Bf-109F-4 w.n. 13071 and Bf-109G-2 w.n. 13435 question.

[NBE1942]

Dear Gentlemen,

Could anybody shed some light on two cases with this Bf-109s.

1. Bf-109F-4 w.n. 13071 belonged to 7/JG3, when it was written off with its pilot missing in action on March 20, 1942 in the area of Staraya Russa. At the same time this particular werk nummer for Bf-109F-4 is listed in Barbas's book as written off on June 26, 1942 belonging to II/JG52

2. The same situation with W.n. 13435. According to Prien JFV, the machine assigned to 7/JG52 was lost on 17.07.1942 in the dogfight near Rostow with Hans Dammers unhurt, 100%. One and a half month later the same werk nummer is traced as damaged 20% due to "technische mangel".

My question is the following: is it a simple mistake in W.n. verification or there were cases when 100% written off planes were later restored and overhauled to flying conditions and again assigned to combat units?
My assumtion is that in this two cases 100% damage meant belly landing on the enemy territory and with the shift of the frontline they were picked up and sent to repair facilities. Who can confirm or reject?

TIA

[Tomislav Haramincic]

Hello,

I believe that the first case (WNr.13071) is a simple Werknummer error, mistype, misprint or similar. My records show as well the 100% loss on the 20.03.42. I do not have the second loss on the 26.06.42 recorded with this WNr., but with a very similar one - WNr.13171!
26.06.42 Bf 109F-4 WNr.13171 5./JG52 N.N., Überschlag beim Start, Fl.Pl. Grakowo - 100% (F-4/R1)

Regarding the WNr.13435, I have the same losses recorded as you. In this case I think that both the possibilities you mentioned should be considered. There are known examples when damaged airframes were "recaptured", repaired and flown again. For instance, WNr.13436 was recorded as a 100% loss on the 28.07.42, recovered and converted to a G-12, and delivered to JGr. Ost.

best regards,
Tomislav

[NBE1942]

Dear Tomislav,

Thank you very much for the answer!

Originally Posted by Tomislav Haramincic

Hello,

I believe that the first case (WNr.13071) is a simple Werknummer error, mistype, misprint or similar. My records show as well the 100% loss on the 20.03.42. I do not have the second loss on the 26.06.42 recorded with this WNr., but with a very similar one - WNr.13171!
26.06.42 Bf 109F-4 WNr.13171 5./JG52 N.N., Überschlag beim Start, Fl.Pl. Grakowo - 100% (F-4/R1)

Yes, I assumed a misprint here. However, it is interesting to note that some details regarding first two groups of JG52 in Barbas's and Prien's books differ, though they use the same sources.

Originally Posted by Tomislav Haramincic

Regarding the WNr.13435, I have the same losses recorded as you. In this case I think that both the possibilities you mentioned should be considered. There are known examples when damaged airframes were "recaptured", repaired and flown again. For instance, WNr.13436 was recorded as a 100% loss on the 28.07.42, recovered and converted to a G-12, and delivered to JGr. Ost.

W.n. 13436, you surely mean plane used by Obstl. Franjo Dzal? Do you have any info on if it was lost in JGr. Ost and did it have the same W.n. or different after recovering?

The question i am trying to get the answer to, is much broader than the issue of these two Bf-109s. Having an opportunity to compare GQ loss files with inventory lists of groups, it is complicated to draw any conclusions on the accuracy of the LW loss controll system. In Russia many people noted the contradictory figures of these two official documents and this gives lots of grounds of blaming German side of manipulating with loss records. However, is there any statistics available of how many Bf-109 and Fw-190 were overhauled to another modifications (I do not mean combat improvements R1, Z, B etc.) with preserving their old werk nummer?

Regards

[Franek Grabowski]

Humane errarum est! I believe German documents are just riddled with errors but it is simply impossible to verify such data due to lack of sources.