Talk:Pierre Clostermann

Allegiance?
Clostermann had no allegiance toward united Kingdom the fact the his Free French air squadron was under the practical command of the RAF doesn't mean these people served as mercenaries. He enlisted in the Free free forces and and no sort of enlistment into the RAF or other british official service — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EFD2:6450:90EA:D191:D44:414A (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

French Language?
Why is this article related to the French Language? Just because Clostermann was a writer? --93.40.68.25 (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Untitled
Some reference / justification for the "sport fisherman of international repute" would be good. &mdash; Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * He was member of the board of the International Game Fish Association.
 * What's the reference for Clostermann not being awarded the DSO ? On an official picture ca. 1946 he wears it : . Maybe it was awarded after the war ? 212.195.50.102 15:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

issues with the Mouchotte incident and the sinking of the SS Cap Arcona

In the sources available to me, there is no evidence of (then) Wing Commander Alan Deere wanting Clostermann to leave Biggin Hill Wing after the Mouchotte incident as described in your article. Rather the opposite, Clostermann is cited in Richard C. Smith's authorized biography on A.C. Deere as having stated that Deere was helping Clostermann in getting him transferred according to his (i.e. Clostermann's) wishes. The above statement is supported by passages in both Clostermann's "Une Sacrée Guerre" and the comic strip adaption of "The Big Show", executed by Manuel Perales ("Biggles présente: Le Grand Cirque"). Although a comic strip may seem to be no solid reference, I in this case believe that it is rather good, as Perales was friends with Clostermann and thus seems to have found Clostermann's approvement for his work. (It is obvious that actual mistakes that were present in the original book of "The Big Show" have been corrected in this comic adaption.)

Furthermore, I find no source sustaining the claim that Clostermann participated in sinking the "Cap Arcona". This claim has been made before, but the following speaks against it:

Clostermann was, at the time, attached to No 3 Squadron, flying on Tempests. The attack on the "Cap Arcona" was executed by Typhoons of No 184, No 197, No 198 and No 263 Squadrons, as your own website states (article "SS Cap Arcona"). Other sources (e.g. "Der Zweite Weltkrieg" by Janusz Piekalkiewicz, a noted historian) also claim that Typhoon aircraft carried out the attack, not Tempests.

Otherwise a very good and informative article.

A changing of the article or a comment would be appreciated.

The sinking of the SS Cap Arcona
In French language : "Le fait d’avoir enregistré le témoignage de M. Pierre Clostermann quelques semaines avant sa disparition et qui reconnaît, pour la première fois, sa présence à bord des avions qui ont bombardé le Cap Arcona est bien plus important. Pierre Clostermann reconnaît sa présence dans les avions mais nie le fait d’avoir tiré sur les survivants dans les canots de sauvetages malgré certains témoignages contraires.  Les témoignages de qui ? dit-il. Qui a témoigné ? Où étaient-ils ces témoins quand cela se passait ? Ils ne pouvaient pas être dans les avions, c’était nous qui étions dans les avions. Nous étions les seuls à pouvoir voir ou alors quelques allemands rescapés…  Il poursuit : ''j’ai trouvé que c’était malheureux, scandaleux, manque de pot, pas de chance. C’était absurde… c’est tout. Il n’y a pas de raison que l’on regrette particulièrement tout ça. On avait des sentiments pour les camarades, pour les gens qui ont été tués à nos côtés, qui étaient nos amis sans ça… En quoi ces déportés ont-ils été utiles pour gagner la guerre ? C’était plutôt à porter au débit des alliés qu’au crédit des alliés...''  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.64.182.240 (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Number of victories
Clostermann is credited with 33 victories, but by the French Air Force, cf. The counting system is different with the one of the RAF. There is no distinction between individual and collective victories: an enemy shot by two pilots in collaboration is considered as one victory for each pilot. Clostermann is credited with 14 individual victories. Ground kills are a separated category, he is credited with 24 ground kills. The general tone of the article is contemptuous. For instance, Clostermann is credited with 225 trucks, 72 locomotives, 5 tanks and 2 torpedo boats, he didn't claim them destroyed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Potemkine (talk • contribs) 22:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC).


 * This could be a language mishap, although I understand your point. In the UK at least, "claim" can be used in the definitive sense of e.g. "death claimed him", and when fighter pilots are written as having claimed a certain number of aircraft this is often simply an alternative way of saying that they shot them down, without implying that they did not actually do so. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Clostermanns victories were AWARDED by the RAF. After numerous overclaims ( from the Big Wing era ), a criteria was set which included cine film evidence and an independant witness. Further, the kills were scrutenised by the Intelligence Officer ( Spy ) before being submitted for confirmation. Clostermann himself was an under claimer. Pumping a Focke Wulf full of 20mm, having said aircraft shed an engine cover, vomit a plume of flame and smoke did not constitute a kill simply because he could not witness ( or cine ) the plane exploding, or its pilot bailing out. I wonder what his score would be if he had been flying for the USAAF ? 50 ? 60 ?  A read of The Big Show will highlight all these facts. As a member of the French Parliament, and an outspoken critic of the Iraq war, a number of individuals " went after " Pierre. They miss the point entirely. They are as small minded as their understanding of aerial combat and aircraft performance. For those who doubt the Argentine pilots bravery and skill, I would suggest reading squadron leader Ian " Sharky " Wards book. I think it was titled Harrier Pilot, during which Sharky flew Sea Harriers. An A4 Skyhawk loaded with enough fuel for a mission from the Argentine mainland, and an MTOW munitions load is simply a target for a CAP Harrier. Read the logs of the Argentine pilots. These missions were flown under extreme conditions. No wonder the score for Sharkys squadron was 22 ( 23 ? ) - nil. A Mirage 2000 loaded with dual fuel tanks and munition  has only one chance, and that is to run away. And you cannot run from an AIM9 or Bluestreak AAM in a Mirage. I am NOT degrading the RAF or Royal Navy pilots performance, they are ( in my opinion ) world class. They had a superb combat aircraft. I am simply attempting to inject some perspective and reality into this campaign, and Pierre Clostermanns comments regarding the Argentine PILOTS. Sharky Ward himself was staggered by the skill of one particular Pucarra pilot. Who designed the Pucarra ? What is a Pucarra ? ( how do you correctly spell Pucarra ? ).....His name is Kurt Tank. He is German. He designed ( and even test flew ) Focke Wulfs, including the 190 series. The Ta152 is a dedication to Kurts design. Some reading of the Big Show will tell what Pierre Clostermann thought of these incredible aircraft.

Pierre was NOT a politcial animal. His respect for Walter Nowotny shows this ( and it was not Pierre who said " what a pity that sort isnt on our side " ). I expect he didnt sympathise much with the Argentine cause of " invading " The Falklands. It was simply a comment on the bravery and skill of fellow aviators. However, the comments were taken so far out of context as to be criminal ( let alone small minded ).

For those who cannot tell the difference between MPH and KIAS, you have my deepest sympathy. Ignorance is bliss. Unfortunately, in his description of the Hawker Tempest MkV, Pierre slips into using MPH, probably for those who do not have a Big Picture of aviation. Pierres figure of 490 mph on overboost are correct, however, some understanding is required. This is a brand new Tempest, flown by a test pilot and without munitions loaded. Aircraft top speeds are BARELY relevant to combat in anycase. Pierre also gives the top speed NON overboosted corectly as 440 - 460 KIAS. I cannot comment on Care Bear ( Grumman Bearcat which holds the current world record for prop driven aircraft....apparently ). All I can say is that an engines job is to drive a PROPELLOR. Its is this PROPELLOR which determines the efficiency of the conversion of horsepower to " thrust ". The Hawker Tempest MkV has a 14 ft Rotol composite prop. It was the largest diameter prop fitted to ANY WW2 fighter.

There are a group of " aviation enthusiasts " who constantly do things such as compare Spitfires against Mustangs. Why anybody would want to compare a local air superiority interceptor against a long range escort utility is beyond my comprehension. It shows a TOTAL lack of understanding of BOTH these magnificent aircraft. It is this same simplicity which not only misunderstands Pierre Clostermann, but also misinterprets him.

The simple truth is he risked his life, and by his own admission, should have been dead several times. According to his own fellow pilots, he knew more than any two of them put together about the aircraft they flew. ( he was, after all, a trained engineer ). He has passed on now. And by myself, for one, will be sadly missed.

Andrew ( Toz ) Pattison. Waimate. New Zealand His comments regarding the performance of the MkV Hawker Tempest have been misread. Unfortunately he switched to MPH during his explanation. 490 MPH at rated altitued ( 10,000 ft ) converted into KIAS at RATED ALTITUDED gives a figure very close to the rated top speed of the Tempest ( 460 knots ). ref The Big Show. There is a LOT more to top speed than the rated power of the engine. An engine is simply a device which drives a propellor ( in this particular case ). The Rotol prop on a Tempest V was the biggest fitted to any fighter in WW2. The top speed normally quoted is NOT its overboost top speed. Anyone who has actually READ Clostermanns book will know that this is not what Pierre is doing.

His comments regarding Argentine pilots are valid. An A4 Skyhawk loaded to the gills with fuel and munitions versus a CAP Harrier is not a very even fight.( ref : any military pilot you wish to have a beer with ). The same may be said for any mainland based Argentine aircraft. While their " cause " may have been very misguided, I take my hat off to them. And we all know what happens to military personel who disobey a direct order, dont we.

Pierre Clostermann was a man of honor. He took the blame for Mouchotte being shot down. There were many circumstances which led to this event. What happened to Pierre was not at all uncommon in combat. He did his very best. 485 NZ squadron were rather notorious for their " blame game " ( ref Tempest Pilot by J Sheedan ). Jimmy Sheedan flew with No 3 Sqaudron, and Pierre Closterman.

A small correction. Squadron Leader Jimmy Sheedan flew with NZ 486 squadron. This squadron flew mixed ops with Clostermanns bunch on many occasions. A J Pattison, Waimate , NZ

I'd just like to say I've really enjoyed reading the above discussion. I first read the abridged version of The Big Show about 12 years ago and it totally blew me away. It was definitely the best non fiction book about Second World fighter combat I'd read. Since then I've read the full-length version of the book (why it did take so long for them to publish that?!) and been impressed all over again. Just because someone is a good fighter pilot doesn't necessarily make them a good writer, but Clostermann had great descriptive talent. I was shocked to learn from this Wikipedia article that certain cretins tried to smear him because he dared to praise the courage of enemy fighter pilots. How could anyone doubt this guy's patriotism? The people who slandered him probably didn't have a shred of the bravery and skill that he had. R.I.P Mr Clostermann. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.138.98.253 (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * RAF period "Maximum speed"s are those measured at Boscombe Down and are not "Combat Five Minuter Limit" figures as that would have necessitated examining and possibly re-building the engines after the test. They were in fact measured using the "Take-off" rating as this was the power rating that could be routinely used in service.


 * Use of the "Combat Five Minuter Limit" rating, which was 'gated' on the throttle control box, would require the engine to be examined for possible damage after each use and so pilots were required to log any use of this rating after a flight. Except in emergencies the aircraft was not then to be flown again until the "over-boosted" engine had been checked and found serviceable.


 * Clostermann's speed figures would have been in mph as the RAF did not change over to using knots until IIRC 1946. IIARC, a Tempest V's measured maximum speed was 436 mph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk) 10:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Clean up
To avoid an impending editorial conflict (as so happens on such Wiki articles) I have attempted to diffuse the situation and tidied up the article; the latter part of which best belongs in the discussion segment of this article as it makes no sense within the context of the encyclopedic narrative and refers ( I presume) to other articles relating to the Tempest and other WW2 related postings. As for Pierre's combat record, the 'Aces High' entry cross-references Air Ministry RAF operational record archives (specifically forms 540 and 541) filled in by Squadrons 1939-45 when a pilot made a combat 'claim'. These are prime references, and verification of Closterman's overall combat record. If anyone has supplementary references to back up any higher kill tallies, please include, otherwise as this is an encyclopedic article please keep text and content 'unemotive'. Thanks Harryurz 17:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

NO DSO
Oh yes Clostermann was awarded a DSO after WW II (I added this to the main article on him). He had bl... earned it to say the least. Most RAF officers received DFCs and DSOs quite fast (I'm not claiming that they didn't deserve them). PC ought to have got his DSO DURING WW II. They simply forgot him, it seems. Or did they? Source about PC's DSO: PC himself during several of our many telephone talks. It is certainly easy to check on this award in RAF archives at Kew. Signed by: Yves Michelet, French WW II specialist and former friend (among many others) of PC's.

Not sure it's that easy to search the AIR 2 files for 1939-1945 RAF decorations. The National Archives advise you to consult the Ministry of Defence to try and find the exact file number before you go looking. And the London Gazette doesn't seem to have recorded Clostermann's decorations because he wasn't a British subject.

Clostermann certainly owned the insignia of the DSO. He's wearing it in that 1945 photo and at pierre-clostermann.com there is a recent photo of his medal collection, framed under glass, still in the possession of his family, and it includes the DSO on the left of the second row from bottom.

http://www.pierre-clostermann.com/decorations.html

But it's not clear he was entitled to it. His obituaries in the British press mentioned other awards, but not the DSO. In the year 2000, Scale Aircraft Modelling magazine in Britain published a reader's letter which criticised Clostermann for, among other things, wearing the DSO to a D-Day commemoration at Bayeux in 1994. Clostermann himself wrote a reply claiming that the medal he wore 'in front of' (to the viewer's left of) his DFC was in fact that of a Chevalier de la Legion d'Honneur, the ribbon of which, he said, was 'red with a blue tinge -- as is the DSO.' But that's not true. The ribbon of the Chevalier de la Legion d'Honneur is pure red, with no blue border, and is a more scarlet red than the DSO. The cross itself, a five-armed Maltese cross with green foliage detail, is also quite unlike the DSO's. And Clostermann by that time was not a Chevalier but a Grand-Croix of the Legion d'Honneur. The insignia of a Grand-Croix, a scarlet sash and a huge gold star, is a bit burdensome, so he might have worn the simpler insignia of a Chevalier for preference, but the 'blue tinge' lie suggests he was in fact wearing a DSO when he shouldn't have been.

In the same letter, Clostermann said that his two DFC citations were 'enough for me.' He quoted both of them. He did not quote any DSO citation, and that can only be because he didn't have one. So, to a British audience, he correctly denied holding the DSO, even though he was quite prepared to wear it and claim it in France, which might explain why French sources often misattribute that decoration to him.

Even so, the French Wikipedia article does not at present credit him with the DSO (there is a similar discussion on the French talk page), though someone has wrongly stuck the DSO into the graphic that depicts his ribbons.

It seems that, even if AVM Broadhurst recommended him for the DSO at the end of the war, as claimed in The Big Show, what he actually received was the bar to the DFC instead. He could not then have received the DSO in addition without further wartime service, which, since the war was over, obviously did not happen. How he got hold of the DSO in his collection is obscure. Khamba Tendal (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

This talk page is a mess
Before I address what I could in the article (citations etc.), I'll try to tidy this a bit. Problems spotted here: What I'll try to do: If someone thinks this inappropriate, let me know, before I get to it in a day or two. Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Parts of text unsigned and undated
 * Sections out of chronologic order (last on top etc.)
 * Reconstruct times and authors from talk page's history
 * Reorder sections by times so assigned