Bf 110 Werk-Nr. 3238

[Matti Salonen]

In the NVM it is Dohmann.

Matti

[John Vasco]

Leo,
Re-read my post #13. I stand by all I said in that post.

And to reiterate that the discussion into which you entered was SOLELY about a surname, I posted this (#9): "The Gen. Qu. reports are notorious for mis-spelling of surnames.
The Namentliche Verlustmeldung is a far more accurate source."

In reply (#10) you posted: "I think that this fact is no reason to give up quotations of the Gen.Qu. reports."

The inference being that even though reference to both is made, you still stand by the information ON SURNAMES in the Gen.Qu reports. That is a somewhat dangerous road to take, if you already have surname information from the Nam Ver, and the Gen. Qu gives something different...

[Rottler]

Hello John,

I can see no problem to point to diverging informations in the NVM and the Gen.Qu. loss lists and up to now I do not know what do you want. You do not understand my way of thinking, probably my knowledge of the English language is not good enough to make the things clear to you. Obviously we are talking at cross purposes.

It is senseless to continue the discussion with you. I will avoid to insult you inadvertently again and not infringe upon the rules and guidelines of this forum.

Regards
Leo

[John Vasco]

Leo,
I realise English is not your first language, that's why I tried to explain things in the most simple way I could.

My simple point, was that WITH REGARD TO SURNAMES the Nam Ver is far more reliable that the Gen.Qu. For one very good reason. It was important in the case of the loss of person to get the name correct. The Gen.Qu return was to notify aircraft losses for the purposes of replacement machines. Names were secondary in this return.

Ich erkenne Englisch ist nicht deine erste Sprache, deshalb habe ich versucht, die Dinge auf die einfachste Weise zu erklären, die ich konnte.

Mein einfacher Punkt, war das, was BEZÜGEN ZU SURNAMES das Nam Ver ist viel zuverlässiger, dass die Gen.Qu. Aus einem sehr guten grund. Es war wichtig im Falle des Verlustes der Person, um den Namen richtig zu bekommen. Die Gen.Qu war, Flugzeugverluste für die Zwecke der Ersatzmaschinen zu benachrichtigen. Die Namen waren in diesem Fall sekundär


I DO understand your way of thinking - that's why I have replied at length to try to get my simple point across to you. Your knowledge of English IS good enough to perfectly understand what I have been saying in several posts. You just choose to argue with me.

[Rottler]

Hello John,

if you do understand my way of thinking you are aware that incorrect informations in a Gen.Qu. loss report are invalid when a NVM turns up. I have never supported the contrary. Your assertion that I have not accepted the information of Matti Salonen is incorrect.
As I have announced yesterday I bring this theme to an end.

Regards
Leo

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Rottler

Hello John,

if you do understand my way of thinking you are aware that incorrect informations in a Gen.Qu. loss report are invalid when a NVM turns up. I have never supported the contrary. Your assertion that I have not accepted the information of Matti Salonen is incorrect.
As I have announced yesterday I bring this theme to an end.

Regards
Leo

At last...