Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum - Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals

Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum (http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/index.php)

- Luftwaffe and Axis Air Forces (http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/forumdisplay.php?f=8)

- - Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification (http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=29631)

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Beale (Post 147525)

I don't know if anyone has ever worked out the ratio of aircraft sent to industry vs. the reconditioned machines that units received.

I did that for some types (Ju 87, Ju 88, He 111) using Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen from Michael Holm's site. The final numbers are close enough.

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Beale (Post 147552)

1) Yes.

2) Maybe but I've not tried to compile the stats. Lots of people died in accidents in all air forces but I don't have comparative data. Flying in the 1940s was far more hazardous than now and in wartime aircraft were often overloaded, operated from less than ideal fields etc. Runway and hazard lighting was kept to a minimum in the general blackout. Loading bombs and fuel could result in fire and explosions. Luftwaffe pilot quality deteriorated as training was curtailed. Delivery flights to North Africa were over water, those to Italy over mountains. Aircraft construction suffered from materials shortfalls, bombardment, dispersed production in sheds, tunnels forests. Germany was using slaves to produce aircraft. All of this is likely to have affected the quality of the final product.

3) I've never made any attempt to calculate total losses in the MTO or elsewhere, only for given units at particular times or for individual actions, so I can't really help. At a tactical level, an aircraft is lost when the user requires a replacement for it; where that replacement comes from is not too important (provided refurbished machines really are "good as new" and not obsolete marks, of course). At a strategic level however, the more severely damaged planes you can put back into action alongside new production, the better.

Nick, thank you again for your thoughts. Point 1 makes me think that Ted Hooton's figure may well be a very rough reflection of reality, since it's quite difficult to know which of the Bestandliste (correct term?) to include in any calculation.

In point 2 you suggest a few reasons for why the Luftwaffe in particular may have been badly affected by non-combat losses. I think its possible, particularly in view of the many comments made by men at the time and later historians, that the Luftwaffe maintenance and repair organisation was particularly bad in comparison to the RAF, for example. That would potentially mean that during crisis periods, such as the withdrawals late 1942, the Luftwaffe would be largely incapacitated by its own technical problems, rather than Allied air supremacy. Do you get that sense from your study of the Mediterranean air war? I have the impression that in Tunisia especially, the Luftwaffe had significant technical means and the men to use them, but failed to achieve much because of awful maintenance problems.

I understand that you haven't been collating total losses, but do Ted Hooton's figures seem qualitatively correct? By that I mean do the loss figures match the relative intensity of combat across the time periods in question? I was surprised that the beginning of 1944 was as quiet as the beginning of 1943, in spite of the air battles around Anzio.

Do you think that the Germans had much harder a time getting badly damaged aircraft repaired than the RAF or USAAF?

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laurent Rizzotti (Post 147572)

From my own experience, I would say that it was usual for an air force to lose more aircraft in accidents than by enemy action, but only if you include rear area units (flight schools, operational training schools and so on).

From the summary of Luftwaffe losses between 22 June 1941 and the first days of 1945, frontline units will suffer 25-40% of their unrepairable losses (> 60%) in accidents and the rest due to enemy action (either in the air or on the ground)

Some examples:
II./JG 27: 140 accident losses, 509 total = 27%
III./JG 53: 177 accident losses, 477 total = 37%
II./JG 53: 121 accident losses, 467 total = 26%
I./JG 53: 129 accident losses, 422 total = 31%

JGr.West (an operational training unit): 399 accident losses, 477 total = 84%

As for the figures in your tables, you can see that the Q4 1942 and Q1 1943 are the ones where the percentage of losses in accidents are the highest, probably for four reasons:
1) lot of flying was done over water (between Tunisia and Sicily/Italy) or terrain where it was difficult to recover aircraft (desert or Tunisian mountains)
2) the Luftwaffe was operating from rude airfield compared to Germany or North Europe
3) there was a great number of transport units involved in MTO operations, and up to April 1943 and operation Flax they suffered more losses in accidents than due to enemy action
4) lack of spare parts and good workshops: an aircraft that could have been repaired in Germany or in France will be dumped in Tunisia.

If you exclude these two periods, from Q2 1943 to Q2 1944, your figures are 2931 losses due to enemy action and 1492 in accidents = 32%.

Hello Laurent!

I am replying separately to you because I've got in a bit of a muddle when trying to merge my replies.

Thank you for giving the fighter Gruppe figures for comparison. It does seem that the non-combat losses were high, but as you say, the winter of 42/43 in the Mediterranean is somewhat of an exception. I see the merit of your points 1 through 3, but is point 4 really a case of many aircraft being dumped in Tunisia? I wonder whether the Luftwaffe field maintenance organisation was completely unsuitable for field operations as a whole, so any campaign in the African desert or Russian steppe would lead to large-scale accidental loss. Did the Gruppen you mention lose significantly more aircraft in accidents in Africa and the southern steppe than in the other areas where they operated?

I've found my note with the Eastern Front totals, reproduced below:

Quarter Year EA Accident Ratio of EA to Accident
Q4 1942 646 476 1.36
Q1 1943 740 491 1.51
Q2 1943 654 560 1.17
Q3 1943 1247 784 1.59
Q4 1943 560 433 1.29
Q1 1944 584 599 0.97
Q2 1944 798 739 1.08

Is the summary from 22 June 1941 to January 1945 a document, or your calculation? I am asking because I've never come across this before.

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification

Well, this thread seems to have died somewhat! I am not resurrecting it out of vanity, but because I've found yet more information which has utterly confused me again. The Osprey book about the La-5/7 (see Amazon link at bottom) contains the following loss figures:

In July-August 1943 total Luftwaffe losses to all causes on the Eastern front are given as 2419, including 432 Fw 190s. This seems ridiculously inflated, but is another explanation possible? Could this be the total of all incidents of aircraft sustaining damage?

For a different period, July-August 1944, Khazanov and Medved say that JG 54 lost 115 aircraft to all causes and the Schlacht Geschwader lost 498. These figures seem much closer to the truth, at least if they are meant to be total losses. Can any forum members who have studied this area say if these numbers feel right?

http://www.amazon.com/La-5-Fw-190-Ea.../dp/1849084734

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification

July-Aug 1943 would have been during the Kursk battle...

Don

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Thompson (Post 147737)

In July-August 1943 total Luftwaffe losses to all causes on the Eastern front are given as 2419, including 432 Fw 190s. This seems ridiculously inflated, but is another explanation possible? Could this be the total of all incidents of aircraft sustaining damage?

These loss figures are based on mentioned Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen and include not only total losses but also aircraft sent to industry for major repair.

Month Lost to E/A Lost without E/A Sent to industry Total
Jul43 682 355 247 1284
Aug43 461 368 306 1135
Total: 1143 723 553 2419

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification

Using the same source as before (Luftwaffe losses summary), I found that in June-July 1944:
_ JG 54 on the whole lost a total of 207 aircraft, 123 being destroyed (damage > 60%) and 84 damaged.
_ if we exclude III./JG 54 that was on the West front, the figure is 112 losses, 55 destroyed and 57 damaged

For all SG units (almost all being on the Eastern front, except a short period on Western Front for III./SG 4), I have 503 losses, 309 destroyed and 194 damaged.

So Khazanov and Medved are close to truth for East Front losses in this period, but their figures included damaged and destroyed aircraft.

PS: by the way my source is the website of Andreas Brekken and co, where the data is available through a database: http://www.ahs.no/ref_db/lw_summ_los...iew.asp?PAGE=1

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maxim1 (Post 147746)

Thank you Maxim1, it's great to see the detailed breakdown! Does this mean you know which specific Bewegungsmeldungen the authors used for the calculation? It would be very interesting to see which units they included.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laurent Rizzotti (Post 147749)

Laurent, thank you for doing the calculations, they match the book figures very closely! Andreas Brekken and friends have done great work.
To go off on a slight tangent, is that database complete for the JG units? I've had a look at the Eastern front ones in the late 44-45 period, and the losses seem very small, especially compared to the West. Is that a true reflection of the reality of the war at the time, or do the Eastern units have some information missing?

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification

I should have thought when you're discussing a battle/campaign that losses might be the aggregate number of aircraft that the units engaged needed to replace during the period concerned — essentially anything that you can't patch up locally and return to action before the battle/campaign is over.

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Thompson (Post 147758)

To go off on a slight tangent, is that database complete for the JG units? I've had a look at the Eastern front ones in the late 44-45 period, and the losses seem very small, especially compared to the West. Is that a true reflection of the reality of the war at the time, or do the Eastern units have some information missing?

The database is complete for JG and SG units, or at least as complete as the original Luftwaffe documents are. In the late 44-45 period, most of the German fighters were on the Western front, and suffered far more losses there. On the Eastern front, there were more Fw 190s SG units than Jagdgruppen.