Willi Resche´s Tempest kill from April 14,1945

[CloCloZ]

but did Cescotti report inadequately or did the 486th squadron pilots did not know for certain EXACTLY where the engagement took place 100 %, and that Clo is my point.

Erich, I'll explain later why I think the German reports aren't trustable in many details, but the important thing is that the REAL point is dictated by timings and distances coupled with Cescotti's own words, as I explained earlier.

If the fight was "near Neustadt-Glewe", so near to allow Cescotti to clearly eyewitness it, times and distances say that Sattler (late in takeoff by several minutes) couldn't fly to reach battle the way Cescotti says.
And if it was near Ludwigslust, Cescotti couldn't have eyewitnessed it.
It's simpler than one could think about.
You can't avoid maths here (nobody can ...).

BTW, climbing at near the maximum rate of 3,445 ft/min at low alt using MW50, the first three TA152s could have climbed up to 2000 mt and more in two or three minutes, just the time needed to reach a battle zone about 8-10 km far from their airport, i.e. at about the same distance of Ludwigslust North-East area (whereas obviously Sattler should have flown on the deck to reach them when they dived at low-alt to attack Tempests ...).

So, the picture I've shown seems to be fully plausible with a battle about 8-10 km from the LW airfield, with the first three Ta152s steeply climbing to gain an advantage and the last one forced to fly at low-alt to reach them.
Time and distances matches with my picture and with Short and Shaw's reports, whereas don't match at all with Cescotti's report about Sattler's flight.
It's not my fault!

personally Sattler never got to good combat height, there is not enough evidence except from the vast array of reports that he ever did all from different German and French sources. I feel that there are some very important points missing in all this operation which did not take place at combat altitude for the Tank. the two 486th reports still do not make sense, if we are to allow one or the other for taking down Sattler.

Good combat height?
Well, given distances and times (again ...) the max height he could have reached would be about 3000 mt, very likely less, just as the other three comrades.
Of course, being him late etc. etc. he couldn't and quite likely flown at low-alt.
An that explains why Shaw spotted him "on the deck", as he wrote in his report.

Cescotti : I witnessed one air battle myself from the ground at Neustadt-Glewe Air Base on 14 April 1945............so Cescotti is lying ?

I think we both can assume yes or no

Erich, did Reschke lied?
If no, then Cescotti is lying, because Reschke said that he was flying behind Sattler etc. etc. whereas it's impossible considering Sattler's starter failure at takeoff and so little time and distance involved on that scramble takeoff.
So, you can make a guess: who is lying? ...

My opinion is that AT LEAST these old German pilots/officers have very often bad memories (it's likely I'll have the same or worse when I'll reach their age ...).
This seems evident with Reschke (and at first that wasn't my opinion, I was surprìsed ... or maybe not ... when I read of Lorant's findings) but since even Cescotti's tale has some not credible (although fundamental) details I suspect that he has some problem too ...

And, yes, I think are much more trustable the RAF reports, written by pilot themselves just after the fight, than "tales" reported by veterans several dozens of year later ...

Maybe Cescotti mistaken that battle with another in another date, in any case justifying his (and Reschke's) inconsistencies it's not a problem of mine ...
I had to repeat: it's not just "my opinion", it's largely a math issue and neither Cescotti nor everybody else can avoid it, if they want to reaffirm their statements.
Starting from that math issue and realizing that German reports on the event were unreliable (being not consistent even between themselves!), after having reconsidered all the info I've found that the "Shaw hypothesis" for Sattler's crash, that includes a credible reconstruction of the German pilot's flight, is largely trustable.
It explains everything (timings, altitudes, chances ...) without the need to trot out a mysterious and presumed "failure" on Sattler's plane.

Add to this that there is a quite evident "mythicization" of Ta152H by German side, based in part on this event (but not just that), and you'll have another reason to take these German reports with much more than a grain of salt.

I think that Prof. Tank himself started it all ...
Remember Kurt Tank "mythical" and never proved escape from four (or six) Mustangs at just 7000m?

And did you knew that the air combat kill/loss ratio of the "mythical" Ta152H ("the best piston fighter of WWII", someone says ...) is less than 2:1 (7 victories, 4 losses), although that plane seems to have been flown by aces almost for the half of all the pilots that are known to have ridden her?

Considering that, I think that you should ask yourself some questions about the credibility of these "tales", that seem just perfect to deliberately create a myth.

 

[Erich]

for your info I was able to see the log books from several stab Jg 301 pilots this past August, I have also been active in the LEMB TA thread you provided, you remember well the info produced on W. Loos that was known for many years under his very own tongue with his own Kameraden; even with Reschke telling me in writing about Jupps P-51 kill and then seeing Keils logbuch with the P-47 written in it do I believe in everything that is written by Reschke in his book ? ............. in a word NO, this is one of the fundamental reasons to get both sides, we can argue all we want or agree all we want, there are some very important issues that I explained earlier, Reschke was in hot pursuit with Mitchell as fact, he was not watching Sattler, as for having him ahead or behind is not the question behind the original posters question though you and I have spun off to a different tangent and am glad we did, it pauses me to think again about what really happened with the 1-2 486th Tempests and Sattler and I feel that Doras of II. gruppe were also in the neighborhood. believing that the 486th vet accounts as plain truth is twisted just like believing the LW reports as 100 % fact. wouldn't that be nice but we hav to take both and then try to sum up until we can get a better report from another eye witness. Cescotti again was not the only one watching the action from the field below.

again I say that not all of the LW engagement reports are at hand, the question is where are they, stolen ? no most likely buried as many JG accounts are, reason why not every JG has been covered in detail.

maybe we can in time through mapping and other ground personell accounts get this possibly solved. my question is why did not the Germans admit that Sattlers Tank was shot down in action ? and it is not some mythical do or die super human crate they had under their butts flying during 1945 either.

you might save your typing hands we are getting NO-where.

think about this the LW reports were given and submitted to the OKW but since the OKL was not approving LW shoot-down confirmations as fact after October 44 we will never know. Saying one thing that we have the 486th sq reports is true, what we do not have is the recollections in approved form from the LW pilots engaged this date. you cannot make a blank full on statment that the LW is just going by some faulty memory years later that makes little sense as being useful.

furthermore how does an a/c have a myth created by itself like the Ta 152H-0 and H-1. It wasn't the LW giving us this fantasy but Allied personell and the folks living today.

 

[CloCloZ]

Reschke was in hot pursuit with Mitchell as fact, he was not watching Sattler, as for having him ahead or behind is not the question behind the original posters question

I absolutely agree.
Not only Reschke but quite likely ALL the three German pilots (Aufhammer, Reschke and the third unnamed pilot) were fully aimed at Mitchell and Short!
For sure they were looking at Short and Mitchell's planes and nothing else!
And this explains a lot of the fight ...

Reschke probably saw Sattler falling just with the corner of the eye and for a split second and a certain distance. According to Shaw's report, flame didn't burst at once on the "FW190" and for sure (as I have explained) Sattler was already on the deck (just like Reschke) when he was hit (and certainly not at 2000m ...), so it wasn't a long fall.
According to Shaw, flames initially developed on port side, then enveloped the plane.
It's quite possible that Reschke briefly looked at the undamaged starboard side of Sattler, then diverting attention to chase Mitchell and only later looking at the crash on the ground, so losing any chance to see the flames.
And this would explain his incredulity about enemy action as the cause of Sattler crash.
Since, after shooting down Sattler, Shaw and Brooker didn't took part at any other fight (so they were probably returning home) it's no surprise neither Reschke nor Cescotti didn't mention them about the fight: all the German pilots were looking elsewhere ...

Reschke's own account made quite clear that three Ta152 pilots (himself, Aufhammer and the unnamed) directed their attention just towards the Short-Mitchell pair, ignoring that there were another pair near them. This seems to be confirmed by the fact that after Sattler crash all three remaining Ta152 chased Short, whereas nor Shaw neither Brooker were involved in further fights. Therefore, Reschke and Short reports agree about this "fixation" of German pilots, so leaving Shaw creditably free, unnoticed and being able to take Sattler by surprise (just like RAF version suggests).
Being Sattler late he probably was in a better (and slightly detached) position to notice the Brooker-Shaw pair, at least at the last moment. He probably did, but was almost instantly killed by Shaw.

But, please note: saying that Reschke is wrong about his and Sattler relative position is just significant about Reschke's unreliability, it doesn't mean that Cescotti is right in describing Sattler's flight!
On the contrary, ahead or behind is not the important detail.

The important detail is that Reschke saw Sattler crashing at the exact moment they started the attack, better, an instanct before the attack.
This means that Sattler had just reached the other three Ta152s and to do that he had to flow on the deck (and didn't climbed up to 2000m).
So, Resckhe is wrong about Sattler's relative position in flight and Cescotti is wrong about Sattler's flight path ...
The only reliable report here seems to be the Shaw's one, which talks about an E/A on the deck!

I feel that Doras of II. gruppe were also in the neighborhood.

Maybe but ... there were other FW190 losses the same day, on the same place at the same time?
If yes, it could be an explanation that revives Sattler's failure hypothesis.
If not, I think that my hypotesis (which is the RAF one) stands still and strong.
Please remember that Brooker, Shaw, Short and Mitchell were all strafing the same target, so it's likely they were still close enough to became involved by the same Ta152s attack.

believing that the 486th vet accounts as plain truth is twisted just like believing the LW reports as 100 % fact.

I disagree here.
Direct combat report are for sure much more reliables than faint "memories".
And, by the way, both Shaw and Short used their cine cameras, so there is an even lesser chance they could wrote an inaccurate report.

furthermore how does an a/c have a myth created by itself like the Ta 152H-0 and H-1. It wasn't the LW giving us this fantasy but Allied personell and the folks living today.

Sorry, you are plainly wrong: it was Kurt Tank himself that started all this, during the war, as I'm going to explain.
And you'll easily find several German statements high-praising the plane, unluckily NOT supported by its combat scores ...

my question is why did not the Germans admit that Sattlers Tank was shot down in action ? and it is not some mythical do or die super human crate they had under their butts flying during 1945 either.

Of course, I've thought about that.
And my answer is that likely they pushed on too much on this airplane mythization, since the end of the war and even before, to allow themselves to pull out now.
It's all a matter of reputation now, I suppose.

Since Ta152H had so limited use in real action and since Kurt Tank himself started the myth already at war time with the "Mustang tale" (I suppose mainly to justify his "bet" on Ta152 instead on improving the excellent FW190D), that plane "needed" at least a few bright victories against strong enemies.
The Ludwigslust dogfight is apparently a good occasion to praise plane performances against one of the most powerful allied fighters.
And saying that, at the end, the fight concluded just with a 1-1 score notwithstanding the German numerical superiority 4-vs-3 (with the German hit scored by an ace against a rookie and a Kommodore that really risked to be shoot down!) well ... it wouldn't be good to build the myth!

I don't know if this is true: "Eric Brown stated the D-9 was the best. He met Tank after war, according to him Tank agreed that the Dora was best he should have concentrated on improving it instead of making 152." (Flying the 152 - World War II Forums) but I wouldn't be surprised if it were.

So, maybe in the end even Tank dropped the myth.
What surprises me is that the myth goes on!
I think that is largely due to myth spreading during all these years, coupled by a good amount of ignorance by many.
Look at low-medium level performances and you'll find that FW190D, especially the late FW190D-11 and 13, were fantastic machines even when compared to Ta152H (which, after all, was designed as high-alt interceptor!).
And when I look at the poor kill/loss ratio of a plane flown by so many aces, I always wonder how it's possible that someone still depict it as "the best WWII piston fighter"!

Don't get me wrong: I have high regard for FW series and I think that likely FW190D-13 could be the "overall best piston fighter of WWII".
I just run into this Ta152H myth (which I for myself fully trusted some years ago!) and examining the Ludwigslust event I started understanding its genesis and maybe its reasons.

And believe me, reading some statements and comparing that with reality is quite hilarious ...

 

[Erich]

there still is some confusion in the Shaw, short account I just read them both on that singular page. also finding where the airfield existed and personell viewing the air battle with the naked eye and binocs. both 486th pilots mention the Ludwigslust area but were clearly over the airfield just south of Neustadt-Glewe so in reality this is NOT over Ludwiglust if we want to get to reality. I feel that Reschke is assuming a pilots eye and doe not have everything clear, and hopeful I will repeat this the last time we have NO report documented in full length on Willi's/Tempest duel just what he has written personally and done up in personal interviews. more and more now that I have found the mysterious airfield that Roderick was right there when the action took place. the victors of sorts of the battle for the 486th were able to have their report documented and scanned for public viewing the LW pilot(s) were not, you cannot make one without the other and base the whole air engagement just on one side of the story. you have brought up some interesting points and for that I thank you as I will rewrite my own feelings up on this and the battles for April 45 and JG 301 in the near future.

it would be of interest to have Willi and Short or Shaw be able to sit together and write and talk this whole mission out again. I have no clue if Short or Shaw are still living or not........

I still say this as the last time, JG 301 records are incomplete as Doras could of easily taken off for ground attack against Allied positions as this is what they were flying along with air defense missions as well against any Allied/Soviet A/C. why would the Stab fly alone and the II.gruppe stand still, again many unknowns that need to be resolved, and hopeful I will be able to do that over the next year plus .......

 

[CloCloZ]

Sorry mate, you insist in not answering to the fundamental point: it's PHYSICALLY impossible that Sattler flown as Cescotti says, if Sattler took off late even just by a few minutes!
An even if Cescotti would have been able to observe perfectly the fight through binoculars or, on the contrary, if they were fighting above his head!

So, Cescotti report is certainly unreliable about the circumstances of Sattler "crash" (or downing ...).

You said "we are getting NO-where".
Wrong.
YOU are getting nowhere! (please excuse me for a little bit sarcasm, I couldn't resist ... )

As for my part, I've found a clear logical/physical fault in Cescotti's report (or "tale" as by now I'm getting used to name it and, even more, Reschke's report too ...), for now I've reached a quite clear conclusion.
Although, of course, nothing is certain in this and similar cases and I could drop my hypothesis if there were good reasons ...

 

[Erich]

~ I admit I am not letting everything of my own personal research out of the bag as it is for the book(s)

I go back again to where the Airfield is located and the report that Shaw/Short give, what you have placed on this site via your web sources is not all what Cescotti has written nor said about the event in question - Klar ? you were not there nor was I, the visible web-evidence you have given is not concrete clear.

all from me on the Sattler incident except, some new info will come out in time when the time permits and I get to it, will keep your math analysis handy as I may be going over to the area next year or two to do some more searching.

it's been fun

 

[CloCloZ]

Good.
It would be nice to have more details about the event, although unluckily all those brave men of both sides are, at best, at the end of her life now ...

My father, that died quite prematurely many years ago, fought that war, at first as ground mechanic in Italian aviation ("Regia Aeronautica") on African theater, later as partisan in Italy.
Every time I read of a veteran that has passed away I feel like another part of his time and his life has vanished and I regret I've asked him so few about those years ...

 

[Erich]

Clo if interested check on Wayne Littles model of my cousins Fw190A-9, Weiße 2 on these forums, yes we lost familie from both sides in that war.

 

[CloCloZ]

Clo if interested check on Wayne Littles model of my cousins Fw190A-9, Weiße 2 on these forums, yes we lost familie from both sides in that war.

I've found the thread.
Terrible and moving!

Let's make all we can do to avoid these things repeats, that someone says again they belong to a "superior" race, religion or political ideology and similar criminal bullshits and send men to kill and to die.
It's the best we can do to let them rest in peace.

 

[claidemore]

Gotta say I agree with CloCloz's asessement of the combats on that date.
BTW, thanks for sharing all your info CloCloz.

 

[seesul]

I´ve found the arguments of both CloCloz and Erich very interesting...and thank you both for this reading.

Anyway, I´d like to know if someone knows the exact position of the Sattler´s and Mitchell´s crash sites. I don´t mean the crash sites positions written in the books and documents, but the REAL GPS localisation. That could help a lot and having that we could compare the distance from the airfield to the crash sites...

Think I´ll open a new thread with this question at luftarchiv.de this weekend. Let´s see, maybe some German forum member lives in surrounding area...

Thanks again friends!

 

[seesul]

CloCloz,

maybe you could be interested in this:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...joe-owsianik-meeting-after-63-years-9298.html
Warbird Photo Album - Willi Reschke
Those moments I´ll never 4get...

 

[CloCloZ]

I´ve found the arguments of both CloCloz and Erich very interesting...and thank you both for this reading.

Anyway, I´d like to know if someone knows the exact position of the Sattler´s and Mitchell´s crash sites. I don´t mean the crash sites positions written in the books and documents, but the REAL GPS localisation. That could help a lot and having that we could compare the distance from the airfield to the crash sites...

I absolutely agree with you.
Knowing the exact position of crash sites could be paramount to determine which hypothesis is more credible.

In fact I had to frankly point out what I think is by far the weakest point in my hypothesis: Shaw wrote that he was "diving to attack Met on a road about 10 miles east of Ludwigslust" when he spotted Sattler.
Did he mean that he was already 10 miles far from Ludwigslust?
If yes, he likely could have been too far from the battle zone.
Or did he simply mean, as I think is likely, he and Brooker were starting a strafing dive along a road that runs toward south-east of the city up till ten miles?

My guess is that they were passing east of Ludwigslust ahead of the other couple (Short and Mitchell were probably going south too, after having strafed the railway north of the city; in fact the Germans, coming from Neustadt-Glewe at N-W, attacked them from their left and rear side), heading S-E in search of ground targets, likely on the road that at present (and I think probably in 1945 too) runs south-east alongside the railway from Ludwigslust to Grabow up to Karstadt (remember that according to RAF 2nd TAF book the mission targets were the railways).
If Brooker and Shaw would have been already positioned on a final target at ten miles, the two couples could have been separated by about that large distance, but if Brooker and Shaw were just beginning the dive to fly over the road at low level (as it seems from Shaw's report) and/or Short and Mitchell were already south of Ludwigslust following the other couple, things could be very different.
In the latter case Brooker and Shaw (notably Shaw) could have been much nearer to the other couple, maybe just a few miles (remember that at 450 km/h even 5 or 6 miles could be covered in a little more than 1 minute).
In this case is more likely that Shaw, while looking around to cover his No.1, could have spotted Sattler N-E of his position.
In this scenery, Brooker and Shaw Tempests were south-east of Ludwigslust, whereas Sattler was coming from north-east and, trying to join his comrades, was directing towards the other pair (Short and Mitchell) which was probably at a slightly northern position.
The behavior of Sattler's presumed plane, as later described by Shaw, reinforces my hypothesis: in fact Shaw's report suggests that the German pilot was turning alternatively to W and to E, just like he was trying to spot where his comrades were.

But all this is, of course, highly speculative.
So, knowing the exact position of the crashes would be of great importance.

 

[109ROAMING]

Interesting stuff CloCloZ and Erich!

 

[Erich]

Roman remember what Reschke says about Mitchel and Sattlers crash sites and where buried this needs to be brought up if anyone has any news.....maybe not. As the remains most likely were removed and returned. just be aware that Reschkes work is going to be quoted almost word for word as it has been done in the past on luftarchiv. Even with some inaccuracies thanks GOD Reschke did put his own work into print as we would not have a base for the German side of things and the gap for Mitchells demise as well as Sattlers would not be known or even more in the dark than ever before. How it would of been of course great if Sattler had a living wingman to tell us or at least record at the time the direction and altitude that he/they would of been travelling as a fact.

I am checking another area of interest out right now with another veteran account