Losses of JG5
 

Hello

Alarkutti:21/04/43

5 Bf0109 F4 (II/JG5) were damaged between 10% and 70%....which Staffel is concerned

michel

Re: Losses of JG5
 

Only one is known for sure - WrNr 7230 Black 14 from 5./JG 5. Others must be from this staffel or Stab II./JG 5 or 4./JG 5

Re: Losses of JG5
 

However,according Mombeeck and Bergström,there are 5....so??
michel

Re: Losses of JG5
 

21/4-43 GQM 4 Bf 109 F-4 damaged. Wnr 9239 40%, 7230 70%, 10123 15% and 12615 50%.
Why don't you just download the original files from GQM?
Junker

Re: Losses of JG5
 

Hello,

according to the II./JG 5 loss table in Jagdfliegerverbände Vol. 12/I the damages of the five Bf 109 F-4 at Alakurtti on 21 April 1943 concerned the WNr.
7230 70% (GQM 7230)
7239 40% (GQM 9239)
10213 15% (GQM 10123)
10265 50% (GQM 12615)
10157 55% (GQM 10157).

Regards
Leo

Re: Losses of JG5
 

Thanks guys
Unfortunately,if J understand correctly,we don't know wich Staffel (stab,4th,5th) these Bf. belong to ?...right?

Subsidiary qustion:
Lehner,Mendl,Tetzner,Döring,Wienhausen,Carganico (Stab,4th,5th)...did they claim anything according to JFV 12/I :20/04/43 and 21/04/43...except Carganico (21/04/43) there are "gaps" in the lists of Mathews.

Regards
michel

Re: Losses of JG5
 

Claims of II./JG 5 are very little known. Prien also give no names.

Re: Losses of JG5
 

Hello michel,

in the II./JG 5 victory table are listed:
20.04.43
II./JG 5 five claims (4 Hurricanes in the area Kowdozero and one Curtiss P-40), no names.
21.04.43
Stab II./JG 5 Hptm Carganico (53.) Hurricane area Kandalakscha and
II./JG 5 four claims LaGG 3 area Kandalakscha – according to Soviet loss returns four Hurricanes -, no names.
Footnotes 552 and 553:
These ten victories were claimed by pilots of II./JG 5, so from Stab II./JG 5 and 4. or 5./JG 5 respectively.

Regards
Leo

Re: Losses of JG5
 

We also now have differing WNr.
10123 v 10213
7239 v 9239

Re: Losses of JG5
 

Not sure if II./JG 5 operated both the F-2 and F-4 subversions at the same time but both
WNr 9239 and 12615 listed by the GQM were F-2s and not F-4s

No idea from where Prien et al got their data since they must have used the GQM as well

Three printing errors at the same time seems a bit too much.....

Cheers
Stig