Belly landed Bf109 Red 3 at Epinoy (?) 1940

[ouidjat]

Gentlemen,

Staka 2./JG 77:
Trautloft : 03.11.38 to 31.08.39 (JVF Teil 1, page 269.) Trautloft flew “Rote 1”.
Priebe : 28.09.39 to 9.5.40 (JFV Teil 2, page 454.)
Places:
End of August I./JG 77 was in Juliusburg (Poland) 30km NE of Breslau, 26.08.39 to 31.08.39. (JFV, Teil 1, pages 268 & 270.) But, in Oedheim from 28.09.39 to 21.10.39…

That means that in both cases (Staka and place) there is a blank.
At least, the “place blank” can be filled with the help of Michael Holm site … (for example).
Concerning the “Staka Blank” Trauloft was in charge of I./JG 20 from 23.09.39 coming from .. 2./JG 77. Hence the “Staka blank” can be reduced to, at least five days.

As JimP wrote, Priebe flew
Bf 109E, 3378, Priebe, Oblt. Eckehard, , I., 2., JG 77, rote, 13 + o, , , , Stkp. Poland - September, 1939., , Polen, Prien, JG 77, I, p.82 photo, , , -, F, , ,
And
Bf 109E-1, 4072, Priebe, Oblt. Ekkehard, , I., 2., JG 77, rote, 1 +, , , 19-May-40, Stkp. WIA due to Luftkampf., , Westfeldzug, Prien, et al, Die Jagdfliegerverbände, III, p.391; Prien, JG 77, I, p.291, p.185 (photos from Jan.40), , Raum Le Quesnay, b, F, , ,
Since 4072 was ‘Rote 1’ I have the right to suppose that when Priebe took Staka place he flew a Rote 1 – as did by Trautloft - and that Rote 13 was, most probably, a spare plane. (It was better for a Staka to have a spare plane to be able to lead his men whatever the situation)

Rote 3: Depicted on 10.39 in Oedheim (JFV Teil 2, page 457) and lost 20.02.40 (JFV Teil 2, page 458).
That means that we had a Rote 1, a Rote 3 and a Rote 13. (Just tell me if I’m wrong)
Why do I have to suppose that Rote 13 became Rote 3?? Just because of “3378”?

Next:
What happened in Cambrai’s area?
May 1940: The following units were based in Cambrai:
I./JG 2
I./JG 3
II./JG 3
and ... I./JG 21
No mention of I./JG 77 except air combats in Cambrai area on 18.05 and 19.05 when Rote 1 (4072) was lost.
But:
I./JG 21 lost a 3471 on 29.05, and 3483, 3490 and 3491 were flown in I./JG 21 (see same references)
As wrote upper by David and I, our first tought was 2./JG 21 but we both said … “this doesn’t match with code number position” …
Are you sure, are WE sure??
Just have look on JFV Teil 3, page 196 … Funny, isn’t it?
Am I going to insult Mr. Prien telling him he is arrogant?

Now, what’s the situation?
- JimP “Do you have a better proposal?” is not an argument to validate yours.
- I’m perfectly aware that you did put a question mark. But jumping out of the box like Jack saying “It’s a rather convincing hit” is a short cut I’m not going to take.
Since:
I don’t read 3378; I see no reason to think the painter made two different “3”.
I’m able to put a vectored clog on top of the blurred emblem and to get the same result.
Yes, 2./JG 77 didn’t keep the red dot on all machines but it did keep it on many and the white outline was kept as well …
So, I have no better solution but I have good ones to doubt, and I have the right to say so in these columns without being treated as an arrogant. And saying I don’t agree is not insulting people; I think, by the contrary, that who says that is the arrogant just because I said I didn’t agree with his conclusions.

If one has a Jack-in-the-box-3378 I have a Jack-in-the-box-3478 which, for me, fits much better inside the WNr. list I./JG 21 did flew. That doesn’t make a proof, indeed.

Last: Of course, if I had to publish this photo I will never dare to indicate 3378, neither 3478 and in the caption I would write unit unknown. That’s the best we can honestly do in a publication.

Best regards, Franck.

[John Beaman]

Franck,

Be very careful here on what you say about people. This forum is not open to hosting semi-personal attacks on people. It is about expressing opinions on whatever, but avoiding the use of such terms as "arrogant". Stick to trying to figure about the subject of the thread. Hopefully, everyone can agree to disagree on things.

[ChrisS]

Hi Franck

Like you I have tried fitting the 7./JG54 'flying clog' over the emblem and I just cannot get it to fit. On the other hand the old boot emblem fits perfectly.

Then there is the issue of the red number which would not be correct for 7./JG54, but the clincher for me is that during this period 7./JG54 would have had their white tactical numbers forward of the cockpit.

Lastly the spinner colour for 7./JG54... surely not a dark colour, from the evidence of other photos 7./JG54 either had totally white or yellow spinner and laterly when yellow noses came in utilised a two tone spinner with a dark front and lighter rear. The image evidence shows that 2./JG77 had dark coloured spinners matching the photo.

I feel the WNr is too blurred for anyone to say anything for certain.

I feel rather conclusive evidence.

All the best

Chris