Battle of Britain:

[sfg]

can anyone answer this? Reading various accounts of the daytime BoB air battles, there seem to be many descriptions of German bomber formations turning tail and running for home at the first sign of RAF fighter attacks. I find this hard to believe. Any comments?
( Stanford Tuck biography 'Fly for Your Life.')

 

[GregP]

Never saw that, but also never looked for it.

 

[Crimea_River]

I've read many accounts of the BoB, including Tuck's, and don't recall such observations. I would suggest that proof of the contrary lies in the desperation of the defense, the damage done, and the lives lost. If all one had to do was keep fighters in the air to prevent the Germans from pressing home their attacks then the battle would not have gone on as long as it did. Of course there may have been some incidents like this but I'd suggest that, if they did happen, they were more the exception than the rule.

 

[sfg]

Pages 59/60 and p107 for example.

Clearly the author is using a lot of poetic licence, after all it was written in 1956. Official reports note damaged aircraft turning back but not undamaged ones.

 

[PAT303]

The formations did split up but don't know about running for home, a Spitfire is going to catch a He111 regardless

 

[sfg]

I think term 'split up' might be misleading. The LW aircraft were apparently forced to fly evasive tactics, unlike the rigid formations of the USAAF later on. But the raids as a whole continued to their target, they didn't scatter before doing so.
That said, official reports record that on a number of occasions, raids missed their targets completely, and minor raids were driven off and jettisoned their bombloads. However I can't any reports of a major raid being wholly split up.
The official air ministry account from 1941 wildly exaggerated the numbers shot down - they must have had access to local reports of any crashing aircraft, so was this just a bit of propaganda ? If so it was pretty pointless, coming so long after the event.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Yeah, I've read a lot about the BoB, not as much as you all but quite a bit and I've never seen anything to corroborate that claim. Agreed damaged aircraft would turn back and splitting up to hit different targets but a whole raid turning back? Umm... not convinced.

 

[yulzari]

The bombs around my old house and last one were from a Ju88 attacked at low level and jettisoned it's load in an effort to escape. This might have been a behaviour that could be interpreted as in the OP.

 

[glennasher]

Was he referencing the raids from Norway? Those raids had to travel long distances and weren't aimed at London, regardless, and I'm not sure where Tuck was flying (it's been a LONG time since I read that book, over 40 years). I seem to recall that some of those raids were turned back, but that's just an impression I have. Those raids did NOT have fighter cover.

 

[sfg]

No, he wasn't!

 

[fubar57]

Pages 59/60 and p107 for example.

Clearly the author is using a lot of poetic licence, after all it was written in 1956. Official reports note damaged aircraft turning back but not undamaged ones.

What are the dates on theses pages? I have a few BoB diary books I can look through

 

[sfg]

What are the dates on theses pages? I have a few BoB diary books I can look through

Sept 15th for the p107 entry
Not clear which date for the p59, but just after Tuck was promoted squadron leader

 

[fubar57]

Thank you. It'll be a bit before I can start

 

[pbehn]

Sept 15th for the p107 entry
Not clear which date for the p59, but just after Tuck was promoted squadron leader

Sept 15 is now known as Battle of Britain day, there were certainly raids that day on London that turned for home early dropping bombs on Croydon. Due to head winds and miss timing the escorts had to turn back and the bombers did too. I seem to remember Stanford Tuck was involved in one of those strange wartime coincidences, a small bomber formation he was attacking dropped their bombs in the middle of nowhere but killed someone important doing so.

 

[Crimea_River]

Pages 59/60 and p107 for example.

Clearly the author is using a lot of poetic licence, after all it was written in 1956. Official reports note damaged aircraft turning back but not undamaged ones.

The pages in my edition don't match yours but I read the account of the 15th and assume you are talking about this excerpt:

".....Tuck swung around and half-rolled after a He 111 which had suddenly panicked, broken away from its post in the stream and was fleeing for home....."

And then:

"The Huns had been licked! That huge formation had been sent scuttling for home by a comparatively tiny force - a magnificent little force!....The fleeing Germans would jettison their bombs at random and most of them would explode in open country."

Yeah I think there is some poetic license here.

 

[fubar57]

This is from, "Battle of Britain Day - 15 September 1940" by Alfred Price, 1990. Published by Sidgwick & Jackson ltd