Talk:Kampfgeschwader 200

Organization
Under the organization chapter the term used is squadrons. Shouldnt this be Gruppen (groups)? It would not make sense to have only four squadrons (at 12 or so planes each) in a wing. The division was Geschwader (wing) -- 3/4 Gruppen (Groups) -- 3/4 Staffeln (squadrons) Abel29a 10:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The article says that there were two subordinate squadrons, but commanders of three of them are given. Explanation? 72.86.47.226 (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Scope
Is this article purely about KG 200 or should it include the earlier units? There's already references to these. Folks at 137 05:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:B17 kg200.jpg
The image Image:B17 kg200.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --11:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Unit type; aircraft classifications

 * 1) The intro and the infobox both state that KG200 was a bomber unit, but the rest of the article does not bear this out. It was involved in special operations;, including reconnaissance, dropping agents behind enemy lines, testing and evaluating captured aircraft as well as long-range missions. Would "Special operations" be a better unit description?


 * 1) The inclusion in the infobox of the aircraft types flown doesn't suit this unit, since it operated many more than a standard bomber or fighter unit. It looks unwieldy, too. Also the classification of all types as 'bombers' is incorrect, I suggest that it would be better to have a new section in the body listing the aircraft used under sub-section headings e.g. Bombers (conventional, suicide, captured), Fighters (German and captured), Reconnaissance etc. What do you think? --TraceyR (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

KG 200 (the novel)
This novel, which is based upon fact, contains an appendix (p.314 in the Pan Books edition) listing "aircraft known to have been regularly flown by" KG 200. These are:
 * 1) B-17s (Flying Fortresses)
 * 2) B-24s (Liberators)
 * 3) Wellingtons
 * 4) Stirlings
 * 5) Spitfires
 * 6) Mosquitoes
 * 7) Beaufighters
 * 8) P-51 Mustangs
 * 9) Lockheed P-38 Lightnings
 * 10) Lockheed Hudsons
 * 11) Douglas DC-3s
 * 12) FW-200
 * S.,.75 (sic)
 * 1) JU-88
 * 2) JU-188
 * 3) JU-252
 * 4) JU-290
 * 5) HE-111
 * 6) Fieseler Storch
 * 7) DO-24
 * 8) HE-115
 * 9) JU-352
 * 10) AR-196
 * 11) AR-232
 * 12) Soviet Tupolev bombers
 * 13) Martins
 * 14) Petlyakov PE-2s
 * 15) SB-RKs
 * 16) Polikarpov I-16s

An editor is disputing this list because it is contained in the appendix to a novel; can anyone provide an alternative source for these aircraft having been flown by KG 200? Many thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Flights to Japanese-occupied China
This is mentioned but no detail is given. Since the Japanese had great difficulty making contact with the Germans (cf. attmepts to rendezous via submarine) this would appear to be a very interesting story. Is there any substance to it? FOARP (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * These stories of KG.200 flights to China are all nonsense. They never happened. There are stories, but they always turn out to be based on stories told by Axis POWs under heavy interrogation. There was an Italian flight to Japan during the war by an SM.75 through Soviet airspace. The Japanese attempted a flight with a Ki-77 but it disappeared over the Indian Ocean. The Italians took off from an airfield along the Dnieper in the Ukraine. 75.106.146.89 (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The Mistel Programme
"By late 1944 emphasis was placed on an all-out attack on Soviet armaments and power plants but by March 1945 the bases had been over-run by the Soviet advance. "

This statement seems to me contradictory. It appears to state that the Luftwaffe unit's task was nullified by the fact that the Soviets had over-run their own armament and power plants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.207.225 (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Erling Kindem and the phantom B-24
Erling Kindem's story of the phantom B-24 really has no supporting evidence. His personal account is all there is. The story isn't mentioned in any of the official records of the units involved and its told by nobody else. The capture of a German B-24 by the Tuskegee airman would have been a big deal if it had actually happened. Yes, Ambrose did write up the story in his books, but that doesn't make it true.

I would strongly suggest that the story be removed. 75.106.146.89 (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Date of Tirpitz attack
The article states:

On 11 November 1944 RAF Lancasters attacked the German battleship Tirpitz and caused her to capsize.

The article German battleship Tirpitz places these events on 12 November.

Karl gregory jones (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)