[Rabe Anton]

The quiet consternation over the accuracy of the "Übersichtsliste der Änderungs-Anweisungen -
Bf 109" involving the subtype of the WNr. 1988 is well-founded; the confounded audience includes this writer.

Ostensibly, the "Übersichtliste" surely should be an impeccable source. After all, the lists were official documents created by the headquarters of the design office (Augsburg) that created the Bf 109. One would think, therefore, that such documents concerning a matter as vitally crucial as aircraft modifications would be letter-perfect. Precision and reliability should be the order of the day, nicht wahr?! Indeed, that was the writer's belief upon receiving copies of surviving examples of the "Übersichtliste" some five or six years ago.

After countless references to the "Übersichtliste" over the past few years, however, I am now convinced that surprisingly the directive indices are only mostly correct. The matter of WNr. 1988 illustrates this point. Equally perplexing are several lacunae in cited Werknummer series or runs indicated by "/". At least some of these "missing" or "ghost" aircraft were unquestionably built (there is other sound documentation for them), but the "Übersichtliste" omit them. Why? Some of the missing aircraft were doubtless part of foreign deliveries (to Switzerland and Yugoslavia, for example), but a number clearly went to the Luftwaffe.

So what is going on here? So far, the only explanation I can come up with is that of simple accounting and tracking errors. Anyone have a better or more satisfying explanation?

RA