The death of Cpt. av. Alexandru Serbănescu

On another forum on Rumanian aviation in general (www.aviatia.ro), there is a debate on the fate of Cpt. av. Alexandru Serbănescu - top scoring pro-Axis ARR ace - killed on 18 Aug. 1944 in an air battle with USAAF Mustangs.

Some say, based on books published in Rumania, that practically it was a suicide. Others say, that it was due to the severe reprimand received the day before, due to the inability of his men to stop the Americans' aerial onslaught on Rumania.

What I noted is that the few documents I researched did not mention the details of his demise, only merely record the event. Short of citing documents or witnesses’ memoirs that would unequivocally explain what had happened, the rest are merely speculations.

Here is what I wrote about this episode in my book on Rumanian aces, published by Osprey in the UK:

"On 18 August 1944, Rumanian pilots took the fight to the Americans for the last time. Thirteen Bf 109G-6s of Grupul 9 vânătoare, rendezvoused with twelve Gustavs from Grupul 7 vânătoare over Buzău. Minutes later, they were joined by 21 Luftwaffe fighters, making a total force of 46 Bf 109Gs. (...) The Bf 109Gs clashed with the P-51s at a height of 7,500 m (24,600 ft), which was practically the combat ceiling for the Bf 109G-6. As usual, the Mustangs outnumbered the joint Rumanian-German formation by at least two-to-one, and to make matters worse, the Americans attacked the Messerschmitts from above. Within minutes, the outcome of the fight had been decided. Amongst the first to fall was the 32-year-old Capitan aviator Alexandru Serbănescu, then leading ARR ace with 55 [ARR] victories achieved in 590 combat sorties.

Flying with a faulty radio, Serbănescu failed to hear the warnings being shouted to him by his colleagues that a Mustang was manoeuvring onto his tail. His wingman, Adj. stag. av. Traian Dârjan, who was flying some 350 ft off his right wing, watched helplessly as a red nosed P-51 (almost certainly from the 31st Fighter Group) fell in behind Cpt. av. Serbănescu’s Bf 109G-6, ‘Yellow 1’, and opened fire. With Serbănescu probably already dead, the Messerschmitt dove vertically and disintegrated when it hit the ground near Brasov [in the Rusavăt Valley].

Killed fighting an enemy that enjoyed both numerical and technical supremacy, and not ‘tainted’ by any involvement in the war against the Axis, Serbănescu soon became a legend among his compatriots. After 23 August 1944, it was no longer “politically correct” to mention his name, but Serbănescu was celebrated once again after the fall of communism in December 1989. Today, a boulevard in Bucharest has been named after Alexandru Serbănescu – a unique tribute to a wartime Rumanian fighter pilot.”

Below is Serbanescu (at left), linking arms with Lt. Neuböck, a Luftwaffe ace pilot and comrade-in-arms (source my Squadron/Signal book on ARR, p.10):


Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on April 26, 2005 07:25 pm

What do you mean by ...and not ‘tainted’ by any involvement in the war against the Axis, Serbănescu soon became a legend among his compatriots?

I mean that some Rumanian airmen preferred not to fight against the Germans at all, their former comrade-in-arms for over 3 years. Others fought in the anti-Axis campaign only half heartedly, trying to avoid a clash with the Luftwaffe.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on April 26, 2005 08:54 pm

Yes, but the fact that some fought against Axis does not make them 'tainted' in the eyes of compatriots. True, there were personal issues, but fighting against Axis in the perspecitve of liberating Transylvania does not hold less reasoning or determination than fighting the Americans.

You see, here comes into the picture your personal point of view and opinion, so you read into my text things I did not actually say.

I did not say that fighting against the Axis meant the participants were tainted. I used the word in quote marks, referring to the opinions of certain ARR airmen who shared them with me.
By contrast, there were no reluctancy in participating in the anti-Soviet (and anti-American) campaign of 1941-1944.

In my writings I do not take sides, I do not label what was right or wrong. I try to look at the general and detailed picture with impartiality, regardless of some repeated efforts to squeeze me into a particular box.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on April 26, 2005 09:24 pm

Of course it is my point of view and opinion, as well as it is yours in your text, because it is written by you

Now, when you say I used the word in quote marks, referring to the opinions of certain ARR airmen who shared them with me I understand quite a different thing than at the first reading of not ‘tainted’ by any involvement in the war against the Axis, Serbănescu soon became a legend among his compatriots. Maybe you should have been the same specifical in the original excerpt, in order not to confuse the readers.

As they say, the devil is in the details. The quote marks are making the difference here. Whoever pays attention to the details and has a neutral mindset cannot miss the meaning.

BTW, when you quote someone, it's not your opinion but of the quotee (if there is a word like this).

Gen. Dénes

I'm sorry that I bother you with the details (I hope I'm not the devil ), but now seriously, when you make such a statement, even if you use quotes, the quoted word means something. What I criticized is that you failed to state clear what it meant.

I'm aware you receive a lot of flak, a lot of it undeserved, but also I notice your reluctance to criticism.

Are you not the author of the excerpt in the initial post?

I don't mind at all questions and queries. By the contrary.

What I mind is when the explanation I give is not accepted at face value and is not taken in good faith, attempting to insinuate that I might have something dark to hide.
Well, I don't.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on April 26, 2005 10:19 pm

Well Denes, I don't know it's just me, it doesn't seem so, but when it comes to hidden messages, you seem to be the master of pickwickian statements.

Is that a reprimand or a compliment?
Anyhow, if you're convinced of this - as I've suspected - I am sorry, I can't possibly help it.

I suggest to return to the original topic.

Gen. Dénes

P.S. I still have to look up in the dictionary the "pickwickian statements". Caveat, the words are not mine, they are of the quotee's
The closest I can currently get is the Pick-Wick tea I am drinking.

This post has been edited by Dénes on April 27, 2005 02:29 am

Here is my humble opinion about this little debate.
At least in Romanian quote marks are used to underline the figurative sense of a word as well.
So when I see ‘tainted’ I might think this is a word used in the figurative sense and not necessarily a quoted word!
In the first post of Denes (the original text from his book) there aren’t any explanations or even thoughts/allusions that the ‘tainted’ word is from the opinion of certain ARR airmen. Furthermore when quoting a fragment of a text it is accustomed to mention the quoted source. So a misunderstanding of the real meaning of that particular word, in this case “tainted”, is very easy.

But … what about Capt. Av. Serbanescu ?
Was it suicide or not.. ?


This post has been edited by MaxFax on April 27, 2005 03:29 pm

Definetly not. Serbanescu was shot down because he apparently didn't hear the radio warnings ( radio malfunction??) of his two wingmen Lt. Dobran and Sgt. Darjan to avoid his tail pursuing Mustang.
The american pilot who shot him down was from 309sq, 31FG operating in the north of Ploesti area (with the escort mission of B-24 bombing Ploesti ). From the same group , the other two squadron were providing the escort in south-est of Ploesti ( 308 Sq) and west of Ploesti (307sq).
The american pilot Lt. B... , who was credited with the victory over "the german Bf-109" ( Serbanescu !!! ) made the shot from distance but from upper position of Serbanescu plane and probably the balistic trajectory of the bullets overpass the armour plate exploding in the cockpit and wounding ( mortally ?) Serbanescu.
Lt. B... was an gunsight shooting expert ( he was trained in a RAF gunnery school in North Africa ). He didn't believe that his victim the Bf-109 actually crashed because he was "out of killing range" (as he said) when he did the shooting. His squadron mates witnessed the bf-109 crash and convince him to claim the victory.

This post has been edited by Cantacuzino on April 27, 2005 11:12 am

I think the suicide theory is at least weird.. Serbanescu was a soldier, a men who fought for his country, he went up there to meet the US pilots and fight them to show them this country is not "just a village without dogs", if you try to look at his mentality as a soldier, as a men, it is obvious he would have not kileld him self rather then fight the enemy.

Besides, from what I have talked to mr. Dobran I understand that there were 2 radio types n the 109's at that time (one of them newer), and some problems appeared with them, example: you were able to get in touch with ground radio but not with your colegues in flight.Also from what we know so far Serbanescu did comunicate with ground radio that mission but he was unable to comunicate with his fellow pilots thus being unable to hear their warnings.

Serbanescu wasn't the suicide tipe.
He may have been in some kind of depresion due to the "problems" we already diss.but certainly he didn't comited suicide!