# German B-24 infiltrating US B-24 formations?



## B-17engineer (Jul 2, 2013)

Reading a book here and it states

"As group withdrew from bombers, concord Tessel at 1322 hours, Group leader notified by Bomber intercom that a German B-24 was in formation with one of the B-24 boxes."

This was on November 26th,1943

Col. Joe Mason said, " orbited with flight to encounter [the supposed German bomber] but could not locate enemy aircraft."

Thoughts on this?


----------



## stona (Jul 2, 2013)

Unlikely and the source for these claims is dubious (I'm being polite). I note that in the case above no such aircraft was actually found and confirmed.

The Germans certainly flew captured aircraft, B-17s and B-24s being no exception, but they were generally clearly marked with German national markings and often large areas of yellow paint to protect them from the Luftwaffe's fighters and flak.

Would you fancy flying or landing a lone B-24 or B-17 in US markings over or in German airspace, particularly when there were genuine US bombers in the area? 

All fighter pilots loved a straggler.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 2, 2013)

stona said:


> Unlikely and the source for these claims is dubious (I'm being polite). I note that in the case above no such aircraft was actually found and confirmed.
> 
> The Germans certainly flew captured aircraft, B-17s and B-24s being no exception, but they were generally clearly marked with German national markings and often large areas of yellow paint to protect them from the Luftwaffe's fighters and flak.
> 
> ...



Captured B-17s and B-24 were said used to monitor and infultrate allied bomber streams on more than one occasion....

_"On a February 1945 741st BS mission against Vienna, "Before reaching the target, a 'phantom' B-24 joined our formation.…The P-51s [of the Tuskegee Airmen] came in and over the radio…the German phantom pilot said he was from the 55th Wing and got lost. But the 55th Wing wasn't flying that day and the plane had no tail markings. The fighter pilot squadron leader gave him some bursts from his guns and warned the phantom to turn back. He added, 'You will be escorted.' The German pilot replied that he could make it alone. The P-51 pilot said: 'You are going to be escorted whether you want it or not. You're going to have two men on your tail all the way back and don't try to land in Yugoslavia.'…The phantom left with his escort and we heard nothing further from the event."

Erling Kindem"_

Kampfgeschwader 200 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 2, 2013)

_"On 1 December 1943 a B-17 was sighted with the letters "D" above another identification letter "B". It also had a square marking, that of the 303rd Bomb Group. This was the identity of B-17F-111-BO 42-30604 Badger Beauty V, actually from the 350th Bomb Group of the "Bloody Century" 100 BG, which used the "square-D" tail marking in service. This machine was captured but it was never repaired or used by the Luftwaffe. When re-captured the B-17 was preserved in Boeing's museum, but is not known to still be in existence in the 21st century. On the same day, a lone B-24 joined a bomber formation from the 44th Bomb Group. It was reported to have been a machine carrying the markings of a 392nd Bomb Group aircraft. However this unit did not become operational until 9 December."_

Geoffrey Thomas: KG200: Luftwaffe’s Most Secret Squadron, Hikoki Publications, August 2004, ISBN 1902109333


----------



## Balljoint (Jul 2, 2013)

There was a similar such report in Ambrose’ The Wild Blue about George McGovern’s experience as a B-24 pilot. Ambrose is not an ideal source, but over Austria during the period reported there was little LW air activity, just FLAK. Apparently the purpose was to report bomber box altitude to the FLAK units.


----------



## Erich (Jul 2, 2013)

the use of captured equipment was to teach young LW crews in the proper useage of tactics, in the case of the US 15th Af there would be no LW unit using these as they were not stationed that far south, and when used from a so-called safe distance it was for target direction only.


----------



## Greyman (Jul 2, 2013)

I've read of a few occasions in which a Bomber Command aircraft was tailed (despite course changes/evasion) by what the crews swear was a B-17.


----------



## bobbysocks (Jul 2, 2013)

i have heard these stories before not only with bombers but fighters as well joining up in formations. but have yet to come across an official lw document or lw pilot testifying they did this. i tend to give some creedence to phantom 51s in the bomber box stories. what better way to pinpint your enemies postion and possible target than to go along for the ride with them....act as a forward observer for your AA and give course and alt. my father swore he once saw a 51 leading ( not being chased ) a flight of 3 109s blow past him.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 2, 2013)

bobbysocks said:


> i have heard these stories before not only with bombers but fighters as well joining up in formations. but have yet to come across an official lw document or lw pilot testifying they did this. i tend to give some creedence to phantom 51s in the bomber box stories. what better way to pinpint your enemies postion and possible target than to go along for the ride with them....act as a forward observer for your AA and give course and alt. my father swore he once saw a 51 leading ( not being chased ) a flight of 3 109s blow past him.



Well the same book said at the end of the war after capture Göring said the Luftwaffe did not do this 

But then again how could Goring oversee each and every unit, could Milch or someone else ordered something like this? Granted Göring would've known had Milch done it


----------



## Erich (Jul 2, 2013)

essentially by late 1943 the LW ground techs had already sound equipment in place to follow the course/direction and altitude of the US bomber formations this is what ground control would radio in to Gruppe Kommandeurs on Lw A/C during intercept flights. captured equipment was not even needed.

interesting sometimes the mythical proportions of a possible sighting where leads.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 2, 2013)

"5 camouflaged shiny olive colored p-51s with white spinners, no identification on tails; only white star insignia; vicinity of Havelberg and Wittenberge--1515hrs at 22,000 feet -- one plane joined with four others and came in from the rear and side into the bombers knocking one B-17 down."

That was from 487th FS, 352nd FG

The book suggests maybe they were Yak-9s but I don't buy that


----------



## Erich (Jul 2, 2013)

or were they Fw 190A's from JG 1 with white spinners and white balkenkreuz ? what is the date of op ?


----------



## GregP (Jul 2, 2013)

I've heard a few stories about this, too. But that's what they were ... stories from people who knew people who might have been there.

I KNOW the Luiftwaffe had captured Allied planes and I KNOW they flew them. But I don't know the details other than they supposedly infiltrated raids at some time, with unknown results. I have heard several US planes were shot down this way, but have never seen anything substantiated by anything like a reliable source. I also heard they used captured US fighters to infiltrate landing patterns in the evening at some US bases. Again, nothing definite from a reliable source.

I know the Allies had several captured German planes and maybe sometimes used Ju-52's to drop off agents or supplies, but the details are alwys strangely missing.

Still, it would be nice to learn about these things if someone really knows ...


----------



## bobbysocks (Jul 2, 2013)

it could be german pilots "counting coup"...just seeing if they could get away with it. stranger things have happened...


----------



## Balljoint (Jul 2, 2013)

Then there’s the story of the phantom P-38 flown by Lt. Guido Rossi of the Axis forces that was discussed on an earlier thread. Good tale not entirely disproved but drags in the YB-40 and Guido’s wife such that it rings of a scriptwriter rather than reality.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 2, 2013)

Aircraft misidentification is a possibility.

German aircraft factory defense units used prototypes.
Perhaps Heinkel He 100/112?


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 2, 2013)

Erich said:


> or were they Fw 190A's from JG 1 with white spinners and white balkenkreuz ? what is the date of op ?


April 10th, 1945 the report was filed doesnt give date of sightings of p51

EDIT: OH the OP, ill check in the morning getting late here in England!


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 2, 2013)

Did read about a Bf-109 that supposedly sidled up to a B-17 just aft of the tail. Supposedly no gun position could train on it. I have tried to imagine where such a position would be and am very dubious. I want to say I read this in the book "Gunner" by Donald Nijboer, but can't quite remember. As I recall this B-17 was tail end charlie after being damaged. The -109 moves into position (how that occurred without sighting is not explained), sits there for a few minutes visibly smoking a cigarrette and then suddenly peels off. The report was a first hand quote from a B-17 gunner.


----------



## redcoat (Jul 2, 2013)

The use of a captured B-24 or B-17 near to an Allied bomber formation would required all the Luftwaffe units in the area to have full information on the aircraft and what it was doing, in order to avoid a friendly fire incident. The fact that this seems never to have occurred leads me to think that these reported incidents are the results of mistaken identity on the part of the bombers reporting them


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 2, 2013)

Yea I agree, it almost seems like an urban myth


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Geoffrey Thomas: KG200: Luftwaffe’s Most Secret Squadron, Hikoki Publications, August 2004, ISBN 1902109333



Great book by the way. My wife got it a few for me for my birthday a few years ago.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 2, 2013)

If the tail gunner position was knocked out, the Bf109 might be able to get in such a position.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 2, 2013)

You would think that the LW pilots of these captured aircraft would have left plenty of details of their activities when trying to infiltrate the bomber streams.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 2, 2013)

redcoat said:


> The use of a captured B-24 or B-17 near to an Allied bomber formation would required all the Luftwaffe units in the area to have full information on the aircraft and what it was doing, in order to avoid a friendly fire incident. The fact that this seems never to have occurred leads me to think that these reported incidents are the results of mistaken identity on the part of the bombers reporting them



Don't think so Hollywood tactical. Keep in mind that an Allied bomber mission was over Axis held territory many hours and not but a few of those times under actual flak and fighter attack. So coordinating a Luftwaffe special forces type interception with a deceptive airplane is not that far fetched. It's not like US bombers were attacked from entry to egress of German held geographical boundaries. It's certainly possible.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 3, 2013)

Erich the date of the incident I spoke of in the OP was November 26th, 1943


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 3, 2013)

vikingBerserker said:


> Yea I agree, it almost seems like an urban myth



I do think, it's not right to say something like this NEVER happened. Sure it may not have been protocol but at some point or another it may have happened

Göring admitted to using Allied transport planes to drop Spies in the Balkans


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 3, 2013)

B-17engineer said:


> I do think, it's not right to say something like this NEVER happened. Sure it may not have been protocol but at some point or another it may have happened
> 
> Göring admitted to using Allied transport planes to drop Spies in the Balkans



I didn't say it never happened, I only questioned if it ever did. I have never come across any reputable facts or data saying it occurred. I would think a pilot that pulled something like this off or anybody associated with it would have bragged about it after the war - I sure as heck would have.

In regards to the use of captured aircraft as transports or to drop spies behind the lines is well documented to have occurred.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 3, 2013)

Göring said it never happened but he had no way of knowing each and every thing Luftwaffe units did


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 3, 2013)

Greyman said:


> I've read of a few occasions in which a Bomber Command aircraft was tailed (despite course changes/evasion) by what the crews swear was a B-17.



RAF 100 group used B17s so possibly it was an RAF plane. No. 100 Group RAF - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Airframes (Jul 3, 2013)

In Stahl's book 'KG 200', covering, and describing in some detail, his time with that unit, there is no mention of these type of flights with the captured aircraft at their disposal. That's not to say it didn't happen - there have been accounts from both USAAF and also RAF escorts, where it was thought a B-17 or B-24 was 'tailing' a formation, at some distance. 
A Ju 88 was sometimes seen to 'stand off' from a bomber formation, reporting back altitude, weather and any course changes, but whether this was also done with captured aircraft is open to speculation - and why use a big, un-familiar, 'foreign' type, when types such as the Ju88, Bf110 etc could do the job?


----------



## Civettone (Jul 3, 2013)

Balljoint said:


> There was a similar such report in Ambrose’ The Wild Blue about George McGovern’s experience as a B-24 pilot. Ambrose is not an ideal source, but over Austria during the period reported there was little LW air activity, just FLAK. Apparently the purpose was to report bomber box altitude to the FLAK units.


I also read that. Though, I think it was third hand account, McGovern "had heard of it".

However, in "the diary of a tail gunner" by John Gabey exists a first person account of a tail gunner seeing an "odd B-17".


> As we neared the Channel one odd-looking Fort tried to turn back and the CO [commanding officer] called some Spits that had just happened to be flying nearby to pick him up and bring him back to England. He had to be a Jerry.



That last source is online and I advice all of you to read this diary. Just a few pages.
The History Place - Personal Histories: Diary of a Tail Gunner by John Gabay

Kris


----------



## stona (Jul 3, 2013)

The KG 200 reports came from one PoW and are not corroborated by anybody else who served with the unit.

Nobody in their right mind would fly a solitary US bomber, in spurious US markings, over Germany at a time when there were genuine "enemy" formations in the vicinity. That bomber will have to fly alone to find the Americans and again when it leaves the formation making itself a prime target for Luftwaffe fighters, particularly as it falls out of formation. Forcing a bomber out of formation was a primary aim of Luftwaffe fighters resulting in a credit (2 points) for a "Herausschuss" precisely because it rendered that bomber vulnerable and much easier to destroy. Only one further point was scored for downing a heavy bomber already forced out of formation. 

Some idiot is going to mimic that manoeuvre voluntarily by leaving the bomber stream! 

I don't buy it. I've never heard a reliable and corroborated report of such activity from a Luftwaffe source (certainly not documented) and given the propensity of all airmen to misidentify their own as well as enemy aircraft I'd be very sceptical of reports from American airmen, no matter how genuine they might be.

German Flak units had a habit (just like our own AAA) of shooting at anything that flew overhead. Imagine flying a genuine enemy aircraft over such trigger happy soldiers. It's why all captured enemy aircraft were painted with large areas of yellow on the lower surfaces. It offered some measure of protection.
Our idiotic/heroic pilot, having miraculously eluded the Luftwaffe in his bomber, complete with US markings, is now going to approach and land at a Luftwaffe airfield. I hope his radio works, someone is on the same wavelength and and they know that he is coming. All the "colours of the day" fired out of the window are not going to save him. It's just to risky to have been attempted without some pressing reason.

We should not forget that the Luftwaffe had their own high flying and modified Me 410s to track the formations from the air, not to mention radar etc.

Can anyone give a good reason why the Luftwaffe would attempt such a suicidal ploy?

Cheers

Steve


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 3, 2013)

stona said:


> The KG 200 reports came from one PoW and are not corroborated by anybody else who served with the unit.
> 
> Nobody in their right mind would fly a solitary US bomber, in spurious US markings, over Germany at a time when there were genuine "enemy" formations in the vicinity. That bomber will have to fly alone to find the Americans and again when it leaves the formation making itself a prime target for Luftwaffe fighters, particularly as it falls out of formation. Forcing a bomber out of formation was a primary aim of Luftwaffe fighters resulting in a credit (2 points) for a "Herausschuss" precisely because it rendered that bomber vulnerable and much easier to destroy. Only one further point was scored for downing a heavy bomber already forced out of formation.
> 
> ...



Believe what you want - there is more than enough proof and ample evidence that at least in 1943 the LW did play around with infiltrating captured aircraft and some of the KG 200 captured aircraft were left in their original markings (or later had original markings applied). Erich called it out perfectly, I doubt this was actively or purposely done by 1944, but some of these pilot reports do justify this.

You say "Nobody in their right mind would fly a solitary US bomber, in spurious US markings, over Germany at a time when there were genuine "enemy" formations in the vicinity." Well no one in their right mind would fly a manned V-1 on a suicide mission or fly a -109 dragging cables into B-17 or B-24 formations so they could be tangled up in the props? How about flying into bomber streams and firing upward firing mortars into B-17 and B-24 formations? How about Wilde Sau missions? 

A sole KG 200 member made this claim and was disputed by other members and some historians - I wonder why? I'd like to know this person's role within KG 200 and those who might dispute the claims. Here's some info about the unit's B-17s and their use...

Luftwaffe Resource Group - B-17 Flying Fortress


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 3, 2013)

Airframes said:


> In Stahl's book 'KG 200', covering, and describing in some detail, his time with that unit, there is no mention of these type of flights with the captured aircraft at their disposal. That's not to say it didn't happen - there have been accounts from both USAAF and also RAF escorts, where it was thought a B-17 or B-24 was 'tailing' a formation, at some distance.
> A Ju 88 was sometimes seen to 'stand off' from a bomber formation, reporting back altitude, weather and any course changes, but whether this was also done with captured aircraft is open to speculation - and why use a big, un-familiar, 'foreign' type, when types such as the Ju88, Bf110 etc could do the job?



Well I think (pure speculation) the rationale would be....maybe we can report course, altitude, formation, and weather changes without being harassed if we use an aircraft that would 'fit in' so to speak.


----------



## Erich (Jul 3, 2013)

~ Harrison getting back to the olive drab Mustangs in LW markings the Lw test unit Zirkus Rosarius tested the P-51B's that they captured and they were left in dark colors but with LW markings the spinners were white. the unit was not allowed to operate in the defensive role but was a traveling circus of mixed captured types going from one Lw defensive airfield to another using their said A/C for teaching principles to all pilots of Reich defense. Mock combats at low altitude were performed and of course much films were recorded on just where and how - ha ha a mustang or heavy bomber could be encountered best.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 3, 2013)

Knowing that this sort of thing may happen with captured aircraft, why don't crews bail and crash their aircraft instead of landing and permitting the enemy to capture the plane?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 3, 2013)

gjs238 said:


> Knowing that this sort of thing may happen with captured aircraft, why don't crews bail and crash their aircraft instead of landing and permitting the enemy to capture the plane?


Sometimes aircrews cannot safely egress the aircraft (altitude). Additionally for the sake of survival, it is sometimes easier to land the aircraft rather than trying to bail out. Jumping out of an aircraft unplanned is not a good thing and many times could result in injury or death. Personally, I would only jump from an airplane in the event of fire or major structural failure (providing I had a parachute).


----------



## stona (Jul 3, 2013)

B-17engineer said:


> Well I think (pure speculation) the rationale would be....maybe we can report course, altitude, formation, and weather changes without being harassed if we use an aircraft that would 'fit in' so to speak.



They could do that without recourse to such nonsensical tactics as infiltrating the bomber stream.

A manned V-1 never happened offensively, though supposedly some were flown. I'm not sure that Hanna Reitsch would come under a heading of reliable witnesses. There were plenty of volunteers for manned missions, at least according to more than one SS source. 

None of the others are suicidal and at least stood a chance of inflicting some damage. Desperate times breed desperate measures. I notice even those who believe that US marked aircraft were used to infiltrate the bomber stream for some undisclosed reason don't report that these "wolves in sheeps' clothing" actually attempted to inflict any damage.

My question stands, why would you carry out such a risky mission for no tangible advantage?

The other question is not why historians and other members of KG 200 are disputing one man's claims but why is he making such unsupported claims? I'm reminded of the Mexican taxidermist who created an "alien" using principally parts of a Marmoset simply to raise his own profile. There are still people who swear that they saw his concoction alive 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 3, 2013)

gjs238 said:


> Knowing that this sort of thing may happen with captured aircraft, why don't crews bail and crash their aircraft instead of landing and permitting the enemy to capture the plane?


Thanks Erich!

I've thought this too but when you think of how risky parachuting was/could be landing it makes sense in some cases

Here's what I think; For an observation role/testing using a captured allied aircraft would make a lot of sense

Using it for a combat role would be silly because if you get shot down or don't properly know how to fly it (fuel transfers etc. etc.) you'd have wasted a perfectly good piece of technology you could use to your benefit


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 3, 2013)

stona said:


> My question stands, why would you carry out such a risky mission for no tangible advantage?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve



*Desperate times breed desperate measures.*


----------



## drgondog (Jul 3, 2013)

I have always viewed reports of B-17 stalking or inserting into a formation (or B-24) as dubious at best. Hans Lerner doesn't discuss Rosarius Zirkus 'loaning' any captured US aircraft to any LW operational unit, and specifically no mention of KG 200.

Further the notion of trying taking off, climbing to altitude and pursuing a US bomber formation with perhaps a 15 mpg speed advantage, find it, causally 'slide' in and try to remain anonymous is also amusing. First, nobody from a trailing formation is going to believeably catch up to a leading formation.

Second, the Division leaders and all squadron navigators know their position in the Task Force, and know which BG's are ahead of them.. so tail ID would have to match to one BG up front.

Third, premature ejaculation by LW would put the disguised bomber at great risk.

Fourth, a stalking Ju 88 or 188 at altitude and 10 miles away can see the US bomber stream to report altitude and airspeed and strength with much less risk - and much greater chances of actually getting 'close enough'.

I just discount the 'alien' bomber/stalker theory for those reasons.

If I was deciding to waste a valuable asset, I would try to sneak in a Aphrodite type B-17 into England and attack say, Parliament..


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 3, 2013)

gjs238 said:


> Knowing that this sort of thing may happen with captured aircraft, why don't crews bail and crash their aircraft instead of landing and permitting the enemy to capture the plane?



Maybe injured crew who cant jump


----------



## stona (Jul 3, 2013)

gjs238 said:


> Knowing that this sort of thing may happen with captured aircraft, why don't crews bail and crash their aircraft instead of landing and permitting the enemy to capture the plane?



As "Flyboyj" said, if it will fly then a pilot will try and land it. My father was a FAA pilot and that was certainly his attitude. Abandoning an aircraft by parachute was certainly a last resort in his mind.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Erich (Jul 3, 2013)

mis-ID was done on both sides during the war even by day worse of course at night. Frankly I will believe a wekusta/recon Ju 88A a mile out giving height and directional course to be fed to ground control and then back again to defensive LW gruppen makes perfect sense...

KG 200 did fly suicide missions, it also used Allied A/C in it's arsenal but most and it is not known officially but secret missions were flown in the east. have a friend that flew 109's with the unit of which he has talked almost nil about. what we know that has been written and in truth the stealth unit-part of it was drawn to agent dropping behind Allied lines at night but again dark colored captured equipment but with local LW markings applied.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 3, 2013)

Erich said:


> mis-ID was done on both sides during the war even by day worse of course at night. Frankly I will believe a wekusta/recon Ju 88A a mile out giving height and directional course to be fed to ground control and then back again to defensive LW gruppen makes perfect sense...
> 
> KG 200 did fly suicide missions, it also used Allied A/C in it's arsenal but most and it is not known officially but secret missions were flown in the east. have a friend that flew 109's with the unit of which he has talked almost nil about. what we know that has been written and in truth the stealth unit-part of it was drawn to agent dropping behind Allied lines at night but again dark colored captured equipment but with local LW markings applied.


While mis ID'ing aircraft was probably what happened more times than not I wish there were Luftwaffe reports of how they used captured planes. Would be very interesting


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 3, 2013)

Balljoint said:


> Then there’s the story of the phantom P-38 flown by Lt. Guido Rossi of the Axis forces that was discussed on an earlier thread. Good tale not entirely disproved but drags in the YB-40 and Guido’s wife such that it rings of a scriptwriter rather than reality.


A Martin Cadin fairy tale. No YB-40 were ever sent to Italy


----------



## Erich (Jul 3, 2013)

~ Harrison there is a book on the subject you are interested in, sadly I do not have a title for you. it may have been written in German but then again maybe not. Yb-40's were never used in combat there was however tests of using a tail turret 20mm weapon however and these failed due to active vibration. due to the closeness of the US bomber formations in late 43 for defensive purposes LW pilots thought because of the amount of .50 cal they were receiving that the B-17's especially were mounting 20mm.s


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 3, 2013)

It's hard to believe though no one admitted to it because what would someone have to gain by keeping it secret after the war was over?

Unless of course they escaped and were laying low


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 3, 2013)

Erich said:


> Yb-40's were never used in combat


Actually they were with poor results..

Boeing YB-40 Flying Fortress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## bobbysocks (Jul 3, 2013)

stona said:


> Nobody in their right mind would .......



nobody in their right mind would have done the majority of the things pilots on either side did. these were boys in their early 20s and late teens. hell, i being a little more of a right mind wouldnt attempt half the crap now that i did when i was that age....


----------



## CobberKane (Jul 3, 2013)

bobbysocks said:


> nobody in their right mind would have done the majority of the things pilots on either side did. these were boys in their early 20s and late teens. hell, i being a little more of a right mind wouldnt attempt half the crap now that i did when i was that age....


 
Absolutely. It is one of the great tragedies of history that wars get started by old men and fought by young men. Teenagers are easy to recruit because...

1. They think it will be fun
2. They know for a fact they were born bullet-proof.

...neither of which misconception survives beyond the first few seconds of combat. Then us old farts wonder why the ones who come home get so uppity and disrespectful of their elders. 
War is a game for a-holes and innocents; a-holes to start them and innocents to fight them. Oh, and the odd pseudo philosopher pontificating without ever having fought in one, of course!


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 3, 2013)

Amen to that last sentence.


----------



## stona (Jul 4, 2013)

The hazards of flying an "enemy" aircraft even when clearly marked with German national markings, codes and special markings.
This is a B-24 liberator (KO+XA) which was forced to make a forced landing having been hit by flak. One of the 29 passengers on board was killed by fragments. The aircraft was clearly marked and the underside of the rear fuselage, wing tips and lower surfaces of the ailerons were all painted yellow. It didn't save it and poor old Oberfeldwebel Rauchfuss, who was at the controls, was lucky to make a relatively soft landing.







After field repairs he attempted to take of again but the nose gear collapsed and the aircraft was set on fire, soon burning out.






You'll notice that the letters of the stammkennzeichen are not visible on the fuselage but were carried on the undersides of the wings in an effort to prevent exactly this sort of thing happening.

CL+XC was a natural metal aircraft and carried its code letters on a large white panel painted on the fuselage in an effort to make them more visible. The letters were always black.

All the B-24s used by KG 200 were marked similarly. One, the B-24 previously known to it's American crew as "Sunshine", was used by KG 200 on night operations and carried very large, oversized, balkenkreuz in this role, presumably to aid identification in poor light. 

I have pictures of several B-24s in Luftwaffe markings, A3+KB, NF+FL, CL+XC, KO+XA, A3+PB, maybe more if I looked harder.
Does anyone have a picture of a flying B-24 in the hands of the Luftwaffe in US markings?

There is not one shred of credible evidence that the Luftwaffe flew inappropriately marked B-24s (or any other type) to infiltrate enemy formations.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 4, 2013)

stona said:


> There is not one shred of credible evidence that the Luftwaffe flew inappropriately marked B-24s (or any other type) to infiltrate enemy formations.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve




But there's a TON of evidence of inappropriately marked allied aircraft joining up on allied bomber streams using non-procedure R/T. I've become a bit skeptical about "bomber infiltrators" being a wide spread thing, while there seems to be little/ no evidence to show that the LW did this, there is little/ no evidence to show that they didn't. Again, I'd like to know more about the POW who claimed that this was done and those who disputed those claims.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 4, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> But there's a TON of evidence of inappropriately marked allied aircraft joining up on allied bomber streams using non-procedure R/T. I've become a bit skeptical about "bomber infiltrators" being a wide spread thing, while there seems to be little/ no evidence to show that the LW did this, there is little/ no evidence to show that they didn't. Again, I'd like to know more about the POW who claimed that this was done and those who disputed those claims.



Agreed, while I do not believe it was something part of protocol, there's way too many accounts (granted most are mis-ID aircraft) that I find it hard to believe it NEVER happened.


----------



## stona (Jul 4, 2013)

What aircraft did it?

We can account for just about every allied aircraft that the Germans returned to flying condition and they were all given a stammkennzeichen which was prominently displayed along with national markings and other special markings. I hesitate to say every aircraft because we're talking Luftwaffe seventy years ago, but I'm as sure as anyone can be that all the B-17s and B-24s returned to flight can be accounted for. They were not that numerous. Why would they be?

I keep seeing what amounts to hearsay, easily explained by simple if well meaning misidentifications from extremely anxious and stressed young men on combat operations. What I don't see is any hard evidence in the face of a lot of evidence to the contrary. 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 4, 2013)

stona said:


> What aircraft did it?
> 
> We can account for just about every allied aircraft that the Germans returned to flying condition and they were all given a stammkennzeichen which was prominently displayed along with national markings and other special markings. I hesitate to say every aircraft because we're talking Luftwaffe seventy years ago, but I'm as sure as anyone can be that all the B-17s and B-24s returned to flight can be accounted for. They were not that numerous. Why would they be?
> 
> ...


 
*B-17F-100-BO "Miss Nonalee II"*
Last B-17 captured by Germans in 1943 was B-17F-100-BO "Miss Nonalee II" (42-30336) from 548BS 385BG. This plane piloted by Lieutenant Glyndon G. Bell was damaged 9th of October 1943 during bombing run on Arado plant in Anklam (Eastern Prussia). Crew decided to go to Sweden but they made mistake and flew to Denmark. All crew members excluding pilot jumped and were caught by Danish police collaborating with Germans. Lieutenant Bell made forced landing near Varde, Denmark and after failed try to set fire on bomber evaded Danish policeman and was transported by Danish Resistance to Sweden. Meanwhile Germans sent from Flensburg transport plane Ar 232 with technicians. After few hours work lightened plane took off to Rechlin. There in _unknown_ what happened with plane *after repairs and traditional period of trials* in Rechlin.


All B-17 (excluding "Miss Nonalee II") were transfered to KG 200 - special Luftwaffe unit

from: Luftwaffe Resource Group - B-17 Flying Fortress

So there is one instance of a captured aircraft simply 'vanishing' from the records...

From VIII Fighter command document:

' The first instance of a German-flown P-47 was when it accompanied an Me-109 on June 25th, 1944 and made six or seven approaches to one of our bomber formations, but without attacking! The captured B-17s were used to shadow our formations and to act as decoys, possibly as practice targets for fighters to learn the proper approach against the real thing. November 30th, 1943, marked the date when the first P-38s were used by the enemy , for it came out of one of our bomber formations on a mission for which *no Allied Lightnings were booked for escort*. It had* no Allied markings*, and when the P-47 pilot pulled alongside, the Nazi '' Dove for the Deck''. Another enemy piloted P-38 was shot down on the same mission by an American pilot. ' 

So

1) No Lightnings for escort, why did one suddenly appear?
2)No allied Markings, so yes it did not have Stars and Stripes but it was in the air

Leaves a question

Does anyone know where the raid was on November 30th? 
----------------------------------------
Then;

''At 12 noon on August 11, 1943, a B-17F of the 419th BS, 301st BG was shot down off the coast of Italy. What was unique about the aircraft that shot it down?

The aircraft was a captured P-38 flown by Regia Aeronautica test pilot Col. Angelo Tondi. The P-38 was captured 12 June when it landed by mistake at Sardinia on a ferry flight. The B-17 was 42-30307, named "Bonnie Sue", 6 were KIA, 3 evaded. MACR 490.

The aircraft was a P-38G which, while on a flight from Gibraltar to Malta on June 12, 1943, suffered compass problems and landed by mistake at Capoterra, Sardinia. The Lightning was painted in Italian markings, and transferred to the Italian Test Center at Guidonia. On August 11, 1943, chief test pilot Col. Angelo Tondi used the P-38 to intercept USAAF bombers on their way to attack targets in central Italy. Tondi shot down a B-17F, Bonnie Sue, of the 419th BS, 301st BG''

So while painted in Italian Markings, it shot down a B-17.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 5, 2013)

Then here's a case of what appears to be blatant mis ID

"12/15 Me-109s seen S/O Enschede, 30,000 feet, 1110, with British Markings, repeat, British Markings."

Maybe Mustang MKIIIs?


----------



## stona (Jul 6, 2013)

B-17engineer said:


> Then here's a case of what appears to be blatant mis ID
> 
> "12/15 Me-109s seen S/O Enschede, 30,000 feet, 1110, with British Markings, repeat, British Markings."
> 
> Maybe Mustang MKIIIs?



There were many, many instances of this sort of thing. I've seen it in combat/encounter reports so the men filing must have believed it. I've even seen reports of German aircraft carrying "invasion stripes". 

It is simply a mistake or misidentification.

As for the disappearing B-17, there were hangars full of captured enemy aircraft at various places, including Rechlin. I posted a picture somewhere showing such a storage facility to show someone the fate of a Fairey Battle in which he was interested. Most ended up in the smelter and this B-17 probably did too. There wouldn't have been much of a paper trail and what there was has almost certainly been lost.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 6, 2013)

stona said:


> There were many, many instances of this sort of thing. I've seen it in combat/encounter reports so the men filing must have believed it. I've even seen reports of German aircraft carrying "invasion stripes".
> 
> It is simply a mistake or misidentification.
> 
> ...



Yeah but again its speculation they were sent to be scrapped. Its speculation they were used as aircraft to shadow formations. I think its pretty practical to use an enemy aircraft to work as a spotter plane. Why use a German reconnaissance plane and have the possibility of being targeted by allied fighters? If you are in an allied craft you put doubt in their mind that you could be a potential friendly although you don't belong there. 

Why scrap them?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2013)

stona said:


> What aircraft did it?


There aren't very many photos of captured aircraft being used "operationally" by KG 200. We have no knowledge of what was really done with them. Do you really think the LW would take pics of a captured aircraft being flown in its original markings making the crews guilty of war crimes?


stona said:


> We can account for just about every allied aircraft that the Germans returned to flying condition and they were all given a stammkennzeichen which was prominently displayed along with national markings and other special markings. I hesitate to say every aircraft because we're talking Luftwaffe seventy years ago, but I'm as sure as anyone can be that all the B-17s and B-24s returned to flight can be accounted for. They were not that numerous. Why would they be?


Agree to a point - we could account for them be we don't know if they maintained those paint schemes or markings while in "captivity."


stona said:


> I keep seeing what amounts to hearsay, easily explained by simple if well meaning misidentifications from extremely anxious and stressed young men on combat operations. What I don't see is any hard evidence in the face of a lot of evidence to the contrary.


The 1943 report on the first page of this thread is pretty accurate and collaborated by other witnesses.


----------



## Erich (Jul 6, 2013)

in 1943 it was practical to use long range Ju 88A's on high alt recon as US fighter awareness really was not apparent on deep penetration as of yet. KG 200 I feel did not provide this type of work as it had other stealth evening work to perform during the war on all fronts the LW was involved in.......


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 7, 2013)

Just because I'm really curious I emailed Robert "punchy" Powell a pilot who was with the 352nd FG to see if he remembers any such incident. We've talk before and he's a wealth of information.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 7, 2013)

Also, stories of Curtis H75a's (III/JG77) and Dewonite D.250's being used in combat (JG101, JG103, and JG105)

III/JG77 only switched to 109s after the small amount of ammo the H75A had


----------



## stona (Jul 7, 2013)

B-17engineer said:


> Also, stories of Curtis H75a's (III/JG77) and Dewonite D.250's being used in combat (JG101, JG103, and JG105)



Yes but in German markings. They continued to be used trainers for some time after.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Jul 7, 2013)

Erich said:


> in 1943 it was practical to use long range Ju 88A's on high alt recon as US fighter awareness really was not apparent on deep penetration as of yet. KG 200 I feel did not provide this type of work as it had other stealth evening work to perform during the war on all fronts the LW was involved in.......



Quite so Eric, and GM-1 equipped Me 410s.

Cheers

Steve


----------

