Re: Bv222 C-010
 

Stig, you are of course right with the WNr. However, according to my notes it was taken from NVM and I have no other source. It could be 3243, but I cannot prove it. Maybe someone has better information.
In GQM loss report information on the aircaft is unfortunately missing.

Matti

Re: Bv222 C-010
 

I have no He 115 accident for 28.12.1941. Also the W.Nr. 3843 is non valid for He 115. On 28.12.41 Staffel 1./906 was stationed in Hourtin France. What happened was probably that one crewmember was injured by enemy fire but the damage to the aircraft was less than 10% and consequently not reported in the Gen. Qu. loss/damage list. Nor has it been reported in the KTB of Gen.d.Lw.B.Ob.d.M./O.Qu.

Re: Bv222 C-010
 

Thanks Matti

No worries, you are doing "your job" :), quoting from official sources, sharing an amazing amount of interesting details!! I have no such access myself and what I am trying to do is to try and make sense of what I have myself from other secondary sources, even if that sometimes comes out a bit silly...

Seaplanes
In this case I believe the physical damage to the actual incident was so minor that the airplane itself perhaps was not more damaged than a single bullet hole that wounded "Jim's Beobachter", not even warranting a damage report.

Cheers
Stig

Re: Bv222 C-010
 

This was a loss where only the wounded B, Ltn. Reinhard Bescherner (MG-bescuss), was reported. There was no aircraft listed with the loss, certainly for the reasons stated by Seaplanes.

During my last pass through the Gen.Qu. reports I recorded all such reported losses. There were quite a few of them. In going through the recent 2-volume set on the Kampfgeschwarder RK-Träger I was able to match up quite a number of these types of losses with incidents mentioned in the text since the author was so kind, not to mention complete, to include other wounded/injured aircrew in these instances.

Re: Bv222 C-010
 

Have last week checked this again with WASt. The NVM Nr. 58 from 406 contains the details I gave. In column "Staffel usw." is mentioned the unit 1./906 and therefore I put it under that unit.
I have no reason to doubt this case and the only problem left is the correct WNr.

Matti