# Does anyone have the book Prien and Stemmers “Jagdfliegerverbande Der Deutschen Luftwaffe?



## Epiccow400 (Oct 3, 2021)

If anyone has this book im looking for volume 5 page 254, there should be a picture of a crash landed plane yellow 5 4093. if anyone has this book please let me know, it would help me out a ton!!! thanks!


----------



## le_steph40 (Oct 3, 2021)

It's yellow 8 (wnr.4093), not yellow 5 on page 254 in Teil 5... Bf 109E-4 of 9./JG54 crash landed on 15 April 1941, the pilot was Alfred Kromer this day, but the aircraft was the mount of Waldemar Wubke or Karl Kempf.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Epiccow400 (Oct 3, 2021)

le_steph40 said:


> It's yellow 8 (wnr.4093), not yellow 5 on page 254 in Teil 5... Bf 109E-4 of 9./JG54 crash landed on 15 April 1941, the pilot was Alfred Kromer this day, but the aircraft was the mount of Waldemar Wubke or Karl Kempf.


Interesting, in all my searching the plane 4093 is an e7 and was part of jg5 as yellow 5. does the book have any more info on 4093 or it being in jg5? thanks a ton for your help.


----------



## le_steph40 (Oct 3, 2021)

No more info in the book...
Wnr.4093 is from the block 4091-4222, are E-4s and E-7s from Erla. The aircraft was 20% damaged on 15 April 1941, it's possible that it was sent to JG5 after have been repaired.


----------



## Epiccow400 (Oct 3, 2021)

le_steph40 said:


> No more info in the book...
> Wnr.4093 is from the block 4091-4222, are E-4s and E-7s from Erla. The aircraft was 20% damaged on 15 April 1941, it's possible that it was sent to JG5 after have been repaired.


is it possible it would have been labled as an e7 after it went through repairs? and that would explain all other sources stating it as an e7? thanks again for your help and was there a photo of it on that page?


----------



## le_steph40 (Oct 3, 2021)

Yes, it's probable that the aircraft was "modified" in a E-7 during repairs...
There is a photo wnr.4093, "Yellow 8", of 9./JG54 in Teil 5 p254.


----------



## Epiccow400 (Oct 3, 2021)

le_steph40 said:


> Yes, it's probable that the aircraft was "modified" in a E-7 during repairs...
> There is a photo wnr.4093, "Yellow 8", of 9./JG54 in Teil 5 p254.


i appreciate everything you've done here greatly, your knowledge and access to the book has saved me time and money. I have one last thing to ask is if theres any way you could post that photo on here? thank you


----------



## Chris Simmonds (Oct 3, 2021)

As requested

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Epiccow400 (Oct 3, 2021)

Chris Simmonds said:


> As requested


Thanks so much!!!


----------



## Snautzer01 (Oct 4, 2021)

le_steph40 said:


> Yes, it's probable that the aircraft was "modified" in a E-7 during repairs...
> There is a photo wnr.4093, "Yellow 8", of 9./JG54 in Teil 5 p254.


There was a program to update airframes. Per werknummer the updates were called.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Oct 4, 2021)

le_steph40 said:


> No more info in the book...
> Wnr.4093 is from the block 4091-4222, are E-4s and E-7s from Erla. The aircraft was 20% damaged on 15 April 1941, it's possible that it was sent to JG5 after have been repaired.


----------



## le_steph40 (Oct 4, 2021)

Does it mean that all these specialists (L. Ritger, J. Prien, and some others) are wrong since several years ?
Bf109W.nr.
werknummernbloecke
WNr. 4099
Prien Teil5


----------



## Snautzer01 (Oct 4, 2021)

le_steph40 said:


> Does it mean that all these specialists (L. Ritger, J. Prien, and some others) are wrong since several years ?
> Bf109W.nr.
> werknummernbloecke
> WNr. 4099
> ...


This is a war time document. Recalling are frames to upgrade. Now and this is me. The wrk nr always stays with the main of the plain. So when upgraded from e3 to i.g e4 it would become an e4 paperwise untill something like a big recall like this. Then the original wrknr and type red tape comes back. Now that said i do believe this airframe started out as an e3, was upgraded an finaly shot down being as stated. So no prien and all are not wrong, one has to see in what timeframe it was called what.


----------

