Something wrong in the info about the loss of the Bf109 (Uffz Kerkhoff) - Kuban 30.Apr.43
 

Hello friends,

About the loss of the Bf109 w/n 14787 from 4./JG52 (Uffz Ernst Kerkhoff):
allegedly damaged in dogfight on 30.Apr.43 and belly landed off Cholmskaja (loss 100%), pilot wounded [but returned].

Something wrong. Cholmskaja was 30 km from the frontline on the Soviet side, so wounded Kerkhoff hadn't a chance to reach the German lines. Also, some Soviet claims were in that area but nothing about the German plane landed on the Soviet side (the facts of the same sort were always mentioned especially).

Maybe his Bf109 was damaged in Cholmskaja area but landed somewhere on the German side?

Best regards,
Andrey

Re: Something wrong in the info about the loss of the Bf109 (Uffz Kerkhoff) - Kuban 30.Apr.43
 

Andrey, Looking at Oblt. Gerhard Barkhorn's claim of a Spitfire (125) at 07:45 34Ost/85161, 5 km N of Cholmskaja it could have been in that time and from a Spitfire. Are there any Spitfire pilots KIA who might not have been able to file a claim?

Re: Something wrong in the info about the loss of the Bf109 (Uffz Kerkhoff) - Kuban 30.Apr.43
 

Why KIA? Makarov (57.GIAP) on Spitfire claimed a Bf109 on 08:40 msc = 07:40 and wasn't damaged himself. He not observed the fall of the Bf109 but a bit later observed a German bailer NE Abinskaja [if he was a German and not Soviet bailer really].

But it isn't clear whether it was dogfight when Kerkhoff was shot down

Re: Something wrong in the info about the loss of the Bf109 (Uffz Kerkhoff) - Kuban 30.Apr.43
 

I remember one instance on here that someone was trying to determine who shot down a USAAF fighter because there was no claim. It was determined that the pilot who possibly shot it down was killed shortly afterwards. All I have is Prien's JFV 12/II which you probably have listing "Luftkampf".

Re: Something wrong in the info about the loss of the Bf109 (Uffz Kerkhoff) - Kuban 30.Apr.43
 

I cannot add clarity to the Kerkhoff dilemma, but it seems the aircraft was not yet a 100% loss on that occasion in April.

Bf 109G-2 WNr.14787 of the 7./Rum.JGr., coded "5A" was lost 26.Aug. 1943 in PlQu. 70 76, cause unknown.

GRM

Re: Something wrong in the info about the loss of the Bf109 (Uffz Kerkhoff) - Kuban 30.Apr.43
 

Thank you, GRM!

Maybe Kerkoff's Bf109 really landed on the German side and wasn't 100% loss, maybe GQM made a misprint with the Romanian Bf109 on 26.Aug.43.
The problem is in the point that it is hard to catch the error usually due to paucity of the surviving Luftwaffe documents.

Maybe somebody can say about Bf 109G-2 WNr.14787 "5A" of the 7./Rum.JGr. from the Romanian sources?

Best regards,
Andrey

Re: Something wrong in the info about the loss of the Bf109 (Uffz Kerkhoff) - Kuban 30.Apr.43
 

Hi,
the GQM report from 23-May-43 102. for 30-Apr-43 4./JG 52 does not list an aircraft. It only lists Uffz. Kerkhoff Ernst being wounded. Therfore the damage was most likely less than 10%.

Regards,
Norbert

Re: Something wrong in the info about the loss of the Bf109 (Uffz Kerkhoff) - Kuban 30.Apr.43
 

Hello Norbert!

I just have received a volume JFV12/2, and thought that info about Kerkhoff's Bf109 was updated by authors. But maybe it is misprint simply...

Best regards,
Andrey

Re: Something wrong in the info about the loss of the Bf109 (Uffz Kerkhoff) - Kuban 30.Apr.43
 

Hi, all

Records can be unclear in periods of heavy fighting, but still it seems that most real hard evidence like photographs or documents fits well with GenQu reports.

A larger problem seems to be the level of understanding of the reporting system among researchers.

However - the loss related to Kerkhoff is listed as following:

http://www.aviationhistory.no/ref_db...?lossid=132903

Based on this record one can conclude that the pilot in question was wounded, but the aircraft was either damaged below 10% OR in the first instance regarded as 100% but recovered before the report was filed.

The rule was that a NVM (yes it was not always possible to follow) was to be filed within 24 hrs of the incident. It is totally possible that authors with access to the NVM will use this and mistakingly report a 100% aircraft loss because that was the reality at the reporting date (pilot missing or returned wounded from emergency landing behind enemy lines), aircraft thus considered lost.

At the time the report was forwarded through the chain of command the information with regards to the aircraft was updated due to shifting front lines and recovery, and the message to GenQu was that the pilot was injured without an aircraft damage in the damage range for reporting.

In this specific case, the incidence occured on April 30th while it was processed and included in the GenQu report of May 25th - nearly a month later.

Regards,
Andreas B

Re: Something wrong in the info about the loss of the Bf109 (Uffz Kerkhoff) - Kuban 30.Apr.43
 

Not a comment for Andrey but a question to all:
What is that 7./Rum.JGr. coded "5A" ??

Thanks for your help.

Regards, Franck.