JG26 disaster, 1940

[RT]

GQM gives 4 planes all 40 % damages, near Etretat, here cost hv cliffs not very easy to forceland, maybe Mr Prien has some reason to be skeptical...

Rémi

[Jochen Prien]

Correct. For details see JFV 4/I, Introduction p III / IV with details. Galland did in fact not say that said 12 losses were suffered by JG26 but preferred not to name the unit in question.

As a matter of fact Luftwaffe between 1 August and 30 November 1940 lost a total of 2 (two) Bf109s that came down over the Channel probably due to fuel shortage with another eight that were damaged in forced landings on the French side of the Channel with dry fuel tanks. There are three more Bf109s lost over the Channel under unknown circumstances which may probably have to be attributed to fuel shortage as well, although this is a matter of conjecture.

KR

Jochen Prien

[rof120]

Sorry for the delay. I had to attend some urgent business (but it was not a dame - sigh).

Before we start I have to insist NOW on the fact that Galland was not reporting what happened to his own unit (Geschwader: a big wing) but that this was another unit’s disaster, contrary to what the English “translation” (see below) led you to believe… (sigh).

Here is Galland’s own text (I changed nothing, not even a comma) from his book “Die Ersten und die Letzten” (first published 1953), new printing batch (15. Auflage) 1983 by Schneekluth publishing company, München (Munich) – (Comprehensive text with no cuts – in some special editions the text length is reduced.)

On page 103, 2nd paragraph:

Die geringe Flugdauer der Me 109 machte sich jetzt immer nachteiliger bemerkbar. Bei einem einzigen Einsatz eines Geschwaders gingen – ohne Feindeinwirkung – allein durch die Tatsache, daß der zu begleitende Bomberverband nach zweistündiger Flugdauer noch immer nicht das Festland auf dem Rückflug erreicht hatte, zwölf Maschinen verloren. Fünf von ihnen konnten mit dem letzten Tropfen Sprit am Strand der französischen Küste bauchlanden, sieben weitere mußten im Kanal notwassern.

ENGLISH version in translation „The First and the Last” by Mervyn Savill, published 1986 by Champlin Museum Press, Mesa, Arizona.
First published in England 1955.

Page 85, 4th paragraph:

The short range of the Me 109 became more and more of a disadvantage. During a single sortie of my group we lost twelve fighter planes, not by enemy action, but simply because after two hours’ flying time the bombers we were escorting had not yet reached the mainland on their return journey. Five of these fighters managed to make a pancake landing on the French shore with their last drop of fuel; seven of them landed in the ‘drink’.

MY COMMENT:

As you can see the English “translator” wrote partly a novel (not only in this passage), making the reader believe that Galland was talking about his own unit (a Geschwader with a theoretical complement of 124 fighters including the non-serviceable ones – 30 to 40 %). This is not correct for Galland wrote about one single mission “eines Geschwaders”, one single mission of a fighter wing (Geschwader): about 70-88 fighters. The word “eines” instead of “ein” and “Geschwaders” with a final S both have grammatical reasons (declension, Genitiv) which are uninteresting to us now: the German language is neither French or Spanish nor English.

The whole English edition is unreliable:

at the top of page 47 we can read “(I had) shot away part of his tail” instead of “der Heckschütze war ausgefallen” (the rear-gunner had been put out of action);

at the bottom of page 50 the undercarriage has replaced the fin. Mr. Savill was a poet and wrote what he felt looked nice;

at the bottom of page 52 we can discover the following (quotation):
“On August 1st, when Marshal Kesselring pinned the Knight’s Cross on my tunic after my 17th kill and many completed low-level attacks” (rof120: the latter mostly during the French Campaign in May-June). So this fellow never noticed that the Knight’s Cross was not “pinned on the tunic” but mounted on a ribbon around the man’s neck and was very visible, on all photographs too, where men wearing a tie have the tie knot. This shows how reliable about 999 in 1,000 book “translations” really are.

Repeat: Galland wrote the story of 12 fighters (Me 109s) of some other unit lost because of fuel starvation. They did NOT belong to his own Geschwader. I guess he always was very careful not to risk such fuel starvation.

And reader beware: never rely on a so-called “translation” (in at least 999 in 1,000 books) unless you positively know that this particular translation is OK. You can see the effects right here in this very thread: those who read the English version believe that GALLAND’S unit lost those 12 Me fighters.

Please note: as you can see Galland and virtually all German airmen including mechanics, bomber crews etc. said and wrote Me 109 not Bf 109, which may have been official but not used by the men who flew and fought, and often died. I guess that Galland and his comrades knew what they were talking about. They were aware of "Bf 109" but they preferred Me 109 and so do I. Just one opinion among many others.

[Adriano Baumgartner]

I tried to put myself on the skin of the poor wingmen on this kind of "regular" shuttle over the Channel....not an easy task, even for the most flown (more flying hours).

Autonomy around 1:30-2:00hs, if you used properly the mixture and set the RPM on the maximum autonomy setting....Of course, one had to keep formation (so wingmen generally use more fuel than the leaders) and keep an eye for the RAF fighters...and if you broke formation you would certainly be court-martialled for disobeying orders....so you just kept flying and praying....

Do not remember where, but I remember reading some LW pilots turning off their engines and gliding at the best ratio over the Channel (while not being pursued) to add a few miles of flight without burning fuel and "make it"....

No mater what the side they fought for, one do have to rise the hat for those boys of the "Old Times"...

A.

[rof120]

In the 1st French edition too !

To my horror I discovered that the English version (1955, shortened by about 20 % as compared to the original German text) and the FIRST French version (1954, shortened by about 60 %) are almost identical as far as this particular paragraph is concerned. It is a distinct possibility that the English “translator” Savill (rather a novellist) was more familiar with the French than with the German language and relied heavily on the 1954 French version to translate into English (which you never ought to do: translating a translation to translate into one more (a 3rd) language), but the 1954 French version was shortened even much more heavily than the English one, so that at least some parts of the latter are “original” English translations.

Please allow me to repeat: the “JG 26 disaster” discussed in this thread did NOT strike Galland’s JG 26 but, as he put it, “ein Geschwader” – a German fighter wing (we don’t know which one). Who knows, perhaps he didn’t reveal which JG it was (he certainly knew) because it was led (as a “Geschwaderkommodore”, in English lieutenant-colonel or Wing Commander) by his very good friend Werner Mölders, who died as a passenger in an air crash (He 111) at the end of 1941 – and Galland’s book was first published, of course in German, 1953 in Buenos Aires (Argentina), only 12 years after Mölders’ demise. I suppose Galland wanted to avoid any possibility that his dead friend’s very great skills might be doubted. This particular point (Mölders or not) could be researched by some historian(s) in the future. Göring’s strict and stupid order for fighters to perform close escort for the bombers, sticking to them at all times, might have caused such losses. [No Galland, angered by Göring’ds behaviour, did not tell him “Give me a Staffel (squadron) of “Spitfires” but “I solicit that my Geschwader be equipped with “Spitfires”. The complement of a Geschwader (124 fighters) was ten times (10) larger than a Staffel’s (12 fighters).]

So if it’s important to you to read a RELIABLE version of Galland’s text but if you don’t understand German my advice, assuming that you understand the so-important and so-beautiful French language, is to read the SECOND French edition, published 1985 in Paris by Yves Michelet with the original (translated) title: “Les premiers et les derniers”. You can find it easily on the Internet but beware:

the first French version “Jusqu’au bout sur nos Messerschmitt” (1954), reprinted later in various pocket book editions, is TERRIBLE but it is still being offered for sale on the Internet too...

“Les premiers et les derniers” (1985, reprinted later in 1985 and 1986, 1987) is extremely accurate. You won’t find any error in it. If you think you do please tell us right here, it’ll be interesting. In this edition Galland made a few corrections to his German text (like about his first victories: they were British “Hurricanes” not Belgian ones (these 11 (eleven) fighters were never able to take part in the fighting before being destroyed on the ground) and he added a few interesting pages both on the French Campaign and the Battle of Britain, totalling about four (4) book pages. Apart from the foreword, followed by some explanations, and the annexes added at the end, all this explicitly not by Galland, the (main) actual Galland-text was translated into French without any cuts nor additions* and with extreme accuracy, so that they are a precious, exact historical document (Galland’s own version, no matter what you think of his accuracy).

* It’s very easy to check on this: put an original German copy of the book (not a shortened one, for there are several shortened German editions) and the French “Les premiers et les derniers” side by side on your desk or table. Even if you understand neither language the text cut in paragraphs, the numerous family names, quotations (with quotation marks), figures and dates will show you very quickly that both texts are perfectly identical: it’s a perfect match. The first German chapter (Argentina) has become the last French one, that’s all.

A comprehensive German copy is not expensive: about 10 euros/$ on the Internet. Better see to it that you purchase a copy of a batch without any cuts.

[rof120]

PS on Professor Willy Messerschmitt’s most famous aircraft, mainly for those young enthusiasts who are fascinated by the Luftwaffe, its fighters and its aircrew:

General Galland and, I am convinced, all other members of the Luftwaffe, called the Messerschmitt 109 fighter simply “die Me” (pronounced “dee May”). They certainly knew the official designation Bf 109 but I don’t think that any LW member ever said “die Bf” or “die Bf 109” even though numerous other aircraft types including the famous Me 108 “Taifun” (Typhoon) and the Me 262 jet were produced by Messerschmitt. Nowadays it has become fashionable to stick to Bf because it was the official designation but I am not fashionable at all and I choose Me. Of course I’m perfectly wrong.

[Nick Beale]

Just a reminder that the topic of this thread was whether there is any evidence for a formation of Bf 109s being lost to fuel shortage while returning from England in 1940.

If such material losses are not evident from the Gen.Qu. reports, we are left with rumour, error or fabrication. If such a rumour was current at the time then evidence might well be found in the interrogation reports of the many Luftwaffe airmen in British captivity, or in the transcripts of their covertly recorded conversations.

[rof120]

Yes, certainly. In this particular instance I'd suspect that possible documents are to be found rather in German archives because part of those 109s made belly-landings in France: interrogation reports are German. The others ditched but certainly close to German-held territory for they all (all 12 fighters) had about the same amount of petrol left (nil), so that - if it really happened - at least some of the ditched pilots, possibly all of them, were saved and able to say what happened (---> documents).

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by rof120

Yes, certainly. In this particular instance I'd suspect that possible documents are to be found rather in German archives because part of those 109s made belly-landings in France …

If the incident were on anything like the scale described then it is likely that word would have got around—rumours circulate in wartime—and therefore quite possible that prisoners would have spoken of it, either to interrogators or to one another (and thus to concealed microphones or "stool pigeons", both subterfuges employed by the British).

[rof120]

Yes, this is an interesting possibility of finding a trace of this loss. Perhaps ULTRA decyphering too.