All yellow FW190 A6

[lantern53]

I know we don't have an A6 but in Pierre Clostermann's The Big Show he described a 'magnificent' all yellow A6. It was destroyed in a headon pass with his squadron leader. 

[Bremspropeller]

Yeah. Probably flown by Elvis.

[JG7_X-Man]

38 minutes ago, lantern53 said:

I know we don't have an A6 but in Pierre Clostermann's The Big Show he described a 'magnificent' all yellow A6. It was destroyed in a headon pass with his squadron leader. 

 

I though this was solved years ago? 

[sevenless]

52 minutes ago, lantern53 said:

I know we don't have an A6 but in Pierre Clostermann's The Big Show he described a 'magnificent' all yellow A6. It was destroyed in a headon pass with his squadron leader. 

 

This might give you the answer:

 

Quote

I guess reviving this thread might cause a few deep sighs but I've learned something interesting that might add some credibility to the story...

Obviously, as losslists show it wasn't a famous ace that got shot down on that day, but there might be a source for that Yellow Fw190. (Although exaggereted or misinterpreted by Clostermann)

In Priens Jagdfliegerverbände 10/IV there's both a photo and and written description of 2./JG2 Fw190's. In July 1943 they flew among others versions, newly delivered Fw190A-6's, that due to the Staffels dual role as day and nightfigther staffel were painted in a monotone light grey scheme. The photos also shows a yellow rudder and given the color standards of the time the lower engine cowlin would most likely have been yellow too.

On July 27:th 1943, a 2./JG2 Fw190A-6 was shot down, just 30km's south of Le Havre were the fight was said to have happened. The pilot was Fritz Stückemann who was killed.

So, all the sudden, there actually is an Fw190A-6, in the right place on the right day and with a camouflage that could actually without much exaggeration be interpreted as yellow. Specially in a setting sun. As been mentioned earlier in the thread, the light conditions can really play tricks with the colors, especially if there's an aircraft in a monotone color with some additional splashes of yellow on the rudder and engine cowling.

Not calling this one solved, but Stückemann has certainly taken pole position as the possible pilot of the "yellow" Fw190 in my mind.

Edit: I should add that Mr. Bergströms article in Graf & Grislawski saved me a lot of work and served as great inspiration as well.

 

from here:

 

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/archive/index.php?t-929.html

[Bremspropeller]

7 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

This might give you the answer:

 

 

from here:

 

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/archive/index.php?t-929.html

 

The wraparound RLM 76 was actually my first guess, too.

 

Calling it "all yellow" is quite a stretch, though. It should have been obvious to Clostermann.

Just another example of how trustworthy Clostermann (and other "storytellers" like e.g. Galland) are.

[JG7_X-Man]

1 hour ago, lantern53 said:

I know we don't have an A6 but in Pierre Clostermann's The Big Show he described a 'magnificent' all yellow A6. It was destroyed in a headon pass with his squadron leader. 

 

 

The mysterious yellow Focke-Wulf Fw 190 of "Major von Graf". This aircraft was known to Allied pilots and claimed as shot down by Christien Martell in his Spitfire on July 27th, 1943. However no record of an aircraft in that color, or a pilot of that name in that location at that time exists.

 

The only Major von Graff  I know of was the former soccer play (sorry my European friends - Futball) Herman von Graff and he survived the war so Pierre Clostermann was not talking about him.

 

Note: There were many Graff's in the Luftwaffe (the surname is as common as "Price" in the US, or "Mills" in the UK).

 

However, I think we can all agree that if we put our thinking caps on, the likely hood one undocumented "Yellow" Fw 190 A-6 flying around is probably true but unlikely.

 

I am sure there are many more here that know more than I do on the subject so I will let them chime in.

Edited July 23, 2020 by JG7_X-Man

[sevenless]

Just now, Bremspropeller said:

Just another example of how trustworthy Clostermann (and other "storytellers" like e.g. Galland) are.

 

Yep agree. It is an inherent problem with all memoirs, but Clostermann is a very special case.

[JG7_X-Man]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

The wraparound RLM 76 was actually my first guess, too.

 

Calling it "all yellow" is quite a stretch, though. It should have been obvious to Clostermann.

Just another example of how trustworthy Clostermann (and other "storytellers" like e.g. Galland) are.

 

Sometimes people get these things wrong by recollection and memory - doesn't mean they are lairs or "untrustworthy". Why are we so judgmental!

Edited July 23, 2020 by JG7_X-Man

[Bremspropeller]

34 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

Sometimes people get these things wrong by recollection and memory - doesn't mean they are lairs or "untrustworthy". Why are we so judgmental!

 

 

This is not a recollectional thing. He could have written "appeared yellow in the low sun" or "had a yellow tint to it", or whatever. No, he makes the airplane to be yellow for a fact and belonging to some weird pilot that never existed. He also acts as if he ever met Nowotny in the skies in the west (which he most certainly never did) and acts all sad when he learns about his death - being completely unimpressed by several other aces' deaths that happened just before. Clostermann is as close to being full of crap as you can get.

At least his book is entertaining.

 

Take Galland and Steinhoff, who wanted to sell books and make lots of ca$h, white-washing or blatantly lying about their roles in several key events or fabricationg stuff altigether (like squadrons of 109s ditching in the Channel). Fortunately, there are historians who are kicking over stones and who are exposing some of their stories as just blatantly pulled out of their rear ends.

 

[ZachariasX]

7 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

However no record of an aircraft in that color, or a pilot of that name in that location at that time exists.

 

From the latest edition of Clostermanns book:

 

Nota : Nous avons appris plus tard que ce n'était pas Graff mais Oesau, grand as lui aussi.

 

Clostermann is probably talking about Hermann Graf who flew this in France in 1943:

 

He mentiones „Graff“ a couple of times. It seems that they had indeed no had exact info on who flew when in which squadron on the other team. (No wonder.) I have no info on Oesau getting shot down in 1943. What we can take for certain is that they mingled with a lot with colorful Fw190‘s during 1943. Beyond any of that it‘s probably stretching it. In the book, he even labels the aircraft as an A8 („the latest model“) when A5 would have been rather recent.

 

Some of his manuscripts were clearly edited right after the war for publication of his book „Le Grand Cirque“, but at that moment he clearly did not have all info at hand to cross check his recollections.

 

 

4 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

He also acts as if he ever met Nowotny in the skies in the west (which he most certainly never did)

He never did and he never claimed he had. Yet it is rather believable that he honestly thought that Nowotny was around or responsible for certain profilic kills.

 

It all goes hand in hand with Clostermanns psychology, the kind of man he respected. Galland was among them, even awful perps such as Rudel. Yet they all have one thing in common, they were heroic in Hemmingways sense. Men who stood out facing the impossible. For some the bell told, for some, they didn‘t. But they are the ones. Clostermann is way more open in his book about all this than he probably ever noticed. This is what he has to say about the non-Hemingway type of man:

 

Le deuxième Français arrivé ce jour-là m'a d'abord stupéfié : il portait des lunettes… des verres gros comme des culs de bouteille… un type vieux, pour moi, avec ses trente-cinq ans, avec des lunettes… je n'avais jamais vu ça. On m'a fait savoir que c'était un cadre supérieur de la Shell je crois. C'était Churchill lui-même qui l'avait pistonné pour lui permettre de piloter. Il a accompli des missions excellentes, il pilotait bien, il était gonflé… A un atterrissage, son avion endommagé par la Flak a capoté, il s'est raccroché à la verrière et en retombant, elle lui a coupé net le poignet. Nous étions là, essayant de soulever le fuselage de l'avion avec un camion grue. J'ai vu son moignon qui dépassait, les nerfs et les tendons qui sortaient… Il a continué à piloter, avec une main en bois et un gant… Des gens comme ça, je les salue très bas. Mais quelle époque quand il fallait être pistonné par le Premier ministre pour arriver à se battre comme pilote ! Il s'appelait Vassier.

 

Old (35!), myoptic, basically a freak, who uses special connections to Churchil to fly Tempest. And doing, admittedly so, very good missions. Not even going to war in a Tempest with one hand after that accident changed Clostermanns opinion. Still a popous idiot.

 

Clostermanns books would not be as good as they are, had that short and very pompous Frenchie not seen beyond what it all was. And wrote just that. Full of cr*p is different. It wouldn‘t have made the story it was.

 

 

Edited July 23, 2020 by ZachariasX

[DocDocbruno]

"Clostermann is as close to being full of crap as you can get."  Perhaps if we had combat experiences such as his then we would be in a position to judge him.  Every move was a close call with Death.  He describes writing from memory at the end of horrifying days in the sky.  I choose not to cast the first or any stone.

doc

[Bremspropeller]

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

It all goes hand in hand with Clostermanns psychology, the kind of man he respected. Galland was among them, even awful perps such as Rudel. Yet they all have one thing in common, they were heroic in Hemmingways sense. Men who stood out facing the impossible. For some the bell told, for some, they didn‘t. But they are the ones. Clostermann is way more open in his book about all this than he probably ever noticed. This is what he has to say about the non-Hemingway type of man:

 

But largely only according to their own accounts. A deeper look exposes them as phonies a lot of times. There were more honourable men of integrity around of whom we don't read much about. Lützow comes to mind on the german side. The thought of writing a memoir wouldn't have crossed those people's minds.

 

Many of Galland's stories don't hold up to scrutiny. His memoirs are full of errors and whitewash with traces of seemingly honest self-criticism. Prien takes him apart and sheds some very bad light on his actions during the time of the Sicilly battles.

Rudel was full of sh1t and everybody in his unit knew it. Nobody questioned his braveness, but it was widely accepted that his tank-claims were more inflated than the Hindenburg.

 

I also don't like Clostermann's attitude towards Saint-Exupéry.

 

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

He mentiones „Graff“ a couple of times. It seems that they had indeed no had exact info on who flew when in which squadron on the other team. (No wonder.) I have no info on Oesau getting shot down in 1943. What we can take for certain is that they mingled with a lot with colorful Fw190‘s during 1943. Beyond any of that it‘s probably stretching it. In the book, he even labels the aircraft as an A8 („the latest model“) when A5 would have been rather recent.

 

There weren't any colourful 190s around - except for the standard german yellow ID markings, which were...standard. The only non-standard birds were a couple of wraparound RLM 76 jobs and the odd Paradiesvogel, like one of several of Graf's 190s. He wasn't shot down in this airplane and the yellow cowling is not only hardly the standing-out feature of the aircraft (that would be the red tulip / flash), it's also a fair straetch to make of it an all yellow aircraft.

Ergänzungsjagdgruppe Ost was based at the Bay of Biscay, so meeting Graf there with Spitfires based on southern England was a bit of a stretch, too.

 

3 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Some of his manuscripts were clearly edited right after the war for publication of his book „Le Grand Cirque“, but at that moment he clearly did not have all info at hand to cross check his recollections.

 

That may very well have been the case, but there are more than just the first prints around and he could have checked later on, before having subsequent prints be published. He could even have checked with Graf himself. But why let facts get in the way of a good story?

 

25 minutes ago, DocDocbruno said:

Perhaps if we had combat experiences such as his then we would be in a position to judge him.  Every move was a close call with Death.  He describes writing from memory at the end of horrifying days in the sky.  I choose not to cast the first or any stone.

doc

 

There are lots of other combat-memoirs that manage to match reality quite well. They usually don't take too many liberties and don't come up with doubtful tales.

It's down to character and nothing else.

[lantern53]

I've been in situations where my memory was not the same as what actually transpired. I once responded to a report of a person being shot and the shooter came out of the building carrying a rifle and the guy shot 8 times was laying there on the grass. My recollection is quite different from the physical layout of the place. I also have no recollection of about half of what happened. I think PTSD had something to do with it, so I would agree that during times of severe stress your mind will do funny things.

[ZachariasX]

6 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

But largely only according to their own accounts.

This had nothing to do with accounts. Stats tell you enough. Most profilic careers of these aces are de facto not survivable. Clostermanns survivability rate for starting out on the „Free French Campaign“ were at 2%, that is certain death.

 

6 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

That may very well have been the case, but there are more than just the first prints around and he could have checked later on, before having subsequent prints be published. He could even have checked with Graf himself. But why let facts get in the way of a good story?

Clostermann did check with German aces, especially regarding the pilots who shot him down. There are plenty of additions to the main, however unchanged story line. They are notas as posted above. There are several of those. Yet as in the example posted, they at times still are implausible, as well meant as they might be.

 

The book was never meant to be an exact squadron log, it is a tale to his parents about how he lived his life in the RAF. He did not expect to return. I see the yellow Fw190 as a more figurative ride, a „yellow baron“ of his time. What is clear is that the profilic figures of JG26 (and others) were known to them and that those experten could be discriminated in combat from the rest of the enemy crew in the way they flew.

 

It is clear that synchronizing the squadron logs of both sides (not available to him anyway during the time where that could have made some sense) would have required a fundamental rewrite.

 

Also in contrast to most pilots who polished their own achievements, Clostermann is mainly polishing the ones of the folks he admires. He made a tale about people, not an itinerary. He is being deliberately vague in many instances, where anyone I can think of would have been exact. Like when (I think) Siegfried Freytag surrendered his Me262 squadron to him. There are few Jet Kommodores with about 100 victories, that are fluent in French and have a large and very visible back injury. Why not tell his name? He gave Clostermann his gun, something that meant a lot to him. And is referred to in later books as well.

 

Christophe Cony wrote a comprehensive article in Jan. 2019, matching Clostermanns book to Squadron records.

 

Edit: For detailed references one had to go here:

https://www.avions-bateaux.com/produit/avions/3622

 

with some mentiones here:

http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/2019/01/clostermann-demozay-modest-and.html

 

Quote from there:

Spoiler

Having covered Clostermann's record in detail in previous issues of Avions magazine ( nos 100 and 151, a commemorative issue devoted to Clostermann's life) 'Avions' editor and friend of Clostermann, Christophe Cony examines Clostermann's wartime record in detail over 42 pages in the latest issue of 'Avions' (no. 227)

Cony writes;

" When I first met Clostermann in 2004 we spent a lot of time discussing Spitfires, Tempests and air combat, but he was unable to respond with any certainty to one of my questions about his exact victory tally...

" Understand ", he said to me, " that during the war I just carried out my job as a fighter pilot. I fired on enemy aircraft. But after that I had nothing to do with the attribution of victory confirmations. That's why I can't say with any certainty what my final victory tally might have been. All I know is that the British validated 23 claims for aircraft destroyed as confirmed. That total is all I've ever claimed. And nothing else.."

Cony continues;

"..That's why I believe that 'Cloclo' might have appreciated this latest study in which I have detailed for the first time his complete wartime record and how he earned his victories. I have done so by thoroughly examining all the sources - his two logbooks, including the Tempest logbook, the ORBs of the five squadrons he flew in and the existing combat reports. This article is the result of more than ten years of research. Many surprises, but also many mysteries solved!.."
 

 

 

 

Edited July 24, 2020 by ZachariasX

[Dutch2]

I do smell some inspiration for the A6 skin in BoN.  ?

[Bremspropeller]

3 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

This had nothing to do with accounts. Stats tell you enough. Most profilic careers of these aces are de facto not survivable. Clostermanns survivability rate for starting out on the „Free French Campaign“ were at 2%, that is certain death.

 

Those stats were similar to all fighter pilots. Yet not everyone chose to take the junction into fairy-tale land in their memoirs.

You're probably right in terms of his memoirs being originally intended for different audience (his parents), but it's nonetheless full of inaccuracies.

 

3 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

I see the yellow Fw190 as a more figurative ride, a „yellow baron“ of his time. What is clear is that the profilic figures of JG26 (and others) were known to them and that those experten could be discriminated in combat from the rest of the enemy crew in the way they flew.

 

Yes, those people could be obvious to the aces or more experienced pilots of the other side. JG 26 wasn't a crack-unit, though. That's just another fabrication by writers (not least british and american) spending too much time with Galland. It was a normal unit that due to the pure darwinism of being a fighter-unit on the Channel Front had competent (surving) leaders.

The same can be said about JG 2 - even though their air war was different and involved more battles over water (which incidently led to a lower actual matching-rate of their kill-claims).

The chances of surviving a career in a Channel Front unit in the Luftwaffe were practically zip.

 

3 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Clostermann did check with German aces, especially regarding the pilots who shot him down. There are plenty of additions to the main, however unchanged story line. They are notas as posted above. There are several of those. Yet as in the example posted, they at times still are implausible, as well meant as they might be.

 

I my (translated to German) copy, he spends a lot of lines in the preface, bashing Saint-Ex, which could have better been used to put his memoirs into a context.

He missed that chance. Deliberatly?

 

3 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Also in contrast to most pilots who polished their own achievements, Clostermann is mainly polishing the ones of the folks he admires. He made a tale about people, not an itinerary. He is being deliberately vague in many instances, where anyone I can think of would have been exact. Like when (I think) Siegfried Freytag surrendered his Me262 squadron to him. There are few Jet Kommodores with about 100 victories, that are fluent in French and have a large and very visible back injury. Why not tell his name? He gave Clostermann his gun, something that meant a lot to him. And is referred to in later books as well.

 

The main problem here is that people take his account as a factual historical artifact, which it isn't. Consequently we all have to spend time *unlearning* what we read in their books to get closer to what actually happened.

 

I think Pappy Boyington said it best: "You show me a hero and I'll show you a bum."

 

Edited July 24, 2020 by Bremspropeller

[von_Tom]

 

There are a few stand out autobiographies for me.  First Light (Wellum) , those by Tom Neil, Spitfire into Battle (Duncan Smith) and Wing Leader (Johnson).  I'm pretty sure they've all got various facts and figures wrong, but no hyperbole and no very obvious "shooting a line".  Mostly self-deprecating - I wonder if this reflects RAF culture at the time?  Most of the German ones suffer via the translations, and the VVS ones are all filled with jingoistic nonsense.

 

There are any number of pilot autobiographies that should be debunked.

 

von Tom

[Retnek]

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

...

The main problem here is that people take his account as a factual historical artifact, which it isn't. Consequently we all have to spend time *unlearning* what we read in their books to get closer to what actually happened.

...

WELL put - this insight should be printed in Golden Letters next to the foreword of all those war memoirs.

Those books very often had no content editors care, not to mention a critical review by a professional historian before publishing. Most publishers just practise a business - war sells. Don't get me wrong, no hard feelings against the majority of authors. Most of the reports show that it's hard work to remember a war, to deal again with all the pain. War memoirs are no creations by professional writers or historians. In most cases it's better to have the imperfect memoirs than nothing. In some cases I feel the authors are not just imperfect, they try to produce a show. Critical reading is our job.

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

I my (translated to German) copy, he spends a lot of lines in the preface, bashing Saint-Ex, which could have better been used to put his memoirs into a context. He missed that chance. Deliberatly?

It it up to him who he likes and who he doesn‘t like. But there is a clear reason he didn‘t like Saint-Ex. I explained it above. It‘s the same reason he didn‘t like the myoptic Shell executive. In principle, he openly adored Saint-Ex and meeting him as a kid in South America was instrumental to get him flying. BUT.

 

Saint-Ex had a very different idea of air combat, an idea that Clostermann found offensive:

 

Saint-Exupéry, dans une lettre à André Gide, a donné une description du courage absolument injuste, inexacte et même scandaleuse : « Le courage ? Un peu de rage, de vanité, un plaisir sportif vulgaire. »

Je veux bien lui accorder la rage, car je la connais bien, mais la vanité ?

 

The common drive to score as personal gratification Clostermann considered apalling. Himself, he considered just doing his duty, to the point where he didn‘t even weight too much on what his score was. He was doing his reports and the RAF came up with a number and that was it. He never mentiones his tally in his book at all, making him probably the only pilot in the war doing so in later writings.

 

Asked about that further, Clostermann goes on with the rant:

Plaisir sportif vulgaire ? Allons donc quand il y a au bout du chemin la peur, la mort et la noblesse d'un sacrifice librement consenti. Plaisir sportif vulgaire pour les pilotes argentins aux Malouines déboulant sur leur Mirage à 600 nœuds au milieu de la flotte anglaise ? Plaisir sportif ? Que signifiaient ces mots pour le pilote japonais kamikaze de vingt ans, qui vivait sa nuit des oliviers, sachant que le soleil qui allait se lever à l'horizon éclairerait son dernier jour ? Mots bien malheureux de la part d'un grand écrivain ou autojustification ? Paix à ses cendres, il a payé de sa vie son plaisir sportif vulgaire !

 

Saint-Ex really touched a spot there in Cloclo. It is remarkable that he didn‘t see this in certain German aces he became friends with, the vulgar pleasure to score for nothing but personal gratification. Something they would be rather mum about after the war. But he certainly saw that in the (later) one handed Shell exec that was in his squadron as well.
 

He is a rather complicated creature. He leaves out a lot in his book, things that he wasn‘t comfortable with (like his departure from the „Alsace“) or of course things that were just outside his event horizon. A lot of these things are extensively annotated in the latest French editions of his books, yet even later on, info he had at hand do not always match all sources. Pre-internet fact checking was even harder. And him, basically writing a novel instead of a squdron record felt obviously little urge to change that. Meeting and befriending some of the (formerly) other team was enough.

 

Clostermann was a couple of times influenced by what the casual reader might consider small, unimportant things, but they permanently shaped his views. His sympathy for Argentinia is one example. 

 

1 hour ago, Retnek said:

WELL put - this insight should be printed in Golden Letters next to the foreword of all those war memoirs.

This, yes. So much.

 

The problem is always about WHAT you can take as fact and what is imagination. I think Clostermann is rather honest overall, as he has very little agenda in tuning his story besides „making it a story“.

[Bremspropeller]

8 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

The common drive to score as personal gratification Clostermann considered apalling. Himself, he considered just doing his duty, to the point where he didn‘t even weight too much on what his score was. He was doing his reports and the RAF came up with a number and that was it. He never mentiones his tally in his book at all, making him probably the only pilot in the war doing so in later writings.

 

Yet he was close friends with Galland and Rudel, who defined themselves and their egos largely through exactly this trait.

 

I don't think it's due to Saint-Exes views on air combat. I think he was pissed by his "late" arrival at the front. This is also written in the same preface IIRC.

 

12 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Clostermann was a couple of times influenced by what the casual reader might consider small, unimportant things, but they permanently shaped his views. His sympathy for Argentinia is one example.

 

His son flew Mirages and thus he had a close bond with argentine pilots, who trained in France. Having sympathies for THEM is understandable.

Having sympathies for the argentinian regime, throwing their pilots under the bus for internal politics, much less so.

18 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

And him, basically writing a novel instead of a squdron record felt obviously little urge to change that.

 

It's important that people realise this is basicly a novel based on his experiences - not a factual report.

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Yet he was close friends with Galland and Rudel, who defined themselves and their egos largely through exactly this trait.

 

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

It is remarkable that he didn‘t see this in certain German aces he became friends with, the vulgar pleasure to score for nothing but personal gratification. Something they would be rather mum about after the war.

 

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

I don't think it's due to Saint-Exes views on air combat. I think he was pissed by his "late" arrival at the front. This is also written in the same preface IIRC.

No way. Late for what? I’d like to see that. He was in L.A. (coming from Brazil) studying at Caltech when he saw his fellow Frenchmen surrender is the most awkwards and embarassing way. He THEN got a „despatch“ from his Dad (from Brazzaville; that was how paternal care was administred) to go and fight for DeGaulle. If anything he wanted to prove something to his dad whom he considered a hero (a French officer that somehow managed to get shot in some way in WW1). As a teenager, he embarked alone back to Brazil, and from there to England via Buenos Aires, Montevideo and Brazzaville. The British accepted his flying license, but still sent him back for training, something he didn‘t regret at all.

 

I wouldn‘t know where a motion of missing out woukd come from. Yet it is on that trip in Buenos Aires, where his opinion of Argentinia was set.

 

Saint-Ex on the other hand was flying in the war for the sake of the adventure. Too old to fly combat, he could fly recon. But looking at Saint-Ex flying exploits, this was all of the sort „have someone gas up the plane and he‘d fly places“. He was rather lucky to last through such a career, even though there were close shaves, usually indicating a complete lack of flight preparation.

 

They were very different people.

[MasterBaiter]

15 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

That may very well have been the case, but there are more than just the first prints around and he could have checked later on, before having subsequent prints be published. He could even have checked with Graf himself. But why let facts get in the way of a good story?

 

 

Because Clostermann did publish his books using only the notes he made days after days during the war. He says it in a very known interview in french where as an example he explains than when he said he shot down a Fw-190 D-9 in Normandy he was convinced it was the case because they knew via the british intel those planes were coming even tho he met them later in the war. (Someting similar probably happened with that yellow 190) You have to read his book as the way he was thinking during the war. And he never corrected those things because he did want to keep things as he wrote them during the war.

 

And yes you have to step back when reading because of numerous things like those. But disrespecting those guys like somes are on this forum is quite disgusting.

Show some respect.

[Bremspropeller]

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

[...]

 

Saint-Ex was late to join their efforts.

[JG7_X-Man]

 

8 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

JG 26 wasn't a crack-unit, though. That's just another fabrication by writers (not least british and american) spending too much time with Galland. It was a normal unit that due to the pure darwinism of being a fighter-unit on the Channel Front had competent (surving) leaders.

The same can be said about JG 2 - even though their air war was different and involved more battles over water (which incidently led to a lower actual matching-rate of their kill-claims).

The chances of surviving a career in a Channel Front unit in the Luftwaffe were practically zip.

@Bremspropeller I will have to disagree with you there. Jagdgeschwader 26 and Jagdgeschwader 2 were both was crack-units. I look at it like this, JG 26 (North) and JG 2 (South) were the only units on hand to defend the entire Atlantic Wall from the Spanish border through Belgium, from the end of the Battle of Britain to until late 1942 (That's when the USAAF arrived). So we are talking about both units having no more than 100 - 150 serviceable on hand at any point in time to keep the RAF at bay during the day for almost 2 years, which is outstanding! With this responsibility - bring up their combat record is just pointless.

Edited July 24, 2020 by JG7_X-Man

[Bremspropeller]

6 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 

 

@Bremspropeller I will have to disagree with you there. Jagdgeschwader 26 and  Jagdgeschwader 2 were both was crack-units. I look at it like this, JG 26 (North) and JG 2 (South) were the only units on hand to defend the entire Atlantic Wall from the Spanish border through Belgium, from the end of the Battle of Britain to until late 1942 (That's when thew USAAF arrived). So we are talking about both units having no more than 100 - 150 serviceable on hand at any point in time to keep the RAF at bay during the day for almost 2 years, which is outstanding! With this responsibility - bring up their combat record is just pointless.

 

A crack unit has special personnel (like the soviet guards units). Both JG2 and JG 26 were just regular pilots right out of the pipeline with no special additional training or higher performance in training. They just happened to be there. And losses were just as atrocious as with the RAF.

 

You're also forgetting to mention JG 1 in the Netherlands. They were somewhat closer to JG 26 in the Pas de Calais region than JG 2 in Normandy.

[Cybermat47]

On 7/24/2020 at 2:42 AM, Bremspropeller said:

 

Take Galland and Steinhoff, who wanted to sell books and make lots of ca$h, white-washing or blatantly lying about their roles in several key events or fabricationg stuff altigether (like squadrons of 109s ditching in the Channel). Fortunately, there are historians who are kicking over stones and who are exposing some of their stories as just blatantly pulled out of their rear ends.

Steinhoff? I read an excerpt from his book that seemed to go in the opposite direction, with him taking responsibility, saying that there was too much evidence of his “unconditional self-sacrifice in service to the Third Reich” for any excuses from him to be taken seriously.
 

Guderian was a solid example of what you’re talking about though, exaggerating his contribution to Panzer doctrine while omitting any reference to his war crimes and willingness to accept Nazi bribes in exchange for loyalty.

 

19 hours ago, DocDocbruno said:

"Clostermann is as close to being full of crap as you can get."  Perhaps if we had combat experiences such as his then we would be in a position to judge him.  Every move was a close call with Death.  He describes writing from memory at the end of horrifying days in the sky.  I choose not to cast the first or any stone.

doc

We can’t allow historical objectivity to take a backseat to hero worship. That has long lasting consequences - there are still people alive today who believe that the Wehrmacht had no involvement in the Holocaust (they did, as ordered by Walther von Reichenau in the Severity Order), that the CSA wasn’t a hardline white supremacist state (it was, as stated by the vice-president of the CSA in the Cornerstone Speech), and that the Spartans were guardians of freedom (they invaded and enslaved their neighbours, killed them during Spartiate training, and tried to destroy the idea of democracy multiple times).

 

We also have to take into account the fact that memory isn’t perfect and you don’t have time to take in all the small details when your life is in danger. The firefighting shift I pulled on Christmas Eve is mostly just a blur with a few seconds that stand out to me.

Edited July 24, 2020 by [Pb]Cybermat47

[Bremspropeller]

11 minutes ago, [Pb]Cybermat47 said:

Steinhoff? I read an excerpt from his book that seemed to go in the opposite direction, with him taking responsibility, saying that there was too much evidence of his “unconditional self-sacrifice in service to the Third Reich” for any excuses from him to be taken seriously.

 

Yes, Steinhoff.

His role in describing the Fighter Commanders' Revolt is mostly overblown and is not in conjunction with how other people (e.g. Trautloft) have seen it - mostly praising Lützow for standing alone against Göring. Much like both Steinhoff and Galland played a less than bright role in the Sicilly-campaign. Galland even wanting random fighter-pilots court-martialled for cowardice.

 

The beatings will continue until morale improves...

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Saint-Ex was late to join their efforts.

Ah, my bad, I misread. Still, I think there was the attitude problem that caused the grudge.

 

Anyway, I‘m looking forward for a 190 with this color scheme:

Spoiler

 

(Is that yellow RLM 04?)

 

I‘ll park it in the historic fiction section next to the Camel that does 90 deg turns to the left in the same time it can do 270 deg turns to the right.

 

[Monksilver]

The posters above know a lot more than I do about the facts of the story but there are a couple of thoughts that are worth chucking in.  I am not saying these thoughts are the answer but rather questions to ponder before reaching a conclusion.

 

I think I saw in a post that Closterman and the yellow FW190 were in a head on pass. If each plane was doing say 300mph that means they were closing on each other at a combined speed of 600mph, that is 260 metres per second. A FW190 is 10.2m long. That means it would take Closterman all of 0.04 seconds to pass it which lets face is nothing  - even if you play with the maths to allow for greater angles/distances of separation (but also factoring in obstructed views) we are  talking about a very short time. His longest view of it would be as they approached each other, that means he would see its nose the longest so if its nose was yellow that could result in that colour dominating his memory of the what the FW190 looked like. Yellow is a brighter, more noticeable colour than grey so it is may be more likely that the yellow will stick out more in the mind even if it was on a smaller area than the grey causing him to think what he saw was an all yellow plane?

 

It seems there was no all yellow FW190. That doesn't mean Closterman was lying, just that he was got it wrong and perhaps there is a good reason for his mistake.

 

It is also worth looking into the question of motive. What did Closterman stand to gain by saying it was an all yellow FW190? If he knew it wasn't and it was a lie then he must have known that his fellow pilots (presumably people whose respect he wanted) would know it was a lie and he would be easily found out and his reputation ruined, would have sufficient motive to run that risk?

 

Ultimately the memoirs of anyone will contain either:-

 

a) what they think  happened

b) what they like to think happened

c) what they like other people to think happened

 

Of course none of those might be what did actually happen.

 

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

The beatings will continue until morale improves...

 

Like the example made of Admiral Byng - it is good to shoot an admiral from time to time to encourage the others.  In fairness it did a lot to energise Royal Navy officers afterwards but it also has to be  conceded it didn't do much to improve Byng himself.

 

[JG7_X-Man]

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

A crack unit has special personnel (like the soviet guards units). Both JG2 and JG 26 were just regular pilots right out of the pipeline with no special additional training or higher performance in training. They just happened to be there. And losses were just as atrocious as with the RAF.

 

You're also forgetting to mention JG 1 in the Netherlands. They were somewhat closer to JG 26 in the Pas de Calais region than JG 2 in Normandy.

 

I didn't forget JG 1. I left them out as I only refereed to as far as Belgium besides, they only had a single group which was at half strength and in what world is Audembert further away from Pas de Calais than literately anywhere in Holland? 

 

More importantly:

When describing a military unit, "crack" is an old-fashioned term basically meaning "excellent". A "crack regiment" would be highly experienced, with superior discipline and morale compared to an average regiment of the same type.

 

It seems to me that you like to argue for the sake of arguing - so that's on me for not figuring that out sooner. My bad! 

Edited July 24, 2020 by JG7_X-Man

[Avimimus]

25 minutes ago, Monksilver said:

Ultimately the memoirs of anyone will contain either:-

 

a) what they think  happened

b) what they like to think happened

c) what they like other people to think happened

 

Of course none of those might be what did actually happen.

 

Well put.

 

That said, it is up to us to revise using research available to us... and if there is a lot of (c)... then it casts doubt on the entire source.

 

However, we should really doubt (a) as well: 

 

[Monksilver]

 

11 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

Well put.

 

That said, it is up to us to revise using research available to us... and if there is a lot of (c)... then it casts doubt on the entire source.

 

However, we should really doubt (a) as well: 

 

 

I have spent the last 25 years interviewing witnesses to accidents so know a fair bit about the vagaries of witness recollection. One constant is what people say about how much time passed between point A and point B - it is a near certainty that they will over estimate it. I then use the stopwatch on my watch to time out for them how long 10 seconds (or whatever they said was) and they are surprised how much longer the stated time is to what they really meant - far more reliable to say 'when I hit the table that is (point A) , shout stop when the same amount of time passes to when you saw (point B)'  and time this on a stop watch out - the results are quite different. 

[Bremspropeller]

35 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

I didn't forget JG 1. I left them out as I only refereed to as far as Belgium besides, they only had a single group which was at half strength and in what world is Audembert further away from Pas de Calais than literately anywhere in Holland? 

 

Yes, you deliberately narrowed down the set.

Don't try to make your narrative fit by cherrypicking.

There was a time-frame in 1941 when II./JG 2 actually was based at Abbeville. And yes, I deliberately left that out.

 

Bergen-op-Zoom (Woensdrecht) is pretty close to the Pas de Calais (JG 26) area. Closer than JG 2's bases used for most of the time.

 

38 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

More importantly:

When describing a military unit, "crack" is an old-fashioned term basically meaning "excellent". A "crack regiment" would be highly experienced, with superior discipline and morale compared to an average regiment of the same type.

 

It doesn't fit either. JG 26 wasn't more "excellent" or with "higher discipline" or "morale" than any other german "average" fighter wing.

 

38 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

It seems to me that you like to argue for the sake of arguing - so that's on me for not figuring that out sooner. My bad!

 

Nah, I'm just right. ?

[Retnek]

On 7/24/2020 at 9:32 PM, Bremspropeller said:

Yes, Steinhoff.

His role in describing the Fighter Commanders' Revolt is mostly overblown and is not in conjunction with how other people (e.g. Trautloft) have seen it - mostly praising Lützow for standing alone against Göring. Much like both Steinhoff and Galland played a less than bright role in the Sicilly-campaign. Galland even wanting random fighter-pilots court-martialled for cowardice.

Gallands "memoirs" are a strange show, most interesting to see what he refuses to talk about. A lot of veterans have chosen the way not to comment on Gallands book as a form of critical distance. There was no need to go on with the war-time conflicts, since Galland more or less remained a private person. Galland got away with telling silence mostly.

Next to the sin of blowing up his role in the "fighter pilots revolt" Steinhoff had another role after WW2. He became an active high-ranking soldier again. Especially during his assignment to gain control over the so-called "Starfighter-crisis" he had to fight a lot of old-school traditions in the new federal Luftwaffe. He did consequently. To step on toes of old fellows is an efficient way to gain some bad reputation. In contrast to the often strongly right-winged veteran officers he had no problems to cooperate with the upcoming Social-Democrats in the late 60th, too. Another sin.

For both Galland and Steinhoff I do not know any biographies worth to mention. So it's difficult to get a picture.

 

Gallands shamelessly single-sided self-representation called "The First and the Last" is in need for a critical study like no other book on air war. It's a declaration of inability by the community of military historians this book never earned a substantiated critical response. It was (and is, I fear) the most influential book on the history of WW2 air war - at least in Germany. The extremely polite or unbelievable naive reception of his memoirs by a lot of western authors has been a mystery to me, too.

 

Steinhoff's presentation of his role in WW2 is much different. Both biographical books show an educated distance, realism and contain regret. Written in 1969 and 1974 he positions himself clearly against the flood of "we fought knightly and knew nothing"-memoirs in Germany, especially in his epilogues. So those memoirs were political books, too, written to show his flag in Germany of 1969.
Doing so he broke some unwritten rules among veterans. Who ever wanted to understand could find a clear message: do not believe the exculpation-writing of some veterans. He criticized the higher command (not excluding Galland and other Luftwaffe-leaders) for a continued blindness until 1945. Showed sympathy for the "20 July plot" - a serious no-go for the vast majority of German veteran officer at that time. He took party against the traditional Wehrmacht-officers for a more modern lay-out of the Federal Army Bundeswehr. He really did a lot to upset the (extremely) conservative community of professional soldiers in Germany of the late 60s. Maybe because he felt a need to show his version of history. Maybe to present himself as a soldier much more compatible to the Zeitgeist of the 68-revolution, too? Opportunistic and or honest, finally?

Steinhoff's two books badly need a critical review and a detailed fact-check, too. But both never have been nearly as influential as Gallands book still is. Since there's an unusual open antipathy by some veterans against Steinhoff I'm cautious with my opinion about that man. One has to do at least some things quite right to earn such a disrespect by the wrong.

Edited July 25, 2020 by Retnek

[Avimimus]

This is turning into an exceptionally interesting discussion.

[sevenless]

7 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 Jagdgeschwader 26 and Jagdgeschwader 2 were both was crack-units.

 

Nope, no more "crack" than every other unit fighting in the west. They tried to make the best of what was available to them, but certainly no more "crack" than JG 1, JG 11, JG 27, JG 53, JG 4 or JG 300 and the others fighting in the west.

[Cybermat47]

I don’t understand why you’re all talking about crack when the Wehrmacht’s drug of choice was meth...

[sevenless]

10 hours ago, [Pb]Cybermat47 said:

I don’t understand why you’re all talking about crack when the Wehrmacht’s drug of choice was meth...

 

Exactly

 

[Cybermat47]

9 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

Exactly

 

And we can’t forget the best of them all.
 

(Spoilers for swastika.)

 

Spoiler

 

Yes, this s Nazi Panzer chocolate with pervitin (meth) that was made in the Hermann Göring Chocolate Factory.

Edited July 25, 2020 by [Pb]Cybermat47

[ZachariasX]

Meanwhile in America:

 

... They knew you better inhale.

 

And some question bona fide reports of yellow FockeWulfs. I want a yellow one, maybe this for the default livery:

 

Funny enough, when the first reports of all pink Spitfires

Spoiler

came in on the German side, they put Pervitin on doctors prescription to reduce rampant use of it.

 

Edited July 25, 2020 by ZachariasX