Walter Radlick 9/JG53

[Brian]

Hi guys

Walter Radlick 9/JG53 shot down and ditched Bf109 (6279) on 23/9/40 in Channel - believe victim of S/Ldr Don Finlay of 41 Squadron. Has anyone the time of his ditching, how he was rescued and whether he claimed an Anson before being shot down himself?

Thanks in advance

Brian

[Peter Cornwell]

Interesting post. Prien suggests otherwise & gives no mention of any claim for an Anson. May I please enquire as to your sources ?

[robert]

Hi,

I have 2 losses:

Radlick crashed in Wissant due to air combat with E-4 W.Nr. 5894 and another plane from stIII/JG53 E-1 W.Nr.6279 belly-landed by Boulogne due to engine failure. The take-off time was mentioned in "JG53 Part I" as 10.00 AM but I`m not sure if this is connected with the losses. Perhaps this losses occurred later.

Robert

[Jochen Prien]

Gentlemen,

according to the transcript of the war diary of III./JG 53 Oblt. Walter Radlick had to crash land his stricken Bf 109 E-4 - WNr. 5894 - at Wissant, destroying the a/c in the process. This happened upon his return from an escort mission for which he took off at 10.00 hrs. according to the war diary. There is no hint at all that he might have ditched in the Channel or that this might have happened at another time of the day.

Regards

Jochen Prien

[Brian]

Hi guys

Looks like I'm getting it wrong again! That's the beauty of this website - to ascertain the facts.

On 23/9/40 an Anson of 1 Coastal Artillery Co-operation Flight, N4914 flown by Flt Lt RH McConnell, departed at 1220hrs to observe a shoot in the Calais area. Escort was provided by three Spits from 41 Squadron. At approximately 1400hrs, the Anson was attacked by at least four Bf109s which carried out a number of quarter attacks, that McConnell managed to avoid, but when one got on to his tail the AG was killed and the other two crew members wounded. With starboard engine on fire, McConnell force-landed the Anson in a field on the Kent coast.

The crew reported that the Messerschmitt that attacked them was seen to hit the sea.

Reference to 'The BoB Then and Now' (first edition) states that 6279 of 9/JG53 crashed in the sea following combat; pilot unhurt; also 5894 of StabIII/JG53 (Radlick) was shot down over the Channel; pilot unhurt. I assumed one of these was the aircraft seen by the Anson crew to have crashed into the sea, since those lost in the Channel from 4/JG2 and 7/JG3 fell in the morning action (according to the above). Since posting the above, I have been informed that 6279 in fact crash-landed at Boulogne, so assumed Radlick must have been the pilot to attack the Anson and was then shot down into the sea by Sqn Ldr Finlay. Presumably 'The BoB Then & Now' information is now misinformation!

The question now is: was the Bf109 that attacked the Anson shot down into the sea at 1400 by Sqn Ldr Finlay, and if so who was it? And, if not, who attacked the Anson?

Cheers
Brian

PS: Peter, I will phone tomorrow to make that lunch date!!

PPS: Good to hear from you Jochen. Trust you are well.

[Peter Cornwell]

Thank you Brian. I now understand how you arrived where you were.

Sorry about the 'misinformation' but that was over a quarter century ago & research has moved on. (In mitigation I note that Frank Mason gives the same details so I was in fairly eminent company). However, the assumptions made were all your own.

Yes, let's 'do' lunch sometime soon.

[Brian]

Hi Peter

Whilst I agree that the assumptions were my own, I was relying on 'facts' presented by an eminent researcher in an expensive tome, which some label the Battle of Britain 'bible'!

Even though the research may be 25 years old, facts don't change in that period of time!! Obviously the information wasn't factual, apparently only your assumption! Misinformation is what annoys writers/researchers - it is presented as fact, when in fact it isn't!!

Another fact is that it will cost you the price of a Scotch when we meet for lunch! I look forward to meeting you.

Cheers
Brian

[Peter Cornwell]

The great tragedy of Science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact. Facts, claims, statements, or ‘tablets of stone’ ? Discuss ...

Brian,

The details as published in BoBT&N (1980) can only ever be statements reflecting my honest assessment and understanding of events based upon the information available to me at that time. It surely follows that such opinion may be modified over time as fresh information comes to light.

Of course the literal, historic facts of a case cannot change, but our understanding of them must reflect current information on the subject, or we risk becoming blinkered. By the same token, publishing your current understanding of events does not, of itself, ever guarantee the facts of the matter and I pray that it never will. No researcher or historian worthy of the name, however eminent or humble, would ever make such a claim.

As for the Scotch, you will be most welcome. But why you should think it your due is not another ‘fact’ - merely an aspiration. See you on the 16th.

[Brian]

Hi Peter

Touche!

PS I'll still enjoy the Scotch!

Cheers
Brian

[Brian]

For anyone mildly interested in the above mentioned meeting, they/he/she may like to know that a really great time was had by all concerned. Val and I thank Peter and Ann for their wonderful hospitality and the Scotch was appreciated!

Till next time!!
Cheers
Brian