Hi All, With the recent acquisition of a second aerial reconnaissance photograph with coverage of the field where Brigadier General Pratt is thought to have been killed, I have opened this thread in an effort to establish the crash site of his Waco, 'The Fighting Falcon (II)'. The two aerial reconnaissance photographs now in the forum archive are: NCAP_ACIU_US30_4079_1073 (06-JUN-44) NCAP_ACIU_US7GR_1857_4052 (12-JUN-44) Before we look at these, I would like to indicate the extent of my limited knowledge as to where other researchers have placed the crash site of 'The Fighting Falcon'. There are two different locations indicated in the book "Utah Beach - Sainte Mere Eglise - Sainte Marie du Mont" by Georges Bernage and Dominique Francois. On page 84, there is what appears to be an extract from a pilot briefing aerial photograph taken prior to the invasion. Numbered locations have been added after the event with the caption for '5' reading "General Pratt's Glider" - note the black arrow pointing to the middle of what will be called here 'Pratt Field'. There is a Waco visible on both our current NCAP aerial reconnaissance photos which would appear to be the glider indicated by this black arrow (No. 3 on the two extracts thereof): OK, that’s one possible location – you might think that no impact has occurred here, but I am pretty sure that Waco No. 3 is in a hole or dry pond (still visible today BTW). On page 100 there is a sketch map which appears to indicate a different location by referencing ‘The Fighting Falcon’ at points 4 (“The bend taken by Mike Murphy’s glider”) and 5 (“The site of General Pratt’s Glider Crash”): Those readers who have followed our glider location research will see that this location is way up north of Pratt Field in what we termed the Pond Field. I am not discounting this location either as it is obviously based on ground research with very likely local input. However, I want to concentrate on the Pratt Field initially. To my knowledge, there is only one other map or photograph with the crash site location marked thereon; page 33 of Philippe Esvelin’s “Forgotten Wings” shows an extract from a reconnaissance photograph taken on the 9th May 1944: Note the caption and the yellow arrow indicating the crash site to be in the 'crook' of the bend along the laneway forming the southern boundary of Pratt Field. Again, I know this location is based on extensive research on the ground and am not in any way discounting it. So we have three marked locations for the crash site. Now, as far as I am aware, there is only one known ground photograph of the crash site. There are many copies on the web and the one I have used below is the best version I could find with no cropping: The photograph shows Captain (Doctor) Charles O. Van Gorder, medical officer with the sign taken from the side of "The Fighting Falcon". If we take this to be the crash site, then I note with interest what appears to be the starboard wing of another very close Waco behind the tail section of the "The Fighting Falcon". Now lets take a look at the coverage of Pratt Field currently on file here on the forum. First, we have an extract from NCAP_ACIU_US30_4079_1073 taken during the afternoon of D-Day: Image Credit: RCAHMS/www.aerial.rcahms.gov.uk ...and the same field six days later on the 12th June as it appears in much better weather in NCAP_ACIU_US7GR_1857_4052: Image Credit: RCAHMS/www.aerial.rcahms.gov.uk You will note I have numbered the six visible Wacos 1-6 inclusive. If you are also as keen eyed as Kevin McCarthy, you will note that Waco No. 4 has been moved during the six day interval - well spotted Kevin Why this move occured is a not clear but it very likely has something to do with the two nearby Horsa gliders. If we are seeing a second Waco's starboard wing end to the rear in the ground photograph above, and if the photograph really was taken at the crash site, then there is a chance that the location of the crash site is to the immediate west (within a few metres perhaps) of Waco No. 6 - the only visible Waco in Pratt Field with its starboard wing tip under the tree canopy. A lot of 'ifs' Lets take a closer look. The red rectangles in both extracts are zoomed to below:- First, the photo taken on D-Day (NCAP_ACIU_US30_4079_1073): Image Credit: RCAHMS/www.aerial.rcahms.gov.uk ...and then the photo taken six days later on the 12th June (NCAP_ACIU_US7GR_1857_4052): Image Credit: RCAHMS/www.aerial.rcahms.gov.uk There appears to be debris to the immediate west of Waco No. 6 clearly visible on the 12th June. It may be there on the 6th as well but the resolution is unfortunately lacking due to the bad weather on D-Day. My thoughts...which I caution could be very wrong Comments and corrections welcomed and appreciated. Regards, Pat
As I understand it there are several photos of the crash-site (you might want to ask on Trigger Time), here's one already: http://www.airbornetroopcarrier.com/flag-ship-normandy-fighting-falcom-7.html (Don't be fooled by the flag on the arm of the casualty, he's not 82AB)
Hi Niels, I am aware of this photograph but have never been happy that it relates to the Pratt crash site. Several attempts have been made to tie it to the ground photograph in my last post - see this link as an example. The main weight of effort in joining the two photographs seems to be the pole used to extract the wreck from the hedgerow. To my eye, the pole in my last post is a round pine log with the bark stripped off, where as the 'pole' in the other photograph seems to be a canvas covered part of the glider. I am not aware of any other ground photographs apart from a private collection posted on TT which shows a Waco wreck with a similar amount of damage to that seen in the ground photo I used above. IIRC, the question was asked if it might be the Pratt crash site, but I don't think it ever progressed beyond that point. Regards, Pat
Hi Guys, I am really going to put my head on the block now... Kevin has asked me about the composition of the three gliders at the #4 location on the aerial extract from the 12th June photo. I am happy that the northern most of the three is a Waco as marked and the other two are Horsa gliders. However, it looks to me like there is a tail section missing from this pair. Is it possible that the said missing tail section is the one down at the southern end of the field near Waco #6 :s Could a Horsa have glided that far and landed correctly without it's tail attached? Do your worst... Regards, Pat
As I understand it the number on the jeep and markings on the glider are both part of the identification as well. Regardless of this photo being correctly identified or not, I think it is worth to look into this photo and determine exactly why it has been thought to show the Fighting Falcon. And then deside if you like the arguments or not. I think TT will be the fastest way to bring out the story behind the identification. Of course people like to link things like photos to famous stories, and that makes many identifications suspect.. BTW I think we could use some better quality photos (both of them). Anyone know a good source?
Niels, The best resolution version I can find just now is here: http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4072/4422224751_9f2b20b89d_b.jpg I thought there was a site where a java viewer allowed zooming of a high resolution version (like the viewer tool on fold3.com) but cannot find it at the moment. Regards, Pat
Hi Pat and Niels, It is my strong belief that the two ground photos are of the same glider. I recall reading that General Pratts glider had the unique marking of the American Flag on the starboard side of his glider and that it is not a marking seen on other waco gliders. I also recall that tree limbs were used to pry open the glider to gain access inside. They may have started to pry with the glider part, but later needed something stronger for access inside. In the randomness of a glider crash, I think there are common things seen between the two photos. In the first photo, I am not convinced that the wing marked Starboard wing is from another waco. It could also be the port wing removed from Pratts glider. One interesting thing about the other photo I observed is hat if you look over the top of the glider and through the trees, there seems to be another field on the other side. this may not be a double hedgerow we are looking for. It may just be a single hedgerow. Just some of my thoughts... Respectfully, John Szweda
Hi John, I cannot be sure of any of this. The wing to the rear looks level (and therefore attached and undamaged??) The tow rope seems to be still attached to the wreck in the second ground photo. I cannot recall any account of Murphy have had a problem with a trailing tow rope but maybe he did and just did not record it - or it could be from another glider. The flag...maybe, but I would find it difficult to understand how it is certain no other Waco had a flag attached. No sign of the armor plate which contributed to the crash. The hedgerow; double or single...I just cannot say for sure. Yes, it does appear that there is a slight view into the next field, but would a double hedgerow rule that view out completely? Niels made reference to the jeep or trailer number - the only digit I can make out is '2' for sure. Does anyone know if other progress has been made on this? I cannot see how. I consulted a pilot this afternoon about my crackpot theory of the missing Horsa tail. He assured me that the Horsa would not have made the glide distance and landed intact. This leaves me wondering if some 'house keeping' has been carried out before the 12th June photo was taken; perhaps to clear the field for further landings? Regards, Pat
Hello all, One thing maybe worth considering..... the wording on the Pratt memorial on the corner states (I think....) "250m east of this point"..... quite specific, and if you go +/-250m east of the monument.... Cheers, Sean
Thanks Sean, Good thinking :idea: Can I push it another 50 metres to the recycle bins? Do you know who organised erecting the memorial? Regards, Pat
As a demonstration as to what happens when an aircraft looses its tail section, my pilot friend has sent me this You Tube link: [video=youtube]http://youtu.be/jfuUvfxWrWM[/video] Mmm...yes, very unlikely the Horsa would have made that glide distance :blush: Regards, Pat
Hi Group, Happy New Year !!! After looking over the NCAP photo, I now change my mind and agree with Pat on the location on the Pratt glider at location #6 marked by Pat for several reasons... I think what had thrown me off is that the Heimdal book and others always seem to me to suggest a location near or on the D129 and maybe a bit north and west of location #6. I had always thought the memorial was to read north instead of east of this location. I also was wrong about the starboard wing of another glider possibly being from Pratt's glider, because I was unaware another glider had even landed so close to Pratts glider and that the photos most often seen of the cut canvas of the "Fighting Falcon" is actually cropped a bit on both sides. I attached a thumbnail photo in low resolution to show the invastion stripes on the other glider. I also found an interesting study and report of the Pratt glider crash that provided some details I didnt know (such as the second glider). It is Compiled by Major Leon B. Spencer, USAFR Retired and ducuments both gliders and worth reading. http://worldwar2gliderpilots.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-of-general-don-f-pratt.html I am wondering if Kevin in his travels (or others) in this area has photos of, or recalls the ground around this location, I am wondering if there is a bit of a downhill run towards the hedgerow in this field. ((what an unfortunate location for the recycle bins)) I still believe that the ground photos on the glider wreck IS Pratts glider... Maybe we could compare some points on those two images at some point in the future. Respectfully, John Szweda
Hi John, Thanks for the new version of the ground photograph. While I cannot still be certain of the location, the invasion stripes now visible do indeed add some weight to my theory that the location is immediately adjacent to Waco #6 in the above aerial extracts. Not quite at my personal requirement of an 80% certainty threshold, but its getting there I have up scaled your new version in Photoshop and added some sharpening: ...and here is the other ground photograph: I remain sceptical that they are of the same Waco wreckage; yes the green arrows below point to the same part of the Waco frame but that part could be exposed in any wreckage. The red arrows indicate where I cannot find a match but maybe other readers can: The field does indeed slope to the south, at least the southwestern portion that I captured in the photograph below back in 2007: The group of horses at top right are about where Waco #1 and #2 are seen on the aerial extracts. Dale Booth of DaleBoothNormandyTours.com, then a Battlebus Tour Guide, is seen standing talking to the horse next to the Pratt Memorial which is just out of shot to the left. Below is another photograph I took of the plaque itself: You can see again the steep rise of ground with the two horses out of focus at top right. In reading the report you linked to in your last thread, I was aware of the mounted German infantry passing along the laneway but was not aware that they had stopped and gone into the wreckage of 'The Fighting Falcon'. I wonder if they found the map case which Lt. May was carrying? Regards, Pat
The photo of the GI with the souvenir Fighting Falcon sign is a toughy. A better version is in the Koskimaki book. The GI is clearly looking into the sun and the fuselage is pointing slightly to the east of the sun bearing (or the side of the fuselage wouldn't be so brightly lit). The caption in Koskimaki says the photo was taken in the afternoon of D-Day. There are no great shadows to calculate the sun elevation and thus the azimuth and time of day, but the least lousy is what appears to be the rounded shadow to the GI's right. Estimating an elevation of 45 deg, I checked both 40 and 50 deg. This range produces a time range of about 14:45 - 15:40 (add two hours for BDDT) and a bearing for the sun around 257-267 deg. Let's say the glider is pointing at 250 deg and, taking a wild guess, that the hedgerow is at 230. That wouldn't be too far off from the hedgerow behind the easternmost candidate on the southern border of the Pratt Field - but the glider had to have been extricated from the hedgerow and rotated clockwise to point towards the sun. Plausible? If anyone has a better guess on the sun elevation, I'll refigure. Wonder if Koskimaki just borrowed the photo for book production, or if he had a print made and it is in his research papers at Carlisle?
(Admin edit in red) Large resolution version of second Waco wreckage moved to online storage as file is too large for forum table. Please click here (46.5MBs) to download. Thanks Niels for the additional resolution. Pat
Hi List, Thanks, John, for the link to the great story about General Pratt's glider landing provided by Major Leon Spencer. In addition to the other good information provided in the account, I think it also provided us with data to start Pat's objective of "counting heads" for the different glider missions. Of the six Chicago Mission Wacos that can be seen in _1073, plus General Pratt's glider that we can't see (and there could others hidden by the hedgerow), we can now account (by Chalk number) for as many as three Chicago Mission gliders in Pratt Field. I think Chalks # 1 and 2 are obviously candidates and I think Chalk # 10 could be considered a probable or most likely candidate. However, at this time, I don't think we can't really link specific Chalk numbers to any of the gliders seen in _1073. Look at these these quotes from Spencer's story: "As Murphy (Chalk #1) began his landing approach, the No. 2 glider was preparing to touch down just ahead and off to his right. Unplanned circumstances would result in the No. 2 glider landing before Pratt’s glider." "Warriner (Chalk #2), whose glider crashed into the same hedgerow some 150 feet or so away, said that the ground literally shook when Pratt’s glider slammed into the hedgerow." From these accounts, if they are accurate, it indicates that Chalk #2 crashed into a hedgerow about 150 feet to the west (right) of Chalk #1. This eliminates Pat's Waco # 6, which is to the east of the possible Pratt site, as a candidate for Chalk #2. I think it also could eliminate Pat's Wacos #1 and 2 as candidates for Chalk #2 as they are both about 250 meters (roughly 750 feet) to the west. To me, this indicates that one or more additional Wacos, besides General Pratt's, that are hidden in the hedgerow on the southern edge of Pratt Field.
Hi List, Thanks, John, for the link to the great story about General Pratt's glider provided by Major Leon Spencer. In addition to the other good information provided in the account, I think it also provided us with data that allows us to start work on Pat's stated objective of "counting heads" for the different glider missions. Of the six Chicago Mission Wacos that can be seen in _1073, plus General Pratt's glider that we can't see (and there could be others hidden by the hedgerow), we can now account (by Chalk number) for as many as three Chicago Mission gliders in Pratt Field. I think Chalks # 1 and 2 are obviously candidates and I think Chalk # 10 could be considered as a possible candidate. However, at this time, I don't think we can really link specific Chalk numbers to any of the gliders seen in _1073. Consider these quotes from Spencer's story: "As Murphy (Chalk #1) began his landing approach, the No. 2 glider was preparing to touch down just ahead and off to his right. Unplanned circumstances would result in the No. 2 glider landing before Pratt’s glider." "Warriner (Chalk #2), whose glider crashed into the same hedgerow some 150 feet or so away, said that the ground literally shook when Pratt’s glider slammed into the hedgerow." From these accounts, if they are indeed accurate, it indicates that Chalk #2 crashed into a hedgerow about 150 feet to the west (right) of Chalk #1. This eliminates Pat's Waco # 6, which is to the east of the possible Pratt site, as a candidate for Chalk #2. I think it also could eliminate Pat's Wacos #1 and 2 as candidates for Chalk #2 as they are both about 200 meters (roughly 650 feet) to the west. To me, this indicates that at least one other glider (Chalk #2), in addition to General Pratt's glider, is hidden from view in frames_4052 and _1073 in the hedgerow on the southern edge of Pratt Field. There could be others. Thought? r/Kevin
Hi Kevin, I had read that in the report by Major Spencer's report about Glider #2 being to the right and ahead of Pratts glider #1 as they approached, but I didnt think too much about it. I considered the idea that they may have landed on slightly different angles and Murphy may have wanted to slip past the rear of glider #2 on landing. I wonder if that also could have contributed to the crash. It would have shortened his distance to the hedgerow. Or maybe Murphy knew he was carrying so much speed, he felt a risk of colliding with glider #2. Who knows, glider fields always look like chaos in many aerial photos with gliders facing so many different directions. What worried me is that glider #2 said they were about 150 feet away, when we seem to have photo evidence of maybe 50 feet away in the"Fighting Falcon" photo with that starboard wing of what we suspect is glider #2. That also corresponds with the aerial photo if we have the right location at location 6. Maybe his estimate of distance could be caused by the "Fog of war". I just dont see any match I like better than location 6 for now that seems to match up with the ground photo, but I could be wrong. Respectfully, John Szweda
Hi Guys, As to attempting a tie up with chalk numbers and the Wacos we see in the two aerials, I would urge caution. Most especially, the reference to distances reported in feet. Mission 'Chicago' arrived over LZ E in the pre-dawn twilight. In such circumstances, I would be sceptical regarding the ability to measure distance in units of feet. I would also suspect that the embedded distances in people's memories might be related to the last moments of a glide when one or both gliders are still moving. However, I agree that chalk #2 is unlikely to be the Waco marked '6' on the aerial extracts above. As to the question of other unseen Wacos in the southern hedgerow, that may well be the case but with our current restricted availability of views, I cannot say for sure. One thought has struck me about this question regarding the number of Wacos in the southern hedgerow of Pratt Field. Note what might be a debris field from another glider crash site at the north end of the field across the laneway from Pratt Field: <table width="801" border="0" align="center"> <tr> <td><img src="http://www.normandy.whitebeamimages.ie/pratt/possible_glider_crash_debris_south_pratt_field-01.png" longdesc="http://www.normandy.whitebeamimages.ie/pratt/possible_glider_crash_debris_south_pratt_field-01.png" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td><img src="http://www.normandy.whitebeamimages.ie/pratt/possible_glider_crash_debris_south_pratt_field-01_zoomed.png" width="800" height="702" /></a></td> </tr> <tr> <td><img src="http://www.normandy.whitebeamimages.ie/pratt/possible_glider_crash_debris_south_pratt_field-01_zoomed_inverted2.png" width="800" height="702" /></a></td> </tr> </table> Image Credit: RCAHMS/www.aerial.rcahms.gov.uk Is it possible that a Waco would have penetrated into the double hedgerow of the laneway to such an extent that debris would end up in the field on the far side? If we are seeing debris from a hidden crash site, can anyone make out the object circled red? In addition, this is the exact spot which is indicated by Philippe Esvelin on page 33 of “Forgotten Wings”, where he marked an extract of an aerial reconnaissance photograph shot on the 9th May 1944. Having read and seen the high calibre of Philippe's research work, I would put a lot of weight in his conclusions, certainly to the extent that a Waco crashed at this spot. I have little doubt but that his conclusion is also based on local knowledge, a facet of our work here which is unfortunately lacking to date. All I am saying is that this is another site which should be considered. Regards, Pat