"Zerstorer" Hardback by John Vasco and Peter Cornwell - Coming from Wingleader in 2025

[Peter Kassak]

to support my theory that it is the same plane, small analysis:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/19qO...ew?usp=sharing

And the 3171 plane is different one, compare the font type of digit 8... it is wider on plane 3171.

[INM@RLM]

Re. #78 & #81: Probably everyone is a little confused by now.

#78 "Just to add my 2 cents... M8+FH on page 13. is the same a/c as on the pages 22 and 23" (for p.22, p.21 was the actual reference).
#81 "And the 3171 plane is different one" yet it is 3171 that is readable in the photo on p.21.

Whatever the detailed photo analyses of marking styles, none of this trumps the fundamental structural differences between the D-series and its forerunners.

PS Peter, I'll send you a copy of L.Dv.T. 2413/1 (Entwurf). (Downloaded from the cockpitinstrumente de site in May 2019. That domain is now defunct.)

[Peter Kassak]

page 13 and 23 (and 22 as well the one in the background) is the same. WNr 3135. see my graphics
page 21 is 3171, diffferent digit 8 in the code as that one on page 13 and 23.
is it clear now?

[INM@RLM]

Indeed getting there, Peter.

Going back and looking there is indeed a damaged M8+FH in the background of the photo on p.22, and if you say this was WNr. 3135 then that aligns with the rest of the evidence for the D-series.

My #76 though did not touch on the p.22 photo, but related only to the photos on pp.13, 21 & 23 in which each of the M8+FH portrayed is captioned as WNr. 3171.

WNr. 3135 therefore is part of a different conversation. Turning to that different aspect then, your posts highlight that at least two different Bf 110 Ds, 3135 & 3171, were marked as M8+FH and served with I./ZG 76 during the first eight months of 1940.

Your contention then, based on the analysis of better quality prints than the published reproductions here, is that the M8+FH on p.13 is actually the same M8+FH as that shown crashlanded on 2nd June in the photo on p.23, however, during recovery and repair it has now been stripped of its Dackelbauch.

Looking hard and long again at the photo on p.13, I now think you are correct. That is actually a D-series rear fuselage, rather than a C-series end cap. We don't see the dinghy cable release presumably because of the lack of resolution and the darkness of this area in the reproduction. My mistakes then.

So to summarize what I understand you to be saying is that:
M8+FH in the photos on p.13, in the background on p.22 and crashed on p.23 are all of WNr. 3135 and therefore none of these is of WNr. 3171,
whilst the M8+FH in the photo on p.21 with the readable WNr. of 3171 is a different and later successor aircraft.

Well, we both agree that the M8+FH on p.13 is not WNr. 3171 as captioned, and now your studies have concluded that the M8+FH on p.23 is also not WNr. 3171. Two more corrections for the Errata then rather than just one.

Does that about cover it?
Thank you for these corrections and clarifications.

[Peter Kassak]

Yes, exactlyy my thoughts but presented with more clearer words ...;-) thanks

[INM@RLM]

You are most welcome, Peter.