Re: US Strategic Bombing Survey No59 - a questionable statement about 1-seat fighters production
 

I have seen posts here showing W.Nr. blocks for Bf 109 production at various locations. Perhaps this can help solve the problem.

Re: US Strategic Bombing Survey No59 - a questionable statement about 1-seat fighters production
 

Hi Andrey,
Yes RL 2-VI 199 and 202. The link appears to have used these numbers but I've only noticed similarities so perhaps the entire table is filled with more errors. I go by the BAMA docs anyway.
Calum Douglas writes on the issue only so much as a comment outlining the very same concerns report No. 59 lays out, then ties in some inner Luftwaffe politics to demonstrate how there were problems with the new leadership, aircraft production quality, and performance development.
It is interesting that within the USSBS the total production numbers are both stated and questioned... probably a sign of good analysis and keen eyes.

As to why the numbers don't match, I do not know and am trying to figure it out too.
Cheers!

Re: US Strategic Bombing Survey No59 - a questionable statement about 1-seat fighters production
 

In 1944 Germany lost a huge amount of territory and many aircraft were left behind in a more or less damaged condition, and probably most of them were not declared as total losses (at least if was the case in late 1942 in Stalingrad area and in 1943 in Tunisia and Sicily, where loss files are available). Still it won't explain why 40% of 1944 production is missing, but it could explain some thousands of them

Re: US Strategic Bombing Survey No59 - a questionable statement about 1-seat fighters production
 

Hi Gabor,

Can you specify the pages or at least the chapter where he writes about it?


:)

Cheers!

Re: US Strategic Bombing Survey No59 - a questionable statement about 1-seat fighters production
 

Hello Laurent,

I agree with you.
I think the "disappeared" can be divided into 4 main groups:
1) Planes under repair in Industrie or on the way to it lost for various reasons (including during the retreat) - were not included in GQM returns, and therefore the USSBS authors didn't find the info about that losses.
2) New planes produced and accepted by Luftwaffe, but didn't reach the units - due to air raids and for other reasons.
3) Losses within units not mentioned in GQM returns. As far as I noticed, the omissions happened primarily with losses on the ground, but sometimes in other cases up to combat sorties. I think since 1944 it was a more or less noticeable share, but even before that there were cases of quite a lot of missed (you rightly mentioned Stalingrad and Tunisia)
4) Planes received for repair in Industrie, but used (cannibalized) for the repair of other planes or even partially for the production of new planes.
Maybe I missed something and not sure that this list would completely cover the shortfall.

Best regards,
Andrey

Re: US Strategic Bombing Survey No59 - a questionable statement about 1-seat fighters production
 

Hi Andrey,
It can be found in page 400 of his book, footnote 117 of that chapter, quotes some text from Report No.59, and states a few names (Karl-Otto Sauer and Speer) from the Luftwaffe higher ups as being responsible for counting the production.

Cheers!

Re: US Strategic Bombing Survey No59 - a questionable statement about 1-seat fighters production
 

Thank you, Gabor!

Re: US Strategic Bombing Survey No59 - a questionable statement about 1-seat fighters production
 

Hi Gabor,

As I see, Douglas accepts the USSBS's version "as is". And what's more, he doesn't present it as a hypothesis, but as a fact. Maybe it did really happen, but that requires proof.

Cheers,
Andrey

Re: US Strategic Bombing Survey No59 - a questionable statement about 1-seat fighters production
 

I wonder if anyone has checked if the numbers within the article itself agree. From the same USSBS No.59:

S/E fighters accepted by the GAF in 1944 ... [month by month] sum=25 921 (max in September = 3031).
This is almost the same as in RL2-VI/199: 25 914 Neubau (Bf109 (incl. close recce versions) + FW190 (incl. ground attack versions) + Ta152 + Me163).

But after a few paragraphs , the statement follows:
The claimed production of some 36,000 single-engine fighter aircraft in the year 1944 greatly exceeds the number of aircraft which can be accounted for in Luftwaffe units and by records of losses.

If ~26 000 were actually produced, and not 36 000, the problem of "disappeared" S/E fighters looks different.

The statement in the USSBS that a total of 39 000 of all operational types of aircraft were produced in 1944 also does not correspond to the statement about 36 000 S/E fighters.
Maybe 36 000 = 3000 (September's peak) x 12.

I'm using the online version of USSBS-59:
https://dracobooks.com/The%20Defeat%...r%20Force.html

Is a usual copy without OCR available?

There is a reference in the text to a German document "Averages of actual strength and monthly losses of aircraft and crews". What is this document and is it available now?

Best regards,
Andrey

Re: US Strategic Bombing Survey No59 - a questionable statement about 1-seat fighters production
 

Perhaps the following will be helpful.

https://www.archives.gov/research/gu...roups/243.html