[ouidjat]

Gentlemen,

Staka 2./JG 77:
Trautloft : 03.11.38 to 31.08.39 (JVF Teil 1, page 269.) Trautloft flew “Rote 1”.
Priebe : 28.09.39 to 9.5.40 (JFV Teil 2, page 454.)
Places:
End of August I./JG 77 was in Juliusburg (Poland) 30km NE of Breslau, 26.08.39 to 31.08.39. (JFV, Teil 1, pages 268 & 270.) But, in Oedheim from 28.09.39 to 21.10.39…

That means that in both cases (Staka and place) there is a blank.
At least, the “place blank” can be filled with the help of Michael Holm site … (for example).
Concerning the “Staka Blank” Trauloft was in charge of I./JG 20 from 23.09.39 coming from .. 2./JG 77. Hence the “Staka blank” can be reduced to, at least five days.

As JimP wrote, Priebe flew
Bf 109E, 3378, Priebe, Oblt. Eckehard, , I., 2., JG 77, rote, 13 + o, , , , Stkp. Poland - September, 1939., , Polen, Prien, JG 77, I, p.82 photo, , , -, F, , ,
And
Bf 109E-1, 4072, Priebe, Oblt. Ekkehard, , I., 2., JG 77, rote, 1 +, , , 19-May-40, Stkp. WIA due to Luftkampf., , Westfeldzug, Prien, et al, Die Jagdfliegerverbände, III, p.391; Prien, JG 77, I, p.291, p.185 (photos from Jan.40), , Raum Le Quesnay, b, F, , ,
Since 4072 was ‘Rote 1’ I have the right to suppose that when Priebe took Staka place he flew a Rote 1 – as did by Trautloft - and that Rote 13 was, most probably, a spare plane. (It was better for a Staka to have a spare plane to be able to lead his men whatever the situation)

Rote 3: Depicted on 10.39 in Oedheim (JFV Teil 2, page 457) and lost 20.02.40 (JFV Teil 2, page 458).
That means that we had a Rote 1, a Rote 3 and a Rote 13. (Just tell me if I’m wrong)
Why do I have to suppose that Rote 13 became Rote 3?? Just because of “3378”?

Next:
What happened in Cambrai’s area?
May 1940: The following units were based in Cambrai:
I./JG 2
I./JG 3
II./JG 3
and ... I./JG 21
No mention of I./JG 77 except air combats in Cambrai area on 18.05 and 19.05 when Rote 1 (4072) was lost.
But:
I./JG 21 lost a 3471 on 29.05, and 3483, 3490 and 3491 were flown in I./JG 21 (see same references)
As wrote upper by David and I, our first tought was 2./JG 21 but we both said … “this doesn’t match with code number position” …
Are you sure, are WE sure??
Just have look on JFV Teil 3, page 196 … Funny, isn’t it?
Am I going to insult Mr. Prien telling him he is arrogant?

Now, what’s the situation?
- JimP “Do you have a better proposal?” is not an argument to validate yours.
- I’m perfectly aware that you did put a question mark. But jumping out of the box like Jack saying “It’s a rather convincing hit” is a short cut I’m not going to take.
Since:
I don’t read 3378; I see no reason to think the painter made two different “3”.
I’m able to put a vectored clog on top of the blurred emblem and to get the same result.
Yes, 2./JG 77 didn’t keep the red dot on all machines but it did keep it on many and the white outline was kept as well …
So, I have no better solution but I have good ones to doubt, and I have the right to say so in these columns without being treated as an arrogant. And saying I don’t agree is not insulting people; I think, by the contrary, that who says that is the arrogant just because I said I didn’t agree with his conclusions.

If one has a Jack-in-the-box-3378 I have a Jack-in-the-box-3478 which, for me, fits much better inside the WNr. list I./JG 21 did flew. That doesn’t make a proof, indeed.

Last: Of course, if I had to publish this photo I will never dare to indicate 3378, neither 3478 and in the caption I would write unit unknown. That’s the best we can honestly do in a publication.

Best regards, Franck.