Bf 109E4 WNr 2063

[Adam]

Does anyone have any information on this bird? All I have is it being repaired at Kalamaki during December 1941 and was part of a batch made by Erla Leipzig.

Thanks

[AndreasB]

Pure speculation alert, but could it have come from 2./(H)14? I don't think JG27 was flying E-series at this point, and I doubt JG53 did?

All the best

Andreas

[Adam]

I initially thought the recon unit but the fact the source lists it as a 'B' version would tend to suggest otherwise. I checked my 2.(H)/14 file and have no mention of it there.

Responding to your sepculation, the fact it needed a major repair at somewhere like Kalamaki would suggest serious damage (+30%?) and that may have taken some months to accomplish. Hence the loss could have been within the time frame for JG units operational use of Emil variants?

[Jim P.]

Bf 109E-7, 2063, Hofinger, Gefr. Johann, , III., 8., JG 5, , , , , 28-May-42, Killed in crash during take-off., WNr. 2663 per loss., Lfl.5/Eins.Osten, Gen.Qu.6.Abt. (mfm #6)-Vol.9; Prien, et al, Die Jagdfliegerverbände, IX.3, p.484; Valtonen, LW Pohjoinen Sivusta, p.370, , Fl.Pl. Kirkenes, 100%, F, , ,

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi, Jim

What is your source for WNr 2063 being correct for the loss of Hofinger?

Regards,
Andreas

[Jim P.]

Sources are listed in the loss record - initial WNr. 2663 per loss - WNr. 2063 per Prien, et al. Since neither loss presents a duplicate, I can't make any assumptions as to which is correct, but I always make a notation as to the conflict in my database.

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi, Jim

Ok, just wanted to know if you had some other primary source which pointed to 2063 being the correct one since I read your record as using 2063, acknowledging that GenQu used 2663 and that the latter probably was a Tippfehler...

I checked the NVM, which also say 2663. So I will be leaning towards 2663, mentioning that Prien's books say 2063.

Regards,
Andreas B

[Jim P.]

Andreas,

Since you are quoting from the NVM, I will amend my entry as well. Thanks.