Immelmann again

[rammjaeger]

I have just finished the reading of chapter XIII in "Thrilling Deeds of British Airmen".
Some questions arise:

How many victories were claimed of M´Cubbins flight of 4 airplanes this day (based on offical British reports)?
If I understood right the article suggested:
1. - "down to earth went the Fokker",
2. - "the Roland went to keep its companion company on the ground",
3. - "this Roland also, put out of control, went hurtling to earth ("doomed Roland"),
4. - Savage was "sending it [a Fokker] down in a spinning nose-dive",
5. - Immelmann´s Fokker.
It seems the German airplanes were - based on the report - only "F.E.-fodder".

Did Savage realy lose control of his airplane?
I think not. The Franz Immelmann-book says the pilot (only 17 year-old!), wounded severly in the shoulder, landed his airplane undamaged near Lens. He died later of his wounds.

Interesting to read that the article - which is claiming this fight occured in July 1916 - suggest s
a)the final shooting of the battle occured in less than 1000 feet (300 m) altitude,
B) a fight in shortest distance (F.E. and Fokker were almost touching each other!!),
c) Immelmann was wounded (SIC!) and incapacitated, before his airplane fell like a stone and burst into flames.
Any opinions?

VBR

Hannes

[Vin]

Hannes

First some more questions

What “official British records” was this based upon ?
If it is based upon records, does that mean that the rest is made up ?
What is in it for Wood ? Is he a historian, novelist or propagandist ?

Another question

If the results of the 3 German inspections are no longer available then what is the source of the view that Immelmann shot off his own propellor ? There may well be sufficiently credible records available to accept this but what are they ?

Opinion ? It is difficult to know what to believe, isn’t it.


Vin

[rammjaeger]

Vin,

you can simply start to read the complete German aircombat literature in and after the war since ca. three weeks after Immelmanns death. All these sources are not missing to refer to the "shooting-off of the prop". Start with these lines in Boelckes letter of the 4.July 1916 (if you can accept the idea that Boelcke was competent enough and writing his true opinion in this case):

"Immelmann ist durch einen ganz dummen Unfall (SIC! - HT) ums Leben gekommen. Alles was die Zeitungen über Luftkampf usw. schreiben, ist Unsinn. Ihm ist ein Teil seines Propellers weggeflogen, durch den Ruck sind die Spanndrähte im Rumpf gerissen und dieser ist dann abgebrochen. Ganz abgesehen von dem traurigen persönlichen Verlust ist meiner Ansicht nach der moralische Erfolg für den Gegner nicht zu unterschätzen."

I don´t translate because somebody could say (happened in the past) I was intentionally changing the content if I do not hit the right English words with my translation. I am also expecting that you will not have problems to understand what Boelcke was writing.

Additional nobody can discuss the "Case Immelmann" seriously without reading and discussing the book "Immelmann - der Adler von Lille" Franz Immelmann was trying to reconstruct and to describe the last flight of his brother there. Franz was WW I-pilot himself. For Fokkers own inspection simply read his memoirs.

Yes Vin, I have problems to believe some lines in Woods article, e.g. if he is describing that 4 F.E. are downing 5 Fokkers and Rolands ("Rolands" ???) in a fight of 4 Britishers against 11 (??) German airplanes. I am also doubting that that the unlucky Savage was claiming or getting a victory confirmed! I guess these parts of the article are pure propaganda - just my opinion.

[Richard_Schrader]

The only thing that I can add to this, is that the picture I've seen of Immelmann's crash gives credit to those who say he shot off his own prop.

[Vin]

Hannes

I ran the extract of Boeleke’s letter through Altavista translations, not having any German at all. This is what appeared

“ Immelmann is by a quite stupid accident (SIC! - HT) around the life come. Everything which the newspapers over aerial combat etc. write, is nonsense. It a part of its propeller away-flew, by the jerk the tension wires in the trunk tore and these then aborted. Completely apart from the sad personal loss in my opinion moral success for the opponent is not to be underestimated. "

This is an opinion of Boeleke. Do any of the writings cite the source of his opinion ?


Vin

[rammjaeger]

Vin

I found the translation of this text in one of O´Connors book (vol.III):

"Immelmann lost his life by a silly chance [originally: accident - HT]. All that is written in the papers about a fight in the air, etc., is rot [originally: nonsense -HT]. A bit of his propeller flew off; the jarring tore the bracing the wires connecting up with the fuselage, and than that broke away."

Boelcke did not mention his "source" but it is easy to imagine that he was getting first-hand accounts if he was taking part in the funeral celebrations of Immelmann on 22nd June in Douai.
He could speak there with the Abteilungsführer and especially with Kofl 6, the Bavarian Major Stempel. And - I am shure - he did not miss this chance! Additional it is easier to get info for such a famous pilot like Boelcke because everybody tries to "update" such a men and to listen to his opinion.

One remark to the "3 German examinations":
There was only ONE OFFICAL GERMAN EXAMINATION which was involving the Abteilungsführer of the 6.Army.

The second examination is the private "examination" (I would call it "observation" published in a paper after the war) by Wolfgang Heinemann. The third "examination" was Fokkers private thing too.

It was my understanding that his plane broke up in mid-air, implying many pieces so is there a conclusive picture to prove that he shot of his prop?

Also in under the guns of the german aces there is no mention of the other German losses. Guess we will never know for sure.

Mark

[Vin]

Hannes

Thankyou. The O’Connor translation is certainly more elegant than Altavista’s.

On the material that you have read, which of the following occurred, as you understand it

1. The official investigation, conducted by or under the Abteilungsführer of the 6.Army ( Major Stempel ?), concluded that Immelmann’s propeller was shot off. The report was shown to Boeleke or Boeleke was told by one of the members of the investigating team

or

2. It is reasonable to assume that Boeleke had access to the report of the investigation or would have been told by one of the investigating team ?

If 2. then is there anything in what you have read that reproduces what the official report said ?


Vin

[Vin]

Hannes

Another thought has just struck me. Is there anything in what you read that suggests that Boeleke inspected the wreck and concluded himself that concluded that Immelmann’s propeller was shot off ? I do not know if Boeleke had a technical background (I was once told that the Luftwaffe pilots of 1939 had either science or engineering degrees) but his experience in the pioneering days of aerial combat might equip him to give an expert opinion. After all that is what the official examination would be, expert opinion.


Vin

[rammjaeger]

Vin,

before I refer to your questions I have to explain some terms and procedures.
An "Abteilungsführer" is a leader of an Aviation unit, you would say a squadron leader.
The "Stofl" (Stabsoffizier der Flieger), later Kofl (Kommandeur der Flieger), was commanding the aviators of an Army.

If there were arguments or doubts about a victory or a loss in aircombat than one or some of the squadron leaders were asked for their expert opinion. The squadron leaders had sometimes very limited but in other cases very good technical and technological knowledge. More important was often the practical knowledge and experience in aircombat to solve a "case".
I saw some cases decided by Abteilungsführer of FFA 24, Rosenmüller. Don´t know about his technical education but his brother had expert knowledge in the field of measurement of airplane speed. (I am proud to mention that Dresden-born fighter pilots and officers came very often from the university. Also Immelmann and Baldamus studied in technical fields there.).

If there were arguments about the question: Who was responsible for a victory or why did we lose this aircrew in action? In the latter cases the reports were short and definite. I have seen another interrogation which tried to find out the souvenir hunters which had stolen parts of a shot down British airplane. A full folder with 100+ or far more pages and series of interrogation reports, statements and also photographs (if my memorie is not cheating here) for some lousy parts of a burned (!) airplane. I would expect an even more fat folder about Immelmanns end - full with eye whitness reports, reports about the technical condition of the used airplane before the flight, evaluations of real engineers and other stuff. But I think also the squadron leaders had the "last word".

I did not see the names of the Abteilungsführer in the 6th Army mentioned in any source refering to Immelmanns end. Until now I did also not search for these names but immediately the names Hauptmann Rosenmüller (Saxon FFA 24), Hauptmann Moosmair (FFA 5 bavarian) and maybe Hauptmann Oefele (FFA 2 bavarian) come to my mind. I guess Major Stempel was also playing a vital part - either ordering or himself leading the research. And Stempel was THE MAN in the Bavarian Fliegertruppe in wartimes and more competent than the most Prussian leaders.

Everybody with rank and name was visiting Immelmanns funeral - also Stempel who had discussed with Immelmann new aircombat tactics and organisational structures before ("Dicta Immelmann" in being?). Boelcke could speak there with members of the investigating team and Stempel himself. Maybe he was reading also some documents but I think the complete report would maybe need more time to be finished. Also a look at the leftover of the airplane of Immelmann is not impossible but still speculation. Boelcke himself had choosen the officers career but was serving at first in a telegraph-bataillon and loved to study history, mathematics and physics. He was not a scientist or engineer-type but a man with a practical mind and knew technical connections. Additional he had seen a plenty of falling and downed airplanes before. I think that counts more than pure knowledge about physical laws.

Different sources say different things about the content of the report. O´Connor says the report was "inconclusive" without giving his source for this claim.

The book by Franz Immelmann (I think I have one time heard he had a ghost writer) says:
"Some days later a commission of the Abteilungsführer of the 6th Army was checking the wreck and confirmed the opinion which was meanwhile established among all Fokker pilots."
... than the description of the shot-off prop follows.

I think thats more than enough stuff for discussion.

Good night.