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

Hello, Andrey.

Been a few days in the mountains skiing - will get back to our discussion later today.

Regards,
Andreas B

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

Hello Andreas,

I’m glad to hear you!

For comparison, Soviet analogue (but daily, not monthly) of “Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen”, in attachment:

Attachment 10013

Explanation:

Form No.4
Combat strength report of 216.SAD for 16.4.1943 (made late in 15.4.43)
Columns:
1. Line number
2. Regiment
3. Dislocation (airfield)
4. Aircraft type
5. Serviceable planes on the airfield
6. Non-serviceable planes on the airfield
7. Has repaired [last 24 hours]
8. Has left
9. Has arrived
10. Losses
11. Sum of planes

On hands:
12. Pilots
13. Observers
14. Air gunners
15. Engineers
16. Technicians, Mechanics
17. Junior specialists

Combat-ready crews:
18. For daylight hours
19. Among them, for night also

20. Pilots outside the unit

Below the table remarks were written.

For example, for the famous 16.GIAP the following remarks:
Popovicheskaya airfield: 1 Airacobra on forced landing off Novotitarovskaya [column 8]
Krasnodar airfield: 8 Airacobras damaged in dogfights [column 6]
Column 8: 2 Airacobras FTR (Major Kryukov, jr.Lt Naumenko)
Column 20: 1 pilot in hospital

The form No.4 has varied a bit from one unit to other, the filling was also different. In some units it contained the factory numbers, for example.

Best regards,
Andrey

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

Hello, Andrey.

Very interesting data!

Trying to decipher my way through - think I have got the bases for 16. GIAP right - Popo?icheskaia and Kracnodar written directly in latin letters. WHat is the fifth letter in the first name in cyrillic? Think I will be able to locate the second one at least :-)

Interesting how Aerocobra and Kittyhawk is written - "Aerokobra" and "Kittikhauk" - guess they mimicked the pronounciation?

More from my side later on

Regards,
Andreas B

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

Hello Andreas,
5th letter is cyrillic 'в'

Popovicheskaya (also PopovicheVskaya in some documents and maps) now is Kalininskaya (~50 km NNW Krasnodar)

Yes

Regards,
Andrey

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

In the attached document the column "Total über 60%" means (strictly speaking) that 60% damages were counted as repairable. Is it right?
According to all other accounts 60% means the lower limit of the irrepairable damages.

Also, let's return to "Er" mark after % of damages in GQM returns.
If really only total losses and items with "Er" mark were included in columns "durch Feindeinwirkung" and "ohne Feindeinwirkung" in Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen, the difference between losses in the sources in question is even higher than I wrote before.

Surprisingly few Lfl.4 losses during Apr.-Jun.43 has the "Er" mark.

By the way, a strange record on the page 10 on 22.5.43 (record 183): Lfl.2 30.4.43 7./JG77 Bf109G-6 wn 16569 70% (!) with "Er". Is it a typo?

Best regards,
Andrey

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

Hello friends and Andreas especially,

an addition to the untimely faded discussion.

In the GQM returns for Lfl.4 during Apr.-Jun.43 the remarks 'Er' (Ersatz) after % of damage are absent with two exceptions described below.

Transport units in the Lfl.4 area (not included in Lfl.4 and listed in GQM returns among "Transportverbände (Einsatz Osten)") has used the remark 'Er' really. I has counted 8 entries in the timeframe in question - 6 from TGr10 and 2 from III./TG3.

But in returns for Lfl.4 I has found 2 entries only - both from I./KG55 (ex-TGr10 mentioned above). Probably I./KG55 used the 'Er' remark by inertia as ex-transport unit.

Hardly to believe that among hundreds of damaged aircrafts none required the repair outside the unit!

It look like the 'Er' system hasn't worked in the Lfl.4 in the timeframe in question at least.

Any ideas?

Best regards,
Andrey

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

Hello, Andrey

I agree to your comment that this system has (probably not) worked in the area of the Luftflotte 4. There could have been specific orders for the units not to use this - as i have seen specific orders to units within Luftflotten to deviate from standard reporting practice (specifically Luftflottenkommando Süd-Ost which I believe was operating close to Luftflotte 4).

Sorry for the short answer and for letting this quite important thread die - will try to bring it back to life from my part after my vacation! (Family, sand, sea and sun is the priority these days...)

Regards,
Andreas

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

Hello Andreas,

What is the reason of these deviations? Seems strange a bit.
It isn't a urgent question, I'll wait the end of your vacation :)

Best regards,
Andrey

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

Hello Andreas,

do you have something new about the topic?

Best regards,
Andrey

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

Hello, Andrey.

As you might have seen the number of discussion I have commented on lately is rather low - I have been too busy in other areas of life to be able to allocate much time to hobbies.

Will see if I can sniff out these specific orders over the next few days.

Regards,
Andreas B