Belly landed Bf109 Red 3 at Epinoy (?) 1940

[Jim P.]

Franck, note that I had a question mark at the end of my two sentences prior to posting the data from my database based on Rudi's interpretation of the WNr. This as good a reading of the WNr. as anyone else has proposed. My post was not supposed to be seen as an absolute, but as a beginning to figuring out the identity of the machine. Besides we don't know for sure 'when' this incident occurred. That Priebe was flying it at the beginning of the war does not make the photo as being from that time, merely that the machine was identified as having been with the 2./JG 77 at the beginning of the war. The photo could be from anytime, excluding winter 39/40, through until mid-summer of 1940. It was not uncommon for machines to have relatively long careers with their assigned units during the first year or more of the war. Note that the machine in the background doesn't have a 'dot' either. If you have a better proposal to make, please do so.

[ChrisS]

I have a number of I./JG 77 images with similar camouflage without the 'dot' including a few from 2./JG 77.

[ouidjat]

Gentlemen,

Staka 2./JG 77:
Trautloft : 03.11.38 to 31.08.39 (JVF Teil 1, page 269.) Trautloft flew “Rote 1”.
Priebe : 28.09.39 to 9.5.40 (JFV Teil 2, page 454.)
Places:
End of August I./JG 77 was in Juliusburg (Poland) 30km NE of Breslau, 26.08.39 to 31.08.39. (JFV, Teil 1, pages 268 & 270.) But, in Oedheim from 28.09.39 to 21.10.39…

That means that in both cases (Staka and place) there is a blank.
At least, the “place blank” can be filled with the help of Michael Holm site … (for example).
Concerning the “Staka Blank” Trauloft was in charge of I./JG 20 from 23.09.39 coming from .. 2./JG 77. Hence the “Staka blank” can be reduced to, at least five days.

As JimP wrote, Priebe flew
Bf 109E, 3378, Priebe, Oblt. Eckehard, , I., 2., JG 77, rote, 13 + o, , , , Stkp. Poland - September, 1939., , Polen, Prien, JG 77, I, p.82 photo, , , -, F, , ,
And
Bf 109E-1, 4072, Priebe, Oblt. Ekkehard, , I., 2., JG 77, rote, 1 +, , , 19-May-40, Stkp. WIA due to Luftkampf., , Westfeldzug, Prien, et al, Die Jagdfliegerverbände, III, p.391; Prien, JG 77, I, p.291, p.185 (photos from Jan.40), , Raum Le Quesnay, b, F, , ,
Since 4072 was ‘Rote 1’ I have the right to suppose that when Priebe took Staka place he flew a Rote 1 – as did by Trautloft - and that Rote 13 was, most probably, a spare plane. (It was better for a Staka to have a spare plane to be able to lead his men whatever the situation)

Rote 3: Depicted on 10.39 in Oedheim (JFV Teil 2, page 457) and lost 20.02.40 (JFV Teil 2, page 458).
That means that we had a Rote 1, a Rote 3 and a Rote 13. (Just tell me if I’m wrong)
Why do I have to suppose that Rote 13 became Rote 3?? Just because of “3378”?

Next:
What happened in Cambrai’s area?
May 1940: The following units were based in Cambrai:
I./JG 2
I./JG 3
II./JG 3
and ... I./JG 21
No mention of I./JG 77 except air combats in Cambrai area on 18.05 and 19.05 when Rote 1 (4072) was lost.
But:
I./JG 21 lost a 3471 on 29.05, and 3483, 3490 and 3491 were flown in I./JG 21 (see same references)
As wrote upper by David and I, our first tought was 2./JG 21 but we both said … “this doesn’t match with code number position” …
Are you sure, are WE sure??
Just have look on JFV Teil 3, page 196 … Funny, isn’t it?
Am I going to insult Mr. Prien telling him he is arrogant?

Now, what’s the situation?
- JimP “Do you have a better proposal?” is not an argument to validate yours.
- I’m perfectly aware that you did put a question mark. But jumping out of the box like Jack saying “It’s a rather convincing hit” is a short cut I’m not going to take.
Since:
I don’t read 3378; I see no reason to think the painter made two different “3”.
I’m able to put a vectored clog on top of the blurred emblem and to get the same result.
Yes, 2./JG 77 didn’t keep the red dot on all machines but it did keep it on many and the white outline was kept as well …
So, I have no better solution but I have good ones to doubt, and I have the right to say so in these columns without being treated as an arrogant. And saying I don’t agree is not insulting people; I think, by the contrary, that who says that is the arrogant just because I said I didn’t agree with his conclusions.

If one has a Jack-in-the-box-3378 I have a Jack-in-the-box-3478 which, for me, fits much better inside the WNr. list I./JG 21 did flew. That doesn’t make a proof, indeed.

Last: Of course, if I had to publish this photo I will never dare to indicate 3378, neither 3478 and in the caption I would write unit unknown. That’s the best we can honestly do in a publication.

Best regards, Franck.

[John Beaman]

Franck,

Be very careful here on what you say about people. This forum is not open to hosting semi-personal attacks on people. It is about expressing opinions on whatever, but avoiding the use of such terms as "arrogant". Stick to trying to figure about the subject of the thread. Hopefully, everyone can agree to disagree on things.

[ChrisS]

Hi Franck

Like you I have tried fitting the 7./JG54 'flying clog' over the emblem and I just cannot get it to fit. On the other hand the old boot emblem fits perfectly.

Then there is the issue of the red number which would not be correct for 7./JG54, but the clincher for me is that during this period 7./JG54 would have had their white tactical numbers forward of the cockpit.

Lastly the spinner colour for 7./JG54... surely not a dark colour, from the evidence of other photos 7./JG54 either had totally white or yellow spinner and laterly when yellow noses came in utilised a two tone spinner with a dark front and lighter rear. The image evidence shows that 2./JG77 had dark coloured spinners matching the photo.

I feel the WNr is too blurred for anyone to say anything for certain.

I feel rather conclusive evidence.

All the best

Chris

[ClinA-78]

May I add 1./JG 21 lost WNr. 3479 on the 13rd May 1940 in Leuze (North of Namur, B)

ClinA-78

[Clint Mitchell]

John, sorry if I have overstepped the mark in anyway.

Franck: At no point did anyone say that it was strong enough evidence to finalise this identification.

This topic developed loosely as follows:

Question: What colour is the marking?
Answer: Red for 2nd Staffel

Question: What emblem does the shape on the cowling look like?
Answer: It looks like the I./JG77 'Tattered Boot'.

Question: There's a WNr. on the tail, does anyone know what it looks like?
Answer: WNr.3378

Additional evidence found: Funnily enough of all the possible units that this aircraft could have been a photo of it turns out that there actually was a Bf109E that had the WNr.3378, that served with 2./JG77 at some point in it's service lifetime.

Now if I'm not mistaken given the evidence that we have got to work with here, I think it pretty reasonable to suggest that it's a "rather convincing hit" without fear of my comments being called "mere ridiculous speculation".

Franck, the situation is this. Quite rightly you don't have to take anyone's suggestion as fact, that is what open public debate is all about and no one has suggested that you do so. So quite why you got your knickers in a twist because I said it was "a convincing hit" I don't know. Perhaps If I had said "Yes, that's it, a 100% confirmed ID" I could understand but I didn't and it would be wrong to do so given the evidence.

Believe it or not it is possible for enthusiasts to agree to disagree without resorting to low grade snipes and to conduct themselves in a respectful manner towards each other.