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

Comparison of the loss data from “Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen” (available on well-known http://www.ww2.dk/) and piece-by-piece calculation from GQM returns, some other sources like KTB StG2 and (many thanks to Matti Salonen first of all!) from NVM returns, gives the following remarkably picture:

“Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen”:
433 planes due to enemy actions (durch Feindeinwirkung, hereinafter referred to as d.F.), 354 without enemy actions (ohne Feindeinwirkung, hereinafter referred to as o.F.) and 363 “Überholung” (repair, usually assumed as tear and wear only)

Piece-by-piece calculation:
100% losses – 304;
damages 60-99% (usually assumed as unrepairable) – 83;
damages 40-59% (usually assumed as require repair outside the unit) – 87
damages 10-39% (usually assumed as require repair within the unit) – 212

Units with lacking “Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen” (harassment squadrons = Störkampfstaffeln for example) are not counted (and their losses too). But the bulk of units are counted.
Units partly based beyond Luftflotte 4 area are counted in full (and their losses too).
Some loss cases are uncertain so the summary data are approximative a bit.
But these uncertainties has no significant affects for the final results.

Comparison:
433 d.F. + 354 o.F. = 787 planes.
Losses 40-100% = 304+83+87 = 474

THE DIFFERENCE is 313 planes, or 66% !

Even if we add 10-39% damages, all losses = 474+212 = 686.
Anyway, the difference is 787-686=101 or ~15%

Is it means that GQM+NVM contains a remarkably incomplete list of losses?
Or “Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen” data means nothing?

Almost all losses of Luftflotte 4 in Apr.-Jun.43 that became known to Russians in 1943 (POWs and/or WNr or the board codes = Verbandskennzeichen mentioned in the documents) can be found in the GQM returns except few uncertain cases (further checking required).

I think the difference is partly due to some damages (both combat damages and flying accidents) assumed less than 10% and not reported to GQM but really required a repair outside the combat units. Some difference is due to the unrecorded ground losses during the Soviet air raids certainly. German army documents contains the reports about air raids losses not listed (or listed incompletely) in the GQM returns.

Any ideas?

Best regards,
Andrey

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

Hello, Andrey

I believe that a more detailed overview of what you have counted and not is necessary in order to be able to support your hypothesis.

What I have seen (I have not used a lot of time on this kind of comparison) is that one has to take into account that the cut-off dates may differ between the Bestand- und Bewegungsmeldungen and what you suspect to be the losses counted towards the same period.

I found that this accounted for several of the discrepancies I found.

Will gladly help if I can - interesting project.

Regards,
Andreas B

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

Hello Andreas,

No doubt, some June losses maybe counted in July but hardly to believe that 3-months timeframe for entire Luftflotte 4 can give the difference 66% for that reason. Let’s take into consideration that some March losses are counted in April at once. For Luftflotte 4 March was the hot month too (support of Manstein’s counteroffensive, Kuban and so on).

Specific examples (two are easy to check due to small number of losses, and one hardly explainable):

4.(F)/Nacht: losses 21.Apr.43 (100%, Absturz bei Landung - it maybe result of the battle damages or maybe flying accident) and 18.Jun.43 (100%, MIA, really shot down by AA train) = 2
Bestand- und Bewegungsmeldungen:
Apr.: 4 o.F.; May: (2 Überholung); Jun.: 1 d.F.
Difference is 5-2=3

2.(F)/100: losses 27.May (35%, fighter attack); 11.Jun. (100%, MIA); 28.Jun. (100%, MIA) = 3
Bestand- und Bewegungsmeldungen:
Apr.: 0; May: 1 d.F. and 1 o.F. [35% required the repair outside the unit here? But o.F. loss is absent anyway]; Jun.: 2 d.F. (correct)

I./StG2 (one of egregious cases):
April losses: 3 - 100%
Bestand- und Bewegungsmeldungen: 3 d.F.+1 o.F. (+1 Überholung). Difference is 4-3=1
May losses: 1 - 100%, 1 - 80%, 1 - 30%, 2 - 20% (and at least 1 < 10%)
Bestand- und Bewegungsmeldungen: 14 d.F.+3 o.F. Difference is 15 (or 12, if we’ll count 30% and 20% as required the repair outside the unit too) (!!!)
June losses: 1 - 100%, 1 - 40% (and at least 2 < 10%)
Bestand- und Bewegungsmeldungen: 2 d.F.+2 o.F. (+2 Überholung). Difference is 4-2=2
Total difference is 1+15+2=18 !

I can post the details if needed.

Thank you in advance!
It isn’t a project itself but one of calculations needed for the Kuban air battles analysis. I’ll accept any result but it must be reasoned.

Best regards,
Andrey

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

Hi Andrey,
I think you are putting too much emphasis on the dates. The above mentioned loss for 4./NachAufkl.St. dated 21-Apr-43 was not reported in the QM losses until 25-May 1943. Theoretically this loss could have been accounted for in the June Bewegungsmeldung. It took considerable time to transmit those reports to Germany as well.

Just my 5 cents,

Norbert

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

Hi Norbert,

I think the Bewegungsmeldungen drew up in the units immediately in the end of the reporting interval (as it was in Soviet Air Forces for example). Otherwise these reports are totally aimless.

Maybe Andreas will make the situation clear.

Andrey

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

Hi,

Judging from ULTRA signals, the Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen were sent within a day or two of the end of the relevant month. An example: even in late-November and early December 1942 in Tunisia when things were very hectic, II./J.G. 51 and III./Z.G. 2 sent their F & B for November to the II. Fliegerkorps Quartermaster on the evening of 30 November, and II./J.G. 2 did so on 1 December. So only losses from the correct months would have been included.

Cheers,
Andrew A.
Air War Publications - www.airwarpublications.com

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

Hi Andrew,

Thank you!

Cheers,
Andrey

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

Hello, all and Andrey especially.

I was kind of saving this for the article that I am working on (constantly improving it but I think I might publish it as is over easter), but here goes.

Quoting from documentation I have found in the remains of the archives of the Generalstab (as it has been stated also here on the forum that the GenQu 6 Abr and the lists we refer to have ´nothing´ directly to do with the resupply chain of the operational air units of the Luftwaffe). The quotes below are parts of a longer document which will be published in full in my article:

Very important sentence with regards to earlier comments on the forum, and it gets better!!!

And then!!!

(.... sweet stuff kept for later ...)

Further on in the document more or less any situation that can occur is outlined and regulated, including the fact that when an aircraft is sent from a unit for repair, the unit which originally had the aircraft on strength are not allowed to retrieve it without the relevant commanding unit allowing this and ordering it.

I have yet to be able to make a good table here, but will try to relay the form to be used:

Unit name at the top

The following columns to be filled out:

Nr. (Aircraft number, running count 1., 2., 3. etc)
Baumuster (Aircraft model, for example Ju 88 )
Werk-Nr. (Werknummer)
Datum des Zugangs (Date the aircraft was received by the unit)
Datum des Abgangs (Date the aircraft left the unit)
Total über 60% (Tick mark indicating if the aircraft left the unit due to a total loss with a damage estimated at more than 60%)
Reparaturindustrie (Tick mark indicating that the aircraft was transferred to the industry for repair and maintenance, i.e. lost to the unit)
Sonstige abgabe (Tick mark indicating that the aircraft was transferred out of the unit for other reasons, the example given in the document being transfer to another Gruppe of the Geschwader)

As a note it is also stated that the aircraft that are unready, but which can be made operational again by so called Truppenmitteln, are not to be reported as Abgang)

I will follow up on the specific questions later this evening, Andrey, but hope that this kind of answer some questions with regards to what exactly the basis for the Bestand and Bewegungsmeldungen kept for statistics and control in the central command structures were based on.

If all units were able to follow up on this in all operational situations is another question.

Regards,
Andreas B

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

Hello Andreas,

thank you for the most interesting info! I'm very much looking forward to your article.

Yes, it is another question really.

In Apr.-Jun.43 I./StG2 have lost 30 Ju87 (incl.3 to 'Überholung' and 2 to other units) and has received 38 Ju87 as replacement. But, if I calculate right, the unit has reported to GQM 10 losses with Werknummern and other required items (incl.3<40%) only.

And long delays in loss reports in many cases are well known - too long if the replacement was depending on these reports really.

Best regards,
Andrey

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

Hello, Andrey (and Matti since I call for your comments later on).

I do believe that the system as a whole would function quite well - as long as one take the command structure and war into the picture.

As is stated by the Generalstab - the O.Qu. at Luftflotte level was delegated the responsibility for the units operating under its command.

If we look at the chain of reporting (follow the paper trail) for for example I./St.G. 2 in April 1942:

The unit consists as far as I can see of Stab I., 1., 2. and 3. Staffel.

Thus the detailed list of Ab- und zugänge would be filled out by the individual Staffeln as well as the Stab.

As I./St.G.2 was under the command of Geschwaderstab/St.G.2 at the time the list as compiled by the Gruppe would be transferred to the:

I.) Geschwaderstab St.G.2
II.) Do you know which Fliegerkorps they sorted under at the time - I am still looking...
III.) Luftflotte 4
IV.) L.E.2

The O.Qu. at Luftflotte 4 would be responsible for the transfer of detailed loss information to the Gen.Qu.

I find the loss records at GenQu level lacking for I./St.G.2 - but when you look behind the figures as you present them Andrey, I think you will be intrigued, and maybe interested in trying to complement them, rather than dismissing them.

To me, when I look at the information present, something special happens at the end of March - up until then (I think it will probably coincide with the move of the Geschwader from Stalino to Kertsch) the average time from loss to report date seems to be about a week for the unit. (Not strange considering the distance the documents - yes paper trail! - need to travel to reach the offices of the Generalquartiermeister in the Ministerium in central Berlin - the few scraps of documentation we have left stems from these offices - at operational unit level almost all is lost).

For April 1943, beginning already with one recorded loss on April 1st 1943, this time lag between loss and report date jumps up to almost two months! Loss date April 1st 1943 - report date May 27th 1943. The other two losses as recorded by the unit happened on April 23rd and 27th, the loss record they are included in at central level is dated May 24th - a time lag of one month...

But! And this is my point - even if the detailed loss records which might have been in one of the post sacks blown up in a railway attack or in a shot down transport Ju 52? - nothing seems to indicate that the Bestand- and Bewegungsmeldungen which might have taken another route suffered the same fate - from those it seems that the records reached Berlin and was incorporated in the central and more statistical overviews on which Michael Holm has been able to work.

So how do we make sense of this? In my opinion it is like laying a jigsaw puzzle with some of the pieces missing.

We know the following details:

The unit was moved to Kertsch in April 1943. How was the communication from the operational area to the command structure? Are disturbances in the communication by paper likely?

Was there any heavy fighting going on in the area at the time? My answer is yes - they had their work definitely cut out for them - I think you and others can add more detail than me with regards to this.

So to the jigsaw puzzle - what do we have:

We have the Bestand- und Bewegungsmeldung for the unit, stating the outflux of 5 aircraft - 3 combat related, 1 non combat related and one transferred to the industry (which would never be reported in the loss records at Gen.Qu.6.Abt. level)

We have the Summarische Verlustmeldung which is a statistical sheet for the losses, and we can see from it that the loss on April 1st is deemed as non-combat related - while the losses on April 23rd and April 27th are stated as being combat related.

April 1st - non combat related: http://www.aviationhistory.no/ref_db...?lossid=132526

April 23rd - combat related:
http://www.aviationhistory.no/ref_db...?lossid=132782

April 27th - combat related:
http://www.aviationhistory.no/ref_db...?lossid=132781

So - bringing this together we seem to be one aircraft short.

And here comes my theory - the losses for I./St.G.2 between the dates of April 27th 1943 and May 26th 1943 - where there in theory should have been 12 losses reported are missing at central level due to one or more of the above mentioned factors.

The maths are:
1 missing Ju 87 D-3 loss for April 1943 - probably sustained in one of the last days of the month

13 - 5 (known losses for the dates May 26th, 28th, 29th and 31st) = 8 Ju 87 D-3 loss records missing for combat losses - probably sustained in the date period May 1st through May 25th 1943

3 Ju 87 D-3 loss records missing for non combat losses - probably sustained in the date period May 1st through May 25th 1943

1 Ju 87 D-1 loss record missing for combat losses - probably sustained in the date period May 1st through May 25th 1943

So no mystery - no propaganda - just war...

I believe Andrey - that if we look into the existing records still remaining on the Luftwaffe side - and try to correlate information from the other combatants with the same open mind - we will be able to bring the research forward - the other approach which I have seen far too much of is to dismiss information just because it does not fit some kind of hero story from one side or the other...

In this specific case it would be highly interesting to do the same exercise I just did to I./St.G.2 to the other units operating in the same area and under the same command structure. We might find that a ´mystery´ can be rather easily solved.

And if it would be possible to get any reliable data - by that I mean hard facts like crashed enemy aircraft reports with WNr or call signs or something like that - or POW records for St.G.2 personnel not listed in the records we have from the German side - that would help us shed a little more light to this.

Matti - do you have any NVM info that are not in the GenQu lists?

Regards and keep up the good work guys,
Andreas B

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

There are NVMs only for the following losses in April-May 1943:
1943-04-01, 1943-04-27 and 1943-05-29. These are also in GQM lists.

I fully agree with Andreas that Bestand- und Bewegungsmeldung is correct and discrepancy between it and GQM list can be explained by missing documents between the Gruppe and GQM. However, I would also consider loss of the source documents at the Gruppe due to bombing etc. En route missing documents should have been very easy to replace by resending, but if you have lost the source information at the Gruppe, you are having a lot of trouble when trying to reconstruct what happened to which aircraft (KTB would be of some help). This might take weeks, when you have to fight at the same time. Also, from the practical point of view, it would not be necessary to find out actual WNrs of the lost aircraft any more - just the quantity of them is enough to keep replenisment system working. With personnel losses the situation is of course different and as far as I can tell, all personnel losses are accounted and properly reported.

I have a faint recollection in my mind, that something similar happened in North Afrika, when the Allied found a lot of crashed aircraft, which were never reported as such in GQM lists.

Interesting thread - please go on.

Matti

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

Andrey, thank you for raising this issue again.

In TsAMO you will find an interogation protocole of an officer from the QM's staff of Luftflotte 3 within 1941-1943, who descibed how the system worked in details. I will send you reference by e-mail.

Andreas,

To summerise, we have four main sources of LW losses:

1. GQ reports.
2. Bestand listings.
3. NVM
4. Summarische Verlustmeldungen

Were there any other documents related directly to losses and to what extent they have been preserved up to now? What level was responsible for reporting losses that occurred during transportation to or back from rear? Many planes were captured on the railway junctions, dismantled for shipping and they were reported only initially in GQ as revocable losses.

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

Hello friends,

thank you for the interesting and informative answers. I'll post the detailed answer in the evening.
Andreas, you are right, maybe the analysis of the whole StG2 is more indicative.

What about the examples with 4.(F)/Nacht and 2.(F)/100 from my previous post? In comparison with StG2 their situation was quite a different but some losses are absent too. And losses of these Staffeln are more easily for a checking due to small number of losses.

Matti, I'll send you a E-mail with a question.

Nikita, thank you for the info and I'll looking forward your E-mail with TsAMO reference.

Best regards,
Andrey

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

Hello, all

In addition to the sources you have nicely summed up, Nikita, we have all the bits and pieces as transferred between units on both a detailed level and a aggregated level.

These additional sources are not complete - to give a picture I would say they are only singular stamps from a stamp collection taken by the wind...

To your question on aircraft that were on transport etc, the moment the aircraft were listed as damaged and going for repair this would be out of the units roster - and on the roster of the industry. Vice versa - when an aircraft was on its way from the industry to a unit it would go for example from having the following 'owners':

Flzg.-Werke Erla

Flzg.Überführ.G.1

Flugzeugleitst.Lfl. 2

3./JG 53

Before the aircraft was taken over by the frontline units, a loss would be recorded in the Flugzeugunfälle und Verluste bei den Schulen un sonstigen Dienststellen, see for example the large number of Ju 87's reported by the Flugzeugleitstelle/Lfl.2 at Bari on April 26th 1943.

Regards,
Andreas B

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

Hi, Andrey

I believe the answer is the same for these two units as well:

For 2.(F)/100 you have the last loss before 'the gap' reported for March 30th 1943, in the report of April 1st 1943. March 1943 is 100% in line between GenQu 6 Abt and Bestand und Bewegungsmeldungen - the same with April 1943 (no incidents).

The next reported loss is for May 27th 1943, in the report of May 30th.

To me this indicates that we have a 'missing loss' in the same timeframe as for the I./St.G.2.

Further - the same picture for 4./Nachtstaffel where you have the last report before the gap reported on April 30th - and then the next loss reported for April 21st 1943 appear in the GenQu report of May 25th.

The most likely reason is as follows:

The reports for Sachschaden - damage to aircraft only - has not gone through for the Luftflotte 4 area in a timeframe from roughly end of April 1943 until late May 1943 - for whatever reason.

The reports for losses were you had personnel wounded, missing or killed (what we usually refer to as NVM or which is most often referred to as Vordruck II by the GenQu) has gone through as they had higher priority (my article has a lot of ino on that too) and was to be transferred in another fashion promptly (in fact they were supposed to reach GenQu 6 Abt within 48 hrs!)

I believe that in order to really get your work on the campaign to be as detailed as possible, you should use all the sources we have seen here, and in addition any other communication available.

For example for my main area of interest I have been able to locate so-called Luftlage Einzelmeldungen. These are in fact the original Fernschreiben strips - the paper strips that came out of the telegraph or teleprint machines and were glued to report sheets - pink color! which detail all operations for a given area and date, number of aircraft and their task for the day. All special incidents - claims, losses etc are outlined here.

And for your area of interest, Andrey, I can not see that there were many units operating Do 217s in the area of Luftflotte 4? So we could assign operations and losses of Do 217s if we are to find any to 4. Nacht.

But for now I find it safe to state that you can use the Bestand- und Bewegungsmeldungen to say that in addition to the losses given in the reports from the GenQu6Abt you have some additional aircraft losses without personnel being killed, wounded or missing in action, which you can not give an exact date for due to missing information.

It is also interesting to note that the apparent loss of a Ju 88D-1 by 4. Nacht is a 4.(F)/122 aircraft with (possibly) crew from 4./Nacht (April 10th 1943)

Regards,
Andreas B

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

Hello all,

During the 1st half of April it was IV.Fliegerkorps, the rest of the timeframe in question - I.Fliegerkorps except 29.Apr.-7.May.43 - thereat Stab StG2 was in Charkow-Nord (VIII.Fliegerkorps area), don’t know whether it was a temporarily attachment or short-living full subordination.

What is your source about the units’ subordination to the Fliegerkorps?

StG2 on 1.Apr.43 has made a big raid against Batajsk railway junction, then some activity on the Miusfront and off Isjum (IV.Fliegerkorps area). Bad weather has hampered the air actions in the first half of April. In the middle of April StG2 have relocated to Kertsch for the operation 'Neptun' against the bridgehead S of Noworossijsk. Then up to the end of timeframe in question StG2 has operated on Kuban except the short time between 28/30.Apr. and 4/14.May (time was different for the Groups) then the base was Charkow (VIII.Fliegerkorps area).

If to be a frank, I can’t find any special. The frontline on the whole Ostfront was surprisingly stable during the Apr.-Jun.43. Territorial changes has measured in several kilometers in the few places. There were no chaotic retreats, encirclements, sudden losses of airbases etc. StG2 was active during the timeframe but it was active during the previous and following months too. Kertsch wasn’t an improvised air base, had the normal network. So the problems with the loss reports, if they were, had the internal nature probably.

It was over Batajsk during the raid against that key railway junction. Hope to find the Russian evidences about that midair collision.

The problem is in the point that we can find only few additional losses/damages in KTB StG2 during the May-June 1943. It maybe:
28.May.43 (II./StG2, forced landing on the German side due to AAA damage) [2 Ju87 in KTB, but 1 of them mentioned in GQM returns]
2.Jun.43 (II./StG2, forced landing normally on the German side due to AAA damage) [3 Ju87 in KTB, but 2 of them mentioned in GQM returns]
8.Jun.43 (I./StG2, forced landing normally on the German side for unspecified reason)
9.Jun.43 (II./StG2, forced landing normally on the German side due to AAA damage)
12.Jun.43 (III./StG2, forced landing normally on the German side due to AAA damage)
And maybe some others. But their % of damages unknown and maybe less than 10% in all or some cases.

Also, if the hypothetic bags with loss records were lost en route to Berlin due to railroad sabotage of Ju52 crashes as you wrote, it was a random sample and probably contains all degrees of losses from 10% to 100% partly with personal losses. So some of them should be find in the NVM records. But Matti wrote that can’t add any personal loss to GQM returns in this case.
Also, as I wrote above, almost all losses of Luftflotte 4 in Apr.-Jun.43 that became really known to Russians in 1943 can be found in the GQM returns except few uncertain cases. I can’t find yet any additional loss from StG2 in the Kuban area for the timeframe in question though I use a huge amount of various documents from the POW’s interrogation reports up to the technical command which has evacuated crashed and damaged planes. Continue to hope but…
So hypothesis that the reason of the difference between Bewegungsmeldungen and GQM returns was the losses of the some reports seems doubtful.

I don’t think about German propaganda in this case. Dr. Goebbels haven’t needed internal Luftwaffe papers for his propagandist masterpieces.

'Hero stories' isn't the point. The point is that 60+ % difference in the losses is a significant factor for the analysis of the operations.

About 4.(F)/Nacht and 2.(F)/100 - a bit later.

Best regards,
Andrey

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

I foget to post the losses info for rest of StG2.

I./StG2 see the previous post.

II./StG2:
April: 2 d.F and 6 o.F.
GQM etc.: 2 – 100%, 1 – 30%, 1 – 20% (and at least 1 <10%)
Difference is 8-2=6 (or 4 if we count the losses 10%-39%)

May: 6 d.F and 8 o.F. (and 6 'Überholung').
GQM etc.: 7 – 100%, 1 – 40%, 2 – 25%, 1 – 10%
Difference is 14-8=6 (or 3 if we count the losses 10%-39%)

June: 6 d.F and 1 o.F. (and 4 'Überholung').
GQM etc.: 4 – 100%, 1 – 60%, 1 – 25% (and at least 5 <10%)
Difference is 7-5=2 (or 1 if we count the losses 10%-39%)

III./StG2:
April: 5 d.F and 4 o.F. (and 2 'Überholung')
GQM etc.: 5 – 100%, 1 – 45%
Difference is 9-6=3

May: 4 d.F and 2 o.F. (and 2 'Überholung')
GQM etc.: 3 – 100%, 2 – 60% (and at least 1 <10%)
Difference is 6-5=1

June: 4 d.F and 1 o.F.
GQM etc.: 1 – 100%, 1 – 70% (and at least 3 <10%)
Difference is 5-2=3


Stab StG2 had a Stabskette (Ju87) and Stabstaffel (Ju88). According to Bewegungsmeldungen, only Stabstaffel had the losses during the timeframe in question.

April: 3 o.F.; GQM: zero. Difference is 3.
May: 3 o.F.; GQM: 1 - 40% (29.5). Difference is 2.
June: zero.
Maybe Ju88-Stabstaffel had the losses beyond Ostfront? Andreas, can you check it?

Regards,
Andrey

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

Hello, all

Very short this time to ensure the message isn´t obscured:

I believe that what we see for the units subordinated to Luftflotte 4 at this time is that for some reason the losses were personnel was not injured, killed or went missing, these have not reached GenQu.

The losses were personnel was involved did reach the GenQu.

As can be seen by the orders describing how these losses are to be reported, the records ending up as Namentliche Verlustmeldungen have a higher priority - personnel more important than machinery.

Regards,
Andreas B

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

Hello Andreas,

The enigmatic April/May gap is interesting really. Is it was for all Luftflotte 4 units (or even for Ostfront units in whole) or it was a local phenomenon?


It isn’t a gap but the real absence of losses between the March and 27.5.43 apparently.


The Luftflotte 4 and I.Fliegerkorps especially are unsuitable command structures for the timeframe in question. I have found the good daily reports of Luftflotte 6 and partly the daily reports of the VIII.Fliegerkorps. But have only the poor daily reports of Luftflotte 4 (even without the number of missions with few exception) and nothing at all from the most interesting for me I.Fliegerkorps and IV.Fliegerkorps. The reports of the Flak units attached to the infantry forces are interesting but specific. The info about Luftwaffe actions in the Heeres and Kriegsmarine documents is valuable but specific also.
Don’t know if the Einzelmeldungen of Luftflotte 4 for the timeframe survived the war.

Do217 had 1.(F)/Nacht (no losses) and 4.(F)/Nacht only.

What is the sources for the research of Do217s in particular?

It seems yes.

Speak by call sign (F6+EM) the aircraft was from 4.(F)/122 indeed but why do you think that the crew was from 4.(F)/Nacht? I thought the info about 4.(F)/Nacht is the obvious error in GQM list.

Probably I made too many messages during a short time :)
But the theme seems interesting and important really.

Best regards,
Andrey

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

Not only for the Lfl 4. The JVF12,2 indicates huge difference also for JG51 subordinated to Lfl6.

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

I will not add much to the discussion, except one personnal opinion and one question.

I have always thought that the losses reported in the "Bestand und Bewegungsmeldungen" were not only total losses, but all aircraft destroyed and damaged enough to be repaired outside the unit.

Can someone confirm this from official Luftwaffe documentation ?

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

Hello, Laurent.

You are correct. I will type down some info on this later ln tonight.

Regards,
Andreas B

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

Hi, guys.

Had to work last night = no Luftwaffe research.

With regards to your question, Laurent, the distinction is clear (and I include the German original text so that we do not get confused):

First on damaged aircraft:
Thus the unit was supposed to report losses under 60% also, and to indicate to which repair unit the aircraft were delivered for repair. If this was not indicated on the report sheet (column Bemerkungen - Comments) it was implied that the aircraft would be put back into operational state by local means (mentioned is local repairs at the unit, at the larger airfields with better facilities as opposed to the frontline bases - or by the fast repair units (Schnellreparatur-Kolonnen)).

So to make a long comment shorter - the number of losses reported in the Bestands- und Bewegungsmeldungen consist of all losses with and without personnel losses involved and an estimated damage of above 10%. I cannot repeat this often enough - smaller damages which were estimated by technicians to be below 10% was NEVER reported unless by error - and if they were erronously reported, they were often stricken by a correction report later.

So the 'missing' losses in the Luftflotte 4 records would with a high degree of probability be losses of aircraft only, no personnel injuries etc involved.

I have attached a screenshot of an example of a report I have a copy of which is used as an example for the units on how to fill out the report - so the units etc can be masked - even if it seems the Ju 88 Werknummern are valid...

I also have other lists which is 'the real thing' for a given unit, but as this is going to be used in the upcoming book by Kjetil Åkra, me and a couple of authors which I can not disclose at this time, I can not publish it here now.

Regards,
Andreas B

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

Hi Andreas,

About the 10%: do you mean the reports such as the document which you kindly attached to your post or the de-identify Bestands- und Bewegungsmeldungen published by Michael Holm? No doubts that 'Abgang' columns in the Holm’s tables not include the planes whose repair was possible by local means, so the bulk of 10%-39% wasn’t included.

By the way, too few 'Er' remarks are in the 'Ers.Erf.' column (means that replacement is required for the damaged aircraft) in GQM returns for Luftflotte 4 on Apr.-Jun.43. It seems the units reports has ignored this column in the most cases. If this guess is incorrect, the difference between number of losses in GQM returns and in Bewegungsmeldungen is far higher than 60+ % in my calculation posted some days before.

Probably yes with few exceptions.

One of the possibly exceptions (from Chronik KG27 Bd.5 by Walter Waiss, s.115-116):
14.(Eis)/KG27 He111 1G+KY 28.04.1943 Start from Kirowograd at 21:00, shot down by AAA fire. Lt Karl Schmidt (FF) and Fw Heinz Hoffmann (BF) became the POWs in Lager 27. Humpe (BO), unnamed BM and
war correspondent Lt Schäfer (as BS) KIA.
As far as I know these losses are absent in GQM and NVM returns

Whether the some documents like in your attachment for the Luftflotte 4 on the timeframe in question has survived the war?

[/quote]

Best regards,
Andrey

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

I have this loss on another day (according to WASt info):
1943-08-09, 14./KG 27, He 111 H-16, 160277, 1G+HY, (Belgorod - Kursk), Flakbeschuß um 20.57 Uhr. Bruch 100 %.
Flugzeugführer Lt Schmid, Karl, vermißt
Beobachter Uffz Humpe, Hannes, vermißt
Bordfunker Fw Hofmann (Hoffmann?), Johann, vermißt
Bordwart Uffz Derfert, Otto, vermißt
Bordschütze (Kr.Ber.) Lt Schaefer, Helmut, vermißt
Have I made a typo or misred the documents or what?

Matti

P.S. If you look at the book of Waiss, you will find this loss also on page 189. The info on page 115-116 must be an error.

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

Hello Matti,

thank you! You a right undoubtedly, Waiss has placed that loss twice. Moreover, on page 151 Hoffmann and Humpe are listed in Ist-Bestand for 24.Jun.43, i.e. two months after their "loss" on 28.Apr.

Best regards,
Andrey

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

Hello.

This loss is in the GenQu loss list:

http://www.aviationhistory.no/ref_db...?lossid=123287

Regards,
Andreas B

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

Hello, Andrey.

All losses with a loss percentage ABOVE 10% was to be reported - with no regards to if it could be repaired by local means.

If it could be repaired locally, there was to be no request for Ersatz and the aircraft would be treated as still on the strength of the original Halter. We can find these aircraft all over the loss records, with no 'Er' marking in the loss record. It is obvious when you have studied these reports for a while that the local capabilities varied largely - and some units would request Ersatz for aircraft with far lower damage percentage (or it could be the type of damage sustained) than others.

Mathematically we could set up an equation for this for a given month - with groups or sets that are partially overlapping.

One group are the aircraft reported to GenQu 6 Abt which SHOULD be all sustained losses with a damage percentage estimated at over 10%. Thus the only situation were we should have discrepancies are where there has been corrections not carried over to another statistical level of aggregations (which could happen - as the Bestands- und Bewegungsmeldungen were filed on a given date - and correction coming in a year later would not be taken into account).

(I just wish I had located a damage assessment form - someone out there must have kept at least one! Problem is that these were most probably kept at unit level and most technical unit level documentation for the Luftwaffe was bombed and burnt. My hope is to find something in the UK and/or US archives.)

In cases where there are larger discrepancies and we suspect that the detailed 'line by line' reports are not exhaustive - we should take into account the Bestands- und Bewegungsmeldungen were we will then have to know what aircraft that would be in them - namely all aircraft that the unit had to replace which could include all the above - but where the number could be lower than the total aircraft involved in an incident - because a given number of aircraft could have been repaired at the unit or by the means I mentioned in my second to last post.

The numbers of 'losses' if we are to call it that will the for a given unit and period be at least as high as the numbers relayed by the Bestands- und Bewegungsmeldungen and the mimimum number being the number of registered entries by the GenQu 6 Abt.

The problem is that it seems that when we talk about 'losses' or 'claims' there are no real interest in differentiating these on either 'side' of the discussion. If we say that a loss is only counted when the crew is dead, the aircraft beyind any kind of repair - then it would be quite easy - and the losses few.

Another thing which I find that some researchers seem to be unable to get is the '10% rule' - if the damage is very small - lets say a couple of small calibre rounds penetrating the skin of an aircraft - this would never be reported, or a undercarriage leg collapsed but there were no structural damage. Someone could state (I have seen it done) that 'I have a photo of a Luftwaffe aircraft with a flak hole in the elevator and the WNr xxxx - and this is not showing in the GenQu reports - so the Luftwaffe loss numbers are falsified and can not be trusted at all!'. This is lack of knowledge - but sadly it seems that to try to enlighten those 'researchers' is futile - and I have refrained from it lately - not worth the time spent.

And then we have the 100% losses - most of them listed as missing (Vermisst). For some reason people get very upset when a 100% loss (missing) or even 100% loss shot down reappear in the lists. But on all fronts the front line moves. A belly landed aircraft due to fuel starvation, overheating or whatever - recovered within days or weeks would certainly be repaired! And counted in the large aggregated statistics as two losses if it was damaged again.

I believe that an important task for all the professional, semi-professional and amateur researchers of the WWII is to try, with an open mind, to understand the systems, and also acknowledge them.

In my case I have a detailed knowledge down to the point that if there are obvious errors in the GenQu 6 Abt lists - Stabsh. Scheibert-Ruda, Obergefreiter Wikowski and Stabsh. Rakofski have been slacking in their duties (or some of the units have not delivered their reports). If there are problems with the prosessing of the NVMs (Vordruck II), we would have to ask Fw. Stiemerling or Stabsh. Prüsse about that!

But more of all that in the upcoming article.

Regards,
Andreas B

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

Hello Andreas,

Yes, no doubts now that Waiss gave that loss twice erroneously.

About the rest of questions a bit later today.

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

Hello Andreas,

So the monthly Bestands- und Bewegungsmeldungen Abgang durch Feindeinwirkung and ohne Feindeinwirkung contains all 60%-100% damages and damages <60% with the 'Er' mark only? If so, the discrepancies between Bewegungsmeldungen and GQM returns is even higher for the amount of data in question than I wrote before.

If the ‘Abgang’ in Apr.-Jun.43 for StG2 for example is higher than GQM returns due to overlapping, probably in the nearest previous and/or following months the difference is inverse. Can you look at the data for StG2 for example on March and July 43 in your database?

OK. For example 12 planes are listed in the GenQu 6 Abt returns, 6 of them has repaired at the unit etc, so ‘Abgang’ should be 6. But we have a reverse picture – 10 planes in ‘Abgang’ instead of 6.

One of the numerous problems of the analysis of Kuban battles is the calculation of the German losses/damages. It is easiest to summarize GQM returns and to write something like 100% losses = XXX, 60-99% = YYY, 40-59% = ZZZ …, including xxx planes due to AAA fire, yyy due to dogfights, zzz due to accidents etc.
But as the great discrepancy between GQM returns and Bewegungsmeldungen exist, it require explanation. Nothing about ‘falsification’. The attempt to establish a real state of things only.

It was a usual situation in the Soviet Air Force also. Some planes might land on the other airfield (or in the steppe for example) due to damages or fuel shortage or disorientation and counted as missing for the some time. Then they has appeared again in the Soviet analogue of Bewegungsmeldungen (it was a daily reporting in many cases) as ‘returning from the forced landing place’. And how such planes reappeared in the German Bewegungsmeldungen?

beyond all doubt

I’m looking forward to your article

Regards,
Andrey

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