Details on Bf-110 of 7(H)/LG2 lost on August 2, 1942
 

Gentlemen,

Who can advise details (w.n., tactical code, crew names and fates) of Bf-110 lost to Jagerbeschuss on August 2, 1942 in the vicinity of Golubinskaja?

TIA

Re: Details on Bf-110 of 7(H)/LG2 lost on August 2, 1942
 

Bf 110D-4 WNr.2262 of 7.(H)/LG 2, coded L2+HR, Fw. Johann Pfahl (F), Oblt. Walter Köhler (B), and Uffz. Max Baier (Bf) MIA 2.August 1942 after enemy fighter attack.

GRM

Re: Details on Bf-110 of 7(H)/LG2 lost on August 2, 1942
 

Thank you, GRM!

Re: Details on Bf-110 of 7(H)/LG2 lost on August 2, 1942
 

You're welcome, of course. We help when we can. GRM

Re: Details on Bf-110 of 7(H)/LG2 lost on August 2, 1942
 

GRM

I have WNr 2262 listed as a C-5 (which was the basic recce-version of the C-model). Very few D-4 were built. Was this C-5 really converted to D-4?

Cheers
Stig

Re: Details on Bf-110 of 7(H)/LG2 lost on August 2, 1942
 

Sorry for a little off-topic, but:

Does 7(H)/LG2 emblem related somehow with A./88 (Legion Condor) emblem?
http://www.j-aircraft.com/jiml/do-17_lc_a88_a.jpg

Re: Details on Bf-110 of 7(H)/LG2 lost on August 2, 1942
 

D-4 or C-5?

Stig,

It's listed as a D-4, and browsing through our db, the D-4 Werknummern aren't sequential, but the C-5s seem to be (most serving with Aufklärungsstaffeln, but a couple with ZG 1).

The D-4s are "here and there" - several with schools (Aufklärer, Zerstörer and Nachtjagd), or a Nachtjagd unit (NJG 4, NJG 5), etc.

GRM

Re: Details on Bf-110 of 7(H)/LG2 lost on August 2, 1942
 

Well GRM

All I am doing is relying on published sources.
The most reliable of them is the one done by Mankau/Petrick.
WNr 2262 is listed by them as being built as a C-5

They don't list any D-4 built as such, but six D-1 being modified to D-4 (probably already on the production line), WNr 3149-3151 and 3163-3165.

Hence my question if this WNr listed by you as a D-4 was a later conversion of an original C-5.

My immediate reaction was how unusual to modify C-models to D-models, but then again perhaps it was not all that difficult? I am not a technical man myself and cannot visualize the amount of work involved with such a project.

Cheers
Stig

Re: Details on Bf-110 of 7(H)/LG2 lost on August 2, 1942
 

Stig:

Main difference of D from C was - ability of drag additional fuel tanks. For this, extra fuel tubes and lines were installed inside the wings. Also, additional fuel pumps were added to move a fuel between fuel tanks - from extra tanks to each of installed tanks.

Also, safeboat in long tail section (wich was easily could be replaced with short one) required wiring from gunner's canopy - a boat releace mechanism.

Last difference - tail wheel.

Re: Details on Bf-110 of 7(H)/LG2 lost on August 2, 1942
 

Thanks Evgeny

In other words does not sound too difficult....
But the point remains, did they?
Since 7(H)/LG 2 was a recce unit, why would they use an aircraft which was not equipped for reconnaissance at all?

Cheers
Stig

Re: Details on Bf-110 of 7(H)/LG2 lost on August 2, 1942
 

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/aufkl/b7lg2.html
-> Loss listed as D-4, this was the recon version of the D-series

one C-5 and two E-3 listed as losses for this month but without enemy action

Re: Details on Bf-110 of 7(H)/LG2 lost on August 2, 1942
 

Thanks Denniss

However the D-4 was not a recce model. As per John Vasco and his book, the situation was confused with regard to the D-1/D-4 model, but from what I can read out of what he says, the recce model D-1 was discontinued and replaced with a long range fighter version and it was those that for some reason was re-named D-4.

I can understand that a recce unit needs all the range it can get from its aircraft, so I don't find it strange as such if C-5 models were modified for greater range and when finished classified for some reason as D-4, but it would be nice to get a confirmation this really happened.

Cheers
Stig

Re: Details on Bf-110 of 7(H)/LG2 lost on August 2, 1942
 

According to German Bundesarchive Data the D-4 was classified in RLM production reports as recce. Only 6 were built by Messerschmitt Augsburg.
Of the D-1 only 21 were built by Focke-Wulf.

Re: Details on Bf-110 of 7(H)/LG2 lost on August 2, 1942
 

Yes Denniss, that is what Vasco also says, but that profile was changed and the D-1 became a long range fighter only and also went for those six converted to D-4.

But our topic is not concerning those six WNr which was built as D-1/D-4 but an aircraft which according to Mankau/Petrick was built as a C-5 and according to the loss report was a D-4. No such beast is referred to in any of my published sources (that I can see, that is)

As I said in my previous e-mail, I have no problems to accept that a C-5 (or perhaps many C-5s) was rebuilt with greater range as the outcome. What I want to know is if that really happened here and to any other aircraft referred to as D-4 and which didn't belong to those original six.

Cheers
Stig

Re: Details on Bf-110 of 7(H)/LG2 lost on August 2, 1942
 

Do we have any confirmation the Werknummer reported for the loss is correct?

D-1 to D-4 conversion sounds fishy as D-1 are recorded for Focke-Wulf but D-4 for MttA although this wouldn't completely rule out a conversion. They might not have been reported as FW D-1 production but as MttA D-4 production.

Re: Details on Bf-110 of 7(H)/LG2 lost on August 2, 1942
 

I am just quoting what the experts say Denniss....:)

Cheers
Stig

Re: Details on Bf-110 of 7(H)/LG2 lost on August 2, 1942
 

There was a previous recorded loss for WNr. 2262 from Nov-40 as a Bf 110C-5. 70% assessed damage would generally be considered a write-off, but that wasn't an absolute by any means. There are numerous instances of 70-80% reported losses showing up later. Other than the Nov-40 loss there is no other conflict with the WNr. On the other hand there is no absolute as to the accuracy of the WNr. or machine type in either instance. The loss reports were hand recorded, passed on to the reporting authority and manually typed into the official reports. The Aug-42 was entered into George and my database as reported. Without other information there's not much else we can do. And as an aside, 2nd later losses for Bf 110C-5s WNr. 2271 & 2272 were also reported as D-4s. Also WNr. 2295, 2300 & 2304 are listed as D-4s, the first two with no earlier recorded loss, but the first loss for last was as an E-3 - which probably muddies the waters even further. Go figure.

Bf 110C-5, 2262, n.n., , , 1.(F), 122, , , BR+PJ?, , 16-Nov-40, Bruchlandung., , Lfl.2/Kanal, Gen.Qu.6.Abt. (mfm #2)-Vol.3; Vasco/Cornwell, Zerstörer, p.238, , Fl.Pl. St. Omer, 70%, H, , , Gothaer Waggonfabrik AG at Gotha in Aug-40
Bf 110D-4, 2262, Köhler, Oblt Walter (B)/Pfahl, Fw. Johann (F), , , 7.(H), LG 2, weiße H, L2+HR, BR+PJ?, , 02-Aug-42, Both MIA with crew after enemy fighter attack., , Lfl.4/Eins.Osten, Gen.Qu.6.Abt. (mfm #7)-Vol.11, , (Golubinskiy), 100%, F, Bf Uffz. Max Baier, , Gothaer Waggonfabrik AG at Gotha in Aug-40

Re: Details on Bf-110 of 7(H)/LG2 lost on August 2, 1942
 

Interesting details Jim

Wasn't aware that WNr 2262 was a 'problem' one.
Bottom line then is would a C-5 rebuilt for longer range be classified as a D-4?
After all, there must be a reason why there are seemingly C-5s being written off as D-4s?

Come to think of it, if it is correct that WNr 2262 appears twice, then it is quite plausible when repaired it was also rebuilt.

Cheers
Stig

Re: Details on Bf-110 of 7(H)/LG2 lost on August 2, 1942
 

Stig, I don't know as I'd call it a problem because the 'reappearance' is far from unique. The problem of course is that without further documentary evidence, i.e. of the re-build to a D-4, this is all we have to go on, though that several other Bf 110s from the same general WNr. block were also reported as D-4s in their later lives should be significant. The research goes on!!