or at least a much larger part than the more brilliant but less numerous “Spitfires”. Sorry not to be more precise than “roughly 2/3” because I can’t reach my documents at the moment (but soon I hope). Of course you’re welcome to give exact, correct figures. I don’t mind: I am grateful.

In any case the “Spitfire” was an excellent, brilliant fighter aircraft 1939 and 1940 already. Almost everybody knows that it was more or less equal to her main opponent, the Messerschmitt 109, even though, of course, both fighters were not each other’s equal in all respects: one was possibly more maneuverable, the other slightly faster but this didn’t matter much because of the small difference in top speed, they didn’t have the same ceiling (German superiority IIRC), the effectivity of their armament can be discussed upon etc.

Armament? According to myself a very important, crucial element. After all a fighter aircraft was made and still is – in the first place – with the task for it to destroy enemy aircraft. To achieve this fighters were equipped with the armament considered necessary or sufficient. It is well-known that Spitfire and Hurricane were armed with eight .303 light machine-guns – four in each wing. As for the Messerschmitt 109 we always are treated almost exclusively to her two 20 mm cannon, one in each wing, forgetting the twin 7,92 mm machine-guns under the engine-cowling, firing through the propeller disc and having 1,000 (one thousand) rounds each in large boxes stored in the engine compartment. 1940 the German cannon, type MG FF, was a mediocre weapon: low muzzle velocity, comparatively low cyclic rate (firing rate) of 520 rounds per minute. In particular the low muzzle velocity was a serious drawback. As a whole Spitfire and 109 E-3 were about even.

What almost all “experts” don’t know, or don’t remember, is the fact that about one half of the German fighters (109s) were NOT cannon-armed. Messerschmitt 109 E-3s were but not so Me 109 E-1s, armed with two 7,92 mm machine-guns in the wings instead of the 20 mm cannon, which is a tremendous difference. 109 E-1s possibly were still one half of the complement or more (later on this, with some figures, some other time). In any case they were a very significant part of all Me 109 Es in the BoB.

Already in July 1940 fighter production in British factories was much higher than 109 production in Germany, at least twice as high but very soon three times as high and more (up to 500 monthly as compared to the German 140-145 ON AVERAGE for the whole year 1940 (higher in May and June and most probably this was purely coincidental for the decisions resulting in a higher production had to be taken much, much earlier). So actually the Luftwaffe never had a chance to win for soon their fighters would have been literally swamped with RAF fighters, not to mention the numerous German fighter pilots who survived but became prisoners in Britain, contrary to their RAF counterparts, who lived and fought another day if they didn’t parachute over occupied France or Belgium (only few of them flew that far from England at the time), or drown in the “Scheisskanal” – this is how German fighter pilots angrily called the “English” channel.

But what about the French fighters mentioned in the title of this thread?

The usual cliché almost everywhere and by almost everybody is totally wrong, namely “French fighters were obsolete and hopeless”. This was true… 1938 but certainly not 1940. By then most French fighters (there were four different main types) were clearly not as good as British or German ones: Morane 406, Bloch 152, Curtiss H-75. It would be a serious error, though, to believe that they were useless: they were not. A fighter’s value was not to be found in its top speed only. Top speed was very important indeed but that was not the end of the story. Other factors were just as important as that: maneuverability, armament, pilot protection (armour etc.), ability to take punishment and survive, and, not to forget, the possibility of replacing destroyed aircraft. In May-June 1940 French aircraft production, especially of fighters, was zooming sky-high at about the same rate as in Britain. The fourth French fighter type was the much-discussed (here too) Dewoitine D.520 which was being produced in numbers rising by the day. Many poorly informed persons sneer and snigger at the “30” good fighters only which could be mustered by the Armée de l’Air during the French campaign. On May 10, the first day of heavy fighting (German attack), the Armée de l’Air had received not 30 but 57 D.520s and 34 of these were the equipment of GC I/3; some sources say 36 (GC is Groupe de chasse or Fighter Groupe not “Groupe de combat” – it is hardly possible to translate Groupe with Squadron (16 fighters in the RAF) or Wing (of 2-3 squadrons).

GC I/3 fought – with their Dewoitines - on May 13 for the first time and shot down at least four German AC. On May 14 they won at least 10 victories: 2 Me 109s, 4 Me 110s, 2 Do 17s and 2 He 111s, and they lost two of their number. On May 15 already a second unit equipped with 34 (or 36 too) D.520s was engaged (GC II/3) and so it went on until the end of the French Campaign on June 24. On June 1st about 100 D.520s were deployed and this was a non-negligible factor in the air battle. The number of units equipped with this superlative fighter increased all the time. On June 24 it was at least 5 Groupes de chasse and a number of miscellaneous local units (chimney flights and the like) totalling a few dozen D.520s. The Armée de l’Air had received 402 of these fighters as of June 22 and the French Navy had got about 30 (I’ll check on this).

Without the Allied defeat of June 1940 the Armée de l’Air would have had received about 600 D.520s by the end of July-beginning of August; production was rising permanently.

In comparison with her German and British rivals the D.520 was more or less even with them. In particular she could dive with full power and virtually no speed limit - contrary in particular to the Me 109. When in trouble German fighter pilots very often, or most of the time, dived very steeply to get away but with a D.520 on their tail this was a deadly mistake for most of them were shot down and killed by the pursuing 520. The D.520’s armament was – according to myself – better than both the British and the German equivalents with one remarkable HS 404 20 mm cannon firing through the propeller hub (hence with high precision) and 4 light machine-guns in the wings. Her top speed was slightly lower with 530-540 km/h as compared with 560-570 for Spitfire and 109 (according to different sources the Spitfire or the 109 was faster – forget it, it’s not important). What counts is the general result: as an excellent, very objective expert told me, the D.520 was BETTER than the 109 in actual combat. The 109 had the edge if you compared both aircraft from the moment of brake release on the runway when taking off: the 109 took off quicker, which was not quite unimportant.

- To be continued if necessary -

Last edited by rof120; 26th February 2020 at 01:51.
  #56  
Old 25th February 2020, 22:28
Nick Beale's Avatar
Nick Beale Nick Beale is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Exeter, England
Posts: 5,781
Nick Beale has a spectacular aura aboutNick Beale has a spectacular aura aboutNick Beale has a spectacular aura about
Re: French fighter scores, mainly 1939-1940

“rfo120” if you persist with posts that are wholly or largely off-topic, then expect them to be edited accordingly. It would also be welcome if you were to abandon your tired practice of erecting straw men (in the shape of what you claim everyone else believes) simply to demonstrate what you apparently imagoine to be your superior knowledge by demolishing them.
__________________
Nick Beale
http://www.ghostbombers.com
  #57  
Old 6th March 2020, 18:54
rof120 rof120 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 252
rof120 is on a distinguished road
Re: French fighter scores, mainly 1939-1940

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Beale View Post
“rfo120” if you persist with posts that are wholly or largely off-topic, then expect them to be edited accordingly. It would also be welcome if you were to abandon your tired practice of erecting straw men (in the shape of what you claim everyone else believes) simply to demonstrate what you apparently imagoine to be your superior knowledge by demolishing them.
Added a little later: I don't get it.
------------------------------------------
What's the matter with you Nick? What wrongs did I do?

Clearly a fighter's performance, especially in speed and climb, is a function of its engine and has a direct influence on its pilot's score. So I can't see what disturbs you. Fighter aircraft engines are NOT off topic when discussing their pilots' scores. It is not coincidental that 1940 fighters equipped with the best engines were the most effective fighters in air combat: Spitfire, Me 109 E, Hurricane too, and also Dewoitine 520. This was still true 1944-45 with the Merlin-equipped Mustang P-51 Ds and several German types like Fw 190-D, Ta 152 and more.

I am just trying to inform possibly interested readers about the tremendous fight put up 1940 by - among others - French fighter pilots. The Germans lost MORE aircraft in the 38-day air French Campaign than in the 83-day Battle of Britain. There must be some Reason for this and the by far main reason is the fight of about 1,000 French fighter aircraft and 700 pilots, one thousand including replacements. They were not alone, I know this, but their contribution was mumerically much greater than British fighters' (approximately 100 fighters or less, 250 during the 9 days of the Dunkerque evacuation, very weak forces afterwards, i.e. from June 4, 1940, on), other nations' fighters', AAA etc. - all these not being negligible of course, far from it. French fighter pilots would not have achieved much if their fighter aircraft had been "so few" as so many people claim and as poor as the same people keep repeating, which is simply not true. "Even" Morane fighters shot down dozens and dozens of Me 109s and 110s and a grand total of well over 100 German combat aircraft, not to mention other fighter types (see other posts above and in the preceding pages 1-5). What I wrote and am writing here is entirely or partly new to most people in the world. Nick, don't you like me to tell the truth? Is the RAF the only force worthy of mentioning? Oh, I know the British magazines: FlyPast and Aeroplane: RAF, RAF and RAF again, of course with a pinch of Luftwaffe for they need some villains to look like heroes.

I don't need answer your heavily off-topic remarks. You should delete them in order not to look… hmmm… accordingly.

I never claimed that "everyone else believes" something. Most people making TV-programs on WW II and air combat have a limited knowledge on these things and talk nonsense all the time, this is a fact. Every single TOCH-member knows this. Most of the TV-people, not all of them. I insist it is terrible to see French fighters, type Morane 406 (aka Morane), all the time in all possible TV-programs on the Battle of Britain and other battles too, and to see large twin-engined, twin-fin Japanese bombers in almost all (not quite in all) TV-programs about Pearl Harbor. Such ridiculous errors are a disgrace and can't be accepted. Those who collect film footage for such programs watch each other very jealously and imitate each other without even trying to know if it's right or wrong to show Moranes in the Battle of Britain.

What do you - TV-viewers all over the world - say on this? Hmmm? No opinion?

I never imagined I had a "superior knowledge" but I certainly claim to be serious and try to write messages which are as accurate as possible and do not contain such ludicrous nonsense as MS 406s in the BoB. It takes more time to be cautious and try to eliminate any errors for the benefit of all readers (about 7,400 views up till now and still going strong).

Could it be that you contributed to such TV-programs as a counsellor and expert, and feel targetted by me? I didn't target anybody in particular. I gave no names. If you feel that my criticism applies to you this is your privilege and your private pleasure. I gave no names of historical TV-"experts" who show us a Fw 190 shot down 1940 in the Battle of Britain. Aviation enthusiasts have been laughing at this, and at other bullshit, for DECADES but it didn't change anything in the minds of TV-"experts".

So be reassured: Nick Beale is not targetted in my criticism of poor TV-authors. No hard feelings, hey?

Last edited by rof120; 7th March 2020 at 02:08. Reason: ue v
  #58  
Old 7th March 2020, 00:19
edwest2 edwest2 is offline
Alter Hase
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,478
edwest2 will become famous soon enoughedwest2 will become famous soon enough
Re: French fighter scores, mainly 1939-1940

Then write that book. Correct those mistakes. My father fought for Poland and went to the US after the war. When I was watching a war movie in the 1960s, I asked him if that was what it was like. He said: "No son. It wasn't like that at all."



Best,
Ed
  #59  
Old 7th March 2020, 03:01
rof120 rof120 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 252
rof120 is on a distinguished road
Re: French fighter scores, mainly 1939-1940

Quote:
Originally Posted by edwest2 View Post
Then write that book. Correct those mistakes. My father fought for Poland and went to the US after the war. When I was watching a war movie in the 1960s, I asked him if that was what it was like. He said: "No son. It wasn't like that at all."
Best,
Ed
Thanks Ed. You're okay. "Write that book"? I'm doing just that all the time even if you're not aware of it. Most of what I posted here and of what I wrote to some French friends (not the same texts) you'll find in that forthcoming book some day (if I live long enough, which in no way is certain so it's better to make sure at TOCH first). Please leave it to me to assess if it's not worth it to inform as large an international audience as possible on a few fundamental facts of the 1940 air war (French Campaign, Battle of Britain). I know most people have absolutely no idea. For example, who is aware at all that the Germans lost more aircraft in 38 days of French Campaign than in 83 days of Battle of Britain (July 10 through September 30)? 1,469 vs 1,428 (figures can vary slightly). All figures were published long ago but it seems that nobody took notice. See, among others, Len Deighton's books "Blitzkrieg" (France and Benelux) and "Fighter" (BoB), in which he published these figures.

I had a very good friend in the USA, about 2 years younger than me. I fear he's dead by now for he never replied for over 2 years. He had served with the US Air Force for a very long time and he was highly interested in the air war 1939-45 including, in particular, 1940. He was really quite knowledgeable on this but after I explained about the same things as here in this thread he wrote to me: "I had no idea (over the air fighting in May-June 1940)". Among other things he figured that after the Dunkerque evacuation (it ended on June 3) it was all over. Actually the French Campaign (totalling 6 weeks and 4 days) went on for over 3 more weeks until June 24 with some of the fiercest air fighting on several occasions like June 3 (German attack of the aero-industry and airfields in the Paris area, a bloody failure), June 5 (Heinz Nowarra wrote some very admiring comments on the French Air Force's combat on this day - by then the French fighters were very strong indeed and even Major Werner Mölders was shot down by a young French "Pilot Officer" (lieutenant), June 8, 9 and 21... I am aware that these facts are almost totally, or totally, unknown to most people in the world including… in France itself.

This is why I am trying to explain how it was in reality, not in the dreams of jingoistic English authors like Stephen Bungay (and many others) in his book "The Most Dangerous Enemy", who wrote that "of course French aircraft designs were not as good" (as German and British designs). This statement is of a rare stupidity and shows that this "historian", who lives close to France, did not bother in the least to ask around himself and learn the facts. Excellent, remarkable French aircraft designs were the following (several ones were produced in hundreds of models): LeO 45 bomber, Breguet 693-695 light assault bomber, Bloch 155, Dewoitine 520-523 and Arsenal VG-33, 36 and 39 fighters, Bloch 174 superlative recce AC, Bloch 175 light bomber and more. The UK had ONE remarkable AC, the Spitfire. Likewise Germany (Me 109 E).

I feel this Bungay-statement alone is enough evidence that I have to correct this nonsense here too (and you know it). Don't worry for I am almost through.

It is obvious that my long explanations (6 TOCH-pages up till now) interest our audience here (look at the number of views to the right of the first post of this thread). To many a reader this was a discovery. British fighter forces in France were feeble on May 10, 1940 and afterwards. Their pilots did their best.(At the time they (about 150 pilots flying those 100 "Hurricanes") claimed 700 victories in 12 days; see book "Twelve Days in May" by Brian Cull, who lowered this figure to 300 IIRC - still not really modest and realistic - in 46 days those 700 claims would have meant 2,800 victory claims for 100 fighters, double the Fighter Command score in 83 days for about 600 fighters). John Foreman came to the same conclusion as myself: the RAF fighter overclaim rate was about 5 but some people including some Frenchmen very loudly claim that RAF fighters downed many more German AC than the 1,000 French fighters. I really wonder how this could have been possible at all.

Well, rest in peace and live another day. I'll write that book, period.
  #60  
Old 7th March 2020, 04:28
edwest2 edwest2 is offline
Alter Hase
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,478
edwest2 will become famous soon enoughedwest2 will become famous soon enough
Re: French fighter scores, mainly 1939-1940

Please don't use the word jingoistic in your book should you live to write it.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WW2 French Training aircraft at Evreux equivalent to Tiger Moth Larry Allied and Soviet Air Forces 8 17th January 2019 10:51
Blenheim MK.IF Combat Log: Fighter Command Day Fighter Sweeps/Night Interceptions - September 1939 - June 1940 edwest Books and Magazines 1 18th June 2014 13:47
American Volunteers and Fighter Command Claims Aug 1940 Observer1940 Allied and Soviet Air Forces 5 14th June 2010 10:40
"Don't you know who I am?" Grozibou Off Topic 9 27th August 2008 20:42
French AF fighter types during the Battle of France Ruy Horta Allied and Soviet Air Forces 9 30th January 2005 00:51


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:00.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2018, 12oclockhigh.net