Bf 110 Werk-Nr. 3238

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Rottler

Hello John,

I think that this fact is no reason to give up quotations of the Gen.Qu. reports.

Regards
Leo

If I may add here my knowledge of them for you, with regard to personnel. My experience with both of them starts in the 1980s, with the following:
1. Gen.Qu reports regarding Bf 110 losses in 1940;
2. Namentliche Verlustmeldungen with reference to '1' above;
3. Gen.Qu reports regarding SKG210/ZG 1, 1941 to 1944;
4. Namentliche Verlustmeldungen with reference to '3' above.

Where would you like me to start?
Let's try 5 October 1940:
Gen.Qu shows a 1./Erpr. Gr. 210 loss of crew Duesnig & Keppitsch (I think I've got the spelling OK with the second name). Correct spelling is Duensing & Krappatsch (definitely not the same spelling as on the Gen.Qu).

27th September 1940:
Gen.Qu shows the loss of a 2./Erpr. Gr. 210 Bf 110 coded S9+DU (U???)
Correct code was S9+DK (K being the correct character for 2. Staffel). AD1k report confirms the code from the wreckage of the machine.

Why rely on the Nam Ver over the Gen.Qu?
Because the Nam Ver loss/wounded report was completed at unit level from personnel records and included details of the next of kin to be notified. Those records were WAY more accurate. They also reflected for HQ the need for replacement crews.
The Gen.Qu records were sent up the line for the replacement of aircraft. Names were not even included at first, and only gradually were introduced during 1940. It is obvious from the spelling errors found in the Gen.Qu that no reference was made to personnel records, rather from a recollection/guess at the spelling of someone's name.

Believe me, serious researchers (and I'm not saying here you are not so) set far more store by the Nam Vers than the Gen.Qu with regard to personnel names.

I hope this explains things better for you.

[Rottler]

Your view, that the NVM is a more accurate source in comparison with the Gen.Qu. reports and the often misspelled surnames is a known fact, for me too. So it was not necessary to explain me the differences of these German documents.
In spite of that I intend to continue to quote the Gen.Qu. reports in this forum.
Or do you think that this German source is on principal useless?

Regards
Leo

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Rottler

Your view, that the NVM is a more accurate source in comparison with the Gen.Qu. reports and the often misspelled surnames is a known fact, for me too. So it was not necessary to explain me the differences of these German documents.
In spite of that I intend to continue to quote the Gen.Qu. reports in this forum.
Or do you think that this German source is on principal useless?

Regards
Leo

Leo,
Sorry to have to put this bluntly to you, but I consider the above post a disgrace!

On page 1 you questioned the spelling of a name. Nothing else about the thread - simply the spelling of the name. Karsten & Matti Salonen came forward with assistance, and I posted this:
"...The Gen. Qu. reports are notorious for mis-spelling of surnames.
The Namentliche Verlustmeldung is a far more accurate source..."
So you posted this: "...I think that this fact is no reason to give up quotations of the Gen.Qu. reports..." (and in this thread, that means the sole thing you have quoted, a surname).

I then took quite a bit of time explaining why the Nam Vers are more accurate for names than the Gen.Qu. What I stated were FACTS.

You then come back with the post I have quoted above, saying that my view regarding the mis-spellings in the Gen.Qu is a known fact for you. So why did you not simply accept the fact that the information provided by Matti Salonen regarding the surname was more accurate?

You ask this of me: "...Or do you think that this German source is on principal useless?..." Sorry mate, I take that as a personal insult. I have not stated that, or implied that, whatsoever.

I really don't know why I, and some other very experienced researchers who have done research for decades, f*ckin' bother to try to help some people on this forum...

[Rottler]

Hello John,

in the informations of GRM „Domann“ (post #2) and Rüdiger „Dohmann“ (post #5) no sources were given. Therefore in post #6 I have pointed out that in the Gen.Qu. loss report the spelling is „Domann“. A f t e r that the sources VDRlist and NVM were given (posts #7 and 8).
Then you have posted that the NVM are more accurate than the Gen.Qu. loss reports. This is a known fact for me, there is no doubt about that.

Please look at the thread „JU88 werk# 144447“ (today on page 26 in this forum) and my post # 6 from 12 June 2017 with my comment „In the loss reports of the Gen.Qu. names are often misspelled …“.

Contrary to your opinion on page 1 I have n o t questioned the spelling of the name „Dohmann“. Your statement that I have not accept the information of Matti Salonen is not comprehensible. It seems that there is a misunderstanding.
By the way your description in post #11 is very good and concisely and helpful for some people on this forum.

I never had the intention to annoy and insult you. I’m sorry that you have taken my last post as a personal insult.

My result of this discussion is that both German sources are useful. I continue to quote the Gen.Qu. reports and in the case of different spelling of names the NVM are more trustworthy. I have not forgotten the purpose of this forum to help some people.

Kind regards
Leo

[John Vasco]

Leo,
Re-read my post #13. I stand by all I said in that post.

And to reiterate that the discussion into which you entered was SOLELY about a surname, I posted this (#9): "The Gen. Qu. reports are notorious for mis-spelling of surnames.
The Namentliche Verlustmeldung is a far more accurate source."

In reply (#10) you posted: "I think that this fact is no reason to give up quotations of the Gen.Qu. reports."

The inference being that even though reference to both is made, you still stand by the information ON SURNAMES in the Gen.Qu reports. That is a somewhat dangerous road to take, if you already have surname information from the Nam Ver, and the Gen. Qu gives something different...

[Rottler]

Hello John,

I can see no problem to point to diverging informations in the NVM and the Gen.Qu. loss lists and up to now I do not know what do you want. You do not understand my way of thinking, probably my knowledge of the English language is not good enough to make the things clear to you. Obviously we are talking at cross purposes.

It is senseless to continue the discussion with you. I will avoid to insult you inadvertently again and not infringe upon the rules and guidelines of this forum.

Regards
Leo

[John Vasco]

Leo,
I realise English is not your first language, that's why I tried to explain things in the most simple way I could.

My simple point, was that WITH REGARD TO SURNAMES the Nam Ver is far more reliable that the Gen.Qu. For one very good reason. It was important in the case of the loss of person to get the name correct. The Gen.Qu return was to notify aircraft losses for the purposes of replacement machines. Names were secondary in this return.

Ich erkenne Englisch ist nicht deine erste Sprache, deshalb habe ich versucht, die Dinge auf die einfachste Weise zu erklären, die ich konnte.

Mein einfacher Punkt, war das, was BEZÜGEN ZU SURNAMES das Nam Ver ist viel zuverlässiger, dass die Gen.Qu. Aus einem sehr guten grund. Es war wichtig im Falle des Verlustes der Person, um den Namen richtig zu bekommen. Die Gen.Qu war, Flugzeugverluste für die Zwecke der Ersatzmaschinen zu benachrichtigen. Die Namen waren in diesem Fall sekundär


I DO understand your way of thinking - that's why I have replied at length to try to get my simple point across to you. Your knowledge of English IS good enough to perfectly understand what I have been saying in several posts. You just choose to argue with me.

[Rottler]

Hello John,

if you do understand my way of thinking you are aware that incorrect informations in a Gen.Qu. loss report are invalid when a NVM turns up. I have never supported the contrary. Your assertion that I have not accepted the information of Matti Salonen is incorrect.
As I have announced yesterday I bring this theme to an end.

Regards
Leo

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Rottler

Hello John,

if you do understand my way of thinking you are aware that incorrect informations in a Gen.Qu. loss report are invalid when a NVM turns up. I have never supported the contrary. Your assertion that I have not accepted the information of Matti Salonen is incorrect.
As I have announced yesterday I bring this theme to an end.

Regards
Leo

At last...