10.(N)/ZG 26 Info

[sidney]

Dear All,

With reference to Prien, Stemmer and others book "JFV der Deutschen Luftwaffe 1934-1945", Part 2, Page 565: 10.(N)/ZG 26 was formed at Jever on 5 September 1939 as an auxiliary-Nachtjagdstaffel with ZG 26. In mid-September it moved to Wunstorf and from there in the beginning of October to Oldenburg, where it remained for the two following months, before on 10 December 1939 it arrived in Jever; there with the effect from 5 January 1940 it went into (i.e., was renamed, I understand) 10.(N)/JG 26.

Page 222: 10.(N)/JG 26 was formed at Bonn-Hangelar on 1 September 1939 from apparently 11.(N)/LG 2. In the beginning of November 1939 it moved to north-western Germany, firstly to Stade, and from 9 December to Jever. On 18 December 1939 it took not an insignificant part in the Battle of the German Bight, where it claimed six aerial victories for the loss of one pilot. After the first weeks of the year 1940 went without appreciable events, the 10.(N)/JG 26 was in the course of formation of the IV.(N)/JG 2 with the effect from 3 February 1940 incorporated in the new Gruppe, where it received designation 11.(N)/JG 2.

On the web here http://ww2.dk/air/zerstorer/zg26.htm I found the following: Formed 5.9.39 in Jever as 10.(Nacht)/ZG26 (Olt. Bernhard Mielke). On 5.1.40 redesignated 10.(N)/JG26.

There appears to be some contradiction in the above info. I have searched the TOCH and found no discussion on this subject. Can someone please clarify what actually happened with the 10.(N)/ZG 26 in early 1940?

Regards,
Sinisa

[Merlin]

10.(N)/ZG 26: with effect from 5 January 1940 it went into - it was was absorbed - by 10.(N)/JG 26.

[sidney]

Merlin, thank you for the prompt clarification. Absorbing the entire 10.(N)/ZG 26 Staffel probably was not considered the appreciable event worth reporting.

I took the pain to compile a mini-strength report of the following units: IV.(N)/JG 2 of the date of Gruppe formation, 3 February 1940, as well as the last strength reports for the following Staffeln: 10.(N)/JG 2, 10.(N)/JG 72, 10.(N)/JG 26 and 10.(N)/ZG 26, copy attached.

It points out the following:

1. The actual strength of 10.(N)/ZG 26 as of 30 December 1939 was unknown, which meant that the Staffel might have been under-strength (i.e., having less than 12 Bf 109 D-1 aircraft, and/or 12 pilots).

2. 10.(N)/JG 26 suffered one pilot fatality during the Battle of the German Bight of 18 December 1939, whereby its strength reported on 2 December 1939 was ten (10) pilots. On 6 January 1940, it reported fifteen (15) pilots, nine (9) of which were combat ready. The apparent influx of at least six (6) pilots.

The above suggests that 10.(N)/JG 26 might have suffered considerably in the battle of 18.12.1939, and that it might have absorbed an under-strength Staffel, as suggested.

Regards,
Sinisa

[Marcel Hogenhuis]

Hello

First of all thank you for the interesting data. However, I don't quite see your point yet, especially your suggestion that the 10.(N)/JG 26 suffered considerably at 18.12.1939: 10 minus 1 pilot fatality = 9, plus 6 'new' pilots makes 15 pilots on 6.1.1940 when 10.(N)/JG 26 had absorbed the 10.(N)/ZG 26.

I read your data as follows: the pilots of the 10.(N)/ZG 26 were partially sent to the 10.(N)/JG 26 and - perhaps - a few of their Bf109D's too >> the 'Ist' increases from 13 to 16.

The trouble with such strength reports is that it does not specify the movements of pilots and/or aircraft. We only see the quantities

I did a similar exercise in order to trace movements/deliveries/losses of He219's - with the help of known deliveries from flight logs and Heinkel documents, known losses - and I can only say that it is VERY difficult to make perfect fits.

Keep up the good work, these pre born NJ-Staffeln are most interesting !

Marcel Hogenhuis / Venlo

[sidney]

Hello Marcel,

Thank you for the kind note. Just back from work, so it took me a little while to remember the line of thought that I was following while writing my query.

My understanding of the strength report of 10.(N)/JG 26 is generally based on the following premises:

1. There must have been the reason for 10.(N)/ZG 26 to be absorbed by 10.(N)/JG 26 in early January 1940. Perhaps both Staffeln were under-strength, the former not at full complement of man and machines, the latter also, albeit because of the supposed battle attrition suffered during the Battle of the German Bight of 18 December 1939

2. The highest identification numeral I found with 10.(N)/ZG 26 was N+9, which in theory would suggest that at some point in time in the early autumn of 1939 there were at least nine aircraft and/or pilots with the Staffel. Not necessarily so, of course, but for the sake of argument

3. I presumed that at least six (6) pilots were transferred to 10.(N)/JG 26, and that they all were combat ready

4. Finally, if on 6 January 1940, 10.(N)/JG 26 reported nine (9) combat ready pilots, out of which six (6) presumably were from formerly 10.(N)/ZG 26, than in early January 1940 10.(N)/JG 26 had only three (3) pilots from the original Staffel, while the remaining six were perhaps recuperating (or, were on the well deserved leave?).

5. It is a theory. As you suggested rightly, there is no way to guess the even remotely accurate picture of the 10.(N)/JG 26 at that time based on the insufficient information available to us.

7. In the quoted reference, Prien, Stemmer and others suggested that the entire 10.(N)/ZG 26 was absorbed by 10.(N)/JG 26.

Finally, I fully agree with you, these pre-born NJ-Staffeln are most interesting indeed.

Best Regards,
Sinisa