Re: Luftflotte 4 losses Apr.-Jun.1943: a comparison of the different data
 

Hello Andreas,

Thank you for the answer

Regards,
Andrey

Re: Luftflotte 4 losses Apr.-Jun.1943: a comparison of the different data
 

New example of remarkable discrepancy between different German sources:

It is a fragment of German report about Soviet aviation activity 23.Jun.42:
http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/attach...1&d=1432415534

Among victims of the bombing of Bryansk airfield are listed the following FW189:

1 - 90%, 1 - 70%, 4 - 50%, 1 - 30%. In all 7 FW189 with damages 30% or higher.

GQM returns:
23 June during the bombing of Bryansk airfield:
w/n 0197 from 2.(H)/13 - 70%
w/n 2193 from 2.(H)/13 - 60%
w/n 2192 from 2.(H)/13 - 30%
All in all 3 instead of 7 losses.

Also, for comparison with “Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen”:
26 June w/n 2187 from 2.(H)/13 - 25% without enemy action.
So in GQM returns for June 4 FW189 with damages 25-70%

July GQM returns for 2.(H)/13:
9 July w/n 2111 - 25% due to enemy action
18 July w/n 0072 - 25% without enemy action
19 July w/n 0154 - 20% due to enemy action
All in all 3 FW189 with damages 20-25%

“Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen” for 2.(H)/13:
June 1942: 2 losses due to enemy action
July 1942: 3 to Überholung (overhaul)

It looks like two most damaged FW189 were written off and maybe 3 other were sent to Überholung in the next month, and the rest were repaired within the unit

Anyway for June losses of 2.(H)/13, from minimum 8 FW189 with damages 25-90% only half (4) are listed in GQM returns. 50% are missed.

Re: Luftflotte 4 losses Apr.-Jun.1943: a comparison of the different data
 

Or the information, most likely with regards to damage extent, was corrected in a later correspondance that we do not have.

We have a hint with regards to the Einsatzbereitschaft of the unit, were it was reported as 9 FW 189, 7 serviceable on June 20th 1942 - and 8 FW 189 on June 30th, but only 4 serviceable.

The possibility that the unit received a large number of replacement aircraft of this type in such a short timespan is rather slim, looking at the Zuweisungen for June 1942, there is definitely no large number of FW 189 for the Luftwaffenkommand Ost which commanded the unit at the time - in reality it seems they have not requested any between June 16th an June 30th - possibly due to having 8 airframes available - even if the number of serviceable was only 4 on the 30th.

On July 10th the unit report 6 aircraft, 4 serviceable, most likely 2 of the 3 mentioned as sent to overhaul in July are the 2 deducted in the strength return.

A very nice find Andrey, hopefully it is possible to find something else to make this even clearer.

Regards,
Andreas B

Re: Luftflotte 4 losses Apr.-Jun.1943: a comparison of the different data
 

Hello Andreas,

thank you, valuable as always.

Do you have the data for June 10th and July 20th? It may make clear the timeframe of delivery and “Abgang”.
And, June 20th, for example - is it the evening data or morning?

I’ll try to find the June-July reports, maybe they contains a correction really.

Or maybe among 7 damaged FW189 were planes from other units or (more likely) planes in repair units.

Regards,
Andrey

Re: Luftflotte 4 losses Apr.-Jun.1943: a comparison of the different data
 

Yet another attempt to define whether the comparison of data in “Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen” with Gen.Qu.6.Abt. returns can help in verifying of the losses level.

In April 1943 only two FW189 units had operated with 17th German army (AOK17) on Kuban bridgehead – 1.(H)/21 and 7.(H)/32 (both under Stab NAGr9).

According to “Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen”, washout (Abgang) on April was:
1.(H)/21: 3 FW189 = 1 due to enemy action + 2 without enemy action [also 1 to tear-and-wear repair]
7.(H)/32: 1 FW189 (due to enemy action) [also 1 to tear-and-wear repair]

Losses in Gen.Qu.6.Abt. returns:

1.(H)/21:
2.4.43 FW189A-3 due to enemy action (90%) and nothing more.
So 2 losses/damages without enemy action are absent

7.(H)/32:
28.4 FW189A-3 due to enemy action (100%)
30.4 FW189A-3 due to enemy action (100%)
(20% damage 17.4.43 and 10% damage 30.4.43 ignored as probably repaired in the unit)
Both 100-% losses dates are correct (confirmed by German army units evidences).

So 1 loss « superfluous» [or it accounted as tear-and-wear].
Maybe «superfluous» loss was accounted in 1.(H)/21 instead of 7.(H)/32 for some reason (for example, crew was from 1.(H)/21 and the plane from 7.(H)/32), but it is strange. And, anyway, the absence in Gen.Qu.6.Abt. returns at least 1 loss of 1.(H)/21 remains unexplainable.

And due to zero losses in both in May 1943 (apart from tear-and-wear repair) it is impossible to explain the discrepancy in April through transfer of April’s losses to May reports.

Looks like some tear-and-wear washouts in «Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen» are losses really.

For the analysis, maybe 10-days strength reports are exists for these units?

Re: Luftflotte 4 losses Apr.-Jun.1943: a comparison of the different data
 

Hello, Andrey!

I can check the strength reports.

It is possible that the discrepancies for April is due to spill over from March. I see that the Abgang for March is only one aircraft, while I have three aircraft reported as damaged.

It is of course also possible that they damaged two aircraft (not enemy inflicted) with a damage percentage that did not neccessitate a GenQu report - but that they had to write these off later due to the fact that they were abandoned.

Also - I note that the loss reports for March and April were filed in May, it is possible that some of the reports did not reach the designated office at GenQu level due to the fact that it was a war going on.

Strength reports for Nahaufklärungsgruppe 9 (Verband Ist/Ensatzbereit):

10.03.43:
1./21 10/8
7./32 9/5

20.03.43:
1./21 10/9
7./32 10/4

31.03.43:
1./21 10/6
7./32 11/8

10.04.43:
1./21 9/7
7./32 11/8

20.04.43:
Stab 1/1 Bf 109
1./21 6/4
7./32 6/4

30.04.43:
Stab 1/0 Bf 109
1./21 6/4
7./32 9/6

10.05.43:
Stab 1/1 Bf 109
1./21 10/9
7./32 7/6

20.05.43:
Stab 1/1 Bf 109, 1/0 FW 189
1./21 10/9
7./32 7/6

31.05.43:
Stab 1/1 Bf 109
1./21 9/9
7./32 6/6

These numbers are consistent with the number of aircraft on the end of month dates as reported in the Flugzeugbestand- und Bewegungsmeldungen.

Posting this for now - more to follow on analysis!

Regards,
Andreas B

Re: Luftflotte 4 losses Apr.-Jun.1943: a comparison of the different data
 

Hello Andreas!

Thank you, your answer is valuable as always.

It seems only two damaged because Nr.2190 and Nr.2156 is the same plane really (the same crew, date, place and damage level in both records).

Seems unlikely for April because FW189s had used Kertsch and sometimes Anapa airfields, both airfields were lost too many months later. Nothing like emergency evacuation with abandonment of unserviceable planes.

Maybe.
But the «superfluous» loss in 7.(H)/32 remains unexplainable. 7.(H)/32 looks strange a bit in April.
Seemingly during 11-20.Apr. 5 FW189 were transferred to other unit (or maybe to repairing unit) and during 21-31.Apr. they has returned, and these movements were ignored by Bewegungsmeldungen.
Also, against two 100-% combat losses (and a 10-% combat damage, that maybe was repaired within the Staffel) we have in Bewegungsmeldungen 1 combat loss and one Überholung. Looks like 1 combat loss was recorded as Überholung for some unknown reason. Both losses were recorded immediately in the reports of several army units so they weren’t “doubtful cases”.
Spilling over to May is impossible due to zero losses in May’s Bewegungsmeldungen. Abgang of 6 (!) FW189 to Überholung only. GQM returns listed two combat damages (35% and 25%). Maybe these damages were repaired within the unit of course, though both damages not looks very slight.

Interesting that 1 FW189 has appeared in Stab NAGr9 during 11-20.May and disappeared again before 31.May. Wonder if something known about that plane.

Best regards,
Andrey

Re: Luftflotte 4 losses Apr.-Jun.1943: a comparison of the different data
 

And about 1.(H)/21 in April.

1-10.Apr.43:
decrement from 10 to 9.
It is a combat loss 2.Apr.43,

11-20.Apr.43:
decrement from 9 to 6.
According to Bewegungsmeldung for Apr.43, it is 1 Überholung and 2 losses without enemy action.
Both losses are absent in Gen.Qu.6.Abt. returns.

21-30.Apr.43: no changes

In May 1943 no losses (apart from 3 Überholung), so the missed April losses weren't spilled over to May or they were accounted as Überholung in May.

Best regards,
Andrey

Re: Luftflotte 4 losses Apr.-Jun.1943: a comparison of the different data
 

Another case

I./StG3
April 1943:
According to GQM returns, 11 losses (damages 50-100%) and 4 moderate damaged (15–20%)
According to Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen: 12 due to enemy and 5 without enemy action.
So 2-6 planes are absent in GQM returns.

One of them probably Ju87 crashed during combat mission 4.Apr.43. According to German army reports, one of Ju87 crashed (abgestürzt) between Krymskaja and Moldawanskaja (Taman bridgehead) after an abandoned (due to bad visibility) bombing of Soviet positions. The loss in question is absent in GQM returns.
It isn’t clear whether the plane was hit by Soviet AA fire or not.

As I./StG3 was the sole Stuka group operated on Kuban on 4.Apr.43, the crashed plane was from that group undoubtedly

May 1943:
GQM returns: 5 losses (90-100%) and 2 damaged Ju87 (15-30%)
Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen: 2 due to enemy and 7 without enemy action
So 2-4 planes are absent in GQM returns.

June 1943:
GQM returns: 3 losses (100%) and 3 damaged Ju87 (15-40%)
Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen: 1 due to enemy and 3 without enemy action
It is probably correct if 15% and 30% damages were repaired within the unit.

As in the previous case (with close recce units), maybe 10-days strength reports can help.

Re: Luftflotte 4 losses Apr.-Jun.1943: a comparison of the different data
 

Additional question about I./StG3.

1.Apr.43 the group had 49 (!) Ju87. What is the reason for that overstrength?
And how many planes were serviceable among these 49?

Best regards,
Adrey

Re: Luftflotte 4 losses Apr.-Jun.1943: a comparison of the different data
 

Continuation of the monologue :)

One of the records with missing Luftwaffe personnel on Deutsches Rotes Kreuz site:

4.(F)/122 Gfr Ferdinand Knopp Apr.1943 Black Sea.
Looks like Lfl 4 unknown loss during the timeframe in question. Or it is a date error?

Best regards,
Andrey

Re: Luftflotte 4 losses Apr.-Jun.1943: a comparison of the different data
 

There is a NVM for this löss:
1943-03-25, 4.(F)/122, Ju 88 D-1, 430535, F6+VM, Poti - Batum
Flugzeugführer Gefr Knopp, Ferdinand, vermißt
Beobachter Lt.z.S. Kunkel, Werner, vermißt
Bordfunker Uffz Stawinoga, Bernhard, vermißt
Bordschütze Ogfr Engel, Jacob, vermißt
Jägerbeschuß um 10.35 Uhr. Bruch 100 %. Start um 07.45 Uhr.

Matti

Re: Luftflotte 4 losses Apr.-Jun.1943: a comparison of the different data
 

Thank you, Matti!

Your answer is comprehensive as usual.

The plane was downed by 4 LaGG-3 (Cpt Kontsedalov, st.Sgt Chuprakov, Lt Ovsyannikov, st.Lt Topyrin) from 35.IAP PVO at 12:20 msk=10:20 with help of the radar direction. Ju88 crashed into the sea 35 km sw Batumi.

Best regards,
Andrey

Re: Luftflotte 4 losses Apr.-Jun.1943: a comparison of the different data
 

A case probably useful for understanding the procedure for listing of losses in GQM returns.

On 29.Sep.42 the pilot Heinz Welzel (I./StG77) was wounded by fire from the ground. In the GQM return this case was included only on 18.Dec.43, more than a year after the event (RL2-III/1196 Blatt 60). No info was written about the plane. However, on 3.Mar.44, another 2.5 months later, info was written: Ju87D-1 WNr 2568, 60% damage (i.e. the aircraft was to be written off).

There are quite a few cases where losses were entered many months later, and almost always several cases were entered at once, usually (or always?) with reference to Vordruck II. As I understand it, such additions arose as a result of some sort of reconciliation of flight personnel losses within the Genst.Gen.Qu.6.Abt., and aircraft data was entered in passing. But in this case the 6.Abt. didn't stop there, but apparently requested the info about the plane somewhere, and received it 2.5 months later.

It's possible, though, that it was somehow different.
Question: is there any info about the plane in the NVM report of I./StG77 containing info about Welzel's wounding? And when was this report written?

Best regards,
Andrey

Re: Luftflotte 4 losses Apr.-Jun.1943: a comparison of the different data
 

Is the date of NVM report in which Heinz Welzel (I./StG77) was mentioned really unknown?

Re: Luftflotte 4 losses Apr.-Jun.1943: a comparison of the different data
 

Hello Andrey,

the circumstance of the injury of Uffz. Heinz Welzel was reported with NVM 58 at 10.10.1942. The NVM did not give details of the aircraft involved.

This may be the cause for the delay within the GQM.

Regards

Dirk

Re: Luftflotte 4 losses Apr.-Jun.1943: a comparison of the different data
 

Hello Dirk,

thank you a lot!
It turns out that at first the loss was not included in the report due to the lack of plane data, than a year later this one was anyway included without info about the plane, and only in 1944 the data about the plane was entered. I wonder how it all worked. People in the same 6.Abt who worked with reports of personal losses and aircraft losses perhaps were sitting at neighboring tables. Probably, the Gen.Qu.6.Abt. was also listed among the recipients of the NVM report No.58?

Best regards,
Andrey

Re: Luftflotte 4 losses Apr.-Jun.1943: a comparison of the different data
 

Hello Andrey,

of the 7 copies from this report,
one copy was send to Gen.Qu. 6.Abtl. and one to
Wehrmachtsauskunftsstelle für Kriegsverluste und Kriegsgefangene (WASt.)
Some informations about the loss system can be found in RL 2-VI/213.
I had not yet the time, to go through this signature.

Regards

Dirk

Re: Luftflotte 4 losses Apr.-Jun.1943: a comparison of the different data
 

Dirk, thank you again!

I've downloaded the file now, will try to find the relevant details.

Regards,
Andrey

Re: Luftflotte 4 losses Apr.-Jun.1943: a comparison of the different data
 

RL 2-VI/213 from 79.jpg: Geschichte der Abteilung Verlustwesen des OKL/LP. Very interesting!

Re: Luftflotte 4 losses Apr.-Jun.1943: a comparison of the different data
 

There are many entries in GQM returns with personnel losses but without info about a plane. I used to think that these were planes with less than 10% damage.
But the above case with Ju87 (I./StG77) leads to the idea that these may have been severely damaged planes whose data was never included in GQM returns. And it's not clear which of these cases are more common.

Best regards,
Andrey

Re: Luftflotte 4 losses Apr.-Jun.1943: a comparison of the different data
 

An interesting example from Summarische Verlustmeldungen of TGr10 - ex KGr zbV5 and soon became I./KG55. In the spring of 1943 this group was used as a bomber unit (He111).

29.Apr.43 two planes total loss on the ground due to strafing (Bodenverluste durch Bordwaffenbeschuss) with reference to GQM daily return on 12.May43.
The problem is that in the GQM daily return on 12.May43 the relevant records are absent, and for the whole of April and May there are no such losses of this group.

Whether it's unknown losses, and the reference isn't to the daily compilation of the Gen.Qu.6.Abt., but maybe to a report from the unit, or it's just a few mistakes in one line.

Any ideas?

Best regards,
Andrey