Junkers Ju88, 4D+??, 0205 from 5./KG 30

[BennoT6]

Hi readers,

In the night of March 12/13 1941 a Junkers Ju88 from Gilze-Rijen based 5.KG 30, 0205 4D+?? crashed near the tiny village Molenschot (west of Fliegerhorst Gilze-Rijen) in The Netherlands. a "Absturz infolge Bedienungsfehler". The crew of four were killed.

Anyone with more details? Was it after take-off or while landing? Is there more detailed information about the exact location?

Thanks in advance for any help.

Regards,

Benno (from Molenschot)

[Chris Goss]

Luftwaffe records say Wk Nr 0204 (although this appears to have been amended). No more details apart from it was on an operational flight. Lt Horst Könzke-B, Ofw Hermann Koch-F, Fw Erich Schwind-BF & Ogefr Philip Nikolaus-BM all killed. I think you are in the best position to find an exact location?

[edNorth]

I am not aware where the amendment is, but o204 it is after someone has written 4 in with pencil. (Salonen) NVM give 8 km ESE Breda. Pilot error. -Ed

[BennoT6]

Hi,

The book "Vijf jaar Luchtfront", part 2, is reporting on page 182 that the crash happened in the night of March 14/15. The Junkers, landing, returning from a major raid, destination Glasgow.

Can one confirm Glasgow was a Luftwaffe (5./KG 30) target on March 12/13 and/or March 14/15?

Regards,

Benno

[Juha]

Hello Benno
Glagow was the major target on March 13/14 and 14/15 according to the Blitz then and Now Vol 2 but the paticipation of the II./KG 51 was minimal during both nights, only one Ju 88 on March 14/15. Another single Ju 88 participated the raid on Sheffield. On March 13/14 a single Ju 88 from II./KG 51 participated the other big raid of that night against Liverpool. On March 12/13 the main target was Merseyside. II./KG 51 seems to have rested that night. Also de Zeng IV and Stankey, Bomber Units of the LW Vol 1 gives the date of an attack on Glasgow as March 14/15 1941.

Juha

[Juha]

Sorry for my mistake
I don't understand how I picked up KG 51!
But anyway in the both books mentioned in my previous message there is no indication that II./KG 30 would have participated on raids on Glasgow on abovementioned dates other than T Blitz T&N says that two Ju 88s of KG 30 were damaged during the night of 14/15 March. Foreman's 1941 Part 1 claims that both of those were Ju 88A-5s from I./KG 30 (214 and ?). According that book 0204 of 5.KG 30 was lost on 13/14 March.

Juha

[edNorth]

Foremans work is faulty in many ways, in my fact finding quest, I compared this to original loses in GQM. Maybe he was copying others (?) I do not know. Especially "1941" Often giving code for minour incidents, code that was carried by same W.Nr. weeks or months later, when it was lost (because otherwise not recorded). "Assuming same code" is this syndrome called, because, whereas Luftwaffe Unit codes often were carrried for as short time as one day.

[Juha]

Originally Posted by edNorth

Foremans work is faulty in many ways, in my fact finding quest, I compared this to original loses in GQM. Maybe he was copying others (?) I do not know. Especially "1941" Often giving code for minour incidents, code that was carried by same W.Nr. weeks or months later, when it was lost (because otherwise not recorded). "Assuming same code" is this syndrome called, because, whereas Luftwaffe Unit codes often were carrried for as short time as one day.

I have heard that earlier, but because I have never personally tried to check the accuracy of his books, I leave the judgement to others who had done that. Thanks for the reinforcement of that info!
IMHO contemporary docus, even if not error free, are the most reliable source, then books by authors who have excellent reputation (but one has to remember that errorless books are very rare because they are products of human action so cross-checking when possible is very important) etc.

Juha

[edNorth]

Yes, indeed, there are no error free books, per se. Maybe not his fault at all. I blame that (errors) on not doing research, or using faulty research criteria. Research usualy weeds out most of the wrongs, but some authors are simply, simply put, not qualified researchers.

[Juha]

Hello EdNorth
I agree completely. Much depends on the integrity of the writer, some go painstakingly through archives, some simply recycle information from old books and some are simply sloppier than others. One important quality is the ability to accept that it is impossible to find out all the facts anymore. It’s much better to admit that some data isn’t sure than give some deduction/educated guesses as facts. It is ok to use deduction but then the author should clearly implicate that the result is based on deduction.
But humans tended to make errors, as my message #5 above clearly shows, so cross checking is important.

Hello Benno
One point on the Blitz T&N Vol 2, while the writers had good information on the British side and on LFl 3 (e.g. summaries of the combat reports of the bomber crews) their information on LFl 2 is much more limited. Because I don’t know the book "Vijf jaar Luchtfront", part 2, I don’t know why the writer(s) has connected the loss of 0204 to a major raid on Glasgow but in principle the documents are more reliable than books but because there are sometimes errors in docus that principle isn’t all inclusive.

Juha