eBay: a Stab JG27 Bf109.. with Stab emblem??

[Rasmussen]

For your JG 27 - argumentation you need:

1.) not an Grodino but an Maslovo in the JG 27 area
2.) an proof that Stab/ JG 27 got Bf 109F- 4 before in Döberitz were given Bf 109F-4trop.

[ouidjat]

Originally Posted by Rasmussen

For your JG 27 - argumentation you need:

1.) not an Grodino but an Maslovo in the JG 27 area
2.) an proof that Stab/ JG 27 got Bf 109F- 4 before in Döberitz were given Bf 109F-4trop.

I know Rasmussen,

It's not complete, but coherent

For 2. I think it's done.
For 1. As I wrote before; I read Baslovo and I'm afraid there is as much Baslovo than Maslovo

Regards, Franck.

[Rasmussen]

Originally Posted by ouidjat

For 1. As I wrote before; I read Baslovo and I'm afraid there is as much Baslovo than Maslovo.

It's your choice. For me (personal) it seems you have an strange understandig of Roman letters and their spelling ... you live to long in China

[sidney]

Post No.30, Item No.2: The following information was provided by Ralph Zimmer from the literature quoted in the assessment, as follows: "According to JFV vol 6-1, p. 158, Stab/JG27 had Bf109F-2 in addition to Bf109Es from June 1941 onwards. From the end of August or the beginning of September the Stab had Bf109F-4 too (JFV 9-1, p. 361). In the Prien/Rodeike/Stemmer chronicle on Stab and I./JG27 and in JFV vol.6-1 there are losses of Bf109Fs documented on 18.June 1941 (Bf109F-2 WNr. 8198) and 13. September 1941 (Bf109F-2, WNr.9694). So Maj. Woldenga would not need to bring an own Bf109F nor to use special relations to aquire one - Stab/JG27 already had some on strength."

[Andreas Brekken]

Originally Posted by sidney

Post No.30, Item No.2: The following information was provided by Ralph Zimmer from the literature quoted in the assessment, as follows: "According to JFV vol 6-1, p. 158, Stab/JG27 had Bf109F-2 in addition to Bf109Es from June 1941 onwards. From the end of August or the beginning of September the Stab had Bf109F-4 too (JFV 9-1, p. 361). In the Prien/Rodeike/Stemmer chronicle on Stab and I./JG27 and in JFV vol.6-1 there are losses of Bf109Fs documented on 18.June 1941 (Bf109F-2 WNr. 8198) and 13. September 1941 (Bf109F-2, WNr.9694). So Maj. Woldenga would not need to bring an own Bf109F nor to use special relations to aquire one - Stab/JG27 already had some on strength."

No - they did not have Bf 109F-4s at strength - at best they had some on loan from another unit.

I respect the work that Dr. Prien has done immensely - the books are tremendous resources - but one should never use books as proof as you do now - simply because they can contain errors and typos. Jochen Prien is the first to acknowledge that when you have a source material as large as his - and as prone for errors as the sources itself can be (in my work with my loss database I have entered over 14700 corrections to the loss records - and that is without the entire 1944 and large portions of 1945 where the records are not to be found and have probably been destroyed) any publication however well researched and proofread can contain errors.

First - your reference to the loss of WNr 8198 - this aircraft is listed as being lost 60% by Stab/JG 27 on June 18th 1941 - but it is also noted as lost 100% on June 25th 1941 with II./JG 52 - one of these must be erronous. II./JG 52 had Bf 109F's on strength according to their strength returns at that time - Stab/JG 27 did not - I know which loss I have marked as dubious with regards to validity.

Second - your reference to the loss of WNr 9694 - this aircraft is reported as damaged 10% by Stab/JG 27 on September 13th 1941, but also listed as lost as an E-7 by 5./JG 52 on September 27th 1941.

So your evidence is not as rock solid as you might believe - and as all of these losses are Sachschaden only - no personnel injured or otherwise harmed - one can not use NVMs to try to conclude with regards to which record is correct and which one is wrong.

Just to be sure that our team has not made an error when entering these in the database I just checked the records - all the WNr are clearly correctly entered - and we thus have real duplicate loss records from two different units for these WNr with just a few days apart.

I agree with ouidjat on this one - until further proof - preferably from primary sources - there is no proof yet that Stab/JG 27 had Bf 109Fs on strength prior to their conversion at Döberitz.

Regards,
Andreas B

[ouidjat]

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

No - they did not have Bf 109F-4s at strength - ... yet that Stab/JG 27 had Bf 109Fs on strength prior to their conversion at Döberitz.

Regards,
Andreas B

Without talking about obvious wrong entries; delibarate wrong entries in order to use them as "markers" to "protect" an original work from plagiat !!!!
We are adults and not blind too....

[Andreas Brekken]

Hello, Sidney

I am not upset at all, but as I regard this forum as a place were we are allowed to educate or help each others with regards to research practice in addition to just listing 'facts'.

I know that access to original documentation of the period is limited for many, if not unobtainable, and that one then has to rely on published works to follow this interest. But we have to be critical towards all sources - both published and original - in order to bring the research forward.

Please do not read this as criticism - maybe a friendly nudge towards working with original source material which can be very rewarding!


The bottom line here being that both of these WNr seem to have dubious loss record entries - and we should see if it is possible to get them right

[ouidjat]

Ah ah ah Maybe !!!

https://www.google.fr/search?q=sutte...w=1366&bih=562

Here is a choice for Sutterlin links ... I'm not able to find an M like the one written on photo's back but a B yes.

What I found:

Baslovo Pskov
Baslovo Vtoroye
Baslovo Pervoye
Novoye Baslovo
Baslovo, Novgorodskaya Oblast

1 and 2 seem to me the same ... Last one sounds good ..

[RolandF]

You always have to take into consideration that the originals are written in kyrillic letters and this is a german transscription - which is rather different to the international transscription. There are two different letters "B" in kyrillic - one looking like quite similar to a "B" and pronounced like a "b" and an other one looking exactly like a latin "B" but pronounced as "v". (German "w" - which would be closer to an "M"). What if the hamlet is too small to be part of a map and you have to rely on the pronounciation of the local populace. Many members of the Luftwaffe still used written "Sütterlin", some already writing "Normschrift", some using a mixture of both. Typewriters used "Normschrift", printed media used mainly still "Schwabacher" etc. etc.... So "Baslowo", "Maslovo" or even "Waslowo" may be possible imo.

Regards

Roland

P.S. The writer of the caption uses a rather clean "Sütterlin". The first letter is NO Sütterlin "M" and the 6th letter NO Sütterlin "v"....

[Rasmussen]

The writer of the caption doesn't used an clean "Sütterlin" --- please --- have a look on the "e" in "ein" or "notgelandeter" or the "s" in "deutscher". The "d" is an letter written in Sütterlin not more. He wrote in principle in a "fast handwriting" in Normschrift ... so - of course the "M" isn't written in Sütterlin. It's an fast written M in Normschrift. I write "my" M in my signature on the same kind.

Regards Rasmussen