5.ZG1 11.July 43
 

A pretty confused case first the gen. return


11 7 43 II.ZG1 F Gela ost, FBordw, 100 %

Bf Blind dead
f Gerdes wounded

NVM

11 7 43 2 5 ZG1 F Gela 10 km Ostw, MG Geschoss BF110G-2 6172 S9+HN Le-besch, wounded Gerdes hermann fw 69011/117-f-040908-Bochum
11 7 43 2 5 ZG1 F Gela 15 km Ostw, MG Geschoss BF110G-2 6301 S9+KN Le-besch, dead Blind richard uf 69011/111-bf-170920-Möglingen krs Ludwigsburg

So 2 diff. planes

The Log Gerdes
An ennemy flight plane S9+BN Bf = Angst no indication about any damages
Landing at 18h00 makes a second action doubtful

...

Hv anybody any complementing data ??

Remi

Re: 5.ZG1 11.July 43
 

I would suggest two different aircraft flying on the same mission. That's what I understood from using the NVM for those two for 'Sting of the Luftwaffe'. NVMs are usually more accurate, as they were used for notifying relatives of the loss/wounding of a family member. NVMs don't mention any uninjured crewmen, obviously, so it is perfectly feasible to expect that Gerdes's Bordfunker survived uninjured, as did Blind's pilot.

Re: 5.ZG1 11.July 43
 

Smart reading, but still remains the diff. Kennzeichen, the damage of the craft 100 % ,the location Gela the day of the landing..
One more thing Gerdes is quoted as lightly wounded, but he didn't flew for quite a year after that

Remi

Re: 5.ZG1 11.July 43
 

Remi,
Gerdes was in one aircraft: S9+HN, W. Nr. 6172
Blind was in another: S9+KN, W. Nr. 6301

I don't quite understand the lower part of your original post. Could you explain it more clearly for me?

Re: 5.ZG1 11.July 43
 

Just noted that the plane in the gen. return is given as a 100 % loss, the 2 planes in the NVM as just "tinly" damaged, planes wear in the NVM HN/KN
In the log BN, Gerdes is quoted softly wounded, but he just resumed flying quite a year later..

The théory of the 2 planes is for sure 99 %.. sure.

Remi

Re: 5.ZG1 11.July 43
 

John

Some problems remain with your book vs what you/Remi say here

1) In your book you list WNr 6172 with code S9+BN. Remi seems confused which code of S9+HN or S9+BN that is correct. You state above it is S9+HN. Do you wish to change what you say in your book or do we have a case of mixed infrmation depending on source?

2) In your book you say that Fw Hermann Gerdes was W (which I take to mean wounded) and yet in the column "reason for casualty" you say Pilot killed on combat mission. From the text above Remi indicates that Gerdes in fact was only wounded. Can we assume this is correct and the text "killed" in your book be changed to wounded?

Best Regards
Stig

Re: 5.ZG1 11.July 43
 

Stig,

1. Apologies for the mess up in my earlier post. I checked '+KN' as 6301, and then just replicated for 6172 what he had put in his first post (he put +HN). What is in the book is taken from the Namentliche Verlustmeldungen (let's hope I have it right!) and so I would go with:
S9+BN 6172
S9+KN 6301

I no longer have the NVMs to hand, as they are all now with a certain famous archive. I can only believe that typing 'killed' against Gerdes is a typo.

Thanks for clarifying things.

Re: 5.ZG1 11.July 43
 

Good day gents!

Acc. some of my files (hand written tables, from German archive I beleive):

FW. Gerdes (pilot) WiA BF110G-2 S9+BN 6172 LK Spitfire
no name for bortfunker

No name for Pilot
Uffz. Blind (Bortfunker) WiA Bf110G-2 S9+KN 6301 LK Spitfire

Re: 5.ZG1 11.July 43
 

Thanks John

No worries about me, I am just checking your book and just wants to know what to correct. Now I know!

No need to apologise either. You stand tall enough as it is...:)

Cheers
Stig