[Freddy]

Hello.


I am taking advantage of the lockdown due to Covid to update my old database regarding the Bf 109 losses. Among the lists that I have collected over the years in the various sites I have also found one or two, posted by RT in this discussion on February 18 and 20, 2010.
To tell the truth, I found some repetitions, inaccuracies and conflicting data but, somehow, I managed to remedy it.
In the case of Wercknummern clearly incorrect, sometimes I was able to reconstruct the real ones while other times I made two or more recordings with the various interpretation possibilities all accompanied by notes concerning, in fact, the uncertainty of the data.
These days, however, I have a couple of problems that I find it difficult to solve and that I bring to your attention hoping that someone will kindly clarify my ideas a little.

Regarding the W.Nr. 491309 I find:

a) 23 1 45 13 JG300 Rawitsch / Rawicz raum / NNW Wroclau LFK BF109G-10R6 491309 We15 100 x Wedler / Wendler gerhard uf f

b) 23 1 45 LF Reich IV JG300 F Rawitzsch X BF109G-10 491309 We15 100 X Wendler gerhard uf f

c) 26 1 45 III JG300 Mark Zwuschen 5 km S, Jüterbog BA BM BF109 G-10 491309 We10 30 Wendler gerhard uf f-

The first two lines are correct also because I have found evidence in other sources as well.

In the Loss List of the Jagdgeschwader 300 I found an Uffz. Wendler of the I./JG lost on 12/24/1944 and therefore is to be excluded.

For the date of 23/01/1944 I find an Uffz. Gerhard Wedler of 13./JG 300 lost in the Rawitsch area (Rawicz in Poland) with a Bf 109G 10. All the data coincide in the first two lines a) and b) but change completely in line c).

On the date of 26/01/1945, the Loss List mentions the loss of only two G 10, one of the II./JG at Mark Zwuschen and another of the I./JG at Borkheide.
The latter should be the W.Nr. 150856. In both cases the name of the pilot is not shown.
Regarding the W.Nr. 150856 I find in fact:

a) 26 1 45 LF Reich I JG300 F Borkheide MSTO BF109G-10 150856 15 ER
b) 26 1 45 I JG300 Borkheide MSCH BF109G-10 150856 Ge 15 ,, f
which coincide with what is reported in the Verlustliste.

Then I find that at "Mark Zwuschen 5 km S, Jüterbog" were lost:
a) 30 1 45 LF Reich III JG 300 H Markzwuchen BF S BF109G-14 782422 60
b) 30 1 45 III JG 300 Mark Zwuschen 5 km S, Jüterbog BF S BF109G-10 782422 Ge 60
c) 30 1 45 III JG300 Mark Zwuschen 5 km S, Jüterbog BA BM BF109G-10 150793 30
d) 26 1 45 LF Reich III JG300 H Markzwuchen b BA BM BF109G-10 150793 30

In the first three cases the date is the same, 30/01/1945, while in the fourth case it is 26/01/1945.
In the first two lines the data are practically the same even if the plane is mentioned both as G-10 and G-14. Clearly this is a G-14 considered the production batch.

In the other two lines the data is the same but the date changes.
Checking in the Verlustliste of the JG 300, I find that on Jan 30, 1945 two losses are cited:
30 1 1945 Jüterbog Gfr Gerhard Hinz 12./ JG 300 A / c?
30 1 1945 Markt Swuschen Unbekannt II./ JG 300 Bf 109G 14

Analyzing the data cited regarding the losses on January 26, 1944 we can see:
1) 26 1 45 LF Reich III JG300 H Markzwuchen b BA BM BF109G-10 150793 30
2) 26 1 45 III JG300 Mark Zwuschen 5 km S, Jüterbog BA BM BF109 G-10 491309 We10 30 Wendler gerhard uf f- Regarding the losses on January 30, 1944 we see:
3) 30 1 45 LF Reich III JG 300 H Markzwuchen BF S BF109G-14 782422 60
4) 30 1 45 III JG 300 Mark Zwuschen 5 km S, Jüterbog BF S BF109G-10 782422 Ge 60
5) 30 1 45 III JG300 Mark Zwuschen 5 km S, Jüterbog BA BM BF109G-10 150793 30

From the comparison of the data cited with those of the Verlustliste it could therefore be assumed that:
a) the BF109G-10 150793 was actually lost on January 26th and not on January 30th.
b) the BF109G-14 782422, lost on January 30, was probably flown Gefr. Gehrard Hinz who was also from III./JG 300
c) there was probably a confusion of names between Uffz. Gerhard Wedler and Gefr. Gehrard Hinz

d) the data cited in the Verlustliste JG 300 for January 30, probably refer to the same aircraft, that is that flown by Hinz even if referred to II./JG 300.


A suggestion?