I./ZG 1 claims in 1939 - 1940 - any info?

[Evgeny Velichko]

Originally Posted by rob van den nieuwendijk

Paul Gildner
01.02.1914 born in Nimptsch/Niederschlesien
24/25.02.1943 KIA Gilze-Rijen/Holland
09.07.41 RK; 26.02.43 EL (nr 196)
25.05.42 Deutsche Kreuz

Some info for you: - since 1938 als Unteroffizier with 6./JG 132 (later 3./ZG 1) - took part in campaigns over Poland, Norway and France. Shot down a Blenheim on 10 May 40 and a Morane on 5 June 40.

THX for info! So, he had only 2 claims with 3./ZG 1? O)r there was more?

[Marius]

A few words to Franek:

PHP Code:

TOCH is not the place, that Mr Cynk visits and I do not think it is the proper place to attack him personally. You could write a reply to the journal and apparently you did not. 


1.I (among others) criticize autor`s work or his comments or the way the autor wrote the book "Polskie lotnictwo mysliwskie...". This is far from personal attacks and some discussion or criticizm should be allowed in democratic countries, right?
2.The journal got a reply. And I was not the only one who wrote a reply. The problem is that the journal must stay competitive when more and more similar papers appear. Even Polish politicians are still using the simple term "we will beat the bad German again" and they are winning the elections this way. It still works in Poland very well. The journal chose the patriotic way and I understand this.

PHP Code:

Who are those 'many Polish historians'? Could you name at least one of them? 


No, I won`t, because they are frightened. It is still not the right time for young Polish historians who will research in different directions. I think next generation can do it better.

I came back now to I./ZG 1 in Poland.

PHP Code:

Neither Polish documents mention Me 109s. Logical conclusion is that the aggressive Ju 87s from the first combat actually were 109s. 


So the wreck of the Ju 87B with crew Berschneider/Zeidler from 9./StG 2 - shot down by Lachowicki-Czechowicz - was in fact a Bf 109? Maybe even a two-seated Bf 109?
You are quoting Pniak`s report again and again, where it is more than obvious that he fought with Ju 87`s. At least he was credited with a Ju 87 and this is logical, also when you additionally compare German records. No other Polish pilot reported something about "twin-engined aircraft", right?

PHP Code:

I am in the midst of other projects that I have to finish. I will not stop working on them only because of your wish. 


My wish? So let me point out what you wrote earlier:

PHP Code:

This is just ridiculous - there are Polish documents that clearly state it was 111 Eskadra which fought against Ju 87s at the very same time. 


Clearly or maybe not clearly?
You are referring to a Polish document, but you do not know it, because it is on the way from England? This is incredible. God save me from this guy!

[Evgeny Velichko]

Marius - many thanks for Info...

But where did You found NAMES of pilots, who claimed victories during Polish campaign?

P.S. About 3 - airplane schwarm of german airplanes:
I dont know about earlywar, but on 3.02.42 there was a combat mission of 3 Bf 110 to airfield near Toropetz.

Also, during combat mission one of four could return because of tech problems e.t.c, and 3 other could continue flight to target.

"Kette" could appear because of many reasons, & this is not showing that "that planes was BOMBERS or STUKAS.

IMHO.

[Marius]

Eugen,

If you are confused by Franek, don`t mind. Franek does not like my work, because I found many German records which are clearing up with so many Polish legends. For him every German document is incomplete or even falsified when contrary to Polish pilots memories. The main point is he must not revise his own vision of air war history in Poland.

PHP Code:

 But where did You found NAMES of pilots, who claimed victories during Polish campaign? 


In archives, German war diaries and so on. Furthermore I worked on the complete victory list for Poland together with our expert here in Germany Mr. Bock.

PHP Code:

 "Kette" could appear because of many reasons, & this is not showing that "that planes was BOMBERS or STUKAS. 


Something about German terms:
Rotte - 2 aircraft (fighter),
Kette - 3 aircraft (bomber),
Schwarm - 4 aircraft (fighter).

For the 4th Sept. 1939 it is remarkable that several Polish pilots reported they have fought with formations of "3 German airplanes". No doubt, they were mainly Ju 87`s of III./StG 2. Sure, it could happen that one Bf 110 or Bf 109 had to fly back to basis with engine trouble and there remained 3 aircraft in the air. But the Luftwaffe formation of two fighters was already introduced in Spain and later taken over by other nations.

But nonetheless of this story I had 18 German victories for the 5th Sept. 1939 before I looked to the details of the mission of the Polish 112 eskadra. Official German documents are reporting of at all 20 victories for the day. So the remaining two victories could indeed be claimed by I./ZG 1 against 112 eskadra. Polish losses are confirming this. Also the account of the formation leader kpt.Opulski. And additionally I have an account of a German airman who was shot down in the Ju 87. He wrote about 2 Polish losses he observed before he had to leave the formation and forceland on Polish territory.

Here is something for you from a German document (translated into English by a friend of mine); Expieriences of I.(Z)/LG 1 in Poland 1939:

The escort is, according to availibility, to be composed from at least 1 "Schwarm" of Zerstörer formed from 2 "Rotte". The "Schwarm" should fly loosely stepped, within sight of the bomber "Staffel" at appr. the same altitude as the tail "Kette" of the bomber "Staffel".
Attacks are to be executed by the "Rotte"...
(another simple translation of the last sentence: The general operational formation is the "Rotte".).

Marius

[Franek Grabowski]

Evgeniy, you are absolutelly right! Finger four formation was mythicised to some degree, but it was only one of the formations.

1.I (among others) criticize autor`s work or his comments or the way the autor wrote the book "Polskie lotnictwo mysliwskie...". This is far from personal attacks and some discussion or criticizm should be allowed in democratic countries, right?
2.The journal got a reply. And I was not the only one who wrote a reply. The problem is that the journal must stay competitive when more and more similar papers appear. Even Polish politicians are still using the simple term "we will beat the bad German again" and they are winning the elections this way. It still works in Poland very well. The journal chose the patriotic way and I understand this.

You are personally and frequently attacking Mr Cynk, not only on this board. This is not criticism addressed towards his book. Concerning your letter, I have asked staff of the journal to show their official position concerning your claims. I know a different story.

No, I won`t, because they are frightened. It is still not the right time for young Polish historians who will research in different directions. I think next generation can do it better.

Indeed, death squads are chasing through Poland in search of young historians!
Seriously, how can you imagine serious research without leaving a trace in an archive? It would be known, if there is any serious research on the subject.

So the wreck of the Ju 87B with crew Berschneider/Zeidler from 9./StG 2 - shot down by Lachowicki-Czechowicz - was in fact a Bf 109? Maybe even a two-seated Bf 109?

Have you been able to read Polish, you would find that after downing this very Stuka, Lachowicki-Czechowicz fought with Messerschmitts, according to his original combat report of 4.09.1939. Pisarek reported combat with two formations of Ju 87 and my assumption is, that one formation could have been Me 109s actually. Another pilot, Czajkowski, did not claim anything, therefore had not filed combat report.

You are quoting Pniak`s report again and again, where it is more than obvious that he fought with Ju 87`s. At least he was credited with a Ju 87 and this is logical, also when you additionally compare German records. No other Polish pilot reported something about "twin-engined aircraft", right?

I am quoting it because it is extremelly clear with statement twin engined aircraft. It is not my problem that you cannot understand this. I may post the original report here, so anybody could see it. Dorniers are also mentioned in the enclosed page of a diary of III/4 Dywizjon, original document filed during the Polish Campaign. It is not my problem you are not willing to accept that.

My wish? So let me point out what you wrote earlier:
[size=3][font=&quot]

PHP Code:

This is just ridiculous - there are Polish documents that clearly state it was 111 Eskadra which fought against Ju 87s at the very same time. 


[size=3] Clearly or maybe not clearly?
You are referring to a Polish document, but you do not know it, because it is on the way from England? This is incredible. God save me from this guy!

I have had never claimed, I have copies of every Polish document. The fact I have seen several documents in the Polish Institute does not mean I have them all copied. There are real piles of paper, and the one needs plenty of time to trawl through them. Now, I do not even have the time to trawl through all the papers I already have. So simple.

[Marius]

Franek,

You are personally and frequently attacking Mr Cynk, not only on this board.

??????????????????????????????????????????
This is a serious reproach. So how about a source? Title, page and so on. I am sure you can quote something "very bad"... (?). Please do it.

Have you been able to read Polish, you would find that after downing this very Stuka, Lachowicki-Czechowicz fought with Messerschmitts, according to his original combat report of 4.09.1939.

It seems my Polish is better than yours. Franek, 3 (!!) "Messerschmitts" shot at him coming from ahead. It is very interesting how you are deleting so important details. Again these damned 3 aircraft...
I doubt Lachowicki-Cz. correctly recognized these aircraft. He tried to get behind one, but all 3 fled at a very low level. I see no reason to believe these were Bf 109`s. The word "Messerschmitt" is clearly showing he was unable to say what it really was. Bf 109, Bf 110 or whatever?

I am quoting it because it is extremelly clear with statement twin engined aircraft.

In fact nothing is clear (even Mr Cynk is doubting the twin engined version). So how will you explain the fact Pniak was credited with a Ju 87? He should be credited with a "twin engined aircraft", right? But he was not. The twin engined aircraft does appear in the report no more. (!)
The diary of III/4 is stating about "Dorniers" what means completely nothing.
One example from German war diaries. Some crews reported Polish Curtiss-fighters or Potez 63.

Polish pilots reported about all types of German aircraft they had heard and mostly they were wrong. Surely for Rolski it wasn`t easy to decide what aircraft they really fought against. But to believe now these "Dorniers" had exactly to be Bf 110`s is unintelligible for me.

Another example: the original document of the Pursuit Brigade 5.9.1939, which you have declared as one among many (surely falsified (?), because contrary to what you want to have), is reporting about 3 Do 215`s. They were in fact Ju 87`s of IV./LG 1. This is nothing unusual, but showing Polish pilots didn`t know German aircraft types. There is no reason to believe, if someone wrote "Dornier" in the diary it had to be a "twin engined aircraft". In fact it could be everything.

It makes a big difference if I am reporting about a Dornier, Bf 110 or on the other side about a one engined or two engined aircraft. The sentence "two engined aircraft" appears in Pniak`s report only and at the very beginning of it.

I have had never claimed, I have copies of every Polish document.

So how can you declare here Polish documents are clearly stating also the 111 eskadra fought against Ju 87`s on the midday of 5th. Sept.? I really don`t understand what your problem is.
We both know very well that such a document does not exist. I know you have read Mr Cynk`s book. The autor mixed the action of the Pursuit Brigade for 5th and 6th Sept., because he believes more the pilots memories than the original documents (this is again not a personal attack, but simple truth and of course - criticizm). When you take into consideration German records you can get out many interesting things about the Polish action. Among others the fact that original Polish documents are not bad and surely not falsified. They are confirming what I have published. I wrote a voluminous article about the Pursuit Brigade for Kagero (Militaria XX wieku 5-2005, page 5-17). Many Poles are stating this is the best work about the unit they ever read.

Even if I would find the war diary of I./ZG 1 and this document would confirm what I wrote here, you would comment it as incomplete or falsified, right?
Further discussion about 4th Sept., the unit III/4 and possible claim of I./ZG 1 on this days is senseless. Your argumentation is very weak, Franek. I doubt you can convince anybody with it.

But I repeat my request for a proof about my personal attacks on Mr Cynk. And please show me your real source about the action of 111 eskadra on the 5th Sept.1939. Isn`t it just Mr Cynk`s book?

Marius

[Evgeny Velichko]

2 Marius: thx for help, really. It seems its all clear with I./ZG 1 in Poland. If I will have any additional questions or e.t.c. - I will ask using Privat Message, Ok?

Then, many thanks to all for info about invasion in Denmark. Very interesting, really.

For now, I bought a book about Blitzkrieg in West. Now I trying to find some moments about invasion in Holland, and Dunkirk.

Also, any websourse aviable about those aircombats may-june 1940?

[Franek Grabowski]

??????????????????????????????????????????
This is a serious reproach. So how about a source? Title, page and so on. I am sure you can quote something "very bad"... (?). Please do it.

You did it eg. in the article concerning III/4 Dywizjon, you do it here.

It seems my Polish is better than yours. Franek, 3 (!!) "Messerschmitts" shot at him coming from ahead. It is very interesting how you are deleting so important details. Again these damned 3 aircraft...
I doubt Lachowicki-Cz. correctly recognized these aircraft. He tried to get behind one, but all 3 fled at a very low level. I see no reason to believe these were Bf 109`s. The word "Messerschmitt" is clearly showing he was unable to say what it really was. Bf 109, Bf 110 or whatever?

Fired and chased that means combat anyway. Three aircraft - you escaped from the question, how to fly finger four having seven aircraft (document you quoted). You also wrote.

In fact the pilots of III/4 saw no differences between a Do 17 and a Bf 110. They even didn`t know what a Bf 110 was.
For them both types - the unknown Bf 110 as well as the Do 17 - were just Do 17`s (look to the 2th September 1939 fightings were all Bf 110`s of ZG 1 were described as Do 17`s).

I Agree, and that means Lachowicki clearly meant Me 109s as he was not awared of any other Messerschmitts at the time. The same way, there were Dorniers mentioned in documents, as there were no other Dorniers known, see the scan above.

In fact nothing is clear (even Mr Cynk is doubting the twin engined version). So how will you explain the fact Pniak was credited with a Ju 87? He should be credited with a "twin engined aircraft", right? But he was not. The twin engined aircraft does appear in the report no more. (!)

Cynk wrote that the diary and high level documents for unknown reason mention Ju 87 but he finds a claim for Do 17 more likely, especially in spite of Dorniers being mentioned in other documents. His supposition is, that someone simply misunderstood hastilly written Pniak's report, especially as no particular type was mentioned there. This is either your lack of knowledge of Polish or purely your own manipulation in hope that most of the readers here cannot understand Polish and cannot verify Cynk's text. I may provide a scan of respective part of book to prove my words.

The diary of III/4 is stating about "Dorniers" what means completely nothing.

Means two engined aircraft, either Do 17s or Me 110s.

One example from German war diaries. Some crews reported Polish Curtiss-fighters or Potez 63.

I am not discussing German diaries.

Polish pilots reported about all types of German aircraft they had heard and mostly they were wrong. Surely for Rolski it wasn`t easy to decide what aircraft they really fought against. But to believe now these "Dorniers" had exactly to be Bf 110`s is unintelligible for me.

It was you, who claimed those aircraft could not have been Dorniers. You cannot provide a diary of I/ZG1 to prove they were not there either, so I assume those were I/ZG1 Messerschmitts.

Another example: the original document of the Pursuit Brigade 5.9.1939, which you have declared as one among many (surely falsified (?), because contrary to what you want to have), is reporting about 3 Do 215`s. They were in fact Ju 87`s of IV./LG 1. This is nothing unusual, but showing Polish pilots didn`t know German aircraft types. There is no reason to believe, if someone wrote "Dornier" in the diary it had to be a "twin engined aircraft". In fact it could be everything.

There were no single engined Dorniers in the Luftwaffe and the pilots were awared only of Do 17 family. This means Do 17/215 is equal to twin engined aircraft with a twin tail. I suppose some Germans believe Poles are unable to count to two, but it is their problem, not mine.

It makes a big difference if I am reporting about a Dornier, Bf 110 or on the other side about a one engined or two engined aircraft. The sentence "two engined aircraft" appears in Pniak`s report only and at the very beginning of it.

Two days before Pniak reported a Do 17 destroyed. If he claimed a twin engined aircraft, he doubtless meant an aircraft he did not recognise as Dornier, but rather unkown type. The only unknown type used by the Luftwaffe was Me 110.

So how can you declare here Polish documents are clearly stating also the 111 eskadra fought against Ju 87`s on the midday of 5th. Sept.? I really don`t understand what your problem is.

I wrote that before and if you cannot understand that, re-read the thread.

We both know very well that such a document does not exist.

You know, that makes a difference. It also makes the difference, you never have been in the Polish Institute and never looked at the Polish documents.

I know you have read Mr Cynk`s book. The autor mixed the action of the Pursuit Brigade for 5th and 6th Sept., because he believes more the pilots memories than the original documents (this is again not a personal attack, but simple truth and of course - criticizm).

If you have been able to read the book, you would find that Cynk clearly states that documents concerning 5 and 6 September are often contradictory. Also, you cannot understand, that in the book there is only a fraction of documents published. Finally, it is not true that Cynk believes later accounts more that documents. In the mentioned Pniak's case, he clearly noted he is tending to believe primary document (report) and not secondary one (kill confirmation). He is just only awared that documents contain errors, and that sometimes accounts are just more accurate. You did not notice an obvious error in the scanned document, so what is the discussion about?

When you take into consideration German records you can get out many interesting things about the Polish action.

Just like KTB of I/ZG1 or German combat reports? Or perhaps extracts from propaganda pieces? I have checked both your bibliography and BAMA catalogue. Laughable.

Among others the fact that original Polish documents are not bad and surely not falsified. They are confirming what I have published. I wrote a voluminous article about the Pursuit Brigade for Kagero (Militaria XX wieku 5-2005, page 5-17). Many Poles are stating this is the best work about the unit they ever read.

Who are the many? I found several errors there but was told it makes no sense to write a letter to the editors. I will include all comments toward this and other your articles and books in a text, I am gradually working on. Be patient.

Even if I would find the war diary of I./ZG 1 and this document would confirm what I wrote here, you would comment it as incomplete or falsified, right?

Provide the document. Provide any document giving time of I(J)/LG2. Provide anything but your suppositions. This is the basics. Only then we may discuss any errors, like combats with Polish fighters after 17 September, when they all were in Rumania.

Further discussion about 4th Sept., the unit III/4 and possible claim of I./ZG 1 on this days is senseless. Your argumentation is very weak, Franek. I doubt you can convince anybody with it.

My argumentation is based on original documents. As yet you failed to provide any document supporting your views. You have provided no scans nor ref. nos. You stated

The first victory is my own speculation.

and this is the clou of your research. It is speculative.

But I repeat my request for a proof about my personal attacks on Mr Cynk. And please show me your real source about the action of 111 eskadra on the 5th Sept.1939. Isn`t it just Mr Cynk`s book?

I wrote that before and if you cannot understand that, re-read the thread.
I am not going to participate in this disscussion any more. It is a waste of time, especially as it looks some of your unspecified personal problems seriously affect your research. Bye.

[John Beaman]

I am closing this thread as it has lost its focus.