View Single Post
  #13  
Old 19th June 2017, 13:39
Stig Jarlevik Stig Jarlevik is offline
Alter Hase
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,810
Stig Jarlevik will become famous soon enough
Re: Unknown photo He 219 DV+DA W.Nr. 190105

Thanks Marcel

Well, not sure which foot I should rest on in this case.
Nice to see I am not the only one who is confused.... But I agree with your conclusion that the two dates refer to the same incident on 28 July.

Checking Michael Balss' two books, this incident is only mentioned in his first one, as WNr 290105, which we know is wrong!
Since Balss does not mention Höller in any of his books, I can only assume he has found the WNr outside his list, possibly or probably from the GQM lists, since if he had found the NVM he would at least have hesitated what to write.

What we now have are two aircraft with basically the same background and damage history.

190205 G9+DK 4./NJG 1 dam 4 June 1944 (no further records) BTW was it common that when aircraft were transferred between units, they kept their old unit codes? In this case G9+DK is a 2./NJG 1 code.
210905 G9+EK? 2./NJGr 10 dam 28 July 1944 (why would an aircraft delivered to 2./NJGr 10 from the outset be painted with a NJG 1 unit code?)

The question arises on what background information the two 'bodies' GQM and NVM based their statements on, and why they differ in this case.
If we move back to the two damage reports (4 June and 28 July) are they mentioned anywhere else beside the Heinkel documents you have, such as GQM? If yes, what WNrs are used and how grave was the actual damage in %? If no GQM reports are available, are there other sources available?

If the damage was rather small, my logic would have it that both aircraft should be brought back on line with the units they already served with. Whatever really happened, my logic of course means very little anyway

If I put out a hypothetical question here.
What would a clerk writing the NVM have done if he received the report that WNr 290105 had been destroyed? Since most individual on TOCH prefers the NVM I presume the clerk had to check all details received such as names, circumstances and presumably also aircraft details? Depending on how far such checks went is it possible he may have received the wrong info and made a mistake?

To me it is far easier to make a mistake and write 290105 instead of 190205 than having 210905 and write it as 290105. If you try it on a typewriter (not computer) you will see what I mean.

Cheers
Stig
Reply With Quote