Unknown photo He 219 DV+DA W.Nr. 190105

[edNorth]

Originally Posted by Stig Jarlevik

Since many of you find NVM far more reliable than the GQM lists

Not arguing the point here. In 1944 they are THE source, due lack of comparable GQM reports, other periods both the GQM and NVM have errors - but as I am aware of, no real statistical survey has been performed on these documents accuracy. Am I right, NVM never have errors corrected but GQM have. -Ed

[Marcel Hogenhuis]

Hello Stig

You are not the only one which is confused about the 210905 data and the 'jojo' like movements of this bird.

This confusion is caused by the Heinkel Archives in which two reports survived, referring to the same incident with 210905 in Wiesbaden Erbenheim:
- the first report (of 28 July 1944) refers to 210905, being an aircraft of the I./NJG 1 and even adding the Verbandskennzeichen G9+EK while their
- second report (of 31 July 1944) refers to the incident on 28 July, but now saying that the He219 belonged to the NJGr.10.

This second report has not been written as a correction to the 1th report but I think we should take it as a correction: this would be in line with the transfer from production to the NJGr.10 and so far I haven't been able to discover whether a He219 of the I./NJG 1 was flying operations in the direction of Wiesbaden.

That 210905 finally moved to the I./NJG 1 is not strange, I have several transfers of He219's from I./NJG 1 to Ekdo.Rechlin or II./NJG 1 as well.

Summaring it all: it is sometimes easier to rule out certain options (like the non existing 290105) than to present the truth what it correct. We struggle on...

Best regards, Marcel

[Stig Jarlevik]

Thanks Marcel

Well, not sure which foot I should rest on in this case.
Nice to see I am not the only one who is confused.... But I agree with your conclusion that the two dates refer to the same incident on 28 July.

Checking Michael Balss' two books, this incident is only mentioned in his first one, as WNr 290105, which we know is wrong!
Since Balss does not mention Höller in any of his books, I can only assume he has found the WNr outside his list, possibly or probably from the GQM lists, since if he had found the NVM he would at least have hesitated what to write.

What we now have are two aircraft with basically the same background and damage history.

190205 G9+DK 4./NJG 1 dam 4 June 1944 (no further records) BTW was it common that when aircraft were transferred between units, they kept their old unit codes? In this case G9+DK is a 2./NJG 1 code.
210905 G9+EK? 2./NJGr 10 dam 28 July 1944 (why would an aircraft delivered to 2./NJGr 10 from the outset be painted with a NJG 1 unit code?)

The question arises on what background information the two 'bodies' GQM and NVM based their statements on, and why they differ in this case.
If we move back to the two damage reports (4 June and 28 July) are they mentioned anywhere else beside the Heinkel documents you have, such as GQM? If yes, what WNrs are used and how grave was the actual damage in %? If no GQM reports are available, are there other sources available?

If the damage was rather small, my logic would have it that both aircraft should be brought back on line with the units they already served with. Whatever really happened, my logic of course means very little anyway

If I put out a hypothetical question here.
What would a clerk writing the NVM have done if he received the report that WNr 290105 had been destroyed? Since most individual on TOCH prefers the NVM I presume the clerk had to check all details received such as names, circumstances and presumably also aircraft details? Depending on how far such checks went is it possible he may have received the wrong info and made a mistake?

To me it is far easier to make a mistake and write 290105 instead of 190205 than having 210905 and write it as 290105. If you try it on a typewriter (not computer) you will see what I mean.

Cheers
Stig

[ju55dk]

NWM are not foolprof, but does have much less faults than the GQM.

Junker

[Marcel Hogenhuis]

Hello Jörn,

I agree and one wonders where the GQM got their data from: apparantly not the units but the Luftflotten, whereas the NVM's were written (and signed!) by the unit commander or his deputy like the Major beim Stabe.

Best regards, Marcel

[Rottler]

Hello Marcel,

the Luftflotte summarized the loss reports of the units and sent a telex (Fernschreiben) to the OKL, Gen.Qu. 6. Abteilung, a so called "Qu-Meldung". The loss report of the Gen.Qu. was an extract from the "Qu-Meldung".

For example:

Luftflottenkommando 6
Fernschreiben vom 1.2.45 an OKL Gen.Qu. 6. Abt.
Qu-Meldung Nr. 1022

Nr. 4 19.1. 3./N.S.G. 4 Feindflug, Halba bei Sagan. Notlandung wegen Verorientierung und Kraftstoffmangel, nicht feindbeobachtet.
Ju 87 D-3 W.-Nr. 110350, 1K+PM, 35%, (Ers.).
Vermisst: (F) Fw Such, Gerhard, (Bf) Ogefr Lenker, Hans.

This loss was published in the Gen.Qu.-report from 3.2.45 Nr. 56:

19.1. 3./N.S.G. 4 F Halba/Sagan Notlandung inf. Verorientierung
Ju 87 D-3 110350 35 Er
Fw Such, Gerhard F vermisst
Ogefr Lenker, Hans Bf vermisst.

Regards
Leo

[Marcel Hogenhuis]

Hello Leo,

Thank you for your explanation which makes perfectly sense. Reading this I got an idea whether there are such Luftflotte Meldungen for the year 1944 ? I sure you know that just a small part of the GQM loss lists for 1944 survived WW-2. A small chance, but IF the Luftflotte Meldungen survived, this source could fill in that big gap.

Best regards, Marcel

[Rottler]

Hello Marcel,

unfortunately there are no "Qu-Meldungen" for 1944.
Only some documents of the Luftflotte 6 from 1945 concerning the Eastern front survived the war.

Regards
Leo

[edNorth]

Thanks Leo for your post above. One interesting aspect unearthed. There were often 13 copies of GQM made, some of two sets survived (LFV and Schulen are in duplicatee). So there is still chance of one more koffort (wooden box) stashed in obscure place. France has been my best bet so far. Year 1944 was Battle for liberating France! -Ed

[Marcel Hogenhuis]

Hello Ed,

Well, let us not start that most puzzling theme in this thread
It once has been discussed what could have happened. Two options: 1) the original documents (if not deliberately destroyed) have been lost when they were still in German hands or 2) they were lost when in Allied posession.

Never give up any hope, after all the wooden panels with all victories of NJG 1 have been found in a German barn years ago...

Best regards, Marcel