Battle of Britain diary

Tim Marlow

Little blokes aficionado
SMF Supporter
Joined
Apr 27, 2018
Messages
16,544
Points
113
Location
Somerset
First Name
Tim
Well done Steve. This has been a fantastic read throughout. I too really appreciate the effort involved, though I suspect this was a labour of love on your part. I am really going to miss these updates, they have been a highlight of my morning :disappointed2:
 

Neil Merryweather

SMF Supporter
Joined
Dec 29, 2018
Messages
4,394
Points
113
Location
London
First Name
Neil
Steve, many thanks also from me.
I have thoroughly enjoyed reading these diary entries- they are a remarkable achievement and one I hope you are proud of.
 

Allen Dewire

Proud Rabble Member
SMF Supporter
Joined
Apr 27, 2018
Messages
4,066
Points
113
Location
Bamberg
First Name
Allen
Morn Steve,

I too can only express my sincere thanks to you for taking the time and effort to do this. As said, this was a "must read" every day. You have a superb style of writing and the condensing of all this info, turning it into an accurate account on a daily basis. It will be missed....Once again, thank you Sir!!!

Prost
Allen
 

BattleshipBob

Bob, bob, bobing along!
SMF Supporter
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
6,179
Points
113
First Name
Bob
Amazing work Steve, every morning in bed with cuppa, first thing read your diary! Thank you very much for what must have been a very time consuming job, now what about WW11, should take about 5yrs or so;)
 

stona

SMF Supporter
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
11,455
Points
113
First Name
Steve
Thank you all very much for being so kind about my efforts. I really do appreciate that you have enjoyed the read.

It has been a labour of love and I have very much enjoyed doing it. Yesterday I put the last half dozen or so books back in their correct places on my bookshelves and wondered what to do next! With the current pandemic situation and as we veer towards another national lockdown there is little prospect of a return to work. I'll be okay and I hope everyone else can get through it too; most important is to stay safe and healthy, I don't think many of us here are in the first flush of youth :smiling3:

I suppose I will concentrate on some models. I'm still ducking the CR.42 but I do have a 1/72 Blenheim which I have been thinking of completing as an early night fighter. I already have the gun pack, I just need some decals. The Battle of Britain may well have finished today, but the night blitz continued over the winter.

Thanks again

Steve
 

Tim Marlow

Little blokes aficionado
SMF Supporter
Joined
Apr 27, 2018
Messages
16,544
Points
113
Location
Somerset
First Name
Tim
Definitely agree. In fact, I think they should be expanded slightly and published. I’ve read a few accounts of the battle, and this was one of the most accessible.
 

stona

SMF Supporter
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
11,455
Points
113
First Name
Steve
Cat’s eyes Cunningham‘s Blenheim perhaps then Steve?

I have decals on a generic sheet which are about the correct size to do NG-R, which Cunningham definitely flew with No 604 Squadron. If I can find enough detail about the scheme I might just do that one :smiling3:
 

minitnkr

Rabble & escape committee member
SMF Supporter
Joined
Apr 27, 2018
Messages
6,658
Points
113
Location
Dayton, OH
First Name
Paul
I agree, an outstanding effort & a great pleasure to have read. It was like reading a brief of the previous day/nights' action. Very well done Steve. PaulE
 

colin m

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
SMF Supporter
Joined
Dec 26, 2008
Messages
8,572
Points
113
Location
Stafford, UK
First Name
Colin
When I suggested a Battle of Britain diary, I imagined various people chipping in with a bit of information here and there, I would have been happy with that. Many people did and thank you to all who contributed. But then Steve picked up the baton, and look what happened.
Steve's account of the Battle was more than I could ever of hoped for. It has been an amazing read, and of course an amazing effort by Steve. I can't begin to guess how many hours of work Steve has put into this fantastic piece of work.
So to Steve, the unofficial Scale-Model Forum's, Battle of Britain Chief archivist and Historian, I offer my most sincere thanks for all your hard work.
 

adt70hk

I know its a bit sad but I like quickbuild kits!!!
SMF Supporter
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
9,440
Points
113
First Name
Andrew
When I suggested a Battle of Britain diary, I imagined various people chipping in with a bit of information here and there, I would have been happy with that. Many people did and thank you to all who contributed. But then Steve picked up the baton, and look what happened.
Steve's account of the Battle was more than I could ever of hoped for. It has been an amazing read, and of course an amazing effort by Steve. I can't begin to guess how many hours of work Steve has put into this fantastic piece of work.
So to Steve, the unofficial Scale-Model Forum's, Battle of Britain Chief archivist and Historian, I offer my most sincere thanks for all your hard work.
Well said Colin.
 

stona

SMF Supporter
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
11,455
Points
113
First Name
Steve
Battle of Britain Day 2023
I'm going to write a brief addendum or maybe appendix to this thread, addressing the issue of overclaiming. This is not in any way having a go at the pilots (on all sides) who made erroneous claims. The vast majority were made in good faith and the errors simply reflect the confusion of air to air combat.

Battle of Britain Day.

'185 Destroyed', trumpeted in headlines and on the wireless. 185, a number that became etched into British consciousness.

Actually the next day's newspapers said 175. The War Cabinet were told on the 16th that the numbers were 186 destroyed, 16 probable and 72 damaged. The Duxford Wing alone claimed an improbable 105 destroyed, 40 probable, 8 damaged (figures that Dowding balked at).

Then in 1945, German documents fell into Allied hands. These included an incomplete set of the 'Flugzeug Unfalle und Verluste bei den Verbanden' (Aircraft casualties and losses in units) drawn up by the Ob.d.L Genst., Gen.Qu. Abt.6 covering the period to the end of 1943. The British now had a seemingly accurate report of actual Luftwaffe losses for the Battle of Britain period and it made for some uncomfortable reading. The first thing they did was interrogate various German officers, including Oberstleutnant Werner Henning of Abteilung 6, Gruppe V, who had actually signed some of the documents in 1943 to establish exactly what the figures were and how they were compiled. The German officers all insisted on their accuracy. Two claimed that they were better than 99% accurate. Henning said that they were audited 'like a bank account'.

Now the British had to decide how many German aircraft they had really destroyed. They included all aircraft that the Germans had listed as 60% damaged or more, since the interrogations confirmed that these were invariably written off and salvaged. The British Air Historical Branch examined the period July 10th to October 31st 1940 and came up with its definitive figure for German losses:

1,733 destroyed and 607 damaged.

These compare with Air Intelligence report A.D.I. (K) 387B/1945 figures compiled from the same sources:

1,729 destroyed and 643 damaged.

The difference is minimal and does have an explanation - but not here!

Now the Air Ministry had a problem. Fighter Command had claimed 2,637 enemy aircraft destroyed, 863 probably destroyed and 1,156 damaged for this period. It was also concerned that the real figures would leak out, particularly because the Americans were in possession of the same documents. In the end it was decided that we had to come clean and a statement was made 'On German Air Losses In The Battle Of Britain'. It even included the most extreme examples from some of the most frantic days of fighting.

"As extreme examples, on 15th August 1940 when we claimed 181 aircraft destroyed, the actual German losses according to the best information now available were nearer 80. On 15th September their losses were 51 against a claim of 185, and on 27th September 55 against a claim of 133."

This best information now available was produced graphically as part of the Air Intelligence report I mentioned above and makes an easy way to see the disparity. It is notable that though there is consistent overclaiming the number of actual losses generally follows the number of claims. This is confirmation of the intensity of combat on various days and the honesty of the claims, even if they were incorrect. More claims were made when more losses had in fact been inflicted, there were just too many claims.

BOB Losses.jpg


So there you go, a very brief analysis of the problem of overclaiming that confronted all combatant air forces, which I hope some will find of interest.
 
Last edited:

adt70hk

I know its a bit sad but I like quickbuild kits!!!
SMF Supporter
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
9,440
Points
113
First Name
Andrew
Battle of Britain Day 2023
I'm going to write a brief addendum or maybe appendix to this thread, addressing the issue of overclaiming. This is not in any way having a go at the pilots (on all sides) who made erroneous claims. The vast majority were made in good faith and the errors simply reflect the confusion of air to air combat.

Battle of Britain Day.

'185 Destroyed', trumpeted in headlines and on the wireless. 185, a number that became etched into British consciousness.

Actually the next day's newspapers said 175. The War Cabinet were told on the 16th that the numbers were 186 destroyed, 16 probable and 72 damaged. The Duxford Wing alone claimed an improbable 105 destroyed, 40 probable, 8 damaged (figures that Dowding balked at).

Then in 1945, German documents fell into Allied hands. These included an incomplete set of the 'Flugzeug Unfalle und Verluste bei den Verbanden' (Aircraft casualties and losses in units) drawn up by the Ob.d.L Genst., Gen.Qu. Abt.6 covering the period to the end of 1943. The British now had a seemingly accurate report of actual Luftwaffe losses for the Battle of Britain period and it made for some uncomfortable reading. The first thing they did was interrogate various German officers, including Oberstleutnant Werner Henning of Abteilung 6, Gruppe V, who had actually signed some of the documents in 1943 to establish exactly what the figures were and how they were compiled. The German officers all insisted on their accuracy. Two claimed that they were better than 99% accurate. Henning said that they were audited 'like a bank account'.

Now the British had to decide how many German aircraft they had really destroyed. They included all aircraft that the Germans had listed as 60% damaged or more, since the interrogations confirmed that these were invariably written off and salvaged. The British Air Historical Branch examined the period July 10th to October 31st 1940 and came up with its definitive figure for German losses:

1,733 destroyed and 607 damaged.

These compare with Air Intelligence report A.D.I. (K) 387B/1945 figures compiled from the same sources:

1,729 destroyed and 643 damaged.

The difference is minimal and does have an explanation - but not here!

Now the Air Ministry had a problem. Fighter Command had claimed 2,637 enemy aircraft destroyed, 863 probably destroyed and 1,156 damaged for this period. It was also concerned that the real figures would leak out, particularly because the Americans were in possession of the same documents. In the end it was decided that we had to come clean and a statement was made 'On German Air Losses In The Battle Of Britain'. It even included the most extreme examples from some of the most frantic days of fighting.

"As extreme examples, on 15th August 1940 when we claimed 181 aircraft destroyed, the actual German losses according to the best information now available were nearer 80. On 15th September their losses were 51 against a claim of 185, and on 27th September 55 against a claim of 133."

This best information now available was produced graphically as part of the Air Intelligence report I mentioned above and makes an easy way to see the disparity. It is notable that though there is consistent overclaiming the number of actual losses generally follows the number of claims. This is confirmation of the intensity of combat on various days and the honesty of the claims, even if they were incorrect. More claims were made when more losses had in fact been inflicted, there were just too many claims.

View attachment 490656


So there you go, a very brief analysis of the problem of overclaiming that confronted all combatant air forces, which I hope some will find of interest.

Thanks as always Steve for another informative update!!
 

Tim Marlow

Little blokes aficionado
SMF Supporter
Joined
Apr 27, 2018
Messages
16,544
Points
113
Location
Somerset
First Name
Tim
Go for it Ian. This excellent account needs to be easily accessible.
 

adt70hk

I know its a bit sad but I like quickbuild kits!!!
SMF Supporter
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
9,440
Points
113
First Name
Andrew
Top