The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES." GISBORNE, FRIDAY, MARCH 29, 1940. WAR IN THE AIR

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20208, 29 March 1940, Page 4

The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES." GISBORNE, FRIDAY, MARCH 29, 1940. WAR IN THE AIR

In the course of the past few days six German aeroplanes have been shot down and four British machines failed to return. In any consideration of these figures it is necessary to draw a distinction between the terms “shot down" and “failed to return.” The same contrast, incidentally, serves to illustrate the difference between German and British news of the war and provides an opportunity for judging where supremacy in the air lies. A correct' statement of the number of machines which failed to return to their bases provides an exact figure of the losses sustained, but claims that so many machines have been shot down may be either underestimate;: or exaggerations, depending main’-- on the source of the reports. To obtain a correct picture of the situation, therefore, it is necessary to take into account the general tendency of the reports from either side. If this is done it will be found that there is noi a single proved instance where the British authorities have failed to admit losses or have made fictitious claims, whereas the Nazis have made demonstrably false claims to successes and have seldom, if ever, admitted the full cx'ient of their losses. This week's fighting in the air provides some striking examples and the results are deserving of study not merely because of their immediate effect but also because of their influence on a general examination of the situation. Describing the hectic day on the Western Front on Tuesday, the German communique states that one British machine was shot down but admits no German losses. The British report, in turn, admits its own loss but claims five certain German victims and a possibility of two more. Other official British statements go further and admit that two machines failed to return from flights over Germany and another from patrol over the Heligoland Bight, The significant point is

that all the admitted losses were not claimed by Germany while known German losses have not been admitted by Berlin. These facts alone justify the conclusion that Britain is not concealing her .losses while Germany most certainly is. There is, of course, ample evidence to support this view. The number of German planes shot down and their wreckage recovered either in Britain or off the coast is several times larger than the admitted German losses while German machines which crashed in France during Tuesday’s battles have not been reported as lost by Berlin. Since Germany conceals these known losses it is certain that she does not volunteer information about unknown ones, while Britain, on the other hand, by giving the number of machines which fail to return informs the public of the sum total of all losses in the

There is a converse approach to this question and that is the claims made by Germany to losses which have never been inflicted. A striking example was provided this week when the aircraft carrier Ark Royal returned to port although a German pilot had been decorated months ago for “sinking” her. There have been similar experiences with other naval vessels and the knowledge of these fictitious claims enables a correct appraisement to be made of German reports of such incidents as the raid on Scapa Flow. On the other hand, Berlin has persistently denied or minimised damage inflicted by the Royal Air Force. She is still protesting, for instance, that no damage was done in the raid on the Island of Sylt. The continued protestations alone are enough to arouse suspicion, but since Germany has never admitted losses that can be proved it may be taken for granted that she would not admit damage the extent of which, in the nature of things, cannot be ascertained by the Allies. It is pertinent to recall, also, that although Germany denies that British aeroplanes have flown over her naval bases detailed photographs of these areas have been published throughout the world. In this and other ways the unreliability of German reports has been demonstrated, whereas those of Britain have never yet been disproved, so that the public in both belligerent and neutral countries should have little difficulty in determining from which source comes the truth.

In the light of this approach, the air battles on Tuesday assume more than usual importance. In the conflicts over the Western Front, the British machines were outnumbered by nearly five to one and four different types of enemy machines were encountered. Despite these heavy odds, at least five German machines were destroyed while Britain lost only one single-seater fighter. One German machine was shot down off the British coast and a British one off Heligoland, but the latter loss was compensated for by the destruction of a German naval vessel. Two British machines failed to return from flights over Germany, one reportedly having made a forced landing in Holland. These losses cannot be comparably offset for the simple reason that German reconnaissance flights over British territory are virtually never made. One of the amazing things of the war in the air is that the Royal Air Force has flown more than 100,000 miles over Germany. Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland with no heavier losses than might reasonably be expected from such long-distance ventures even in peace-time. On the other hand, in attempts to fly over Britain, few of which have succeeded, Germany has lost at least 48 machines. However the war in the air is viewed, therefore, there is not the slightest doubt of British supremacy and there is good reason to believe that if the whole truth were known that supremacy would be even more marked.