Sinking of the British troop ship Rohna

Erich · 06-04-2005, 05:41 PM

now for reality.......... from friend Larry DeZeng who has travelled the world purchasing Luftwaffe archival information.

note that the He 177's WERE intercepted.........sorry Udet but your info is incorrect

A second convoy was attacked off Bougie/Algeria by 21 Heinkels on 26 November. After hitting and sinking the passenger liner Rohna with glide bombs, as a result of which 1, 000 U.S. soldiers lost their lives, the Gruppe was intercepted by American, British and French fighters and lost 6 He 177As (F8+DM,IM,KM,MM,BP,EP), plus two more that crashed on return to Bordeaux. Ten Allied fighters were claimed shot down by the Heinkel gunners. Among the aircrew casualties were the Gruppenkommandeur, Maj. Mons, and Hptm. Arthur Horn, Hptm. Alfred Nuss and Hptm. Egon Schmidt. All were reported missing in action.

[Sources:
Unpublished: AMWIS No.154 (12 Aug 42); OIC/SI 204; ADI(K) 239/43, 38/44, 278/44, 340/44; CSDIC (AFHQ) A.315; ULTRA HP8356, BT3071, BT3505; BA-MA RL 40/41 Kart; LRs; M.Holm-Lw.HP.
Published: The Blitz: Then and Now-v.3; Balke-KG 2:17,38,50,65,136,158,203,233,387-89; Dierich; Green-Warplanes:154,345-46; Griehl-He 177; Kannapin; Kurowski-Seekrieg:204; Poolman-Condor:180; Rohwer and Hummelchen-Chron:210,259; Shores-Med/v.III:116; Smith/Creek-Arado 234:197; Tessin; Foreman-1941.]

Nonskimmer · 06-04-2005, 05:46 PM

Thanks again Erich.

Udet · 06-05-2005, 01:17 AM

Well Erich, I am not here to convince anyone on anything.
Your info conflicts that one i´ve got.

Furthermore, I am not to heat up discussing an issue like a small battle.

As a necessary remark it should be pointed out you are addressing the info i posted as "incorrect" exclusively on one point: the He 177s being intercepted or not.

The website has the tonnage of the Rohna incorrect. She was 6000 ton and not 8000 something tons as put in there.

Other than proving (i) Germany had the most advance rocketry technology of the planet, (ii) that German bomber crews were highly trained and skilled and (iii) the allied powers were full of **** and professional distorters and liars, the issue lacks any relevance.

trackend · 06-05-2005, 04:26 AM

That sounds a bit heavy Udet I dont think Erich was trying to prove that at all.

Nonskimmer · 06-05-2005, 08:07 AM

Neither do I. He was just trying to clarify the situation by providing some more detailed information, and I much appreciate it.

evangilder · 06-05-2005, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Udet

Other than proving (i) Germany had the most advance rocketry technology of the planet, (ii) that German bomber crews were highly trained and skilled and (iii) the allied powers were full of s**t and professional distorters and liars, the issue lacks any relevance.

Point i I agree with, Germans had advanced rocket technology ahead of everyone else.

point ii, maybe. If they were so highly skilled and trained, how come the damage to the allied fleet was not worse than in was? ONE airplane got a good shot, lucky shot?

point iii: So we are not to believe anything that was written by the allies at all after WWII? Give me a big break here, Udet. You harp on this again and again and I have grown very tired of that same old line. The fact of the matter is that yes, some facts have been distorted but not ALL facts were and the allies were not professional liars as you propose.

I am more prone to believe Erich for many reasons, but the biggest being that he presents the data with no emotion or slant, just the neutral facts. You seem to have some agenda to show that nothing any American, British, Russian or any other allied historian has ever written is BS. Kep it up and you will find that people are going to skip right over your posting becasue they wil know that while you sometimes present a different angle that can be of interest, you also spew forth venom that has nothing to do with the fact that puts me off, and I am sure others.

Nonskimmer · 06-05-2005, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evangilder

You seem to have some agenda to show that nothing any American, British, Russian or any other allied historian has ever written is BS. Kep it up and you will find that people are going to skip right over your posting becasue they wil know that while you sometimes present a different angle that can be of interest, you also spew forth venom that has nothing to do with the fact that puts me off, and I am sure others.

To be completely honest, more often than not I tend to skip over his posts entirely for those very reasons. It's hard to take offence to a post you've never read, but posts like his are a sure way to destroy any credibility.

If you're going to hurl accusations Udet, you need to back them up. Don't sling **** if you're unwilling to take it.

Erich · 06-05-2005, 10:25 AM

Gentlemen I was trying to prove just one point, but maybe again several. Not everything taken from the internet is bonafide true. Second not all sources agree with one another whether taken from books or not; this being US, British or German in this case. The reason I posted published as well as non pulbished Freiburg sources which cover most of the bomber, fighter, recon gruppen of the Luftwaffe and from II./kG 40's own history in brief they were intercepted and lost a/c and men as I stated earlier. am not trying to derange Udets original posting except to clarify that yes there were more He 177's present at the battle scne and also they were intercepted and lost a/c, etc.......

evangilder · 06-05-2005, 10:32 AM

Erich, thanks for that and that was part of my point. You presented fact and did not point fingers at the other documents and shout "Liar". There are bound to be documents that contradict each other. Heck, you can look at after action reports from 2 guys that were arms length apart and get completely different accounts of the same battle. The point is to look at the reports with a completely neutral point of view and investigate what is right and what is incorrect. No point in labelling what could be an honest mistake as a lie.

trackend · 06-05-2005, 10:39 AM

I can certainly agree with you on the fact that not all sources agree Erich
At the moment I'm still trying to find out the total number of ships sunk by stringbags and it's a bloody nightmare I have seven books that deal at one point or another with Swordfish kills they all vary and every web site that mentions them contradicts each other the last line of attack I have is the Fleet air arm museum records office and I have been quoted 1 year before I can expect any results.