Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum

Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum (http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/index.php)
-   Luftwaffe and Axis Air Forces (http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/forumdisplay.php?f=8)
-   -   Bf 109E4 WNr 2063 (http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=33149)

Adam 3rd March 2013 00:23

Bf 109E4 WNr 2063
 
Does anyone have any information on this bird? All I have is it being repaired at Kalamaki during December 1941 and was part of a batch made by Erla Leipzig.

Thanks

AndreasB 3rd March 2013 07:12

Re: Bf 109E4 WNr 2063
 
Pure speculation alert, but could it have come from 2./(H)14? I don't think JG27 was flying E-series at this point, and I doubt JG53 did?

All the best

Andreas

Adam 3rd March 2013 10:55

Re: Bf 109E4 WNr 2063
 
I initially thought the recon unit but the fact the source lists it as a 'B' version would tend to suggest otherwise. I checked my 2.(H)/14 file and have no mention of it there.

Responding to your sepculation, the fact it needed a major repair at somewhere like Kalamaki would suggest serious damage (+30%?) and that may have taken some months to accomplish. Hence the loss could have been within the time frame for JG units operational use of Emil variants?

Jim P. 5th March 2013 01:36

Re: Bf 109E4 WNr 2063
 
Bf 109E-7, 2063, Hofinger, Gefr. Johann, , III., 8., JG 5, , , , , 28-May-42, Killed in crash during take-off., WNr. 2663 per loss., Lfl.5/Eins.Osten, Gen.Qu.6.Abt. (mfm #6)-Vol.9; Prien, et al, Die Jagdfliegerverbände, IX.3, p.484; Valtonen, LW Pohjoinen Sivusta, p.370, , Fl.Pl. Kirkenes, 100%, F, , ,

Andreas Brekken 5th March 2013 12:45

Re: Bf 109E4 WNr 2063
 
Hi, Jim

What is your source for WNr 2063 being correct for the loss of Hofinger?

Regards,
Andreas

Jim P. 6th March 2013 02:17

Re: Bf 109E4 WNr 2063
 
Sources are listed in the loss record - initial WNr. 2663 per loss - WNr. 2063 per Prien, et al. Since neither loss presents a duplicate, I can't make any assumptions as to which is correct, but I always make a notation as to the conflict in my database.

Andreas Brekken 6th March 2013 07:26

Re: Bf 109E4 WNr 2063
 
Hi, Jim

Ok, just wanted to know if you had some other primary source which pointed to 2063 being the correct one since I read your record as using 2063, acknowledging that GenQu used 2663 and that the latter probably was a Tippfehler...

I checked the NVM, which also say 2663. So I will be leaning towards 2663, mentioning that Prien's books say 2063.

Regards,
Andreas B

Jim P. 6th March 2013 23:27

Re: Bf 109E4 WNr 2063
 
Andreas,

Since you are quoting from the NVM, I will amend my entry as well. Thanks.


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 04:47.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2018, 12oclockhigh.net