Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

Hello,

I am very glad to have become a forum member!

I've been interested in Luftwaffe loss figures for a long time, and I've become ever more confused as to their precise meaning. My specific question concerns Ed Hooton's 2010 book - http://www.ianallanpublishing.com/the-luftwaffe.htm

On page 143 of this book, Mr. Hooton provides a summary table of Luftwaffe Losses in the Western Mediterranean

To give an example, for Q4 1942 he gives figures of 432 aircraft lost to EA (enemy action) and 489 to accidents

The sources he gives are as follows:
BA MA RL 2 III/875-881 and Mr Nick Beale (A member of this forum!)
Note: Figures exclude seaplane and transport units


My question is:
Are these total losses (100%), or do the totals include aircraft damaged beyond repair (60% and above), or all aircraft sustaining any damage (5% and above?)

Why were more aircraft lost to accidents than enemy action? Does this indicate that the figures include even minor damage, presumably sustained in many take-off and landing knocks?

Paul Thompson

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

I don't know which of my things Ted Hooton was citing, so it's difficult to comment on how he did his maths.

Taking one of the files you mention, RL2 III/881, this offers detailed breakdowns of aircraft on strength and lost in units during August 1944. It categorises these losses under: enemy action, not by enemy action, given up to other units, and sent to industry (for major repair/overhaul). Aircraft received are divided into new production, from other units, and repaired.

I don't know if anyone has ever worked out the ratio of aircraft sent to industry vs. the reconditioned machines that units received. Presumably many written off aircraft would have yielded useable parts so that (in theory) you'd get a whole machine from every so many wrecks.

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

In RAF practice, the main fuselage carried the identification, so it would not be possible to generate a totally new airframe as it would still carry the identity of the fuselage. Everything else would just be spares. I suspect a similar situation existed in the Luftwaffe; the likeliest contender for such an item being the centre fuselage/wing centre section on most types.

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

Nick and Graham, thank you for your ideas!

Nick, your description of RL2 III/881 closely matches the layout of the Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen available on Michael Holm's website. Are they indeed the same or similar?

The gist of what both of you are saying seems to be that Ted Hooton's totals are most likely those for aircraft lost or damaged beyond repair, minus any which were eventually extensively reassembled. I've looked at my notes again and I've found that on page 213 of the same book Mr. Hooton describes a similar set of figures for the Eastern Front as relating to aircraft destroyed or severely damaged. I am guessing that this should mean aircraft sustaining 60% damage or greater according to the Luftwaffe classification and so you are right.

However, all of the above raises a couple of "global" questions. Did the Luftwaffe really lose such a large proportion of aircraft to non-combat causes? Is this an exception or the rule among the air forces of World War Two? I find myself at a loss to answer those.

I've reproduced the Mediterranean table below to show the magnitude of the non-combat losses. Nick, I hope it might also give you some idea of how the calculations were done, by giving more data to compare with any totals that you may have.

Table below:

Quarter Year EA Accident Ratio of EA to Accident
Q4 1942 423 489 0.87
Q1 1943 448 471 0.95
Q2 1943 677 461 1.47
Q3 1943 1114 578 1.93
Q4 1943 261 129 2.02
Q1 1944 458 162 2.83
Q2 1944 421 162 2.60

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

For comparison, Wikipedia provided this data for the USAAF;

"88,119 airmen died in service. 52,173 were battle casualty deaths: 45,520 KIA, 1,140 died of wounds, 3,603 were MIA and declared dead, and 1,910 were nonhostile battle deaths... 35,946 non-battle deaths included 25,844 in aircraft accidents, more than half of which occurred within the Continental United States."

Don

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

1) Yes.

2) Maybe but I've not tried to compile the stats. Lots of people died in accidents in all air forces but I don't have comparative data. Flying in the 1940s was far more hazardous than now and in wartime aircraft were often overloaded, operated from less than ideal fields etc. Runway and hazard lighting was kept to a minimum in the general blackout. Loading bombs and fuel could result in fire and explosions. Luftwaffe pilot quality deteriorated as training was curtailed. Delivery flights to North Africa were over water, those to Italy over mountains. Aircraft construction suffered from materials shortfalls, bombardment, dispersed production in sheds, tunnels forests. Germany was using slaves to produce aircraft. All of this is likely to have affected the quality of the final product.

3) I've never made any attempt to calculate total losses in the MTO or elsewhere, only for given units at particular times or for individual actions, so I can't really help. At a tactical level, an aircraft is lost when the user requires a replacement for it; where that replacement comes from is not too important (provided refurbished machines really are "good as new" and not obsolete marks, of course). At a strategic level however, the more severely damaged planes you can put back into action alongside new production, the better.

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

In the Soviet VVS more than 50% of aircraft (ca. 45,200 out of total 88,300) were lost to non-combat causes, such as accidents, wear and tear etc.

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

From my own experience, I would say that it was usual for an air force to lose more aircraft in accidents than by enemy action, but only if you include rear area units (flight schools, operational training schools and so on).

From the summary of Luftwaffe losses between 22 June 1941 and the first days of 1945, frontline units will suffer 25-40% of their unrepairable losses (> 60%) in accidents and the rest due to enemy action (either in the air or on the ground)

Some examples:
II./JG 27: 140 accident losses, 509 total = 27%
III./JG 53: 177 accident losses, 477 total = 37%
II./JG 53: 121 accident losses, 467 total = 26%
I./JG 53: 129 accident losses, 422 total = 31%

JGr.West (an operational training unit): 399 accident losses, 477 total = 84%

As for the figures in your tables, you can see that the Q4 1942 and Q1 1943 are the ones where the percentage of losses in accidents are the highest, probably for four reasons:
1) lot of flying was done over water (between Tunisia and Sicily/Italy) or terrain where it was difficult to recover aircraft (desert or Tunisian mountains)
2) the Luftwaffe was operating from rude airfield compared to Germany or North Europe
3) there was a great number of transport units involved in MTO operations, and up to April 1943 and operation Flax they suffered more losses in accidents than due to enemy action
4) lack of spare parts and good workshops: an aircraft that could have been repaired in Germany or in France will be dumped in Tunisia.

If you exclude these two periods, from Q2 1943 to Q2 1944, your figures are 2931 losses due to enemy action and 1492 in accidents = 32%.

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

In the Soviet VVS more than 50% of aircraft (ca. 45,200 out of total 88,300)

So few ,,,???

Rémi

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

Well... what figures did you expect to see?

88,300 are only the losses suffered by a frontline units, these figures don't include losses in training units, schools etc.

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

I did that for some types (Ju 87, Ju 88, He 111) using Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen from Michael Holm's site. The final numbers are close enough.

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

Nick, thank you again for your thoughts. Point 1 makes me think that Ted Hooton's figure may well be a very rough reflection of reality, since it's quite difficult to know which of the Bestandliste (correct term?) to include in any calculation.

In point 2 you suggest a few reasons for why the Luftwaffe in particular may have been badly affected by non-combat losses. I think its possible, particularly in view of the many comments made by men at the time and later historians, that the Luftwaffe maintenance and repair organisation was particularly bad in comparison to the RAF, for example. That would potentially mean that during crisis periods, such as the withdrawals late 1942, the Luftwaffe would be largely incapacitated by its own technical problems, rather than Allied air supremacy. Do you get that sense from your study of the Mediterranean air war? I have the impression that in Tunisia especially, the Luftwaffe had significant technical means and the men to use them, but failed to achieve much because of awful maintenance problems.

I understand that you haven't been collating total losses, but do Ted Hooton's figures seem qualitatively correct? By that I mean do the loss figures match the relative intensity of combat across the time periods in question? I was surprised that the beginning of 1944 was as quiet as the beginning of 1943, in spite of the air battles around Anzio.

Do you think that the Germans had much harder a time getting badly damaged aircraft repaired than the RAF or USAAF?

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

Hello Laurent!

I am replying separately to you because I've got in a bit of a muddle when trying to merge my replies.

Thank you for giving the fighter Gruppe figures for comparison. It does seem that the non-combat losses were high, but as you say, the winter of 42/43 in the Mediterranean is somewhat of an exception. I see the merit of your points 1 through 3, but is point 4 really a case of many aircraft being dumped in Tunisia? I wonder whether the Luftwaffe field maintenance organisation was completely unsuitable for field operations as a whole, so any campaign in the African desert or Russian steppe would lead to large-scale accidental loss. Did the Gruppen you mention lose significantly more aircraft in accidents in Africa and the southern steppe than in the other areas where they operated?

I've found my note with the Eastern Front totals, reproduced below:

Quarter Year EA Accident Ratio of EA to Accident
Q4 1942 646 476 1.36
Q1 1943 740 491 1.51
Q2 1943 654 560 1.17
Q3 1943 1247 784 1.59
Q4 1943 560 433 1.29
Q1 1944 584 599 0.97
Q2 1944 798 739 1.08

Is the summary from 22 June 1941 to January 1945 a document, or your calculation? I am asking because I've never come across this before.

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

Well, this thread seems to have died somewhat! I am not resurrecting it out of vanity, but because I've found yet more information which has utterly confused me again. The Osprey book about the La-5/7 (see Amazon link at bottom) contains the following loss figures:

In July-August 1943 total Luftwaffe losses to all causes on the Eastern front are given as 2419, including 432 Fw 190s. This seems ridiculously inflated, but is another explanation possible? Could this be the total of all incidents of aircraft sustaining damage?

For a different period, July-August 1944, Khazanov and Medved say that JG 54 lost 115 aircraft to all causes and the Schlacht Geschwader lost 498. These figures seem much closer to the truth, at least if they are meant to be total losses. Can any forum members who have studied this area say if these numbers feel right?

http://www.amazon.com/La-5-Fw-190-Ea.../dp/1849084734

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

July-Aug 1943 would have been during the Kursk battle...

Don

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

These loss figures are based on mentioned Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen and include not only total losses but also aircraft sent to industry for major repair.

Month Lost to E/A Lost without E/A Sent to industry Total
Jul43 682 355 247 1284
Aug43 461 368 306 1135
Total: 1143 723 553 2419

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

Using the same source as before (Luftwaffe losses summary), I found that in June-July 1944:
_ JG 54 on the whole lost a total of 207 aircraft, 123 being destroyed (damage > 60%) and 84 damaged.
_ if we exclude III./JG 54 that was on the West front, the figure is 112 losses, 55 destroyed and 57 damaged

For all SG units (almost all being on the Eastern front, except a short period on Western Front for III./SG 4), I have 503 losses, 309 destroyed and 194 damaged.

So Khazanov and Medved are close to truth for East Front losses in this period, but their figures included damaged and destroyed aircraft.

PS: by the way my source is the website of Andreas Brekken and co, where the data is available through a database: http://www.ahs.no/ref_db/lw_summ_los...iew.asp?PAGE=1

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

Thank you Maxim1, it's great to see the detailed breakdown! Does this mean you know which specific Bewegungsmeldungen the authors used for the calculation? It would be very interesting to see which units they included.

Laurent, thank you for doing the calculations, they match the book figures very closely! Andreas Brekken and friends have done great work.
To go off on a slight tangent, is that database complete for the JG units? I've had a look at the Eastern front ones in the late 44-45 period, and the losses seem very small, especially compared to the West. Is that a true reflection of the reality of the war at the time, or do the Eastern units have some information missing?

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

I should have thought when you're discussing a battle/campaign that losses might be the aggregate number of aircraft that the units engaged needed to replace during the period concerned — essentially anything that you can't patch up locally and return to action before the battle/campaign is over.

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

The database is complete for JG and SG units, or at least as complete as the original Luftwaffe documents are. In the late 44-45 period, most of the German fighters were on the Western front, and suffered far more losses there. On the Eastern front, there were more Fw 190s SG units than Jagdgruppen.

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

Paul, in fact, the source for this breakdown is my own work :)

I have analysed all Bewegungsmeldungen that are available on Michael Holm's site and compiled several Luftwaffe loss tables. As for example:

Luftwaffe losses on Eastern front:

Month A/c on strength Lost to E/A Lost without E/A Sent to industry Total
Mar43 2496 315 291 324 930
Apr43 2813 201 269 214 684
May43 2844 332 286 226 844
Jun43 2955 240 211 202 653
Jul43 3094 682 355 247 1284
Aug43 2752 461 368 306 1135
Sept43 2432 365 252 341 958
Oct43 2322 298 257 285 840
Nov43 2353 195 170 185 550
Dec43 2464 137 118 141 396
Total: ---- 3226 2577 2471 8274

Specifically for day-fighter units (Stab, II. and III./JG 3; Stab, II., III. and 13(Z)./JG 5; I./JG 26; JG 51 (excepting II./JG 51); JG 52; JG 54 (excepting III./JG 54))

Month A/c on strength Lost to E/A Lost without E/A Sent to industry Total
Mar43 478 97 131 27 195
Apr43 526 43 103 58 204
May43 570 103 100 60 263
Jun43 585 75 62 36 173
Jul43 529 204 131 37 372
Aug43 464 129 130 38 297
Sept43 420 93 73 40 206
Oct43 425 83 91 43 217
Nov43 415 52 47 47 146
Dec43 416 47 40 21 108
Total: ---- 926 908 407 2241

These figures are not complete though, because Bewegungsmeldungen data are partially or entirely missing for some units (13.(slow)/JG 52, NSGr 1, NSGr 2 etc.)

Regards,
Maksim

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

Here is what I have for other units on Eastern front:

Night-fighters (IV./NJG 5; NJG 100; NJG 200; NJ Schw. Luftflotte 1; NJ Schw. Luftflotte 6):

Month A/c on strength Lost to E/A Lost without E/A Sent to industry Total
Jul43 58 1 5 2 8
Aug43 54 1 12 9 22
Total: -- 2 17 11 30

Zerstoerer units (I. and 10.(N)/ZG 1; ZG 2):

Month A/c on strength Lost to E/A Lost without E/A Sent to industry Total
Jul43 66 14 5 12 31
Aug43 7 0 0 0
Total: -- 14 5 12 31

Bomber units (III., IV. and 9.(Eis)/KG 1; KG 3; KG 4 (excepting I. and IV./KG 4); KG 27 (excepting IV./KG 27); I./KG 30; KG 51 (excepting I./KG 51); KG 53 (excepting IV. and 15./KG 53); KG 55 (excepting IV./KG 55); I./KG 100; Fliegerfuehrer Nord-Ost):

Month A/c on strength Lost to E/A Lost without E/A Sent to industry Total
Jul43 766 174 79 74 327
Aug43 713 97 100 107 304
Total: --- 271 179 181 631

Sturzkampf units (StG 1; StG 2; III./StG 3; StG 5; StG 77; 9./StG 151):

Month A/c on strength Lost to E/A Lost without E/A Sent to industry Total
Jul43 448 115 38 66 219
Aug43 404 103 53 66 222
Total: --- 218 91 132 441

Ground-attack units (SchG 1; 4. and 8.(Pz)/SchG 2; Fuehrer der Pz.Jg.Staffeln):

Month A/c on strength Lost to E/A Lost without E/A Sent to industry Total
Jul43 165 59 40 9 108
Aug43 114 48 13 21 82
Total: --- 107 53 30 190

Reconnaissance units (AGr 11; 1. and 2.(H)/12; AGr 13; 3.(H) and 4.(F)/14; AGr 21; AGr 22; AGr 23; AGr 31; AGr 32; 2. and 4.(H)/33; AGr 41; AGr 100; 4.(F)/121; 4. and 5.(F)/122; 1., 2. and 3.(F)/ObdL; Stab NAGr 1; 1./NAGr 2; NAGr 4; Stab NAGr 11; Stab NAGr 12; Nachtkette NAGr 15; 1., 2., 3. and 4.(F)/Nacht; 2./NAGr 16; 1.(F)/124; Fernaufklaerungskette Lappland; Stab NAGr 9; Wekusta 1):

Month A/c on strength Lost to E/A Lost without E/A Sent to industry Total
Jul43 506 56 41 33 130
Aug43 458 61 44 43 148
Total: --- 117 85 76 278

Maritime units (3. Minensuchstaffel; Stab, 1. and 3./SAGr 125; SAGr 127):

Month A/c on strength Lost to E/A Lost without E/A Sent to industry Total
Jul43 58 0 4 6 10
Aug43 60 1 5 12 18
Total: -- 1 9 18 28

Transport units (I./TG 1; TG 2 (excepting II./TG 2); TG 3; TG 4 (excepting IV./TG 4); Tr.Sta Fliegerfuehrer Nord-Ost; Tr.Sta I. Fliegerkorps; Tr.Sta IV. Fliegerkorps; Tr.Sta VIII. Fliegerkorps; Tr.Sta des Feldluftgau 25; Tr.Sta Luftflotte 6):

Month A/c on strength Lost to E/A Lost without E/A Sent to industry Total
Jul43 496 58 11 2 71
Aug43 471 22 13 21 56
Total: --- 80 24 23 127

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

I agree with you, Nick, but with a caveat. Since the campaign is a part of the war as a whole, it is very significant for the outcome of the war how many aircraft are total losses and therefore leave the order of battle permanently. I suspect, although I cannot prove it, that the Luftwaffe wrote off a greater percentage of damaged aircraft than the RAF or USAAF, because of the weakness of its repair infrastructure. In consequence, Germany began losing the air war even before the superiority of the Allies in productive capacity became overwhelming.

Laurent, thank you for making that clear. I understand that most Luftwaffe fighters were in the West during this period, but that does not wholly account for the difference in losses. Both JG and SG units in the East lost aircraft at a much lower rate than those in the West, according to the database. This is somewhat surprising in view of the fact that this was a time of successful large-scale Soviet offensives. Could it be that the German units flew very few sorties and largely avoided air combat? That may be a very broad generalisation, but it is strange that the Eastern front units never reported particularly significant losses in air combat, or indeed from any other form of enemy action.

Maksim, thank you for your work! So you provided these figures to Khazanov and Medved?

The lists you provided raise interesting questions. I presume you relied on Michael Holm's data for the location of Luftwaffe units. That should introduce significant errors, since Henry de Zeng and Douglas Stankey have demonstrated in their books that Holm's location data is often erroneous and incomplete. That's not to criticise you, since Hooton's data is from the same source and should suffer from exactly the same problem! There is of course also the problem of monthly data being provided in the tables, which does not account for some units losing aircraft in different theatres in the same month. Be that as it may, the data is still very interesting. I'll be back within the hour with a comparison of your monthly data to Hooton's. The data, from the same source, vary by quite a bit!

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

And below are Hotoon's monthly loss totals for the Eastern Front for May 1942 to December 1944 inclusive. Apologies for the length, but I hope you appreciate the information!

Maksim, I've compared your figures with Hooton's for the relevant months of 1943. The data is in the second table in this post. Your numbers are consistently higher. I think that is because Ted Hooton somehow found a method of refining the data from the Bewegunsmeldungen. I wonder how he did it.

Table 1:
Month Year EA Accident Total Ratio of EA to Accident
May 1942 229 227 456 1.01
June 1942 256 234 490 1.09
July 1942 317 262 579 1.21
August 1942 392 265 657 1.48
September 1942 346 208 554 1.66
October 1942 217 160 377 1.36
November 1942 204 186 390 1.10
December 1942 225 130 355 1.73
January 1943 264 111 375 2.38
February 1943 226 160 386 1.41
March 1943 250 220 470 1.14
April 1943 147 168 315 0.88
May 1943 298 222 520 1.34
June 1943 209 170 379 1.23
July 1943 554 283 837 1.96
August 1943 386 296 682 1.30
September 1943 307 205 512 1.50
October 1943 272 199 471 1.37
November 1943 179 142 321 1.26
December 1943 109 92 201 1.18
January 1944 235 216 451 1.09
February 1944 152 155 307 0.98
March 1944 197 228 425 0.86
April 1944 352 278 630 1.27
May 1944 208 267 475 0.78
June 1944 238 194 432 1.23
July 1944 562 418 980 1.34
August 1944 386 270 656 1.43
September 1944 209 121 330 1.73
October 1944 316 186 502 1.70
November 1944 79 108 187 0.73
December 1944 135 226 361 0.60


Table 2:
Month Year EA Accident Total M Total M bigger by
March 1943 250 220 470 606 136
April 1943 147 168 315 470 155
May 1943 298 222 520 618 98
June 1943 209 170 379 451 72
July 1943 554 283 837 1037 200
August 1943 386 296 682 829 147
September 1943 307 205 512 617 105
October 1943 272 199 471 555 84
November 1943 179 142 321 365 44
December 1943 109 92 201 255 54

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

Well, no. It seems like Khazanov and Medved have made their own calculations, using the same source.

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

That is strange, because given the uncertainty over which units to include in calculations, there should be at least some discrepancy in independently compiled data. Are you sure you didn't post these tables somewhere else, where one of the two authors could have seen it?

In any case, suddenly a big question mark has appeared over all this data. There is a link to similar threads at the bottom of this one, which is the source of the question. In the "Luftwaffe fighter losses in Tunisia" thread dating from 2005, Christer Bergström wrote that "The website you refer to lists all aircraft above 10 % damage degree." The website in question is Michael Holm's. However, this raises the problem of the significance of the "repair" category. How can it exist if the "combat" and "non-combat" categories include damaged, as well as destroyed, aircraft? Can anyone answer this question?

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

Wouldn't 'in repair' mean a/c that are having maintenance done on them.

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

We need someone who knows to provide the answer to that, but I would suggest that if they are in the "Abgang" column, they would be leaving the unit for repairs, not undergoing routine maintenance.

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

Reparatur is in the Zugang (received) column.

Überholung is in the Abgang (sent out) column.

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

Kutscha, granted, but they must mean one and the same thing, since in both cases aircraft come in from or are sent to an organisation outside the unit itself.

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

I am not a expert on this subject, but offer up a couple observations that might help you find collaboration or contradiction of Hooton. I've done a bit a reading on aircraft availability/losses in specific campaigns and found the following from other historians. I offer these as suggestion for your research & not as hard facts to cite.

1. The loss rate does seem to be lower on the eastern front. It appears about half the German aircraft losses in 1943 were in the west & the Med, despite that a majority of aircraft in combat units were in the east. There are a number of technical reasons that would contribute to this, a couple have been offered in this thread. One other that is seldom directly addressed by the historians is that the US & RAF replacement air crew (pilots) were better trained than the German replacement crew from latter 1942.

2. Numbers tossed out by various historians suggest that the German pilot training, particulary fighter pilot skill fell off significantly from 1942. I've not time to search out the numbers this morning but from memory the German was accumulating 20% fewer flight hours than his USAAF/RAF counterpart in early 1942 and more than 40% fewer in mid 1944. If this is accurate it suggests a large part of why GAF loss rates are what the books claim.

3. The lower loss rate among RAF/USAAF fighter pilots suggests a higher accumulation of experience in the combat groups as the months passed.

I'd recommend taking a look a John Ellis 'Brute Force'. While I'd not start citing Ellis s 63 statisitcal tables verbatim he does provide the sources for each individual table. In this respect his book is a encyclopedia of secondary and primary sources for WWII data and worth the effort for that reason alone

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

With all respect to Mr. Bergström, it is only his own assumption. I suggest that all aircraft that have been listed in "Durch Feindeinwirkung" and "Ohne Feindeinwirkung" columns were irreplaceable (i.e. total) losses. One reason for this is that the aircraft were completely excluded from their units. If an aircraft received a minor damage and only needs a minor repair, it would be still listed in unit strength returns as "temporarily unserviceable".

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

Yes, that is a big problem. However, my totals of aircraft being on strength are based on the same Bewegungsmeldungen (down to Gruppe or in some cases even to Staffel level) and seems like they have a very good coincidence with Luftwaffe strength figures for Eastern front known from other sources.

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

I have a different data. During 1943 Luftwaffe concetrated on Eastern front about 40-45% of their forces and suferred there about 42-45% of their losses.

The loss rate significantly drops down in 1944. In that year Luftwaffe have lost on Eastern front about 25-35% of their aircraft.

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

Hello Carl!

Your points are well made, but I think the situation is not quite so clear cut. Polemical statisticians like Ellis obscure the fact that no reliable and directly comparable figures regarding Luftwaffe strength and losses seem to have been published.

Trying to address the issue of loss distribution between fronts in 1943, I've looked at Hooton and got the following:
a) Eastern front: 3201 in combat, 2268 non-combat; 5469 total
b) Western Mediterranean: 2500 in combat, 1639 non-combat; 4139 total
c) Day Fighters over Germany from "Luftwaffe" p 188: 698 in combat, 533 non-combat; 1231 total
d) Bombers and Jabos over Britain - "Eagle in Flames" p 274: combat losses only listed, total 191 bomber and 65 Jabos; grand total 256

Adding in the unknown western day fighter, Reich night fighter and Eastern Mediterranean losses, looks like Maksim's percentage is roughly correct, maybe a little too high as far as the Eastern Front goes. What do you think?

I will be back soon with more ideas and possibly more data.

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

But Christer Bergström is a noted researcher who deals with a specific example in the message under discussion and seems very confident in his opinion. Since this is a matter fundamental to the use of a major documentary source on the Luftwaffe, we cannot discard Mr. Bergström's views so easily. See link:

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showpo...98&postcount=3

I am not so sure your strength numbers match the published data well. Here is a table comparing your figures to Hooton's, with breaks inserted for ease of reading:

Hooton Maksim M greater by
March 1943 1571 br 2496 br 925
April 1943 1777 br 2813 br 1036
May 1943 2070 br 2844 br 774
June 1943 2095 br 2955 br 860
July 1943 2002 br 3094 br 1092
August 1943 1858 br 2752 br 894
September 1943 1608 br 2432 br 824
October 1943 1510 br 2322 br 812
November 1943 1629 br 2353 br 724
December 1943 1583 br 2464 br 881

By way of minor addition to the loss data, Hooton lists 65 day combat losses in the West in the first half of 1943, so the Luftflotte 3 dayliight activities do not affect the loss picture significantly.

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

Part of the problem may be that Luftwaffe figures in different documents do not agree. But for what it is worth, there is Luftwaffe summary data for strength and losses for most of the war, with East figures separate from the rest (West, etc.) An RAF translation of "Gesamt Flugzeugverluste der Front- und Erganzungeinheiten" has quarterly data from 1940 to the end of 1944 with strength and losses for SEF, Bombers including Schlacht, and NJG. I don't have time to enter the entire table at this time, but here is the data for the quarter ending 31.12.43. SEF losses all-1954, East-335; SEF strength all-1561, East-385, Bomber losses all-1105, East-301; Bomber strength all-1604, East-241; NJG losses-323; NJG strength 611. Based on that data, my duty preference would be NJG. From sept 43 to Oct 1944 is a breakdown by month of losses as a result of air combat, bombed, strafed, Flak, etc. and non combat causes. There is another set of summary loss data, I can't put my hands on, but it give a much more detailed breakdown of loss data for 1944 and the first months of 1945. I did an analysis of this and posted some of the results on TOCH several years ago. IIRC, on a per mission basis, loss rates in the West were several times higher than those in the East, which surprised me when I first did the math. That the difference was so marked, even late in the war when I would have thought the USSR was pretty much on a par with the Luftwaffe was an eye opener for me.
Best Regards,
Artie Bob

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

Artie Bob, thank you very much for your input and for the tantalizing glimpse of something akin to the holy grail of loss totals! Would it be possible for you to post that information on the forum at some point in the future, or name the archival document wherein it is contained? I've done a quick search of your TOCH postings, but cannot seem to find those you are referring to. Could you possibly have posted that information on a different forum?

The totals you give add up to 636 SEF and bomber losses in the East in the final quarter of 1943. Hooton's sum for all losses for this period is 993, so it looks like these figures are reasonably similar.

The data in different sources certainly does not match very well, see as an illustration the comparison of monthly losses from January to October 1943 inclusive in Hooton's and Murray's books below:

Month Year Hooton combat H total Murray losses
January 1943 br 264 br 375 br 482
February 1943 br 226 br 386 br 318
March 1943 br 250 br 470 br 314
April 1943 br 147 br 315 br 238
May 1943 br 298 br 520 br 331
June 1943 br 209 br 379 br 249
July 1943 br 554 br 837 br 558
August 1943 br 386 br 682 br 472
September 1943 br 307 br 512 br 338
October 1943 br 272 br 471 br 279
November 1943 br 179 br 321 br 180

Paul Thompson

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

I can't say for certain but this looks like the kind of thing you find in National Archives files AIR20/7700 – /7712, which contain RAF translations of various Luftwaffe documents and statistics.

Re: Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification
 

Nick, thank you for the lead. Is there also a possibility that translations of this kind can be found at IWM Duxford or the AHB? If so, is there any way that a private individual can ask to gain access to those archives? I have next to no research experience myself, having only ever looked at some AIR files on the Desert war in the National Archives. This makes me wonder whether one has to be a researcher of some repute to get into either Duxford or the Air Historical Branch.