eBay: Messerschmitt Me110

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

SKG210 Wespe S9+G?

1667907505331.png


1667907529880.png


  1. Russland SKG 210 Wespe Maling Bruchlandung ME 110 Flugzeug Kennung S9+G? Tarnung | eBay
  2. Russland SKG 210 Wespe Maling Bruchlandung ME 110 Flugzeug Kennung S9+G? Tarnung | eBay
 
As an eBay Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
As an eBay Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Thanks John. What made it come down? And was it a total or less? . I would think 40 % or so. Guns already taken out so with i german borders i think.
 
Snautzer01 said:
Thanks John. What made it come down? And was it a total or less? . I would think 40 % or so. Guns already taken out so with i german borders i think.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't have the answer to this one. Both the Luftwaffe Quartermaster Returns for damaged/lost aircraft, and the Namentliche Verlustmeldungen (for personnel losses, which included aircraft details) show only 3 S9+GPs, two for June 1941, the other for June 1942.

Now, take a look at THESE photos. Yep, it's the same aircraft - that is definite simply by checking the camo on the starboard side. BUT, which photo came first? The one in the snow, meaning that the aircraft was left in situ for a considerable time, or the one in 'normal' time, left in situ until winter time? What is even more of a puzzle is that the canopy in the snow photo is far more intact than in the non-snow photo, which would tend to indicate that it came to earth in winter!
S9+GP 02.jpg


S9+GP 01.jpg


And here's port side view, again with the centre & forward canopy section looking in decent condition.
S9+GP 05.jpg


Grrrrr! I'll see if I can find other sources tomorrow. 15 victory bars on the fin might give an indication of who flew it, at least!
 
John Vasco said:
I honestly don't have the answer to this one. Both the Luftwaffe Quartermaster Returns for damaged/lost aircraft, and the Namentliche Verlustmeldungen (for personnel losses, which included aircraft details) show only 3 S9+GPs, two for June 1941, the other for June 1942.

Now, take a look at THESE photos. Yep, it's the same aircraft - that is definite simply by checking the camo on the starboard side. BUT, which photo came first? The one in the snow, meaning that the aircraft was left in situ for a considerable time, or the one in 'normal' time, left in situ until winter time? What is even more of a puzzle is that the canopy in the snow photo is far more intact than in the non-snow photo, which would tend to indicate that it came to earth in winter!
View attachment 693857

View attachment 693858

And here's port side view, again with the centre & forward canopy section looking in decent condition.
View attachment 693859

Grrrrr! I'll see if I can find other sources tomorrow. 15 victory bars on the fin might give an indication of who flew it, at least!
Click to expand...
Possibly Günther Tonne, who flew with 6./ZG 1 and had 15 victories at the time of his death.
 
As an eBay Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Last edited:
As an eBay Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Snautzer01 said:
Calling John Vasco John Vasco Schnellkampfgeschwader 210 SKG210

View attachment 694739

www.ebay.com

WW2 BATTLE OF BRITAIN COMBAT REPORT SEPT 1940 F/O CONSTABLE MAXWELL, ORIGINAL. | eBay

Original Combat Report September 1940, F/O Constable Maxwell ,Interesting reading. 56 Squadron RAF Middle Wallop. Parnell Factory Yate Bristol etc. Fair condition.
www.ebay.com
Click to expand...
Right, here's my take on that combat report. This is going to be a long post, so bear with me.

I believe it is a fake.
1. This combat report is loose. In the combat report files in the Public Record Office (now National Archive) when I viewed them, they were ALL attached to the files by a treasury tag. There is no eveidence of this ever being attached to a file.
2. The combat report identifies F/Lt. Rook. It is VERY unusual for a pilot of one squadron to identify in his combat report the name of a pilot of another squadron. In all of those that I have seen where another friendly fighter joined the combat, the best that is usually shown is the fuselage code (and a lot of the time, because of the speed of combat, the fuselage code given is not fully correct).
3. I have NEVER seen the name of the Luftwaffe unit(s) attacked on a combat report. Here it shows Erprobungsgruppe 210 and Zerstörergeschwader 26. Also, it shows the target: Parnell (sic - should be Parnall) Factory, Yate Bristol. Occasionally, a pilot will identify the Luftwaffe target, since he will have seen the bombing attack being carried out as he went in to attack. In this instance, the combat took place nowhere near Yate, Bristol, yet the combat report identifies an individual factory as the target (which was not actually hit because 504 Squadron intercepted the bombing force before it reached the target). This points, to me, a fake done in some decade after the Battle of Britain.
4. Now, here's the clincher. I obtained a photocopy of Constable-Maxwell's combat report when I was carrying out my research into Erprobungsgruppe 210 for my book on that unit. Here are the two relevant pages that I wrote about the combat involving Anthony Rook and Michael Constable-Maxwell
27 09 40 03.jpg

27 09 40 04.jpg

In what I consider to be the fake combat report, there is no mention of Constable-Maxwell returning to base because of oxygen failure. Constable-Maxwell then took off alone and came across F/Lt. Rook attacking a Bf 110, and joined in. I have quoted from Constable-Maxwell's combat report directly in my book: '...saw E/A (with one engine stopped) crash after endeavouring to force-land. No cine gun. Return fire from rear gun. None of the crew baled out...' That is verbatim from Constable-Maxwell's combat report I saw in the Public Record Office in the 1980s and obtained a photocopy of it. The fake combat report does not mention anything I have just quoted. And that combat report states that Rook 'chased the 110 out to sea'. No he didn't - the combat and crash of Bf 110, S9+DK, was well inland. And Constable-Maxwell did not withdraw through lack of ammunition. You can see in my account, quoting Alexander McKee (an excellent researcher and writer who interviewed Constable-Maxwell), that Constable-Maxwell watched for several minutes while Fritz Ebner sought a safe landing place to get his crippled Bf 110 down.

Unfortunately, fakes have been in circulation for many years...

Fake, fake, fake!
 
As an eBay Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Thank you for your detailed answer. Much appreciated. I contemplated the id-ing of the luftwaffe done later on but rejected that. To me it looks typed with the same typewriter or some computer font. The way the 1 and 0 ( slightly higher) is in my opinion the same. but one can never know so that were a pro has to look at it. Seems al least he read your book with interest.

1668718371504.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Snautzer01
eBay: Blohm & Voss HA137
Replies
1
Views
877
Wurger
Wurger
Snautzer01
eBay: Heinkel He116
Replies
16
Views
2K
Wurger
Wurger
Snautzer01
eBay: Arsenal VG-33
Replies
1
Views
1K
Wurger
Wurger
Snautzer01
eBay: Bücker Bü131 Jungmann
Replies
4
Views
973
Wurger
Wurger
BlackSheep
Nightfighter pictures
Replies
1
Views
1K
GrauGeist
GrauGeist
Back