1940 Combat Reports

Gerry

What is the auction site number?

I think this may be one for VoyTech?

I have not looked at the historical details to check how they stack up.

However, and notwithstanding the vendors impeccable record, there are questions that need to be asked. First, all (original) Combat Reports I have seen have a treasury tag hole, often reinforced, top left hand. Its difficult to be sure, but I cannot see this? Also, just about all the fakes have hole punches in left hand side – as this one. They also have a rubber-stamp date stamp, as this one does. Again, the originals I have seen do not have this embelishment.

I would be reluctant to make pronouncements about this particular item, and the item would seem to be being sold by an established and reputable dealer with excellent feedback – although I don’t know who he is. That said, even genuine dealers can end up selling dodgy items in good faith.

I could only add, as I have said before, that personally my advice would be not to buy any Combat Reports for the reasons already discussed on this forum. First, many (if not most) of the original items being sold were amongst those stolen many years ago from Kew. If not original and stolen they are, mostly, fakes. I make neither suggestion in respect of this item and merely make those points as an observation. Nothing more.

Caveat Emptor.

E who?

Never mentioned them! As you will see if you re-read my post!! 😀

Who said anything about e***:o
The number is 310193677471
Looks exactly the same as mine but surely there aren’t loads of these about!
All the best
Gerry

Hi all,
I see that another combat report has been placed on a well known auction site. Sorry I am unable to work out how to place a link.
You may recall a thread a few months ago regarding faked and forged goods and the £200.00 I paid for one a few years ago. The one I purchased was also from 303 Squadron and allegedly signed by Josef Frantisek.
Mine was declared a fake by forum users who I have no doubt were correct.
Mine is exactly the same as the one listed in size and colour.
Questions are:-
Is the one advertised on ebay genuine?
If not – how many of these copies/forgeries are known to exist.
All the best
Gerry

310193677471 ?

Just some observations:

Appears to be a glaring discrepancy between the stamped date at top right which looks more like 9 SEP 1946, the date of the incident and the date the seller states the form is of 1939, or am I missing something here?

Perhaps you should ask the seller to explain this discrepancy!

The first thing that struck me is how well the typing looks ie. has survived, apart from the grammar which could prove difficult through trying to interpret what a polish (with a small ‘p’) pilot, perhaps with poor English was trying to tell you!

I have contacted the seller to let them know that I strongly suspect the item is a fake. I have informed them of my copy of a similar report.
I wouldn’t want them to receive negative feedback without realising that the item is potentially a forgery.
Gerry

Thanks Andy,
Yes I suspect that Voytech will be able to confirm my suspicions.
If they are, as I suspect, not original then what can I do to stop someone else falling into the same trap as me?
I’m sure the seller isn’t aware that the item is potentially a fake.
I can confirm that the English in myine is also poor. I think that this was done deliberately to add to the effect.
Gerry

Is the poor English and bad grammar seen here usual in the genuine items?

Blimey,
I didn’t realise that my posting could potentially bring about such wrath Andy!!
In light of that perhaps the moderators will remove it? I don’t mind.
I only posted it as an attempt to stop the seller receiving bad feedback and an unwitting enthusiast being stung for £500.00.
I have been on the wrong end of a deal like this and wish someone had warned me prior to me handing over the cash.
Gerry

It seems a little odd that he identified the other Hurricane as ‘P3700’ you would have thought it would have been described as ‘E’ or ‘Easy’ … ?:confused:

Exactly so!

It seems a little odd that he identified the other Hurricane as ‘P3700’ you would have thought it would have been described as ‘E’ or ‘Easy’ … ?:confused:

Some detail here which is a direct lift from the Squadron Operations Record Book. See 9 September 1940. No mention of anything that could possibly tie in with the details in this Combat Report and, apparently, no copy of this Combat Report at the National Archives, Kew. One could (possibly) draw two inferences from the absence of any copy of this particular Combat Report at Kew.

See:

http://orb.polishaf.pl/303sqn/1940-4/1940-09-no-303-squadron-f540

Also, worth noting the following in respect of the Combat Report being offered for sale. First, the pilot talks of his “cannon fire” hitting an enemy aircraft when only .303 Brownings were in use at this time. Second, he talks about a Hurricane being shot down and that he identified it as “P3700”. Indeed, Hurricane P3700 was shot down in the combat (apparently) being described here and with Sgt Wunsche baling out wounded although I think it MOST unlikely that the pilot making this report would have described the shot-down Hurricane by its serial number. More likely he would have said “Red 2” (or whatever) or Sgt Wunsche – if indeed he even knew who it was! Also, under “L” the pilot states our casualties (aircraft) as nil, which is in direct contradiction to the main body of the report. The 1939 date mentioned by Microscopia is probably the printed date on the pro-forma, and I rather suspect the “1946” date is a badly stamped “0” which looks like a “6”. Neither of those two points being clarified or explained, though, add any credibility to the item being offered for sale.

I would strongly advise that extreme caution be exercised in respect of potentially buying documents of this nature. In this case, there do seem to be various questions hanging over the item that need to be answered.

I am aware that making comments like this has, in the past, proved somewhat unpopular in certain quarters and led to a veritable barrage of incoming “fan mail” or telephone calls (mostly anonymous) with unpleasant threats (veiled and otherwise) from those evidently aggrieved by my temerity in saying such things. Apparently the originators believe I dont know who they are.

Wouldn’t it be a shame if an original piece of history is thrown in the bin because of all our hunches…… Maybe the Public records don’t have a copy because the owner has the original.

If he had just made reference to the aircraft letter then that could have been any aircraft from any Squadron. I’ve not read the report but if the aircraft is in the same Squadron as the author then I’d say from my experience of writing aircraft incident signals I’d go for the actual registration.

Probably needs a forensics type chap to date the paper/ ink etc.

Unlikely in the extreme, I’d say, that a fellow pilot reports the SERIAL number of an aircraft he sees shot down. Code letters, possibly. I have never seen a serial number mentioned in a Combat Report before and I have viewed thousands of them. Literally. Of course, it could always be a first or a one off. On the other hand, I know where my money would be. Or, in this case, where my money would NOT be!

In light of that perhaps the moderators will remove it?

We’d prefer not to. This sort of post is useful in keeping people vigilant when purchasing memorabilia.

The seller has the option of making their case here at all times

Moggy
Moderator

Fair point Austern,
Perhaps I could interest you in my combat report – signed by Josef Frantisek and only £200.00 :diablo:
In all seriousness I think it would be unwise to ignore the advice of recognised experts in this field.
Only time will tell – lets see what it goes for.
All the best for 2010
Gerry

Wouldn’t it be a shame if an original piece of history is thrown in the bin because of all our hunches…… Maybe the Public records don’t have a copy because the owner has the original.

If he had just made reference to the aircraft letter then that could have been any aircraft from any Squadron. I’ve not read the report but if the aircraft is in the same Squadron as the author then I’d say from my experience of writing aircraft incident signals I’d go for the actual registration.

Probably needs a forensics type chap to date the paper/ ink etc.

Although I have posted it on the forum before, here is an ORIGINAL typed Combat Report for the same day, the same action and the same squadron.

To quote the name of that that well known website…..go compare.

Interestingly, one will notice that the detail in the body of the main report here does tie in with the report being offered on the internet auction site. So, at least in some respects there is some credibility to the report currently being offered for sale. Very often this is the case, and sometimes the detail in these reports fits the known facts. Very often it is complete fiction and fantasy. However, where the facts are “accurate” there could be two explanations if the document then turns out to be a fake: (a) the forger has carefully followed recorded facts to ensure a credible forgery or (b) it is a straight copy in terms of content, and transcribed from an original. Either way, all of this points up the nightmare minefield one enters when considering these items.

Notwithstanding the above I would still have serious reservations about this document – on several levels.

Yep, just playing devils advocate…. My reasoning behind listing the serial number would be because once safely back on the ground and the facts have been gathered it would have been quit easy to list the serial number if it was from the same Squadron as I’d imagine the author would be familiar with the airframe and probably have even flown it at some stage.

My understanding was that combat reports were filed immediately and individually, based upon fresh memory and not assembled from gathered facts (this is why names were used, and/or occasionally code letters). That assimilation of the ‘big picture’ was the job of the Intelligence Officer, who along with the Adjutant might file a quite different set of reports that may or may not include serial numbers, with the full knowledge of which aircraft were lost.

As to why so many forgeries were supposedly by Polish pilots – I wonder whether its to do with the use of language. Phrases that ‘don’t fit’ might not stand out so much if imperfect English can be blamed.

Do you know if there were any wads of blank report forms stolen at that time… similar to the theft of blank M.O.T. certificates from garages which subsequently lead to a spate of false certificates in the motor trade? On second thoughts, I suppose they wouldn’t have to be stolen, knowing the AM bureaucracy there must have been thousands of blank forms kicking around which ended up in the auction house sale-rooms. There are just a couple of other thoughts to ponder: How come any Combat Report has been separated from the others and put up for sale, are they not public records and should be returned as such? Also why hasn’t Kew publicly listed the stolen/missing reports, or haven’t they in turn been keeping a proper inventory?

I don’t think any blank forms would have been stolen from (or even kept at!) Kew. Printing blank forms would have been easy. Then, all the forger needed was an old typewriter, a fountain pen and some ink for the signature. Worth mentioning that many of the originals were handwritten entirely in pencil. None of the fakes that have emerged have been handwritten as far as I know. All have been typed, and many are from Polish pilots, perhaps because these seem more desirable amongst collectors. Where original Combat Reports surface, the National Archives take steps to recover them. When stolen they seem to have been taken in ones and twos etc, but over years many hundreds were lost. Many were recovered when the perpetrator was caught and prosecuted. The thief was sentenced to quite a few months in prison, as I recall, and he had sliced other pages and signatures out of documents at Kew with a craft knife – eg Log Books etc. I am afraid that Kew still have no way of knowing which out of hundreds of thousands of documents papers have been lost or stolen. Many years on it is still safe to say that some of these losses through this massive theft are only now coming to light. You would also be quite wrong to suppose that ten years ago they would not have been fake! I came across the first fakes like these at least 25 years ago.