|
Need confirmation of some pilots in 4./JG 51 in early 1940
Hello,
I'm trying to put together the complete roster for 4./JG51 during 1939-40. When Lt. Johann Böhm was shot down over England 8.7.40, he was carrying a diary from which RAF intelligence was able to extract the individual a/c numbers, a/c types, W.Nr.s and assigned Staffel pilots at some unspecified period prior to the time of Böhm's capture. It appears that these date back to earlier in the year, possibly into the late winter of 1939 or early spring of 1940. One of the pilots listed is an Uffz. Busler. I think that this may be an error in deciphering the handwriting for Uffz. (Ernst) Buder, who was POW on 16.8.40. There are also listings for "Uffz. Lebsanft" and "Uffz. Blascyk." Can anyone clarify if these latter pilot listings are correct, or perhaps are mispellings of pilots with other names? All the other pilots listed are identifiable during the 1940 period. Those accounted for on the list other than the above are: Oblt Fözö, Fw Illner, Uffz Lenz, Lt Böhm, Uffz Bubenhofer, Fw John, Fw Tornow and Fw Hübner. One aircraft is crossed off with no pilot listed. Another, the aircraft assigned to Uffz Bubenhofer, is also crossed off the list. Also, does anyone know when Obfw. Willi Gasthaus was assigned to the unit? He isn't listed. Also, does anyone know when Lt. Erich Hohagen joined 4 Staffel? It appear that he may have been assigned to the unit when it was formed back in 1939, but he isn't accounted for on this list. Thanx, |
Re: Need confirmation of some pilots in 4./JG 51 in early 1940
Larry, i have the following information if it is of use for your list.
18.5.40 Fw Willi Gasthaus 4/JG51 claimed a Morane MS 406 sht dn 1st kill. So obviously on 4/JG51 strength, prior to BoB. 5.7.40 Lt Erich Hohagen 4/JG51 Sht dn a Spitfire North of Hythe for his 1st kill. Again shows he was on the Staffel rosta at this time. Best regs, Steve. Ps. Hope to hear more on this thread! |
Were either Bf109E-4s WNr3737 or 5915 manufactured with a DB-601N engine?
Hello,
Trying to determine if either Bf109E-4 WNr. 3737 or 5915 was manufactured with a DB601N engine. Can anyone help? Regards, Larry Hickey EoE Project Coordinator |
Re: Were either Bf109E-4s WNr3737 or 5915 manufactured with a DB-601N engine?
It's possible but not certain. I have 3737 as an E-4 but 5915 is listed as an E-7. However, we know many E-4s were upgraded to become E-7s. Nevertheless it is also true that all models of the Emil were eligible for the "N" engine. Even though it was customary for "N" equipped Emils to have this letter as a designation suffix, i.e., E-4/N, loss reports were not always uniform in this regard leading unwary historians to draw incorrect conclusions as to its actual use.
|
Re: Were either Bf109E-4s WNr3737 or 5915 manufactured with a DB-601N engine?
Harold,
Thanx. I've got a photo of one of these a/c with C3 in the octane triangle, and I'm trying to decide which, or if both, had a DB601N engine. I know that 3737 had a large white "N" on the engine, which probably means that it was an E-4N, but 5915 may also have been an E-4 or E-7N as well. Do any records show either of these planes as N variants? Regards, Larry Hickey EoE Project Coordinator |
Re: Were either Bf109E-4s WNr3737 or 5915 manufactured with a DB-601N engine?
Hi Larry and harold,
I think I can confirm that WNr. 3737 was powered by a DB601N: Bf109E-? WNr. 3737, Engine = DB601N, WNr.66143, maker DB/Genshagen. Steve Sheflin |
Re: Were either Bf109E-4s WNr3737 or 5915 manufactured with a DB-601N engine?
Steve,
Thanx. I appreciate your taking the time to comment. I still need to know if WNr.5915 had a DB601N engine or not. This has got me checkmated on identifying a key profile package for the EoE book series. Regards, Larry Hickey EoE Project Coordinator |
Re: Were either Bf109E-4s WNr3737 or 5915 manufactured with a DB-601N engine?
Bf109E-? WNr. 3737, Engine = DB601N, WNr.66143, maker DB/Genshagen
Where is it come from Steve ?? Rémi |
Re: Were either Bf109E-4s WNr3737 or 5915 manufactured with a DB-601N engine?
Hello Rémi,
I checked both my Bf109 and DB601 databases regarding this particular DB601. It appears that I got it from the EOE (Eagles Over Europe) Project records: 601N, 66143, Daimler-Benz Motoren, Genshagen Kreis Tetlow, "N" large/top of crankcase, mounted on crashed aircraft: Bf109E-?, WNr. 3737, Stab/JG 51, Maidstone Road, Marden, England, 40/10/25. I look forward to any corrections or additions. Regards, Steve Sheflin |
Re: Were either Bf109E-4s WNr3737 or 5915 manufactured with a DB-601N engine?
Ok, I overlooked that oen, probably an ADI report, by the way Asmus is still pointed as missing ??
Rémi |
Re: Were either Bf109E-4s WNr3737 or 5915 manufactured with a DB-601N engine?
Confirmed by photos and a written letter from Asmus where he confirms his aircraft had the DB601N, formally Mölders mount, who was flying his new Bf109F-1 on this day.
|
Seeing photos/info on 3.(F)/11 Do17P that FL & Burned on 11.01.40 near the French-German border
Hello,
For EoE Color Profiling purposes, I'm trying to acquire photos of a FL and burned out Do17P-1 from 3.(F)/11 that force-landed and burned on 11.01.40, during the Phoney War. This was a victory attributed to Lt Edmond Marin La Meslé. In our EoE Luft loss DB, we carry this as: 3.(F)/11 Dornier Do17P-1. Engaged by Lt Edmund. Marin La Meslée and S/Lt J. Rey of GC I/5 during reconnaissance sortie over Verdun and shot down at Haucourt-la-Rigole, near Spincourt, 9.45 a.m. (Beo) Oberfw Hugo Erlbeck, (Bf) Uffz Heinrich Linsmayer, and (Ff) Uffz Johannes Sticht all captured. Aircraft 100% write-off. This a/c appears to have a three-digit number (part of the W.Nr.) on the forward fuselage, and should carry the code 6M+_L. There are two photos that I know of showing the aircraft burning out on the ground, but I suspect that there are others that show details of its markings and insignia. A head on view published in Avions Hors Serie No25: "Les As Francais de 1939-40," P23, shows a different a/c, and attributes the loss to 2.(F)/22. Does anyone have photos/information that confirms the unit of this a/c, shows the a/c codes, and shows the SN on the forward fuselage? Any help will be appreciated. Regards, Larry Hickey EoE Project Coordinator |
Posting to the Allied Discussion form on British forces present at the Battle of The Heligoland Bay: 18 December 1939
Hello,
I don't want to reactivate the recent often-heated discussion on this board regarding the so-called "Battle of the Heligoland Bight ," but I have just posted a carefully-researched summary of British forces present that day, which settles some key points relating to that discussion, and any further conclusions concerning the Luftwaffe reporting for that day: On the Allied Board see: Conclusive analysis of the British a/c involved in the Battle of the Heligoland Bight: 18 December 1939. Regards, |
Re: Posting to the Allied Discussion form on British forces present at the Battle of The Heligoland Bay: 18 December 1939
Hello Larry,
on the other side the question is how many victories were not confirmed by the Luftwaffe OKL at the end. It seems they were much more than seven. I asked for the 10.(N)/JG 26 before some time and got no response. According to Lagebericht West 119: Kommodore J.G. 1 - 1 Abschuss I./J.G. 77 (in fact I./ZG 76) - 15 Abschüsse II./J.G. 77 - 13 Abschüsse 10./J.G. 26 - 5 Abschüsse Marineflak - 1 Abschuss 40 sm ostw. Cromer (Norfolk) - 1 Abschuss Zusammen: 36 Abschüsse Not confirmed: I./Z.G. 76 - 2 II./J.G. 77 - 5 10./JG 26 - ? 1 - 4 ? Marineflak - 1 ? And not mentioned in the Lagebericht JGr.101 - 1 ? Maybe the OKL knew the figure of approaching "52" bombers was not correct. "Only" 24-25 confirmed victories sounds much better than 34, 36 or even 38... Regards, Marius |
Re: Posting to the Allied Discussion form on British forces present at the Battle of The Heligoland Bay: 18 December 1939
Marius,
I did not answer you because I don't have any new information on that subject. It was necessary to settle the issue of whether there were 22 British a/c in the air that day or more. At the EoE project we haven't worked on the other side of that story in any definitive way, other than what Jochen Prien has already published in his books and the Heinrich Weiss translation that I sent you. I'm totally tied up in editing for a new book right now, and won't have time to get to this personally for some time. Regards, |
Re: Posting to the Allied Discussion form on British forces present at the Battle of The Heligoland Bay: 18 December 1939
Marius,
I've been under the impression that you had JFV Vol 2, by Prien et.al. that lists the victory claims and confirmation status of the pilots from the units that you asked about. If you don't have a copy of this, I will send you the info from this. Let me know. |
Re: Posting to the Allied Discussion form on British forces present at the Battle of The Heligoland Bay: 18 December 1939
Hello Larry,
there is no doubt there were 22 British aircraft only participating in the raid to Wilhelmshaven. Priens et.al. JFV Vol.2 is indeed a very interesting work (as well as all other volumes). But it is misleading when doing more detailed research. One example: I miss the info what data is documented and what is not, means just an "interpretation" of the Autors. I wrote about the confirmed/not confirmed (?!) 5-6 victories of 10.(N)/JG 26 - all (??) achieved at 14.30 or 14.35 hours (Steinhoffs two victories ???). I still do not know how accurate are the given hours... Another simple example to the problem with times: Oblt. Berthold Jung from 5./JG 77. According to JFV Vol.2 this pilot has 1 n.b. victory at 14.35 hours. Other sources are giving 14.50 hours. In my opinion 14.35 hours is much too early and I wonder why exactly this time is listed in JFV. I suppose it is an "interpretation", but I cannot recognize that it is what it really is. What I want to say: the raid from the German point of view must be researched very deeply again working with DOCUMENTED information as basis and without juggling with post-war interpretations which all seems to be incorrect. Best wishes, |
Re: Posting to the Allied Discussion form on British forces present at the Battle of The Heligoland Bay: 18 December 1939
Marius,
What you say may be true; victory lists are a very tricky subject. I'm not sure at this point how you're going to get at more accurate information than what has been published by Dr Prien and his team. Winfried Bock does all of the victory lists for the JFV series, and he is the one who published the magazine article back in 1983 that tried to explain why the German victory claims were so high. Unfortunately, this advanced the whole idea of their being many more British aircraft present that day, but, which, of course, was based upon the original erroneous wartime German intelligence assessment, which was wrong. You are in the same situation that Winfried faced 31 years ago: how could the German victory claims/confirmations be 400-500% too high? That is why it was so important to confirm the numbers of actual British bombers present that day, which is now certain. I'm assuming that Bock used all the information available to him and Hans Ring, who was his partner on the subject during that time. I'm not sure that more reliable information on times for the German victory claims are going to be available at this point, but I'll be the first to congratulate you if you can shed more meaningful light on the subject. I just don't know where you're going to find such information. Perhaps some of the surviving KTBs and FB may shed some light on this, but you would expect those to be consistent with the surviving "official" German records on the subject. If you want to continue this discussion "off-board" I'm willing to do so, but I'm not optimistic you are going to find the answers that you are looking for. I'll not discourage the search, however. Regards, |
Re: Posting to the Allied Discussion form on British forces present at the Battle of The Heligoland Bay: 18 December 1939
Hi Larry,
the JFV series is a well done and interesting work and Winfried Bock makes a superb job with the victory lists. But you must see the presented data for the year 1939 - what is my special interest as you know - have their weak points and some times of the victories, loss places and so on are pretty inaccurate. It does not matter when you have 1, 2 or 3 victories only, which differ from documented data 10, 20 or even more minutes. But in the case of 18.12.1939 this is a very special and misleading problem. I would like to have a victory list where the reader is able to see what is documented and what is an interpretation of the authors (and I `d wish this for the whole JFV series). An example: 5./JG 77 Oblt. Pointner Wellington ... 14.20 hours (documented and confirmed) 5./JG 77 Oblt. Jung ... [14.35] hours or 14.35 or whatever (an interpretation or even just a speculation) As a historical researcher you have no other possibility than to go to the archives and start reading the whole documents again. Regards, |
Re: Posting to the Allied Discussion form on British forces present at the Battle of The Heligoland Bay: 18 December 1939
"As a historical researcher you have no other possibility than to go to the archives and start reading the whole documents again."I'm sure that many members of this forum will be interested to hear what you find out once you have done this. |
Re: Posting to the Allied Discussion form on British forces present at the Battle of The Heligoland Bay: 18 December 1939
3 Attachment(s)
Hi Larry,
Interesting analysis, but I also have a problem with the timing. The attached .pdf files are the log from the aircraft reporting center in the HQ of Luftgau XI, which at that time had the overall responsibility for air defense in the area in question. It records visual sightings, which mostly must be from the intercepting fighters and they are in the 1420 - 1542 timeframe. That does not compute with a take-off time of 8:55 - 9:40. And this discrepancy cannot be explained through a time zone difference, which might have been one hour. The positions given in the four digit format are based on the German reporting grid described in an additional .pdf file. bregds SES |
Re: Posting to the Allied Discussion form on British forces present at the Battle of The Heligoland Bay: 18 December 1939
In case it can be of help - According to this site:
"This was not the first experiment to shift the clocks in winter. In the Second World War (1939-45), Britain had adopted Double British Summer Time, with the clocks one hour ahead of Greenwich in winter and two hours ahead in summer." And in Germany from here : "After the end of the war and the proclamation of the Weimar Republic in November 1918, summer time ceased to be observed in peace time. Summer time was reintroduced in 1940, during World War II, in an attempt to save energy for the war economy." Not much impact on December events though..... Br Göran |
Re: Posting to the Allied Discussion form on British forces present at the Battle of The Heligoland Bay: 18 December 1939
Hi Göran,
It is my belief, that the British T/O times are in error. bregds SES |
Re: Posting to the Allied Discussion form on British forces present at the Battle of The Heligoland Bay: 18 December 1939
Quote:
Juha PS and thanks for the scans! |
Re: Posting to the Allied Discussion form on British forces present at the Battle of The Heligoland Bay: 18 December 1939
Quote:
Of my actual research I can add the info that "15.42 & 19.39" hours refer to the both Wellingtons which ditched in the North Sea on the way back close to the English coast. Regards, |
Re: Posting to the Allied Discussion form on British forces present at the Battle of The Heligoland Bay: 18 December 1939
1 Attachment(s)
Sorry I omitted that in my first post, but please find it attached.
The positions are as follows: 05 Ost 7425 53*54'N07*41'E 7422 53*59'N07*41E 7579 54*04'N07*21'E 7588 54*04'N07*41'E The flight time from East Anglia to Borkum is about 3 hours, if they left the UK coast at 0930 the first a/c should have been at Borkum at 1330 German time. It is my understanding, that BC raids were not conducted in the type of formation we later see employed by the 8 AF. The squadrons were tasked to attack a target and it was up to the individual plane captains (aircraft commanders) to chose the route and timing. This at least was the CONOPS until the advent of the bomber stream. bregds SES |
Re: Posting to the Allied Discussion form on British forces present at the Battle of The Heligoland Bay: 18 December 1939
Hello SES
what you described was the early method during night attacks, in daytime the planes flew in close formations for mutual support, the formation keeping was taken very seriously. The formation flew around Helgoland, turned south flew past Bremen, turned west, then north past Wilhelmshaven, then NNW, then part of the formation turned west flying a bit north of Frisian Islands, this formation was intercepted at 1435 MET, the formation which continued NNW was intercepted at 1430 MET. That according to the map inShores' Fledgling Eagles. Juha |
Re: Posting to the Allied Discussion form on British forces present at the Battle of The Heligoland Bay: 18 December 1939
1 Attachment(s)
Larry did not want to revive a heated discussion, but my comment to the routing described is YGABSM, please see the picture attached. The target is Wilhelmshaven, they fly past the target in close proximity, perform a totally, uncalled for deep inland penetration and the attack the target from the SSE, and that without being detected by a single FLUKO and reported by Lg XI.
According to a most authoritative published German account the formation was first detected by radar at 1300 local time and fighters were scrambled at 1320. bregds SES |
Re: Posting to the Allied Discussion form on British forces present at the Battle of The Heligoland Bay: 18 December 1939
Hello SES
there is a mistake in the map that I didn't notice, what is in the map labelled as Bremen is in fact Bremenhaven, so the formation flew according the map in the Shores' book just west of Bremenhaven, continued a bit more to SSSE, then turned to west, then north, flying over Wilhelmshaven, then circled over Jade Bay and then departed to NNW. The first radar contact at 1323 MET was appr. up north from the second eastermost Netherland Frisian Island and appr west of Helgoland. Ie appr. 54*07'N 6*36'E Juha |
Re: Posting to the Allied Discussion form on British forces present at the Battle of The Heligoland Bay: 18 December 1939
Hi Juha,
Thanks for the clarification. bregds SES |
Re: Posting to the Allied Discussion form on British forces present at the Battle of The Heligoland Bay: 18 December 1939
Hello,
many thanks to SES for the last pdf file. As I see the big German overclaiming is clear done. It makes me believe 10.(N)/JG 26 shot exactly at the same aircraft as II./JG 77. This would explain the lack of confirmation for most victories of Steinhoff`s Staffel. Can somebody help with personal accounts (or postwar memories) of Johannes Steinhoff, Willi Szuggar, Werner Gerhardt, Martin Portz or August Wilke? Regards, |
Re: Posting to the Allied Discussion form on British forces present at the Battle of The Heligoland Bay: 18 December 1939
Marius,
I have accounts from several German pilots involved, but none of these. Regards, |
Re: Posting to the Allied Discussion form on British forces present at the Battle of The Heligoland Bay: 18 December 1939
Hello, no problem Larry.
I mean Steinhoff wrote a lot of things after the war. Was there nothing about the 18.12.1939 ??? Regards, |
Re: Posting to the Allied Discussion form on British forces present at the Battle of The Heligoland Bay: 18 December 1939
Hello, I analized the Luftgau XI copies a little bit and it seems the aerial victories of 10.(N)/JG 26 have another hours than given in T.Woods or JFV Vol.II.
The question is where the partially incorrect times (14.30,14.30,14.35,14.35,14.35) are coming from ??? Maybe from Heinrich Weiss` manuscript - but isn`t it just an authors speculation ??? According to Luftgau XI it could be the following hours for Steinhoff`s Staffel: 14.30,14.35,14.35,14.40,14.40. There remains the question what exactly in T.Woods & Prien/Bock lists is documented and what is just a speculation. Regards, |
Re: Posting to the Allied Discussion form on British forces present at the Battle of The Heligoland Bay: 18 December 1939
Marius,
I fail to see how five minute differences in some of these times makes a material difference in the analysis of the German over-claims on 18.12.39. There could easily be some recording or transcribing errors from one source to another, but it doesn't effect the overall issue of German over-claims during the air battle. Possible transcription errors from one source to another with differences of five minutes don't bring us any closer to understanding what happened from the German point of view. The claims were still made within a very short time-span, whichever source you want to use for the information. This hardly indicates just author's "speculation." Regards, |
Re: Posting to the Allied Discussion form on British forces present at the Battle of The Heligoland Bay: 18 December 1939
Quote:
[I mean this problem came out some months ago already as I asked for the victories of JGr.152 for September 1939.] Maybe 30 victories were claimed against the "northern formation" of Wellingtons and 6 against the "southern formation". There exists a possibility the hardly documented data could help to find out who attacked who and which unit made the overclaiming and which unit did not. Just a few puzzle parts, but eventually very important for the German point of view. Regards, |
Seeking photos of Hs123A-1 L2+AC, anytime during 1939-40
Hello,
Can anyone direct me to any known photos of the Hs123 flown by Hptm-Maj Otto Weiss, L2+AC, as Gr Kdr of II.(S)/LG2 during 1939-40. He replaced Maj Georg Spielvogel who was killed on 09.09.40, and was awarded the RK on 18 May 1940. Thanx for any assistance. |
PHOTO FRAUD ALERT
Hello,
Earlier today on this board a photo was posted showing a Bf109E with a 6./StG77 bull insignia on the fuselage. I posted that I was wondering if someone was playing a Photoshop joke with the photo. Now one of our stalwart EoE members sent me a photo that they had just acquired (presumably on eBay) from someone selling a modern print of a wartime photo. It had an entirely authentic insignia on the fuselage, but it didn't match the aircraft code. I did a search and found that I had many photos of this same a/c in the EoE Photo DB, including two that well matched the same area visible in the photo, both taken after a crash-landing that wrote the a/c off, and both without question the same aircraft. Every bullet hole, flak tear and broken window matched. However, the insignia in question was missing from both of the original photos. Someone had perpetrated a fraud by Photoshopping an insignia onto this photo then selling it. I don't want to say anything about the seller yet, as I'm still gathering information, but someone is using Photoshop software to alter photos and is selling them as reproductions of authentic WW II photos. Buyer beware. I don't know for sure that the two incidents are related or involve the same seller, but I wanted to alert everyone right away before someone else falls victim of that fraud. In both cases, one suspected and one proven, the photoshop work was done with a very high degree of technical skill. It was very professional and didn't leave a lot of the obvious tell-tale artifacts in the image that sometimes gives away a Photoshop job. The bad news is that not only insignias, but every other kind of marking can be digitally recreated if someone is motivated to do so. Apparently that someone is now at work. |
Re: PHOTO FRAUD ALERT
One thing I have also seen is the same 'original' photo being offered again & again. Some times they are described as copies but many times they are not. Caveat emptor &.don't be afraid to challenge the seller
|
Re: PHOTO FRAUD ALERT
Larry and Chris
Reaction Fraud Alert. On the auctionsite marktplaats.nl was and is this picture for sell ,for the highest bidder, first of all : Iam NOT the seller and have nothing to do with it ,my knowledge about BF-109 is average and that,s why i,ve posted the photo .I was wondering who could be this pilot comparing those victories .The photo is still on the auction site . I,ve nothing to do with it and it,s a shame that people like to make money out of it that way . I shall send the seller a e-mail .If you have a account do the same Name and shame . The seller also says on the back there is a Original stamp of Afga on it . So guys don,t kill me ,am just the Messenger |
| All times are GMT +2. The time now is 04:44. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2018, 12oclockhigh.net