Well, mr deZeng.
It references the order...
Official Luftwaffe documentation on General Staff level thus exist and show that this Staffel was, for the entirety of its life under this designation, part of the II./(Schl.) L.G.2. It existed in the Bestandsmeldungen as an integral part of the unit and is dismissed as circumstantial? To me this just indicates that you have never studied or understood these primary sources.
And it is indeed very strange that almost every Vortrag, which is the introduction to the Bestandsmeldungen were close to every organizational change was reported, coincide with the official orders available in archives?
More quotes:
Quote:
Stand der Einsatzbereitschaft am: 8.3.1941
Die bei der II.(Sch.)L.G.2 befohlene Aufstellung der 10.Staffel mit 12 Hs 123 ist in der Verechnung nicht berücksichtigt, da die Übernahme der Flugzeuge noch nicht erfolgt ist.
|
Quote:
Stand der Einsatzbereitschaft am 22.3.1941
Sollerhöhung durch erstmalige Aufnahme der bei der II./(Sch.) L.G.2 aufgestellten Staffel mit 12 Hs 123
|
This latter quote which reference a Sollerhöhung - an increase of the number of aircraft officially appointed to a unit - which would not have been recorded if this was not a part of the unit. For example - units reported as Auf dem Kommandowege aufgestellt - would not result in a Sollerhöhung unless the final order for Etatisierung was given - of this there are several examples.
Have you studied Vfg.Gen.Qu.2.Abt. Nr.6025/42 g.Kdos.(IIA) of January 4th 1942 on the reorganization of the Kampf-, Stuka-, Schlacht- and Zerstörer units of the Luftwaffe?
But I won't bother with relaying further information which could enhance the quality of your work - it is obvious from your previous comment that you do not need assistance.
Regards,
Andreas B