|
Re: Lw-losses without enemy actions!
Quote:
Also you mention take off and landing, but that doesn't differentiate between mechanical, weather or pilot error. In general take off and landing are still the most dangerous moment. Now this isn't critique, it is great to see figures. |
Re: Lw-losses without enemy actions!
Hi, Ruy.
This is exactly one of the reasons I have established my database system. All loss reasons in the database has several 'indexes' connected to it. In that way, as soon as a loss is entered, it will update the loss information. For example: The loss reasons listed below all are attributed on a second level to 'pilot error category', thus, when I want to I can take the grand total for the given unit and sort out the ones attributed to pilot error. Cool right?? Bedienungsfehler Absturz inf.Bedienungsfehler Bedienungsfehler b.Start Bruchlandung inf.Bedienungsfehler Bedienungsfehler b.Landung Bruchldg.inf.Bedienungsfehler Bedienungsfehler b.Rollen Überschlag b.Landung inf.Bedienungsfehler Bauchldg.inf.Bedienungsfehler Notlandung inf.Bedienungsfehler Bedienungsfehler b.Landung, abgestellter Bf 109 gerammt Notldg.inf.Bedienungsfehler Bauchlandung infolge Bedienungsfehler Bauchlandung inf.Bedienungsfehler Absturz inf.Bedienungsfehler (F.unverl.) Bedienungsfehler bei Landung beim Start ausgebrochen inf.Bedienungsfehler Bedienungsfehler beim Start (F.unverl.) Kopfstand inf.Bedienungsfehler Bedienungsfehler b.Landg. Bedienungsfehler beim Start Bedienungsfehler bei Landung (F.unverl.) Kopfstand b.Start inf.Bedienungsfehler Baumberührung infolge Bedienungsfehler Absturz infolge Bedienungsfehler Bruchlandung infolge Bedienungsfehler Bedienungsfehler bei Landung, Aufschlagbrand Überschlag bei Landung infolge Bedienungsfehler Explosion in der Luft infolge Bedienungsfehler Absturz infolge Bedienungsfehler, Aufschlagbrand Absturz in See infolge Bedienungsfehler Bedienungsfehler (Besatzung unverletzt) Absturz, vermutl.Bedienungsfehler Absturz infolge Bedienungsfehler (F.unverletzt) Fahrwerkschaden infolge Bedienungsfehler Absturz, Aufschlagbrand, vermutl. Bedienungsfehler (Nicht feindbeobachtet) Bei Landung infolge Bedienungsfehler ausgebrochen Hindernisberührung bei Landung infolge Bedienungsfehler Absturz infolge Bedienungsfehler (Besatzung unverletzt) Unfreiwillige Bodenberührung infolge Bedienungsfehler Bedienungsfehler (Nicht feindbeobachtet) Bruchlandung infolge Bedienungsfehler (Nicht feindbeob.) Bei Landung ausgebrochen infolge Bedienungsfehler Beim Start ausgebrochen infolge Bedienungsfehler Bedienungsfehler (F.unverletzt) Notlandung infolge Bedienungsfehler Bedienungsfehler bei Landung, Überschlag (Nicht feindbeobachtet) this being a wholly relational system also gives us the possibility to do amongst other the following: Want to read the loss reason, location name, aircraft designation, personnel ranks etc etc in your native language? No problem.... I have included support for normalized german (you will see that some of the loss reasons above are the same, but just written in a different form, words in shorthand etc, this is corrected to normalized german for those that want a 'unified' look to the loss reasons), french, english, russian, norwegian, danish, swedish, finnish and spanish until now, and you can if you want to expand this into eternity... as long as someone care to do the translations. Regards, Andreas |
Re: Lw-losses without enemy actions!
Very impressive indeed!
|
Re: Lw-losses without enemy actions!
Concerning the figures given by Andreas for the aircrafts "casualties", we arrive to a gross figure of 115.000, I hv in my own base, 90.000 entries, but is missing part of 1940 for the schools + polen is uncomplete +the whole 1944/at least 35.000-40.000, so for end of 1944, man could expect around 135.000 craft-casualties....
rt |
Re: Lw-losses without enemy actions!
Quote:
The germans have built planes total : (including school) 113 515 AC between 1939 - 45 so its not possible according that book to lost "around" 135 000 . ;) Also according the book aircraft losses from september 39 till end of December 44. 71 965 AC (total and damaged more than 10 % ). the year 1945 is missing. |
Re: Lw-losses without enemy actions!
AC production :
1939 = 2518 1940 = 10247 1941 = 12401 1942 = 15409 1943 = 24807 1944 = 40593 1945 = 7540 = total 113515 AC. = Bomber = 18 235 Jäger = 53729 Schlacht = 12359 Aufklärer = 6299 Seeflugzeuge = 1190 Transport = 3079 Kampf /Transportsegler = 3145 Verbindungsflugzeuge = 2549 Schulflugzeuge = 10942 Strahlflugzeuge = 1988 |
Re: Lw-losses without enemy actions!
Yes but the losses are quite there "written", to explain difference there are many explanation;
a plane could be damaged/lost many times Luftwaffe used many foreign planes, mostly in school units transport units quoted is a production of 3000 transport planes only the Ju52 gave 4000+ casualties without 1944.. Foreign countries appear in the losses/ rumänien, Ungarn, Italien very few../but they gen. flew german planes Many planes lost during this period hv been built before 1939, mostly for the schools, nd from oct40 to sept 44, the losses for the schools are at least 18.000 strong with some gliders in,from jan 36 to aug.39 losses are 2.300 strong, not in the spanish conflict,...nd more to add splitting between H/F Heimat/Feind, for 1941/1942 on roughtly 26.000 entries 27 % are H so 73 % F, but if all the H are accidents, some of the F could be also accidents, but during action. rt |
Re: Lw-losses without enemy actions!
I can give the losses of operational units for September 1939 (mainly Poland);
Accidents - without enemy fire - appr. 100 total losses ( damage 60-100% ). Total losses to all causes - 303 aircraft. This means that appr. 30% of all total losses were write offs after accidents. Marius |
Re: Lw-losses without enemy actions!
Luftwaffe documents of killed soldiers are not very relieable, if you read Overmans "Militärische Verluste". These documents were not doctored, but the Wehrmacht loss system was simply not very sufficent.
Therefore 430.000 KIA as a global number should be taken into account. Also the system of the Luftwaffe aircraft reports has to be viewed with some scepticism. In Budrass "Flugzeugindustrie" is stated, that already before "Barbarossa" the statistices of damaged planes was lower by some thousand, compared to planes were repaired by industry in reality. The high figures for non combat losses has IMHO also to be reviewed. One example: Take this crash of Krupinski at 5.7.43. Bf 109G-6 W.Nr. 20062 weiße 9 (80%) 7./J.G. 52 Krupinski, Oblt. Walter (RK) Injured, overturning on landing. (Flak?) Ugrim/Belgorod F by http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/tony/...units/jg52.htm Seems to be more a non-combat loss. As everybody know, Krupinski was already an ace in 1943. Look at Tollivers Hartmann book, there is stated, Krupinski had a hard fight with soviet fighters over the airfield and his 109 suffered hits at the rudder. So he tried an emergency landing and failed. For me this would be more a combat loss. |
Re: Lw-losses without enemy actions!
Concerning the Krupinski case, the loss is noted F, so with ennemy action, in the reports it's not stated if it is an accident or anything else, just if it's made during "action" or "einsatz" called "F" or not "H", then you could interprete the cause, if it is or it is not an accident,but to sort them takes more than 5 minutes necessary to split among H or F
Following the figures I gave for 1941/1942 the one for non-action losses "H" seems very high 27%, I re-checked nd based on 23686 entries the "H" branded losses amount to 6480, so a bit more than 27 %, for 1943 the figure is quite higher 30 % based on 25.000 losses, but with Erg.gr. nd Jgr. without them /if we consider them as schools units/ we fall to 24.8 % RT |
| All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:51. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2018, 12oclockhigh.net