Bf 110 Werk-Nr. 3238

[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.