Bf 109 G-6, WNr. 165036

[ouidjat]

Hello gents,

I did find a picture whose caption is the following: "Bf 109 G-6 W.Nr.165036 "Weisse 1", 4./JG 77, Lagnasco, January 1944." From Prien 1998, p. 1847.
According to this thread http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showth...ghlight=165036 (Barkas #7) doesn't match at all!!!
As for the Stkz:
Stammkennzeichen.de is giving NP+JV when LEMB Stkz site is giving NP+IV.
Last, wing of the said 165036's picture on Prien book is displaying ??+BF.

Something's wrong!

Any helpful comments to clear that mess -if possible- will be welcome.

Cheers, Franck.

PS: One possibility: The caption is about the plane in remote background!

[Jochen Prien]

Dear Franck,

I'm slightly puzzled by your post since on page 1847 of Vol. 4 of the old JG 77 unit history there is no mention of the WerkNr. 165 036 or any other WerkNr at all. All there is is the photo of "white 1" of 4./JG 77 taken in January 1944 at Lagnasco a/f and mention is made of the last two letters of the Stammkennzeichen - B + F - visible on the lower surface of the port wing.

Bf 109 G-6 with WerkNr. 165 036 and marking "white 1" was reported lost however by 1./JG 77 on May 30th, 1944, when Lt. Bodo Krause was shot down and killed in aerial combat near Tuscania in Italy, the a/c being a write off; this loss is - most likely erronneously - listed under May 25th, 1944, in JG 77, Vol. 4, p. 1950. The date and the WerkNr. are taken from the Namentliche Verlustliste of I./JG 77, dated June 7th, 1944. The Stammkennzeichen of this a/c according to my lists was NP + JV.

An a/c with the same WerkNr. was reported lost by 1./JG 52 on July 26th, 1944 so that apparently - or rather obviously - one of the reports gives an incorrect WekNr.

One can only speculate at the moment as to which one was right and which one wrong - around WerkNr. 165 036 there are number of JG 52 a/c and also from other units operational over the southern sector of the Russian front while I./JG 77 is mentioned in only one more case - 165 029 - around the WerkNr. in question.

As for me, I have noted this apparent mistake before and have put the issue in the large file under the title "pending" and hope that it can be sorted out some day.

Regards

Jochen Prien

[ouidjat]

Dr. Prien,

thank you very much for your quite detailled answer.
Telling the truth, I was expecting something like that. Indeed, with that partial Stkz it was enough to think it wasn't 165036 at all... But, who knows, fixing a plane on field can do miracles!

Note: I think this is exactly the reason why our friend Barkas did write this WNr. in red in the refered post; indeed every one did notice.

Thanks again.

Regards.

[RT]

Herr Doktor,

The right one hv to be the JG52 one, as planes would hv been produced in June or July 44, with the STKZ, 165019 is given as NP+IE so ...

Remi

[RT]

Sorry, I gave credit to Herr Schmoll, obviously wrong, lot of losses on may 44 with this serie , nd STKZ NP+JQ/JR/JS/JV, we could thought that to supply Italy Munich was the prefered option but Russland/Rumania too, but in fact JG52 received a lot of, 165041/040/032/031,

Remi