Leutnant Heinrich Bucksch KIA16/5/40
 

Hi, i'm looking for info about Leutnant Heinrich Bucksch.
Born 20/1/19.
Killed 16/5/40, first buried in Muizen (Mechelen, Belgium), later Lommel Blok 52 grave 258.

Many thanks.

Re: Leutnant Heinrich Bucksch KIA16/5/40
 

1940-05-16, 1./ZG 1, Bf 110C-1, 983, 2N+HH, 3 km südlich Mechelen, 22 km nordöstlich Bruxelles, Unbekannt. Bruch 100 %.
Flugzeugführer Lt Bucksch, Heinrich, +
Bordfunker Gefr Roth, Heinz-Werner, +

Matti

Re: Leutnant Heinrich Bucksch KIA16/5/40
 

1./ZG1 Messerschmitt Bf110C-3 (1863). Shot down in combat with Hurricanes and crashed near Walemstraat in Mechelen, north-west of Brussels, 6.00 p.m. Possibly that claimed by F/O Rayner of No. 87 Squadron. FF Lt Heinrich Bucksch and BF Gefr Heinz-Werner Roth both killed. Aircraft 2N+HH 100% write-off.
The Bf110C-3 sub-type resulted from the fitment of improved MG-FF/M 20mm cannon armament to Bf110C-1s and recorded instances of this new type carrying serials in the 1855-1863 range are found documented in contemporary Luftwaffe loss records for I./ZG1 from this date.

Re: Leutnant Heinrich Bucksch KIA16/5/40
 

Guys

Since nothing regarding WNr and code had been published before re this crash (including BoF then and now), I am curious what new sources all of a sudden has shown up? What else do they contain?
Also why is there a discrepancy between Matti and Peter? Don't you have the same sources?
Finally Mechelen is pretty much north of Brussels....

Cheers
Stig

Re: Leutnant Heinrich Bucksch KIA16/5/40
 

According to my notes, my info is from NVM.

Matti

Re: Leutnant Heinrich Bucksch KIA16/5/40
 

Stig,

Obviously, Matti and I both consult the NVMs but they are not the source for the serial and markings documented for this loss. My version is the result of on-going work involving a group of researchers world-wide with access to a wide range of documentary and photographic sources. This results in almost daily additions and/or amendments to the lists I maintain of operational losses to Lw & RAF aircraft between Sept 1939 - Dec 1940. Unfortunately, I now have no note of the specific source involved but the discrepancy in serial as recorded by Matti and myself is undoubtedly the result of input from Bf110 specialists associated with the EOE project.

Re: Leutnant Heinrich Bucksch KIA16/5/40
 

My problem is that I have WASt NVM reference (folder number) only for personnel data, although of course I have also added (and corrected GQM data) aircraft info from them, if available. The basic NVM document (Vordruck II) is many times accompanied with several other documents, like eye-witness descriptions, burial statements, reports of found aircraft remains etc. As far as I know, those were not sent to people, who asked for a specific NVM. I suppose, that my info comes from such document. I will check that and come back, if I find confirmation. For the time being we can stick to Peter's data.

Matti

Re: Leutnant Heinrich Bucksch KIA16/5/40
 

The only comments I can add to this discussion is that there is no W Nr. 1863 in the Petrick/Mankau tables. There is 983 as a 'C-1'. However, there are no 'C-3' entries in the Petrick/Mankau table, so if any C-3s were not upgraded C-1s, then it points to a gap in those tables.

Re: Leutnant Heinrich Bucksch KIA16/5/40
 

Matti/John

Thanks for the updates. Yes I did notice the batch mentioned by Peter (WNr 1855 - 1863) is not shown in Petrick/Mankau's book.

Since the C-3 subtype is a bit obscure and did not seem to warant any seperate production run in your book John, may I then have your opinion if this is a further C-1 batch modified later to C-3 standard or would you say this is a newly discovered "unknown" batch actually built as C-3 from the beginning?

Cheers
Stig

Re: Leutnant Heinrich Bucksch KIA16/5/40
 

Stig,
As you probably know from the Petrick/Mankau book, the 'C-3' is still something of an enigma.

If it is simply an upgrade of the aircraft from MG-FF to MG-FF/M, then no external difference can be seen.

If the information that Peter holds is documentary/photographic evidence, then it introduces another intriguing matter into the whole issue of production run W. Nr. I would say at this point that if Peter offers the W. Nr. 1863, and the sub-variant as a 'C-3', then I'm pretty sure that he has the supporting evidence in the first place.

Most fascinating, and the kind of scenario that keeps us pegging away continually at this research thing!