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

Hello!

The US Strategic Bombing Survey No59 (The Defeat of the German Air Force) states the following about the production of fighters in 1944 (sorry for the long quote):

********************
14. There can be no exact assessment of the number of fighter planes "lost" ... as a result of Allied attacks on production ... 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.

16. The mystery of "where were all the aircraft going which were claimed to be produced?" requires examination. ... GAF fighter battle order on all fronts increased in 1944 only from 1,500 to some 2,200, while S/E fighter "production" exceeded losses in first line units in the same period by more than 16,000. At the same time, fighter school commanders were complaining that there was a serious shortage of operational types of aircraft on which to train. Oberst Littman, commanding offlcer of Straubing Airport flying school, stated that he was told lies about the number of aircraft in the Luftwaffe ...

17. Even if all fighters damaged more than 10 per cent are added to lost aircraft, more than 8,000 fighter aircraft remain to be accounted for. This means that, if all aircraft receiving anything more than superficial damage were scrapped, there would still be over 8,000 which disappeared.

18. The conclusion - or perhaps "suspicion" is the better word - is that nowhere near so many aircraft were produced ... "Further sources of error are to be found In the way aircraft under repair were accounted for. There were three possibilities of repair which had to be considered: "a. Repair with the troops (not counted in the statistics).
"b. Repair requiring up to 1,000 man-hours, which went to the repair shops. At first, these repairs were counted as stocks. After the crucial period In 1943, they were no longer considered In the statistics.
"c. The normal case: 'Extensive repairs,' which meant that the planes went back to the manufacturers and were counted both as losses and, later, (when they cams back) as new production."

19. Unquestionably there exists, in German aircraft statistics a discrepancy between claimed new production when compared to losses and the strength in units of the GAF. Production of all operational types of aircraft in 1944 was claimed at some 39,000 ... Strength in units at the end of 1944 was virtually unchanged from the beginning of the year. With aircraft written off in 1944 totaling 21,946, there remains unaccounted for a difference of some 17,000 planes; ie, the excess of claimed production over aircraft written off. It is unreasonable to believe that 17,000 planes were destroyed outside of units. A possible partial answer is furnished in the statistics which show 5,689 more aircraft going into repair than were returned for allocation to units. Part of these may well have been repaired, marked as "new production" aircraft and entered in the accounting system as such. In addition, the statistics show that 25 to 30 per cent of the so-called new production aircraft was allocated to "sundry and modification" instead of to GAF units. The records show the assignment of a negligible number of aircraft from modification to GAF units. There is a strong supposition that aircraft came out of modification again marked as new production
********************
Full text:
https://dracobooks.com/The%20Defeat%...r%20Force.html

Has anyone researched this problem? There should probably be a more plausible explanation than just a lie.

Best regards,
Andrey

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

Hi, Calum Douglas brings this issue up in his book "The Secret Horsepower Race" as well. The USSBS No. 4 and BBSU use the same figures, however these are off from the post-war assessment (summer 1945) from Gen.Qu.6 based on remaining period documents which can be found in BAMA. In it they state that some of their data is guesswork as the original papers were lost/destroyed. This link wrote out the numbers but there are a few typos and didn't site the source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German...g_World_War_II). These numbers are different from the USSBS No.4 + BBSU studies.

Cheers!

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

"Has anyone researched this problem?" I do not remember seeing any research that addresses this specific question. "There should probably be a more plausible explanation than just a lie." I have worked with the USSBS for over 60 years, It has been and still remains one of the best documentary sources related to the Luftwaffe available in the USA. It was never a propaganda activity, but a serious attempt to determine the effectiveness of a form of warfare for which there was really no historical precedence for internal US military use. Thus, immediately assuming that an report is a lie, for me is a bit off the scale.
I believe the first line of the document really answers what this particular document represents,"This report was written primarily for the use of the US Strategic Bombing Survey in the preparation of further reports of a more comprehensive nature. Any conclusions or opinions expressed in this report must be considered as limited to the specific material covered and as subject to further interpretation in the light of further studies conducted by the Survey." So you are looking at a preliminary report which specifically defines the limits of its' validity.
Before closing, the USSBS data, working files and draft reports still exist at USNA College Park. The original documents, unlike most USA collections appear to be essentially intact, none having been returned to Germany. Thus, this represent a source that contains some data that may not be available At BA. Just as a teaser, perhaps copies of the C-Amt Monatsmeldung from 1941 t0 1944 missing only one month?
Your original question, ""Has anyone researched this problem?", is good and valid. It would probably be a good start for someone's PhD. thesis. As I approach 90, I have other projects to work on.

ArtieBob

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

I do not think he was suggesting that the USSBS was a lie, rather that the figure of 36000 new s/e fighters in 1944 is a whopper

Martin

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

A tip of the hat to ya', Art. At 85½, I thought I was just about the oldest still participating here, even if a lot less frequently than before. Tally-ho.

Larry deZ.

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

Yes, "lie" - it is opinion of Oberst Littman, quoted by USSBS, not my opinion. I think there must be other explanation.

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

Hi Gabor,

Thank you for the tip!
What is it BBSU?

I saw RL2-VI/202 and 199. Do I need to add something to this list?

According to this table, only 4 BV 222 were produced. I'm afraid that many, if not all, other figures are equally "reliable".

Cheers,
Andrey

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

ArtieBob,

thank you for the additional info about USSBS

Best regards,
Andrey

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

BBSU - British Bombing Survey Unit.

Some actual research needs to be done as opposed to guessing.

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

Thank you!