Bf 110 Werk-Nr. 3238

[Urusut]

Hello,

Can anyone provide details of the loss of the Bf 110 Werk-Nr. 3238 on the 27.06.1941?

Thanks
Oleg

[G.R.Morrison]

Bf 110C WNr.3238 of 4.(F)/33 Uffz. Bruno Köppe (F), Ltn. Rudolf Mertens (B) and were injured 27.June 1941 in crash during Notlandung at Fl.Pl. Dünaburg, Bf Uffz. Erich Domann killed. This was a non-combat flight.

GRM

[Urusut]

Thank GRM!


Kind regards,
Oleg

[John Vasco]

Bf 110 W. Nr. 3238 is a 'C-2' sub-variant, which is a little surprising, since it is with a recce unit, which would normally be equipped with 'C-5's or 'E-3's...

[Karsten]

Hello,

I Think The Name is Erich Dohmann DOB 13.11.1920

Rüdiger

[Rottler]

Hello Rüdiger,

that is entirely possible. But Domann is the spelling in the Gen.Qu. loss report from 4 July 1941 No. 47.

Regards
Leo

[Karsten]

Hello Leo,

There is no Domann in the VDKlist for June 1941, only one Erich Dohmann KIA the 27.06.1941.
I have all microfiches of the losses, the spellling in the GQM is Domann, but there are a lot of mistakes.

Regards
Rüdiger

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Rottler

Hello Rüdiger,

that is entirely possible. But Domann is the spelling in the Gen.Qu. loss report from 4 July 1941 No. 47.

Regards
Leo

The Gen. Qu. reports are notorious for mis-spelling of surnames.

The Namentliche Verlustmeldung is a far more accurate source.

[Rottler]

Hello John,

I think that this fact is no reason to give up quotations of the Gen.Qu. reports.

Regards
Leo

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Rottler

Hello John,

I think that this fact is no reason to give up quotations of the Gen.Qu. reports.

Regards
Leo

If I may add here my knowledge of them for you, with regard to personnel. My experience with both of them starts in the 1980s, with the following:
1. Gen.Qu reports regarding Bf 110 losses in 1940;
2. Namentliche Verlustmeldungen with reference to '1' above;
3. Gen.Qu reports regarding SKG210/ZG 1, 1941 to 1944;
4. Namentliche Verlustmeldungen with reference to '3' above.

Where would you like me to start?
Let's try 5 October 1940:
Gen.Qu shows a 1./Erpr. Gr. 210 loss of crew Duesnig & Keppitsch (I think I've got the spelling OK with the second name). Correct spelling is Duensing & Krappatsch (definitely not the same spelling as on the Gen.Qu).

27th September 1940:
Gen.Qu shows the loss of a 2./Erpr. Gr. 210 Bf 110 coded S9+DU (U???)
Correct code was S9+DK (K being the correct character for 2. Staffel). AD1k report confirms the code from the wreckage of the machine.

Why rely on the Nam Ver over the Gen.Qu?
Because the Nam Ver loss/wounded report was completed at unit level from personnel records and included details of the next of kin to be notified. Those records were WAY more accurate. They also reflected for HQ the need for replacement crews.
The Gen.Qu records were sent up the line for the replacement of aircraft. Names were not even included at first, and only gradually were introduced during 1940. It is obvious from the spelling errors found in the Gen.Qu that no reference was made to personnel records, rather from a recollection/guess at the spelling of someone's name.

Believe me, serious researchers (and I'm not saying here you are not so) set far more store by the Nam Vers than the Gen.Qu with regard to personnel names.

I hope this explains things better for you.