24 August 1943

24 August 1943 Channel Islands Sea Defence diary

Weather: wind 120°, 1 m/sec. At 19:30, Jafü 4 reported that four Fw 190 aircraft would take off at 19:50 from BF 3849 towards BF 2693. At 20:30, four fighters approaching St Peter Port at low level over the sea from the south came within sight of Batterie Strassburg. At 20:32, the battery fired 223 rounds of 2-cm ammunition; no hits were observed.

Light and heavy Luftwaffe anti-aircraft weapons and FK 20 and FK 37 also fired. One aircraft crashed east of Herm. At 20:41, the anti-aircraft brigade reported that these were friendly aircraft which had taken off from Dinard at 19:50 for Guernsey.

The subsequent investigation stated that at about 20:15 the battery commander, accompanied by the battery officer, heard engines to the south and saw four aircraft approaching the harbour low over the sea. Their nationality was unknown. He ordered an alarm for the light anti-aircraft weapons. The ready-duty first gun immediately opened fire at a distance of 2–3 km without having established whether the aircraft were friendly or hostile. Guns 5 and 6 joined in, followed by Luftwaffe weapons and FK 20 and FK 37. A search by harbour-protection craft for the aircraft and pilot east of Herm was unsuccessful.

The diary held that the first gun commander had fired contrary to the Sea Commander’s order requiring authorisation by the anti-aircraft controller. The battery commander’s combat instruction allowed gun crews or sentries to fire independently if an aircraft was unambiguously hostile and the controller had not yet ordered fire. The Sea Commander considered this contrary to his order, whose purpose was to prevent attacks on friendly aircraft; decisions of this consequence could not be entrusted to gun commanders with differing levels of training.

The diary blamed the battery commander’s breach of the standing order for the engagement and loss of a friendly fighter. Notice of the aircraft’s departure had been received at 18:52 through the Luftwaffe and passed to the battery. It was unknown to the battery commander but known to every gun commander. The first gun commander’s action was therefore described as particularly irresponsible and incomprehensible. A properly appointed controller should have prevented it. Although the aircraft’s direct approach to the harbour contravened regulations, the resulting uncertainty called for caution, especially in view of the departure notice. A factual report (Tatbericht) was submitted against the battery commander.

Translator’s note: the daily report gives the sighting at 20:30; the investigation gives the commander’s first observation at about 20:15. These are retained as separately reported times.

T-1022 Roll 2422, scans 0690–0691.