Hans-Ekkehard Bob

[Brian]

Hi guys

I've been reading 'Betrayed Ideals' - Memoirs of a Luftwaffe Fighter Ace - Hans-Ekkehard Bob. Intresting but disppointing due to its lack of content. However, I was intrigued by Bob's first combat over Poland in September 1939, when his Staffel from I/JG21 was fired on by He111s they were escorting, before contact was made with Polish fighters. Bob states that his was the only aircraft of the eight in his Staffel to return to base, although one flown by Oblt Schneider, which had sustained damage, returned later; six had carried out emergency landings, although he maintains none was due to enemy action!

Were any of the six Messerschmitts victims of the Heinkel gunners, or Polish fighters, or had they simply become disorientated as implied by Bob? I am obviously interested in the 'friendly fire' aspect.

Cheers
Brian

[Franek Grabowski]

Oh, well, who knows? I do not think that any detailed reports of the crashes survived, but it is the fact, the Messerschmitts flew on the limit of their range, and after being involved in a dog-fight over Warsaw, most of them failed to return. If any of them was hit, I do not know, but it is an interesting question, if an aircraft drawn into combat for so long it cannot return home, should be considered an aerial victory or not.

[Ruy Horta]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

...if an aircraft drawn into combat for so long it cannot return home, should be considered an aerial victory or not.

Such reasoning would open a can of worms.

If a/c operate on the limits of their range, it is a calculated risk that they cannot return to base. It is an operational loss, but not a combat loss, as in "damaged in combat". As such to be taken into account when analysing the events at the end of the day, but not used to inflate combat claims.

If a Naval aviator destroys his a/c in a carrier landing, after tedious flight to target, a short fight and tedious flight back, does that mean he should be claimed by the enemy? It could be claimed that not his fuel but his strength was drained in the combat...

However if his a/c was damaged in said combat and that damage can be linked to the crashlanding, things are different. The same if the Aviator was wounded in combat.

Should every CAM launched fighter be considered a combat loss?

1. It is launched on a combat sortie
2. It eventually runs runs out of fuel and is abandoned

Should all a/c losses that were caused by pilots being unable to land in bad weather or darkness, prefering to bail out instead, be counted as victory claims of those enemy units operating against them?

etc etc etc

[Ruy Horta]

Bob's book was interesting, but IMHO not well written (at least the English translation) and in some ways not one inviting much sympathy for the author.

Not one of the great biographies, but it has its proper place and it does fill some gaps.

[Franek Grabowski]

Ruy
I have heard that US naval pilots received tactical notes, that drawing Japanese aircraft in combat for a certain period of time will ensure they would not return to their aircraft carriers. Certainly, it is not a classic shot down, but is not it an enemy inflicted loss?
On the other hand, if an ill pilot flew a combat mission and was downed, was the loss inflicted by the illness or enemy action in the first place?
Concerning the CAM aircraft, the system was designed in this and no different way. Thus loss of an aircraft is not a combat loss but a use of it, just as you use eg. ammunition. On the other hand, every loss of a pilot is a combat loss, because it was not planned.
Losses to bad weather would be combat losses (in your terminology), if they were due to enemy's action, even if you cannot link them to any particular victor. Please note, that for headquarters there are combat and non-combat losses and nobody is caring if it is fire, weather or anything else.
Can of worms, well, why not? It is a discussion forum at last!

[Ruy Horta]

Loss yes, claimable no...

[Brian]

Hi guys

I'm rather enjoying this!!

Franek - were there any Polish fighter claims for He111s during this mission?

Cheers
Brian

[Franek Grabowski]

Ruy
I do not mean that the aircraft should be linked to the victories of particular pilots, but perhaps they should go on the credit of the units engaged?

Brian
Yes, a one or two, but I would need to dig a little to get further details. There are some conflicting reports and accounts concerning those combats.

[Ruy Horta]

Franek,

We are all entitled to our opinion, and on this issue I still disagree

The line must be drawn somewhere and IMHO it is the difference between direct and indirect cause of a loss.

Let me repeat that at the end of the day you may discuss the full losses of an engagement, including those operational losses not directly attributable to combat. These are indeed not less real nor less important, but IMHO they remain outside the realm of claims, albeit unit, personal or otherwise.

Especially Naval aviation is full of examples where a/c are lost after / during combat, but not through direct cause: damage from enemy action.

Aircraft that get lost, bad weather, fuel state while waiting to land, tired pilots etc etc etc.

The Japanese Zeroes over Guadalcanal flew at the absolute maximum of their range, ditching on the way back was not uncommon. Does that mean that they should be added to the total of the Cactus AF?

IMHO no, but the losses have a place in any serious assessment of the operation(s), especially if the pilots are lost as well.