Teodor Moscu on 22.06.41, Potez or P.37 he escorted?

T. Moscu in He 112 escorted Romanian bomberson June 22, 1941. I'm not sure which formation he was flying? Was he in the escort of PZL P.37 or in escorted of Potez?

Regards
mirekw

Moscu's kills came when the 51st Fighter Squadron attacked Ismail airfield. They were not escorting any bombers. Later that day, He-112s from the 5th Fighter Squadron escorted Potez 633Bs from the 2nd Bomber Group.

The P.37s of the 4th Bomber Group were escorted by the Hurricanes of 53rd Squadron.

Thanks
Izmaił was defended by 96. OIAE VVS CzF (15: I-15bis plus I-153). The second place attacked by Potez was defended by I-16s of 67. IAP. Soviet shot down at least 3 or even possible 4 Potez's during this attack. There was heavy combat.

It is strange, that Moscu had fought over Izmaił?! There were biplanes of 96. OIAE kpt Korabicyn and the only know fight was versus 9 IAR-37 Esc. 18 escorted by 8 He 112 too.
Soviet claimed only biplane victores (5) against planes called "SET-15". Romanian had lost in fact 2 IAR-37s. Soviets did not claimed any fight versus He 112?


Something does not fit in this puzzle?


Yes you are right I have forgotten, P.37s were escorted by 6 HC Mk I. Romanin had claimed 4 victories (two pilots two each).

Regrads,
mw

I have the information that He 112 were attacked Bolgrad and Bulgarica airfield on that day.


" ...On 22 June 1941, the group conducted its first mission. 16 He-112 E’s took off to escort several Potez 633 B2 bombers planning to attack the Soviet airfields at Bolgrad and Bulgarica. When they reached their second target, there were about 30 I-16s in the air. Slt. Av. Teodor Moscu flying He 112 E No. 4 surprised two Rata’s that were just taking off and shot one down. He then saw another I-16, which was coming directly at him, and fired again. The Soviet aircraft was hit and went down into the Danube. With several Soviet aircraft on his tail, Moscu was hit himself. However, he managed to outmanoeuvre and fire on one of the attackers. The final score of Slt. Av. Moscu was two confirmed and one probable victory..."

Thank you for the information.

BTW. It seems to me that he was flying the plane 13 and not number 4?

This is a picture of him standing in the background plane number "Black 13".

There is also small difference in amount of planes, which flown in this mission not 16 but 12.

regards
mw

On 22 june Moscu flew No 4. Later he also flew no 13 ( there are pictures with him standing near both planes, no 4 and no 13).
I have the list with the ID number of the plane to each pilot of the He 112 on first day of the war.

For the number of the planes flown ( on that day) I will double check the sources and will come back with the correct figures

Yes you are right it was later (he with no 13), I have been wrongly assumed according Denes Bernard publication about He 112 (old edition and solid error). OK thanks
So it si means the attack was against 67. IAP and he and other fought versus I-16 of this regiment. The losses of 67.IAP was not so high as Romanian claimed this day.

Regrads
mw

I agree that "something does not fit in this puzzle".
From memory, the total Romanian losses of any type of plane, everywhere during June 22, 1941, were 14 airplanes.

I do not know what you mean?

On the first day of the war the greatest losses done among units of ARR was done by 67. IAP fighting on I-16. The pilots of the regiment reported during the day all 13-15 downed aircraft. A large proportion of these claims cover the losses Romanian (total or not).

If the first morning fighting the Russians reported 7 victories (shot down) over ARR bombers and Romanian losses totaled two bombers destroyed, and one severely damaged (it is Savoias attack).

During the day, were some further comabts and next Russian claims and a new Romanian losses.

Russians slightly overclaimed thier victories. In reality pilots of 67 IAP during the day destroyed Romanians at least: 1 Blenheim (reccon, early in the morning), next: 2 Savoia + 1 damaged seriously - first bomber attack on Russian airfiled: next - 3 Potez + 1 damaged seriously - second bomber attack plus two P.37 of the third bomber attack.

Then there weres some damaged of fighter escort - but repairable, not total.

I rigth rembere (?) there were 12 ARR's losses in combat plus 2 in non-combat duities.

Regrads,
mw

The book on the He 112 was published by Squadron/Signal in 1996. Since then, new information emerged, but back then it was the first book in English language that detailed the service of this aircraft in Rumanian air force, among others.
I received the photo with the writing on its back: T. Moscu and his He 112 on the first day of the war. I included this information in the book accordingly.
What do you mean by "solid error"? Please explain.

Gen. Dénes

I am not sure what you mean by this, but the details on victory claims and losses of the first day of the air war in the southern area of the Eastern Front are included in the first volume of my book, From Barbarossa to Odessa, pages 18-23.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on July 19, 2014 08:15 pm

I frankly do not undrestand your remark about "solid error"? It means as it simplie means - very wrong, wrong information *** (edited for foul language)

See p. 43 in your book about He 112, which you personaly written under the photo. It means, that the plane was dameged on 22.06.41 and it is worng as Cantacuzino has explained earlier.

You may see Cantacuzino's excelent book about Romanian Fighter Colors on p. 65, where it is the same photo but with different text and date of combat. Moscu had flown on 22.06. on plane no 4 but not 13.

BTW you have written about 12 He 112 during attak on 67. IAP's airfield (He 112, p. 43) it is not true again but there were 16. Next solid error.

*** (edited for foul language) , thanks in advance.

It is normal that in publications, which we had done some time ago there are similar solid errors. I had done such similar solid errors too It is normal, such was level of knowledge 10-20 years ago
It is happend, in next publications if it possible such errors could be corrected.

And the last but not least.

Do not say Denes about your solid work on this book From Barbrssa to Odessa vol 1. On the p. 12 you have given info about planes in 96. OIAE VVS CZF as "40 I-153". This is next solid error or even worse a big *** (edited for foul language).

In fact this unit never had such huge amount of new planes, it was much more less:

only 3 new I-153 plus 13 old I-15bis. There were not more combat planes in 96. OIAE on 22.06.1941. In combat on 22.06. took part only 15 Soviet fighters of this unit (3 I-153 plus 12 I-15bis).

Regards,
mw


PS
be so kind Denes do not promote your book From Barbarossa to Odessa, I do not want to show you next solid errors included in your "solid" book. Simple it is waste of my time, there are solid errors too.

This post has been edited by Dénes on July 20, 2014 11:25 am

I don't see the need for the hostility in your post mirekw. There are hardly any published works in this field free from errors.

Getting back to the topic, are you sure about attributing the two P.37s to the 67 IAP? The Romanian reports always mention them as shot down by AAA. Also, the number of Potez bombers shot down is actually two (no. 1 and no.19). No.20 crash landed in Galati county (within firendly lines) after it ran out of fuel.

Mirek, you did not disappoint me this time, either. Instead of a normal tone, professional language reply, like most other forumites do, you choose to use coarse language and engaged in personal attack against me. No problemo - as people say in Esperanto, let's carry on.

I really have no time to waste on replying to your allegations, so let's take only the two main "solid errors"* I allegedly made:
1, "BTW you have written about 12 He 112 during attak on 67. IAP's airfield (He 112, p. 43) it is not true again but there were 16. Next solid error."
Excerpt from the Operations Journal of Gr. 5 Vân. for 22 June 1941:
"For this mission, Gr. 5 vân. took part, as follows: Esc. 52 vân. with two patrols (...) and one patrol of Esc. 51 vân. (names follow)". I will leave it up to you to add these numbers: 2x4+4=?

2, "Do not say Denes about your solid work on this book From Barbrssa to Odessa vol 1. On the p. 12 you have given info about planes in 96. OIAE VVS CZF as "40 I-153". This is next solid error or even worse a big *** (edited for foul language)."
OK, let's read together: Mid-June 1941, Order of Battle (..) "96 OIAE, based at Nikolayev, 40 I-153 (page 12).
On page 22 I wrote for 22 June 1941: "...pilots of 96 OIAE over Izmail (Ismail). At that time, this independent naval fighter squadron had 17 Polikarpov I-15bis and I-153 biplane fighters on its roster, based on an airfield near Izmail..."

I could continue, but have not time, as I have to work on my next book (another "solid work"); these two samples should suffice.

In normal circumstances, an apology should follow from your side, but I am not fooling myself in waiting for it. I know more tirades will follow instead, spiced with more foul language (which will be edited for the sanity of this forum).

Gen. Dénes

*I am still perplexed by the explanation you have for "solid error": is it very wrong, wrong, or *** (edited for foul language) information?

This post has been edited by Dénes on July 20, 2014 03:24 pm

The facts are rather different. Troubles arise because someone does not know how to do your job well, then it just tries to hide behind clever but empty rhetoric. Denes instead of giving specific facts embarks on a sterile rhetoric.

Page 20 From Barbarossa to Odessa is posted photograph Moscu that stands at He 112 "no 18". From the text of that aircraft was in combat on June 22 and then wore the number 18 (sic!). I'm 82,765% sure that this is the second photo "He 112 black 13", but not with the number 18 (a common mistake in writing by the author), which was damaged in combat in July. With the signature shows that the He 112 had to refer damage 22/06/1941. This means that despite the passage of 11 years since the release of "He 112" continues Denes think Moscu fought "in the black 13/18" 22 June 1941. This is an example of a large clumsiness of the author, the author himself does not know whether the aircraft had number 13 or it was number 18?

One squadron (escadrlia) can not have both 40 I-153 and I-17 and I-15bis 153 combat aircraft. Or Denes give one size or the other. A woman can not be both pregnant and remain a virgin, in his book Denes think so maybe it could be? Very interesting point of view.

Anyway, both of the numbers are wrong. 96 OIAE had 16 biplane fighter I-15bis and I-153. The exact composition of aircraft 96.OIAE (all / combat ready) are: 3/3 I-153. 13/12 I-15bis, 1/1 UT-1, 1/1, UT-2, 2/1 U-2.


On page 20 Denes commits similar errors with the number of aircraft in 87 OIAE (45 I-153) and 94 OIAE (45 I-152). Is this coincidence 94. OIAE (45 I-15bis) was not 93. OIAE 93 with 15 I-15bis and one I-16?


Independend fighter squadron had not the number of combat aircraft corresponding to the size of regiments (40-45 - about 3 fighters quadrons/eskadrilas). Quoting these figures it is not solid historical work, but the usual mumbo-jumbo (or very solid error).

Unfortunately, I can not help you Denes help with your personal embarrassment (or "perplexed') resulting from a lack of understanding of the word "solid errors". This is due to the Big Ego because to me you have the big problem with reading comprehension. It is an art that transcends you.

What's worse Denes you have huge problems with mathematics, which also transcends you. What is very strange for an engineer, as I am not mistaken?


Denes placed not add numbers. On page 12 "solid book" From Barbarossa to Odessa.
On 22 06.41 VVS BSF had 624 aircrafts ... 346 fighters ....
From the above table Aviation of VVS BSF had 254 (minus 5 TB-3) + 16 fighters (3 URAP) + 45 (87 OIAE) + 45 (94 OIAE) + 40 (96.OIAE).

346 never means 395, an ordinary addition is a very important ability of every educated man. Ona man can do it or not, it is a pattern of solid work too.

Your book is really "solid work", congratulations large mathematical competence/skills Denes. Realy Great, :-)

Regards,
Mirosław Wawrzyński