He 111 loss 19 August 1940 (& Other losses)

[Andy Saunders]

During a trawl of Ultra transcripts for something entirely different I came across the following and noted them down in case it added any "new" detail. I quote it (roughly) as per transcript:

19 August 1940

"He 111 crashed 200 metres from beach and burnt out 6km SE of Les Sables D'Olonne. 6N + ND. Yellow D."

This clearly refers to the KGr 100 loss that we know about, although something slighty awry with the codes seemingly.

14 August 1940

I/KG54 report four x Ju 88's missing:

W.Nr's: 8084, 4098, 4084, 4083

Three crashed on landing. Over 40%:

W.Nr's 4046, 4087, 2083

II/KG54 lost:

W.Nr's 610?, 3117 and 6096 missing.
3119 and 3108 crashed on landing."

In the case of the "610?" I would suggest this to be 6102 as I identified this to be the W.Nr of the machine downed at Swanbourne Lake, Arundel, from recovered wreckage.

Lastly, at some date in early August:

"Me 110 of II/ZG2 lost near Verdun. A2+DK. Crew OK"

Not checked Peter Cornwell/John Vasco for the latter, but thought these little snippets might, possibly, be of value to someone (Larrry, Peter C?) before they get buried and forgotten in my note book!

[Larry Hickey]

Andy,

Most appreciative of your thinking of us. We will certainly integrate these into our now-massive data base.

Regards,

[Peter Cornwell]

Andy,

Echoing Larry, many thanks for some fascinating extra detail that I have incorporated in the EOE Lw loss tables. As you say, the codes as quoted for the KGr.100 loss have been somehow corrupted but could possibly have been 6N+DL ?

The KG54 data is extremely valuable even though it is not possible to relate individual WNrs. to specific aircraft. On the face of it, I./KG54 seem to have recorded two more total losses on August 13, 1940, than have been hitherto recorded ? This information also throws serious doubt on the validity of the painted '2001' discovered on wreckage at Treyford as being the possible WNr.

Unfortunately, I cannot tie the II./ZG2 WNr. to a specific loss with any degree of certainty at present but have it filed for future reference as you never know what is going to turn up next on a project of this scope.

Thanks again.

Peter

[JoMe]

Hi

The Bf 110 C-4 / A2 + DK must be the loss of 5./ZG 2 from 06. Aug. 1940 nearby Verdun. The cause of the crash (30%) was bad weather.

best wishes
JoMe

[Andy Saunders]

JoMe

That would make sense as regards to the date, as this was picked up on the Ultra intercepts of 8 August.

[Larry Hickey]

Hello,

Do any of our other He111 Ju88 or KG54 Hawks like Dr David Ransome, Ed North or Rudi Stessens have any other references to these He111 & Ju88 W.Nr.s that might help us ID the a/c codes or other info on these KG54 losses?

I/KG54 report four x Ju 88's missing:

W.Nr's: 8084, 4098, 4084, 4083

Three crashed on landing. Over 40%:

W.Nr's 4046, 4087, 2083

II/KG54 lost:

W.Nr's 610?, 3117 and 6096 missing.
3119 and 3108 crashed on landing."


Regards,

[RudiS]

> Andy, thanks for sharing this information with us.

> Larry: the only thing I've found is that according to Radtke's loss list in his book on KG 54 Ju 88 WNr 6096 made a 20 % crash-landing at Lechfeld on February 6th 1941. This doesn't seem to add up with the Ultra message.

Kind regards,
Rudi.

[Andy Saunders]

Rudi

An interesting piece of detail and seems to indicate that 6096 may not have been missing after all!

Of course, the Ultra intercepts cannot be regarded as absolute in terms of accuracy. Many things could corrupt the detail recorded. Incorrect information could have been transmitted - ie an aeroplane that was originally reported "missing" could have later turned up. On the other hand, the message sender could have sent an incorrect number in error or misunderstood the detail of the message. Equally, something could have gone awry in the intercept stage and perhaps an incorrect number transcribed. Many other possibilities for error, too!

At best the Ultra intercepts offer up some little nuggets of information that need careful examination and interpretation in light of collective information and data that is now to hand, thus enabling us to better understand the sense and context of those fragmented intercepts.

Not an exact science, unfortunately!

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Andy Saunders

Rudi

At best the Ultra intercepts offer up some little nuggets of information that need careful examination and interpretation in light of collective information and data that is now to hand, thus enabling us to better understand the sense and context of those fragmented intercepts.

Not an exact science, unfortunately!

I've only minimal acquaintance with the 1940 stuff but the 1944/45 material is in a completely different league in terms of the interpretation and context that Bletchley Park were able add to the basic messages. The more information they amassed, the more they could understand.

It's never 100% reliable but they did get extremely good as time went on. I love the comments where they point out that the Germans are making mistakes in their own reports.

[RudiS]

And, of course, Radtke could have made a typo in his loss list too.

Kind regards,
Rudi.