German night fighter top aces by plane

[Russ Fahey]

Originally Posted by knusel

Dear Russ,

thanks for your figures which fit well: 25 NJG100 kills in a Do 217, 6 NJG100 kills in a Ju 88.
Can you tell me which two of Schoenert's Western Front kills were scored in a Do 217 ?

Have a nice weekend,

Michael

Hello Michael,

Schoenert's 1st claim in the West using the Do-217 was against a Lancaster on March 30, 1943 @ 0130 in the Mecklenberg area.

His 2nd claim using the Do-217 was on April 22, 1943 against a Lancaster @0223 in the Meckleberg area.

In both cases Schoenert/Richter were flying Do-217 "C9+CC".

Russ

[knusel]

Dear Russ,

thanks for your very valuable info.

This is my updated list of the top nightfighter aces by type:

• Bf 110: Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer, 121 night kills in that type
• Ju 88: Heinrich zu Sayn-Wittgenstein, likely 83 night kills in that type
• He 219: Ernst-Wilhelm Modrow, 33 night kills in that type according to forum member Szymon (Gizmo)
• Do 217: Rudolf Schoenert, 27 night kills in that type according to info provided by Russ
• Me 262: Kurt Welter (dubious score): 25 night kills in that type
• Bf 109: Kurt Welter: 23 night kills in that type
• Fw 190: Friedrich-Karl Müller: 19-22 night kills in that type
• Do 215: Ludwig Becker: 19 night kills in that type according to Mikael Olrog's book
• He 111: Günther Bertram: 14 night kills in that type
• Me 410: Johann Trenke: 12 night kills in that type

Did Wittgenstein ever score in another plane type than the Ju 88 ?

Michael

[Nick Hector]

Originally Posted by knusel

Dear Russ,

thanks for your very valuable info.

This is my updated list of the top nightfighter aces by type:

• Bf 110: Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer, 121 night kills in that type
• Ju 88: Heinrich zu Sayn-Wittgenstein, likely 83 night kills in that type
• He 219: Ernst-Wilhelm Modrow, 33 night kills in that type according to forum member Szymon (Gizmo)
• Do 217: Rudolf Schoenert, 27 night kills in that type according to info provided by Russ
• Me 262: Kurt Welter (dubious score): 25 night kills in that type
• Bf 109: Kurt Welter: 23 night kills in that type
• Fw 190: Friedrich-Karl Müller: 19-22 night kills in that type
• Do 215: Ludwig Becker: 19 night kills in that type according to Mikael Olrog's book
• He 111: Günther Bertram: 14 night kills in that type
• Me 410: Johann Trenke: 12 night kills in that type

Did Wittgenstein ever score in another plane type than the Ju 88 ?

Michael

p.152 of Werner Held and Holger Nauroth's The Night Fighters (a photo album basically...) shows a Bf 110 belly-landed near Venlo airfield, attributed to Wittgenstein, so weak argument that it is, there is at least that much evidence that he flew at least some sorties in that type. You will likely need to consult archival material or Flugbuecher to determine the answer to your question. It has to be acknowledged that he was a very accurate claimer

[PMoz99]

The photo Nick refers to is captioned as being taken at the end of 1943. At that time Wittgenstein was probably still Kdr II./NJG3, which had a mixture of Bf110, Ju88, Do217 and even a Me210 or 2. Other units he served with also had a mixture of aircraft available, so it is quite possible he did score in types other than just Ju88. Because of the mixture of available aircraft, even knowing the dates of his claims won't help. So without logbooks ......
Note Wiki has a list of his victories.
Note also the Wiki article states W never flew a Bf110 after June 1943 (cites references) but it is unclear whether he flew one operationally before then.
I never realised he flew 150 bomber combat missions before transferring to night fighters.
Cheers
Peter

[Nick Hector]

Originally Posted by PMoz99

The photo Nick refers to is captioned as being taken at the end of 1943. At that time Wittgenstein was probably still Kdr II./NJG3, which had a mixture of Bf110, Ju88, Do217 and even a Me210 or 2. Other units he served with also had a mixture of aircraft available, so it is quite possible he did score in types other than just Ju88. Because of the mixture of available aircraft, even knowing the dates of his claims won't help. So without logbooks ......
Note Wiki has a list of his victories.
Note also the Wiki article states W never flew a Bf110 after June 1943 (cites references) but it is unclear whether he flew one operationally before then.
I never realised he flew 150 bomber combat missions before transferring to night fighters.
Cheers
Peter

Even for a first-year uni student, quoting Wikipedia is tantamount to telling an essay or assignment marker "I don't care if I fail this subject, nay, I pretty much hope that I will..." It is a beyond-laughable source for anyone calling themself a scientist to quote.

The best use for Wikipedia is to follow up the sources that they quote, in this instance: Mathews and Foreman, and quote THAT. You should at least be checking for discrepancies between Wiki and the source material, as a bare minimum. Otherwise, where's your right to use words like "meticulously", "painstakingly", "thoroughly" etc. when describing your research project?

Given that Mathews and Foreman is widely available at a reasonable price and not some obscure out-of-print source, that much effort and expense should not be beyond a serious researcher. Otherwise, how much effort are you really making and what does posting on the forum really represent? A statement that you have "meticulously, painstakingly and thoroughly" googled (...for all of 0.57 seconds....) and still need to rely on the "Answer Fairies" to do your research for you because you have not spent any substantial amount of your own money on a reputable source, nor any substantial amount of your own time, effort and expense on archival research and have nothing worthwhile to exchange with those who have.....

[kaki3152]

Slightly harsh. I have found Wikipedia a good starting point to investigate topics, but I would not completely use it as my only source. On certain topics, I have found that Wikipedia does a good job of summarizing the available information and produces a readily available document that has all the available facts. For example, I would consider the Wikipedia article on captured aircraft that landed in Spain during WWII as a good source on this rather obscure subject. It's in Spanish which is OK since I am bilingual.

[PMoz99]

I was expecting a rant like that from you Nick. A pity you didn't contribute anything useful to the discussion. If the Wiki info is not accurate, tell us why instead of just having a rant.
Peter

[Nick Hector]

Originally Posted by PMoz99

I was expecting a rant like that from you Nick. A pity you didn't contribute anything useful to the discussion. If the Wiki info is not accurate, tell us why instead of just having a rant.
Peter

Peter,

I did contribute something useful to the discussion: where to find a photo that lends evidence to the contention that zu Sayn-Wittgenstein flew a Messerschmitt 110. I have no more proof than anyone else that he achieved victories in the type, but that is at least a starting point. I thought your post acknowledged that fact.

As for Wikipedia, I explained why it should not be quoted as a source for serious research. My "rant" as you label it consists of perfectly legitimate reasons why it is objectionable. If you need it spelled out again, here we go:

You cannot quote it if you are a 1st year uni student, if you do, you can expect to fail. knusel has told us several times that he is a scientist involved with pathology. It is perfectly legitimate for forum members to expect a higher standard from him, especially when he has repeatedly been directed away from bad sources and on to better sources during his tenure on the forum.

Other forum members have hinted that he is all ask, and no answer. He "takes" from the forum. What does he "give back"?
Quotes from Wikipedia....?
I also call upon you to note that "Forum" implies "exchange of information"


Peter, it might please you to know that I have contributed to and have acknowledgements in internationally published books. I would not have been offered those opportunities if I had nothing good to say on this forum...
...or had quoted Wikipedia as my source material.

I contend that my objections are legitimate and that being a forum, I have the right to state them. If my objections are not legitimate, the moderators will say so...

[knusel]

Originally Posted by PMoz99

I was expecting a rant like that from you Nick. A pity you didn't contribute anything useful to the discussion. If the Wiki info is not accurate, tell us why instead of just having a rant.
Peter

Good morning Peter,

never mind him. I use to skip his "posts".

If memory doesn't play tricks on me I read somewhere that Wittgenstein flew but one single mission in a Bf110. I'll try to relocate that source.

Have a nice weekend,

Michael

[Nick Hector]

Originally Posted by knusel

Good morning Peter,

never mind him. I use to skip his "posts".

If memory doesn't play tricks on me I read somewhere that Wittgenstein flew but one single mission in a Bf110. I'll try to relocate that source.

Have a nice weekend,

Michael

Looking to have another thread closed down, knusel? That usually happens after Peter "intervenes".....
Objections to your validity are perfectly legitimate and are typically upheld by the moderators. It is also a fact that you only ever ask questions without contributing much else of real substance to the forum....