Uffz Albert Links 5/ZG76 29.5.40

[John Vasco]

Bf 110C-2, 3102, 3U+EP, 18-Aug-40

Bf 110C-4, 3102, U8+BB, 18-Aug-40

Never been able to resolve the above issue. No doubt incorrect transcription at unit or HQ level when writing up loss details.

[Larry Hickey]

Hello,

Regarding the duplicate reporting on the loss of W.Nr.3102 on 18 August 1940, there may be a way to resolve which of the two a/c is the correct a/c to attribute this W.Nr. to. Both were photographed. U8+BB had a mottled upper-surface camouflage and 3U+EP had a solid two-tone green camouflage. If we can find other a/c in the same SN range and compare which camouflage pattern they carried, that should tell us which of these two had the number correctly assigned. The other, of course, will then be an unknown W.Nr. I don't have time to do this right now, but someone may be able to do this.

Regards,

Larry Hickey'
EoE Project Coordinator

[John Vasco]

Doesn't work like that, Larry.

One is I. Gruppe Gruppenstab, ZG 26.

The other is 6. Staffel, II Gruppe, ZG 26.

To disprove your suggestion:
3101 = 2N+CN down on 4th September 1940. All in that serial number block were built by January 1940, which would almost certainly mean 2N+CN was initially 5./ZG 1, then later 8./ZG 76. One W. Nr. difference, two completely different units.

More examples:
2130 = 3U+JR
2133 = 3M+HL

3534 = 2N+DN
3536 = 3U+GN

I believe it would be a futile exercise to try that comparison.

[Larry Hickey]

John,

I think that you misunderstand my point. It isn't the similarity of the units, but the camouflage carried by specific factory production runs that matters. Your example of W.Nr.3101, 2N+CN, carries the two solid greens, as does 3U+EP, listed as W.Nr.3102. If these a/c were all built by Jan., of 1940, I would expect all of the planes leaving the factory in that production run to have the same camouflage pattern--ie two dark greens on the entire upper-surface. Since U8+BB does not have a solid green upper-surface, but a heavily mottled one, I would expect that it was probably not from that production run, unless the camouflage was field mottled over a solid dark green camouflage after it left the factory. This isn't impossible, and field mottling was applied in some Bf110 units, but I strongly suspect that U8+BB is not W.Nr.3102. In my experience, the heavily mottled aircraft were replacement a/c from 1940 production batches.

Regards,

Larry Hickey
EoE Project Coordinator

[Stig Jarlevik]

To me even more strange is that both these aircraft came down pretty much intact. This means their WNr surely had to be visible somewhere on both aircraft. They were both investigated and both WNr should be on the documents issued since after all WNr were important since it could (and did) give Intel a better idea about aircraft production in Germany.

To my surprise this info seems to be missing, since it is at least not mentioned in Nigel Parker's interesting new books about Luftwaffe crashes in Britain, see vol 2. Instead he makes the same remarks as we do, that Luftwaffe records give the same WNr to both losses.

Cheers
Stig

[John Vasco]

Larry,
Aircraft were resprayed at unit level. Consider the first batch of fighter-bombers issued to Erpr. Gr. 210, for example. Photos of some of that first batch show the solid two-tone greens on the fuselage. Now consider two aircraft from that initial batch. S9+CB (Koch & Kahl) and S9+CK (Habisch & Elfner), both down on 15th August 1940. Neither have the solid greens fuselage.

You cannot hang your hat on the premise you set out earlier, and take it as gospel, sorry.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Stig Jarlevik

To me even more strange is that both these aircraft came down pretty much intact. This means their WNr surely had to be visible somewhere on both aircraft. They were both investigated and both WNr should be on the documents issued since after all WNr were important since it could (and did) give Intel a better idea about aircraft production in Germany.

To my surprise this info seems to be missing, since it is at least not mentioned in Nigel Parker's interesting new books about Luftwaffe crashes in Britain, see vol 2. Instead he makes the same remarks as we do, that Luftwaffe records give the same WNr to both losses.

Cheers
Stig

To add to this, both Peter Cornwell and I have examined the AI(1)G reports and AI(1)K summaries (as have many others), and can confirm that the W. Nr. were not shown on those reports. Otherwise we would have had the info published long ago.

It's a combination of bad handwriting/typo at the Luftwaffe end, and no W. Nr. being recorded by the RAF Intelligence services. As you know, 18th August was one of the busiest days in the BoB for those few guys chasing around southern England checking downed Luftwaffe aircraft...

[Stig Jarlevik]

Thanks John

Yes I do realise Aug 18th was a pretty rough day. No Union claiming overtime extras I suppose....
Rather typical that Luftwaffe was a bit casual that day as well, and I suppose you have already tried all the "usual suspects" by turning the digits around?

Pity you stopped publishing, since I had hoped somewhere in a book of yours to get a "final" production list of the Shark.

Cheers
Stig

[John Vasco]

Stig,
The returns up the line to Luftwaffe HQ, and the recording of them, was a minefield for the first 8 or 9 months of 1940. II./ZG 2 are a nightmare in August 1940!!!

[Larry Hickey]

Stig,

John V. has NOT stopped publishing. He is currently playing a very active role relating to all things Bf110 for the Eagles Over Europe (EoE) Project. When we publish this series, it will reflect his current thinking on the subject as of the time of publication. The same is true for many of the other aircraft, units, geographical areas and subject experts in the field, both on the Allied and Axis sides.

Regards,

Larry Hickey
EoE Project Coordinator