Re: Me210 loss 1943?
 

All I have is Jaschinski was awarded DKiG 26 Jan 44 with 4/123. I ncidentally, Hermann Kroll was a RK and EP holder, RK being awarded for his time with 7/LG 2. A second Me 410 was lost 26 Apr 44 flown by Fw Kurt Stoll and coming down at Le Havre

Re: Me210 loss 1943?
 

The two Me 410's were the nearest loss I could find with one coming down off the IOW, Andy does say his info. was very sketchy. The 410 coming down at Le Havre is showing as having a crew of three ( Ff. Fw Stoll -Bf. Fhj.Fw. Kraupata and B. Uffz Ziegler all killed ). At 0023 hrs F/Sgt. Rogers of 85 Sqd. engaged a 410 over the S.Coast claiming hits to the starboard wing, the 'K' for the second 410 shot down says that the Le Havre one reported ' one of its engines had been damaged ' which may have resulted from Rogers attack.
As regards to Ltn. Jaschinski I was told the K (or crash report ) said he also wore the paratroopers badge but I have not seen a copy.

Re: Me210 loss 1943?
 

I have the K Report which does say that he wore a 'badge which is awarded to paratroopers after 6 jumps'. It also confirms that 2 fighters were observed and that one was shot down by a fighter (and I know from an eyewitness that AA claimed it subsequently). The eyewitness thought the aircraft was a He 177 (!!). He said: "...we spotted the 177 [sic] coming in from the south at what must have been 30000'. As we watched, a smaller aircraft closed rapidly head on and as it came close, a trail of small white puffs appeared behind it. The 177 exploded with a brilliant orange flash and we saw pieces of it glinting in the sun as they fell to earth over a period of about 5 minutes...". Admitdely, the head on attack does not match with the 124 Sqn CR but the height matches

Re: Me210 loss 1943?
 

Brian, do you happen to have any more ID information on that Me 410 coming down at Le Havre, as well as the one that was shot down later? I also found 3 dead from a Me 210 crash during the North African campaign. It turned out that after the plane crashed a person on the ground tried to either defuse the bombs the a/c was carrying or help the crew get away and was killed with them. I mention this because unless the 3rd crew member sat on the lap of the 2nd there is no room for a 3rd crew member in the conventional Me 410.

However, in Mayer's interrogation report he mentions that: "By the installation of this automatic camera the necessity for an observer has been eliminated, but in some other Me.410's of the unit which are not yet so equipped an observer has to be carried. The latter a/c are fitted with a gondola which accommodates the observer and the camera; the observer is solely concerned with operating the camera, leaving the W/T operator free as a defensive lookout." I assume that the gondola mentioned is the standard one for the recce a/c, but this is the first I had heard of plugging a crewman into that area. So, is this what happened, or was this a bit of mis-direction? But, since neither practise would mean much to the Allies in an operational sense, I am inclined to give it some small credence.

Re: Me210 loss 1943?
 

NVM shows F, Bf, and B as one crew with Ort, Le Havre - Tag 26-4-1944 - Fiendflug ja. No aircraft details shown just Unit, Letzer Wohnort and burial details for each man. Other details shown are Auftrag - Nachtbildenfklarung Portsmouth ,Ursache - Motorstorung ,Feindbeobachtet nein . I have seen a drawing of a Me 410 with a third creman carried in the prone position of the modified bombay but cannot remember which book is was in,
Regards
Brian

Re: Me210 loss 1943?
 

Oops, what was I thinking? Of course Me 410B-3s were produced, all in the 190 xxx range -- about 34 of them according to Mankau/Petrick. It shows that the C-Amts reports should be used as a guide only. But, none had been produced before June 1944, so my original comment stands about it being an Me 410A-3.
Great stuff, Brian. Thanks! If you ever spot that drawing of a 410 with that 3rd person in the bomb bay, would you mind posting it or sending it?
Thanks again.
George

Re: Me210 loss 1943?
 

As a single a/c flying over the Isle of Wight, I would tend to go for something like a Ju 86P/R rather than an He 177.

Re: Me210 loss 1943?
 

Here is a general view of the photo pod of the Me 410. It looks like it would be very difficult to fit a person in the rear part of that pod because the area with the numbers 1 and 3 holds the two cameras, and the area behind the cameras is directly beneath the W/T observer. Possibly, by taking out the ammo cans -- the area shown here as the covered portion between the 2 cockpits -- and moving back the W/T operator a few inches, an observer could be moved into the area thus freed.

Does anyone have any other ideas?

Re: Me210 loss 1943?
 

There is more to this -General Sir Frank Pile visited the Nettlestone guns on the Isle of Wight in October 1943 and was photographed with them, and also with the fuselage cross of the 109 destroyed that day. I also believe the gun crew received awards at about the same time. The guns were 5.25 inch calibre (c 130mm) and thus substantial range. The battery had been provided with radar predictors earlier that year, and according to a surviving member it was used to stunning effect that evening. Weather that day was wonderful and visibility unlimited. Thousands saw the three Messerschmitts. There is quite a lot about it on the Internet. Perhaps the most immediately relevant is the website of an artist who saw the incident as a very young child (but remembered it), and whose brother, aged c 17, sought out and found the wings which were torn off at the roots, otherwise unmarked. Enough of me -look for www.warbirdart.demon.co.uk, and then on the left panel seek 'The Nettlestone Guns incredible seven mile shot' and also, in the section 'Echoes of the Home Front' in the same panel, the stories indexed as Jonzonline 8, and Jonzonline 11. Interestingly the webmaster (John Howard Worsley), notes of the day 'I have discovered press reports of that evening which mention another enemy aircraft which was intercepted by british fighters and fell into the sea off Portsmouth...' Frustratingly he does not cite chapter and verse, but they are probably local and thus could be sought in the Newspaper Lib rary at Colindale.

Pile would not have been involved if the gunners claim had been doubtful. This and the reference to a further GAF loss that day does, I think, strengthen the case of the Nettlestone Gunners and unless there is pretty good direct contemporary evidence to the contray they should have it.

Best


Chris Going

Re: Me210 loss 1943?
 

Perhaps this claim by the AA has not received more publicity because the AA arm was notorious for simply shooting at anyone who flew overhead, whether friend or foe. Yes, there were other German casualties over the UK that day, but they would have been at low-level. So, the only positive shoot-down, and admitted loss by the GAF, at high-altitude, that 109G4/R3, was attributed to the RAF. Perhaps the AA battery shot down some returning Allied a/c and no one wished to discuss it further. Or, perhaps it was firing at the 109 while the RAF was shooting it down?

Your comments are interesting but there is probably still more to be learned about this day's activities.