JGr. 200, Bf109G-6s, WNr.411470 and WNr.163349

[ouidjat]

Hello,

On Nick Beale site, this page: http://www.ghostbombers.com/JG200/bf109wrecks.html WNr.411470 is said to have been abandoned (found by who & at which date?) bearing "Werk Nr. 411470 on fin but 163349 on data plate."
on loss list, here: http://www.ghostbombers.com/JG200/losses.html, WNr.163349 is said "15% damaged" on 2/8/1944

I can imagine that "15% damage" did concern the fin part; hence they took 411470 one to put on 163349. But the "new" plane didn't fly again.(?)

But what I can't imagine is HOW they got this 411470 fin since this plane is cited:
"24-Sep-44, Bf 109G-6, 411470, Schützenmeister, Uffz. Otto, , JG 76, 11., gelbe, 7 +, RW+TS, , 24-Sep-44, KIA due to Luftkampf with P-47s., , RLV, Trendle, Brennendes Land, , bei Wittemweier, 100%, F, , " see Jim P. list here: http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showth...%FCtzenmeister

... I mean it's possible, but not 1/with given date and 2/what the hell they used a part coming from Wittemweier??? Brought to Southern France???

Subsidiary question(s):
- What makes plane identity: Data plane riveted on fuselage or painted WNr. painted on fin? In that case I would say - only 15% damage - the plane founded was 163349... with 411470 fin. (See other known planes in same situation where identity is defined by Data plane, not with fin NBr.)
- LW reports: what they wrote; Data plate? - I suppose they knew & registered it when the machine came in squadron strengh - or just fin numbers???

Best regards, Franck.

[Rasmussen]

Originally Posted by ouidjat

On Nick Beale site, this page: http://www.ghostbombers.com/JG200/bf109wrecks.html WNr.411470 is said to have been abandoned (found by who & at which date?) bearing "Werk Nr. 411470 on fin but 163349 on data plate."

Another point because the W.Nr.411470 wasn't the W.Nr. of the a/c:
the W.Nr. 411470 wasn't an "U4"-modifaction and wasn't an "trop."-version ... it was an simple G-6.

Best wishes
Rasmussen

[ouidjat]

Hi Mr. Rasmussen,

what do you mean by another point: "Another points"? or "One more point"?.. In other words -and to make short - are saying that the loss pointed by JimP. is correct?

Greetings, Franck.

[Nick Beale]

National Archives AIR51/281: MAAF Field Intelligence Unit, Technical Report No. 8 of 29 August 1944.

National Archives HW5/550: CX/MSS/R.265(C)

Extracts attached — now you know as much as I do.

[ouidjat]

Hello Nick,

Thank you for the precision. I had no doubts you took these informations from first hand sources.
If they wrote G-6/U4/Trop, means they took it somewhere, not on fin of course...
Can we suppose then 163349 was a G-/U4/Trop???

I'll do the other way...

Ups.... Hey, it's written 411740 not 411470 on first hand source! and the sentence I put on my first post where "copy-pasted" directly from your site Nick.

Sorry JimP.

Regards, Franck.

[Nick Beale]

"Hey, it's written 411740 not 411470 on first hand source!"

I'll correct that on the site. Thanks.

[ouidjat]

Hi Nick,

No Nick, thanks to YOU. A simple error doesn't change the quality of your site.

Regards, Franck.