DO-17 3445 KG 2

[Stig Jarlevik]

Hang on Guys

I hate loose ends. Why does BoB Now and then state an individual killed and 3 NCO's wounded if nobody was hurt? If untrue, where does Lt Sachse and his crew belong in such a case??

Cheers
Stig

[steve sheridan]

Thanks Stig, you raised the all important question and beat me to it!

Any info on Sachse and crew?

Rgs,
Steve.

[Chris Goss]

According to the QMG's returns, Sachse was 7/KG 3 and if you look at BoBT&N, it says Sachse for 4/KG 2 and 7/KG 3. KG 2 history does not give a name for the crew......................

[Stig Jarlevik]

Thanks Chris

Seems I and a proof reader of BoB then and now belongs to the same category...

Cheers
Stig

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi, Stig

For completeness, here are the loss rcords that the BoB Then and Now mixed up:

http://www.ahs.no/ref_db/lw_loss_pub...?lossid=118012

http://www.ahs.no/ref_db/lw_loss_pub...?lossid=118013

Regards,
Andreas B

[Stig Jarlevik]

Thanks Andreas

I notice you maintain that WNr 3445 was the one that was lost in spite of several contributors stating that this loss was later changed to WNr 3345.

Which is the truth?

Cheers
Stig

[Andreas Brekken]

Well, I use original records when making these comments.

The GenQu 6 Abt records for this incidence state in the original record for 31.08.1940 that the WNr for the aircraft was 345.

The correction of 05.09.1940 (at least the one as I have on Microfilm from IWM) state the following, exact transcript:

51) Ergänzung zu Ziffer 7 v. 31.8.40 (4./K.G.2) Berichtige Werk-Nr. in 3445.

I have also entered EVERY correction available from the GenQu records in my database, and the numbers '3345' in succession does not appear in any other records than the one stating the Wnr 13345 for a Bf 109F of 2./J.G.3 lost on 10.06.1942.

To conclude:

I think the only source for 3345 can be the KTB for the unit or some other reference that give this WNr, or a simple misread from the other participants in this thread. The WNr stated in the original german documents are 345 later corrected to 3445.

To use a book or an article as conclusive evidence in these instances would simply be wrong, as for some reason it seems that authors and proof readers are not perfect when it come to these matters, as nor am I and my team (but we do double check when doubts occur).

Regards,
Andreas B