Late-war Bf 109 question

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi.

I have taken some screenshots from my internet site for the losses registered for this date:

http://www.ahs.no/discussion_images/1945.02.09-01.gif

http://www.ahs.no/discussion_images/1945.02.09-02.gif

http://www.ahs.no/discussion_images/1945.02.09-03.gif

You should probably download the images and view them in something other than your browser if you do not have a reasonable screen resolution (I use 1600x1200)

Regards,
Andreas

[Skyraider3D]

Quick one as I just came home from an airshow
In a bookstall I saw the new JaPo book about Dora camouflage. It said Brenner was MIA in 210909 "Red 9" of 6/JG 301.
Funnily enough it also had another record for 210909 for a 15% crashlanding after this date.
211909 was shot down by flak over Cottbus, also after this date.

[drgondog]

Guys - while it is possible that in the course of a manuevering dogfight a 109 could turn into a 190, it isn't as likely as tossing off a sixty year memory.

I read Ludeke's witness of the engagement, and presumably combat film was available where the low versus high horizontal stabilizer would settle the question, but assuming it wasn't Ludeke Id'd the ship as a 109. Fro 100 yards or greater a K would look like a G and few pilots mistook a 190 for a 109..

Skyraider - I would go with your original investigation of a 109. From my perspective it would be easier to mis identify the location of 20mm guns in the wing than a perceived birdcage canopy difference between a G and a K. Just my opinion.

I will talk to Bill next week. You want me to bring this up?

Regards,

Bill

PS - Thanks to all for helping me id JG300 and 310 as logical encounter w/355th.

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi.

It is not unlikely that the 210909 was listed as missing with Brenner on the 9th February, (this loss record is dated 3rd March), but in reality was not destroyed, and then was damaged again on a later date.

That is why I would like for someone that have worked on the JG 301 to come up with a NVM for Brenner. If it does not exist, this is a definitive hint towards him not being wounded or killed, but rather that he returned to his unit.

Regards,
Andreas

[Skyraider3D]

Bill, I have already sent Bill Lyons an e-mail asking him if it would be possible his enemy was a Fw 190 D.

Originally Posted by drgondog

few pilots mistook a 190 for a 109

Hmm I wouldn't say that. I think for many pilots there were two types of Luftwaffe single-engine fighters: Focke-Wulfs (with radial engine) and Messerschmitts (with in-line engine). It's easy to see how that could lead to confusion.
Stranger though: at some point in 1945 a group of Mistels were shot down by Mustang pilots. The Mistels were Bf 109 F/Ju 88 A and Fw 190 A/Ju 88 A combinations. One of the pilots initially thought it was a He 111 with V1! Also, all combat reports state Fw 190 claims and no mention is made of the Bf 109s. In fact the guncamera very clearly shows Bf 109s.
Additionally the 359th FG started claiming Doras as early as February 1944, while in reality Doras didn't enter service until December that year! Also on 18 March '45 they mistook Yaks for Messerschmitts ("in-line") and La-5FNs for Focke-Wulfs ("radial") with fatal consequences for the Soviets.
I've also seen plenty of guncam footage from the Pacific theatre where Oscars are identified as Zeros and Lilys as Helens. In short, identification wasn't terribly reliable in many cases.
As for the "birdcage" canopy thing, the old style Dora canopy has pretty sharp corners giving the false illusion of a birdcage from certain angles. Also it has a frame going over the top. It's not nearly as much as a bubble as that of the P-51D or late P-47s, and I think this is what Bill Lyons is comparing it to.

Personally I'd happily go with the 109 claim, but the facts seem to argue this and even Bill Lyons memory is not consistent. He specifically stated he remembered clearly the gunsmoke coming out of the wings, about 1/5th from the wingroot. "Out of the wings" - not out of gunpods either. This does match a Dora but not any 109.

If only we could find the guncam footage, which is probably long vanished, and even then we can't always be too sure. Some years ago there was a massive debate over guncam footage of a Ta 152 H. In the end it turned out to be a Stuka of all things!!!



Andreas, I wonder, how could a pilot be MIA but the aircraft still survive? In most MIA cases the aircraft blew up in mid-air with pilot and all, or crashed in a lake or soft soil. John Manrho could tell you more about this as in his Bodenplatte book he writes of countless cases where wrecks and pilots weren't found until the 1980s or 90s - or are still MIA. They crashed at high speed and simply disappeared in the soft soil. I think if Brenner went MIA it's fairly safe to say, so did his aircraft (if this is 210909 is a different story of course).
O, the JaPo book does mention the aircraft as "destroyed" by the way, but it also gave as location "East Front" and if I remember correctly it said it was on a fighter-bomber sortie, which is rather odd for a Dora at 25,000 ft

Let's hope one of the JG 301 buffs on the forum will read this and have an explanation

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi.

I am stating this as there are numerous cases in the loss records and from pilot recollections where the pilot performed for example a belly landing. If this was in (at the time) enemy held territory, or the pilot did not know where he was, the usual tactic was to get your sidearm and documents out and run for cover. Often you would then be listed as missing in action (as there was no trace of you as far as the unit was concerned).

One of the very common reasons for Bf 109's not to return to base was engine damage, a situation from which it was entirely possible to survive with only minimal damages to the aircraft in question.

Very common in the RVT as far as I can remember were so-called 'aussenlandungen' I believe it was called, where a pilot had to land on a field or airstrip not currently occupied by his unit (or any unit...). (The fights could be at 10k meters or more, and you would get confused from time to time I am sure). As long as the pilot did not return he would be reported as missing in action, and this would be recorded in the loss records sent to the higher headquarters.

When the pilot in question returned to his unit a week later, in the back of a Kübelwagen, the unit would fill out a correction and send it to the GenQu6Abt, which in turn would correct the loss record.

When considering all loss records from 1945 where the term Vermisst is used, one should take the total state of disarray into account, and never state with certainty that the person in question did in fact disappear for ever (he could of course do so... some into the Legion Etrangere for example...). Remember that the records from April 2nd through to end of hostilities probably burned in the RLM building in Berlin.

Of course, pilots stated as MIA to this date are probably dead, from one reason or the other (some of old age), and I have in fact been in contact with people that are officially still on the MIA list.

It is against this backdrop I stated the above.

A couple of examples:

http://www.ahs.no/ref_db/lw_loss_pub...?lossid=102733

http://www.ahs.no/ref_db/lw_loss_pub...?lossid=107193

In the first the aircraft was destroyed, in the second it was returned intact. If the person reading the loss records would not consider the corrections, the second aircraft would be listed as destroyed.

And then there are all kinds of damage percentages inbetween. How many seemingly intact german fighters have been photographed after a belly landing?

Regards,
Andreas

[Skyraider3D]

Thanks for clearing that up Andreas

[drgondog]

Skyraider - of course ID mistakes were made, particularly when only the 6 o'clock position was visible.. and Bill could have made a mistake on identifying a nose on FW190 from a 109.

But once a turning battle occcurs the pilot is pretty focused on keeping his guy in sight.... a side elevation pretty much does the id thing

Oh well, this has been an interesting thread trying to nail the ship and pilot and certainly helped me add details to my re-write of ABD. Thanks to all of you for that.

Wasn't the March encounter between the Soviet fighters and US a pretty interesting incident. As I recall the Soviets bounced the Mustangs near Berlin and in the fight the 51 pilots did NOT 'misidentify' and continued to shoot down Russians!

If it is the same incident, the Soviets shot their Squadron/Group leader and expected us to do the same (which we did not).

Maybe not the same incident, but if it was, I recall the combat reports only discussed "109s and FW's" not Yaks, Laag's or MiG's..and suspect from political perspective - not ID..

Last - to your point about FW-190D's not appearing until December 1944.
The 359th was not only FG to see what they thought were "D's". I know one of the losses absorbed by the 355th on March 8, 1944 was a 2Lt Rothenberg who over ran a 'long nose' FW190 and was killed by it before it, in turn was shot down by his element leader Lt Norman of the 357FS. So, I wonder whether the term FW 190D or 'Long nose FW" was used by 359th in February 1944? Which model of the FW 190 in early 1944 would look at all like a 190D?

There are numerous references in 355FG histories to "Long Nose FW's" in the March and afterward timeframe - which could reinforce your point about a/c ID's in high speed battle.

[Skyraider3D]

Originally Posted by drgondog

Which model of the FW 190 in early 1944 would look at all like a 190D?

The Dora prototype
The 359th FG logged these as "Fw 190 D". I guess allied reports of the Dora started circulating and pilots started seeing Doras in the same way they had seen "He 113s" earlier in the war.

Regarding the incident with the Soviets on 18 March, there were several seperated encounters at the same time. In one case Mustangs dived on Fw 190s, entered a cloud, came out and found themselves on the tail of a Yak. The Mustangs broke off but other Yaks already started engaging the Mustangs and the fight was inevitable. In a seperate incident at the same time, several Mustangs strafed a Soviet airfield and destroyed a handful of Yaks before they could be identified.
One of the American pilots claimed several Fw 190s, and later his claim was adjusted to some Fw 190s and some La-5s. In reality they were probably all La-5s.
In the aftermath Stalin had all Soviet pilots that had participated in the event shot, and indeed required the same of the US. Only one US pilot was coutmartialed and find a dollar and sent home, after it took three days to positively indentify the Yak on his guncam footage.
If you want to know more about this encounter, contact me off-board as I have plenty of info on this event


In any case, I still need to hear back from Bill Lyons. I am curious about his comments.

[George Hopp]

Near the start of this thread, the Bf 109 G-16 was mentioned. That a/c was first shown in an article by Gert W. Heumann on the Bf 109 in a Flug-Revue of the early 1950s. In fact, the a/c pictured was 109 G-6 Trop, W.Nr. 16 476, SL+EM, and was tested on 20 and 22.4.43, to show the speed difference between the Beulen cowling, the refined cowling, and the 109 G-1/G-4 cowling. In addition to the refined cowling, this a/c had a bomb rack with 2 tandem bombs, main-wheel doors, and underwing gondola weapons. So, Heumann can be excused for thinking this was a new type of a/c.