'Bazu' Cantacuzino vs. Mustangs

Lt. Dobran mentions that on 15 July 1944, he and Cantacuzino engaged four Mustangs nearby Ploesti. Dobran mentions that 'Bazu' probably shot one of them down. Is there any matching loss from the USAAF side? I don't have my references at hand.

Thanks.

Gen. Dénes

No Mustang lost over Romania on 15 july 44.
The Mustangs fighting that day over Ploesti were from 31FG. Lt Riddle ( 307FS) claimed one Bf 109 16km NW Ploesti.

Possible that this Bf 109 could be romanian ( Bazu ?) and only damaged by Riddle.

This post has been edited by Cantacuzino on November 06, 2012 08:18 am

Thank you for the details. I did not know Bazu's aircraft was damaged in this battle.

What is your opinion, could Bazu claim this one, but eventually remained unconfirmed?

Gen. Dénes

It s a suposition that Grupul 9 ( Bazu ) was engaged with 31FG ( Riddle ) over Ploesti due to the fact that on 15 july'44, the germans ( toghether with Grupul 7 Vt), were fighting over Turnu Severin and Yugoslavia with Mustangs of 52FG
I don't know if Bazu had the airplane damaged. Possible that both pilots ( Riddle and Bazu) scored hits on each other.
Bazu usually confirm only by following the victims to the crash place, so in this case mayby he only claimed a probable victory.

This post has been edited by Cantacuzino on November 06, 2012 10:51 am

At least since 1942, if not earlier, the British had a video camera installed on every fighter plane. Only the "kills" recorded by camera were accepted to the merit of the pilot.
I do not know if Luftwaffe used the same as standard practice, but I know that the USAAF didn’t.
Just using my logic a bit, I am assuming that the Romanian Air Force also did not have cameras installed on fighter planes.

This post has been edited by Florin on November 06, 2012 12:40 pm

!!!! !!!!
I really cannot help myself but laugh at that idea! For God's sake, in those days they had a lot of types of planes, many of them just flying by a miracle of mechanics and engineers! Cameras were quite the last thing we needed!
(no offense, Florin, but Denes, Radub and other enthusiast of the RoAF in WW2 can confirm that)

!!!! !!!!
I really cannot help myself but laugh at that idea! For God's sake, in those days they had a lot of types of planes, many of them just flying by a miracle of mechanics and engineers! Cameras were quite the last thing we needed!
(no offense, Florin, but Denes, Radub and other enthusiast of the RoAF in WW2 can confirm that)

No offense, indeed. Exactly for the reasons you mentioned, using my logic a bit, I assumed that we had no cameras.
I reminded this feature of the airplanes belonging to the Royal Air Force (British) because of this discussion regarding who shot down whom. (Bazu kicked an American, or an American kicked him? I read the messages and they had answered the question.)

This post has been edited by Florin on November 06, 2012 06:12 pm

Perhaps RAF, fighting the limited resources of the Luftwaffe, needed a "confirmation system" for the fighters they shot. On the other hand, here in the East, there was little use in counting the swarms of VVF airplanes. Not to mention the superior organisation and funding of the RAF...

Technically, any aircraft could be fitted with a "gun camera", either internaly or externally. These cameras were synchronised with the gun and they recorded only while the trigger button was pressed. Considering that most of the WW2 aircrfat had a total firing time of less than a minute (handful of seconds), that was also all the film footage available. Americans made extensive use of gun cameras and used that footage extensively in "newsreels" and "war bond campaign" movies but others did not really care too much about it.
Most of the times, the film was used for training purposes or for the purposes of developing new tactics rather than "validation of kills". The reason is very simple: unlike computer games and Hollywood movies, planes seldom exploded into a "puff of flame" as they were being shot and the camera was rolling. Mid-air explosions are extraordinarily rare and happened when ammunition or fuel was ignited. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the shooter aimed for the cockpit (which often happens to be in the middle/largest part of the plane). Sure, there are plenty of youtube movies showing such explosions in mid-air, but they tend to be the exception (coincidences) rather than the rule. In many cases of air combat even if the plane was hit while the camera was running, it kept going for a while and then maybe/eventually fell, long after the camera stopped rolling. However, there were hundreds of thousands of cases of planes limping back home after being seriously hit. So, "hit" does not equate " kill".
Therefore, to cut a long story short, even if there was a camera on board, it probably recorded "hits" on the airframe rather than "kills". As Cantacuzino said, the best way to confirm a "kill" is to stay with the target until you see it hit the ground.
Radu

Some times the use of the gun camera was a nightmare for american pilots
I read in a pilot diary about a Mustang pilot who after landing took of the film from the gun camera to be exposed to the light because he shoot by mistake another Mustang.