Bf109E W.Nr2023

[markjsheppard]

Franck

All I can say is that Skz blocks were not always complete A-Z. there were often breaks and missing letters for one reason or another.

There are typo or sounding errors in the records of course as well.

The Finnish records are there. It help with the movements of Bf109E-7 3579, Bf109 3523 and Fw189 2100 through Finland. All were lost in the North and subsequently recovered.

Here is another thread relating to movements to the north - both recorded by tactical number, W.Nr or Skz.

Kari had access to the archives and has been extremely helpful over the years.

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=16019

regards

Mark

[Jim P.]

I have one other loss for this machine, though it's listed as a 109B. Could be a typo in the losses?

Bf 109B, 2023, n.n., , , , Jagdfl.Sch. 4, , , , , 26-Mar-42, Taxiing accident., , Lfl.3/Deutschland, BA-MA Signatur RL 2 III/772, Flzg.Unfälle bei Schulen und usw., p.88; BA-MA Signatur RL 2 III/782, Flzg.Unfälle bei Schulen und usw., p.146, , Fl.Pl. Fürth, 25%, H, , ,

[markjsheppard]

Hi Jim

Think it must be a typo.

TH+CX (2023?) recorded at Pori on 24th April 1942, just a month later.

Can't see 2023 being transported to factory/repaired/signed off and flown to Pori after 25% damage and only one month though perhaps I am wrong.

I am assuming it would require a factory repair.
25% to me feels more than 1 month in a factory.

It is within our time zone. Wonder what 2023 was doing in 1941.

regards

Mark

[ouidjat]

Originally Posted by markjsheppard

TH+CX (2023?) recorded at Pori on 24th April 1942, just a month later.

Hello Mark,
I do notice with pleasure that you put a question Mark after the StKz.

What surprise me in Jim comments is not the fact that the plane did flew a month later after this accident. In loss records we can find a lot of such situations; even less than a week. No...
What do surprise me that apparently the plane was used in JFS 4 before sent back to an operational unit. I thought that JFS units were the place where most of them did end their "life". But why not?
And normally after 25% damage in an operational unit the planes were sent FROM operational unit TO a JFS not the contrary. Well, at least when material was available .

Hence...
Concerning the typo:
1/ The typo does concern the WNr. not the type.
or
2/ Another situation like the one we talked about here http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=28279 ?

Regards, Franck.

[markjsheppard]

Franck

The question mark was that the Finnish records recorded the flight as TH+CX and not by W.Nr.

A month later W.Nr2023 was recorded in the loss reports as Black 9 with 8./JG5. (but not the Stkz).

To me a very good tie in.

Bf109E 3523 was recorded in the Finnish logs by W.Nr indicating it was not carrying Stkz. It replaced a Rot 6 of 5./JG5 lost a couple of days before. It was lost a month later as well. We also had a log book entry.

PM me your email and I'll send you the text). The owners want the Battle of Britian history on 3523 so hopefully another photo will come up in the next ten yers :-)

There are documents relating to repiars so would be interesting if a 25% damage listing would take 3 weeks to repair - doubt it.

regards

Mark

[Jim P.]

I don't think a month turn around for a 25% loss is that unusual, especially given that the incident occurred at a major base in Germany, which would likely have the facilities to do some major repair work, not to mention being close to material sources. It also would depend on what was damaged. A wing(s) or tail unit could be swapped out pretty quickly I would guess. I suspect I could find quite a number of these situations in my db if I was inclined to look. To me the bigger mystery would be why was it re-assigned to another unit? A 25% loss, more times than not, would stay with the original unit. Was it sent to a depot for repair and then re-assigned or? The fun continues!!

[markjsheppard]

Jim

Only thing I can add is that JG5 seemed to be receiving all of the repaired and hand me down Emils during this period as the other units began equipping with the newer F's and G models.

1407 came from Norway with JG77 to and went to 14./JG77 in Finland
3523 had previous history but unit unknown before it went to 5./JG5
3579 went to LG2, repaired and then upto 13./JG77 and then 4./JG5
8993 (F model) was with JG54 and then went to 6./JG5
I am sure there were others if we researched.

As for the damage, I was thinking the same. Taxying so no belly damage so from a wheels up landing. One wing may well have come upder 25% so it is still possible the listing is correct but not the model (though a B could be read as an E).

regards

Mark

[Jim P.]

Mark,

The model is definitely the problem, but then again the loss reports are full of this sort of typos. The type in this case was definitely reported as 109B - I went through both document sets (BA-MA Signatur RL 2 III/772, Flzg.Unfälle bei Schulen und usw.; BA-MA Signatur RL 2 III/782, Flzg.Unfälle bei Schulen und usw.). They are essentially the same, but in many cases one might be more legible than the other, and there were different handwritten comments on either set - so if the typo was mine I'm completely blind!!

There were units that also seemed to get all the 'hand me downs' other than JG 5. JG 51 flew the Bf 109F-2 well into mid-summer 1942, when other units had gone to the F-4 and early Gs. I think in that case, the plan had been to convert the whole unit to the 190, but, for whatever reason, that didn't happen. Problems in development, the increasing threat along the Channel/North Sea coast, slower than expected production?

[markjsheppard]

Jim

Was not referring to the typo being yours, more the official document from the original return.

regards

Mark

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi.

Until now I have recorded 16 distinct aircraft that went through the repairworks at Erla VII and ended up in JG 5.

There are more, I just haven't had the time to link up all of them from the original records yet.

Regards,
Andreas B