Questions about Operation Steinbock losses
 

I wonder if forum users can advise me on an issue that is causing me a bit of a headache?

I am currently writing a book for the Osprey ‘Air Campaign’ series about Operation ‘Steinbock.’ This is in addition to ongoing work on my bibliography (described in a series of posts over the weekend and today), plus the day job and domestic duties. Life is busy.

One of the things I am trying to do is get my head around Luftflotte 3 bomber losses from the start of January to the end of May 1944. There are numerous sources that provide various figures, among them a 2008 discussion on this forum partly about this topic that I looked at this morning.

In addition to reading the published sources (starting with Ron Mackay and Simon Parry’s excellent history, then numerous other books – among them, the various published Kampfgeschwader histories), I have been extracting and re-tabulating data from the detailed Luftflotte 3 aircraft loss lists for Jan-May found in TNA AIR 20/7709.

My calculations from the Luftflotte 3 tables can be summarised as follows:

TOTAL LUFTFLOTTE 3 LOSSES (ALL TYPES), January – May (inclusive) 1944

MONTH //// BY ENEMY ACTION (destroyed / damaged) //// ON OPS BUT NOT TO ENEMY (destroyed / damaged) //// NON-OPERATIONAL LOSSES (destroyed / damaged) //// TOTAL DESTROYED / DAMAGED
January //// 159 / 62 //// 46 / 58 //// 84 / 158 //// 289 / 278
February //// 192 / 86 //// 38 / 80 //// 78 / 164 //// 308 / 330
March //// 288 / 110 //// 41 / 47 //// 79 / 163 //// 408 / 320
April //// 260 / 104 //// 38 / 57 //// 78 / 208 //// 376 / 369
May //// 228 / 71 //// 27 / 51 //// 88 / 147 //// 343 / 269
TOTALS //// 1127 / 433 //// 190 / 293 //// 407 / 840 //// 1724 / 1566

A. Of 1724 planes destroyed, 674 (39.1%) were bombers, including: Ju 88 (258); Do 217 (97 – incl. 4 ‘Do 17’); Ju 188 (108); He 177 (74); Fw 190 ‘bombers’ (39); Me 410 (45 – incl. 1 ‘Me 210’); and He 111 ‘bombers’ (53). NB. This figure excludes Fw 200 (categorised in the loss tables as bombers) and also Fw 190 that are categorised as ‘ground-attack’ (as distinct from ‘bombers’).

B. Of 1566 planes damaged, 479 (30.6%) were bombers, including: Ju 88 (195); Do 217 (55 – incl. 3 ‘Do 17’); Ju 188 (69); He 177 (50); Fw 190 ‘bombers’ (31); Me 410 (33); and He 111 ‘bombers’ (46). Again, Fw 200 and Fw 190 G/A are excluded.

C. As far as I’m aware, no He 111 ‘bomber’ participated in any ‘Steinbock’ raid, so if these (53 destroyed and 46 damaged) are deducted, then Luftflotte 3 losses for 1 Jan to 31 May 1944 = 621 bombers destroyed and 433 damaged (excluding Fw 200 and Fw 190 G/A as well as He 111 bombers).

D. Of 621 bombers destroyed, 120 (19.32%) were destroyed on the ground in bombing and strafing attacks (and possibly in a few instances by partisans). Of the 120 destroyed on the ground, 49 (40.8%) were destroyed in April. These all count as ‘operational losses.’

E. Of 433 bombers damaged, 85 (19.63%) were damaged on the ground in bombing and strafing attacks (and possibly in a few instances by partisans). Of the 85 damaged on the ground, 32 (37.6%) were damaged in April. Again, these all count as ‘operational losses.’

F. Data for ‘non-operational losses’ (1) = 113 bombers destroyed, including: Ju 88 (39); Do 217 (19); Ju 188 (17); He 177 (23); Fw 190 ‘bombers’ (5); and Me 410 (10). 621 bombers destroyed MINUS 113 ‘non-operational’ losses MINUS 120 destroyed on the ground = 388 bombers destroyed in the air on operations. As above, this excludes Fw 200, Fw 190 G/A and He 111 ‘bombers.’

G. Data for ‘non-operational losses’ (2) = 182 bombers damaged, including: Ju 88 (91); Do 217 (23); Ju 188 (30); He 177 (17); Fw 190 ‘bombers’ (11); and Me 410 (10). 433 bombers damaged MINUS 182 ‘non-operational’ losses MINUS 85 damaged on the ground = 166 bombers damaged in the air on operations. As above, this excludes Fw 200, Fw 190 G/A and He 111 ‘bombers.’

So, to my questions:

1. Please can you advise me on your views regarding the ‘reliability’ in general terms of Luftflotte 3’s loss tables?

2. Please can you advise me on the distinction likely to have been made by Luftflotte 3 between ‘destroyed’ and ‘damaged’ aircraft? As a sub-question, is it reasonable to assume that some proportion (if so, what proportion) of ‘damaged’ aircraft might subsequently have been written off?

3. Having looked fairly carefully at English-, German- and French-language histories of KG 2 (Balke), KG 6 (Horn, Taghon), KG 51 (Horn), KG 54 (Radtke), KG 66 (Wakefield), KG 76 (Horn – only the briefest participation in ‘Steinbock’), KG 100 (Balke, Roba), I note that numerous aircraft are listed as destroyed or damaged that do not appear in more general histories (especially Mackay & Parry and Parker Luftwaffe Crash Archive 11). Please can you advise me on your views regarding the degree to which this is likely to be true for bomber units that participated in ‘Steinbock’ but for which unit histories do not seem to be available (KG 30 and KG 40?) Common sense suggests that if (for example) Balke lists a not insignificant number of bombers destroyed or damaged for KG 2, then presumably KG 30 and KG 40 had their fair share of otherwise unlisted losses? And forgive me for asking, but am I being ignorant in suggesting that detailed lists of KG 30 and KG 40 losses are not to be found anywhere?

4. Now to the really tricky one! As I understand (misunderstand?) it, KG 26 and (when it eventually arrived) KG 77 operated from southern French bases under the overall command of Luftflotte 3 during the months that concern me. Clearly, they suffered a lot of aircraft (and personnel) losses, and these would need to be subtracted from figures mentioned above in order to establish ‘Steinbock’ losses (IF the KG 26 and KG 77 losses are included in those tables). Yet I cannot get Luftflotte 3 loss tables even remotely to align with information that I have found in various sources about KG 26 and KG 77 losses. As just one example, Trendle (Point Blank 4/44, April 1944, p.119) identifies no fewer than thirteen bombers (twelve Ju 88, one Do 217) lost during the attack on Convoy UGS 37 on the night of 11-12 April 1944. Yet there is no sign of these losses in the Luftflotte 3 loss tables. Admittedly, there are seven Ju 88 listed as destroyed in air combat on 11 April, but they are identified as twin-engine fighters and seem to match (mostly) with ZG 1 losses on that date. So, put simply, were KG 26 and KG 77 losses omitted from Luftflotte 3 tables, either in specific cases or as a general principle? Or have I got something badly wrong in my assumptions / understanding, about which I need to be corrected?

5. Finally, are there any general or specific points that forum users think I need to take into account as I attempt to clarify and analyse Luftflotte 3 losses during ‘Steinbock’? I am trying to come at these questions from various angles, but I am sure things have occurred to other people that have not yet occurred to me!

PS. A thought has just occurred, specifically that ‘Steinbock’ did not begin until late January. So, an argument might be made that bomber losses for the first three weeks of January should be omitted. It seems to me, however, that many of those should be associated with ‘Steinbock’ – for example the four KG 2 Do 217s lost at Gilze-Rijen/Eindhoven on 4 January, which were involved in mission training when intercepted and shot down by RAF Typhoons. Obviously, the ‘appropriateness’ of linking pre-21 January losses to ‘Steinbock’ losses will vary from case to case. Still, it seems a point worth mentioning.

Many thanks in advance for any help and advice that forum users can offer. I hope the synopsis of data presented above is of some interest and assistance.

Simon

Re: Questions about Operation Steinbock losses
 

I'd agree but some bomber units (I'm thinking of KG 26) did retain a few He 111 for ferrying around personnel and equipment, usually with Geschwader and Gruppe HQ flights. Also (others can confirm/refute) there may have been some in the various France-based IV. Gruppen where bomber units' operational training took place.

Re: Questions about Operation Steinbock losses
 

If you're getting to this level of analysis and detail, I'll be buying a copy! Look forward to it. Any idea of publication date?

Re: Questions about Operation Steinbock losses
 

Hello Bombphoon,

Thanks for your enthusiasm - I appreciate it.

Osprey want the manuscript and illustration briefs by 1 September. I'm not sure of the publication date but they have announced 'Air Campaign' titles up to spring 2023 (I think) and mine isn't among them. So I assume July or maybe autumn 2023.

Other contributors to the forum have written for Osprey and may have a better sense of the interval between manuscript delivery and publication. This is my first book for them so I'm afraid I'm not as clued-up as I might be.

Hope this helps,

Simon

Re: Questions about Operation Steinbock losses
 

My last book was well over a year from delivery to publication

Re: Questions about Operation Steinbock losses
 

~12 months from delivery of manuscript to planned publication date.

Re: Questions about Operation Steinbock losses
 

Chris, Andy, thanks for the clarification. I just checked Amazon and they have Air Campaign title releases up to November announced. A year certainly sounds about right, and I guess that given the vast quantities of Osprey releases across diverse series, their machine is a well-oiled one by now.

Simon

Re: Questions about Operation Steinbock losses
 

Regarding your 2nd query about the distinction between damaged/destroyed aircraft, the Luftwaffe was using a percentage system. Over 60% the aircraft was damaged beyond repair (or totally lost/missing for 100%) and was counted as destroyed. Under 60% it could be repaired, the place where it could be being linked to the percentage (<10% in the Staffel for example, so often not reported). 60% being the border, it seems to me it was not so clear, and my own expression is German clerks thought the same and don't use it as often as 50% and 70%, but have no number to prove it or not.

But this loss percentage is just an indication of the first report. An aircraft damaged at 50% and loaded in a train could be judged beyond repair when it arrived at the factory suppoed to repair it, while a wreck at 70%/80% could be repaired. Such cases exist in German loss lists... even if a good part are probable WNr errors.
More often, an aircraft damaged around 50%, and so requiring to be sent to a factory to be repaired, couldn't be sent there and will finish in a derelict state when the Allied overan its airfields. My guess will be that this would be the case with probably a good part of the German bombers landing or force-landing in France with heavy damage.

As for your 4th query, I think that the fact of 53 He 111s are included in the Luftflotte 3 tables seem to imply that KG 26 operations over the Med were included in it. If He 111 were not involved in Steinbock, they were used in convoy attacks up to May 1944. In https://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/kampf/bikg26.html we can see that I./KG 26 lost 27 He 111 due to enemy and 5 more without enemy action between January and April 1944.

My last advice would be to cross the Luftflotte 3 with the Flugzeugbestand available on the site https://www.ww2.dk/.

Re: Questions about Operation Steinbock losses
 

Thank you Laurent, that is very helpful and I am grateful for the response.

So, in short, you think the destroyed / damaged figures in Luftflotte 3's reports are probably generally reliable. Some badly damaged (even 70/80% and therefore 'destroyed' at first glance) planes were repaired but other less badly damaged ones (50% or less) were eventually written off. The two figures probably don't balance (I imagine more lightly damaged planes were eventually written off than very badly damaged ones were eventually repaired), but there is no obvious reason for thinking the 'official' figures crazily out of line with reality.

Thank you for the very helpful suggestion and link to the unit tables of losses and acquisitions. I had that source in my bibliography but for some reason hadn't sued it. It is a thoroughly sensible suggestion and I will go there and tabulate the relevant data.

The thing is that I still have major problems aligning the losses of KG 26 (He 111s) and losses of Ju 88s that 'belonged' to Luftflotte 3 but which were really supporting operations relating more to what was going on in Italy and the wider Mediterranean. This morning I looked at Shores et al Vol 4, plus several other sources that shed light on operations by KG 26, KG 30, KG 76 and KG 77 from January - May 1944 in the Mediterranean. Some of these units certainly were based in southern France and 'technically' under Luftflotte 3's command. But time and again, any attempt to make the Luftflotte 3 loss tables 'fit' with what is recorded of those KG's losses vs convoys and other targets just don't work - and usually by some margin.

One thing does occur to me, which is that possibly losses to units that were based in southern France, under Luftflotte 3's command, might be recorded insofar as they were losses to bombing and strafing attacks on their airfields. Of the 53 He 111s recorded as destroyed, 26 were destroyed on the ground. Maybe losses to He 111s and Ju 88s belonging to KG 26, KG 76, KG 30 and KG 77 were recorded as Luftflotte 3 losses if they were sustained at French airfields, but NOT counted if they were sustained during sorties over the Mediterranean or in support of Luftflotte 2 operations in Italy?? Presumably, in such a case, the 'losses in the air' would fall to Luftflotte 2, or maybe they might be recorded elsewhere??

Does this argument make the slightest sense? Or am I just betraying my ignorance of how things worked in the bits of Luftwaffe bureaucracy that were concerned with such things?

Best,

Simon

Re: Questions about Operation Steinbock losses
 

I don't know the Luftflotte 3 loss tables, but your sentence may imply that you have number of losses per type and day. It this is the case, you can write on this forum all reported He 111 with number and date and we can try to identify them.

Just two examples, IV./KG 55 (serving as operational training group for KG 55) lost 5 He 111s shot down on 23 April and 4 on 4 May, all shot down by Allied fighters (see https://www.histavia21.net/HISTAV2/Cra1944-1.htm). I don't know if they will be reported to Luftflotte 3 or another command.
In early 1944, many Luftwaffe training units were also based in France, especially SW France, and they lost tens of aicraft each month. I doubt they were reported to Luftflotte 3.
I./ZG 1 (formerly V./KG 40) was flying patrols over Biscay and escorts for convoy attacks in Med, and lost 27 Ju 88s between January and May 1944.

As for units being based in France and reporting losses to Luftflotte 3 for operation northward and to Luftflotte 2 for those southward, I don't believe in it. The Luftwaffe loss record was first used to manage replacement aircraft and crew, and so will be sent to the headquarters from the home base of the unit, not the one responsible for the operation zone.

Just checked the German loss lists for November-December 1943, IV./KG 55 and I./ZG 1 are reported under Luftflotte 3. And losses of KG 26 against a Med convoy on 26 Nov 1943 (Rohna was sunk in this attack) were reported under Luftflotte 3, in a sub-part titled "(Einsatz Süd)".

Re: Questions about Operation Steinbock losses
 

Laurent,

Thanks again for your thoughts.

Yes, the Luftflotte 3 loss tables in AIR 20/7709 are detailed. They do not link losses to units, however, nor provide any information about personnel losses.

I have photos of all pages from January – May inclusive, for my ‘Steinbock’ research purposes. I also have the June, July and August loss tables. I can Wetransfer them to you if you are interested. PM me if so. They are quite large files so it might take a few transfers. But it is possible.

Below is a summary of the He 111 data. I am not especially interested in He 111s as they did not participate in ‘Steinbock’. But they are still interesting to me because they were in 1944 quite an unusual aircraft (as a ‘bomber’) in the West. So understanding how their losses were calculated with reference to units like KG 26 should shed light on the principles that govern inclusion in (or exclusion from) the Luftflotte 3 loss tables with reference to other types, especially Ju 88s belonging to KG 26, KG 30, KG 76 and KG 77, He 177s belonging to KG 40 and KG 100, and Do 217s belonging to KG 100. If I can understand that, then I can confirm more easily Luftflotte 3 losses among units involved in ‘Steinbock’ (not only on operations but in accidents, transfer flights etc). As you know, there are some good unit histories that shed light on these kind of ‘non-battle’ losses, but (as far as I’m aware) there aren’t histories of KG 30 or KG 40. It is true there are good books about the He 177 that include loss data, but it is all a jigsaw.

On a vaguely related matter, I have been surprised to discover that the various published orders of battle presented for Steinbock forces on the eve of the operation all contain oddities or exclude units that probably ought to be included. For example, Mackay and Parry’s excellent ‘The Last Blitz’ (p.60) lists III/KG 30 as a ‘Steinbock’ unit (when it wasn’t) while Medcalf's ‘Ju 88 Vol 2’ (p.606) excludes I/KG 76 entirely, despite the fact that it was heavily involved in the opening raids. As for figures for KG 66 aircraft available, nobody seems to agree with anybody else! Anyway, I guess that is another story.

Best wishes,

Simon

Here are the January – May 1944 He 111 losses. I hope they are interesting to you and others, and I wish you luck in linking KG 26 losses over the Mediterranean to the data below!

2 Jan: 2 damaged (non-operational)
5 Jan: 1 destroyed on ground by bombs + 1 damaged (non-operational)
10 Jan: 1 damaged (non-operational)
13 Jan: 1 damaged (non-operational)
14 Jan: 1 damaged (non-operational)
21 Jan: 3 destroyed and 5 damaged on ground by bombs + 1 destroyed and 1 damaged (non-operational)
22 Jan: 1 destroyed (non-operational)
23 Jan: 1 destroyed (non-operational)
24 Jan: 1 destroyed and 1 damaged (non-operational)
25 Jan: 1 damaged (non-operational)
26 Jan: 2 damaged (non-operational)
27 Jan: 1 damaged on ground by bombs
1 Feb: 1 missing on operational flight
3 Feb:1 damaged (non-operational)
5 Feb: 1 destroyed in air combat + 6 destroyed and 5 damaged on ground by bombs
6 Feb: 2 destroyed and 3 damaged on ground by bombs
7 Feb: 1 damaged (non-operational)
8 Feb: 1 damaged (non-operational)
11 Feb: 2 damaged on operations but not by enemy action
13 Feb: 1 damaged (non-operational)
16 Feb: 1 destroyed (non-operational)
26 Feb: 1 destroyed (non-operational)
4 March: 1 destroyed (non-operational)
18 March: 1 destroyed and 1 damaged on ground by bombs
28 March: 7 destroyed and 7 damaged on ground by bombs
20 April: 1 damaged (non-operational)
23 April: 3 destroyed and 2 damaged in air combat
25 April: 4 destroyed and 3 damaged on ground by bombs
28 April: 1 destroyed on ground by bombs and 1 damaged on ground ‘by aircraft fire’ [strafing]
4 May: 4 destroyed in air combat
8 May: 1 destroyed on ground by bombs
11 May: 1 destroyed on ground by bombs

Re: Questions about Operation Steinbock losses
 

Glad I did that - revealed a stupid error on my part. 43 destroyed, not 53. Time to correct my data tables.

Re: Questions about Operation Steinbock losses
 

I criss-crossed you list with my data:

2 Jan: 2 damaged (non-operational)
5 Jan: 1 destroyed on ground by bombs + 1 damaged (non-operational)
10 Jan: 1 damaged (non-operational)
Not in table: 10 Jan: 4 MIA, 2 KIA for I./KG 26 in Med in book “Torpedo Los”, losses also in MAW4
13 Jan: 1 damaged (non-operational)
14 Jan: 1 damaged (non-operational)
21 Jan: 3 destroyed and 5 damaged on ground by bombs + 1 destroyed and 1 damaged (non-operational)
22 Jan: 1 destroyed (non-operational) – He 111 H-6 WNr 7071 of 11./KG 55 (4 KIFA) https://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=40390
23 Jan: 1 destroyed (non-operational)
Not in table: I./KG 26 (4 dead, 2 wounded in Med this day in book “Torpedo Los”) 3 He 111 lost off Italy in MAW4
24 Jan: 1 destroyed and 1 damaged (non-operational) – possibly IV./KG 53 (4 killed this day in book “Kampfgeswchader 53 Legion Condor”)
Not in table: I./KG 26 (4 MIA this day in book “Torpedo Los”), 1 He 111 lost off Italy in MAW4
25 Jan: 1 damaged (non-operational)
26 Jan: 2 damaged (non-operational)
27 Jan: 1 damaged on ground by bombs
Not in table: He 111 P-2 WNr 1592 of school B-15 shot down by an Intruder near Bourges (3 KIA), Avions n°77
1 Feb: 1 missing on operational flight – possibly I./KG 26 (4 MIA, 4 WIA in Med this day in book “Torpedo Los”), 1 He 111 lost in Med (3 MIA, 1 POW) and another crash-landed in Spain (4 WIA) in MAW4
3 Feb:1 damaged (non-operational)
5 Feb: 1 destroyed in air combat – He 111 11./KG 55 shot down by an Intruder (3 KIA) http://www.btinternet.com/~air_research/kg55loss.pdf (dead link) + 6 destroyed and 5 damaged on ground by bombs
Note: second line losses under bombs 1 He 111 of KG 101 damaged in Tours, 1 He 111 of Telefunken Berlin damaged in Villacoublay. Avions n°82
Note: according to a testimony in book “Kampfgeswchader 53 Legion Condor” IV./KG 53 base was bombed and 3 airmen were killed, but no aircraft was hit
6 Feb: 2 destroyed and 3 damaged on ground by bombs
7 Feb: 1 damaged (non-operational)
Not in table: 7 Feb: 4 MIA for I./KG 26 in Med in book “Torpedo Los”, nothing in MAW4 on this date
8 Feb: 1 damaged (non-operational) – possibly He 111 H-6 WNr 7772 of KG 101, 15% in Germany. Avions n°82
11 Feb: 2 damaged on operations but not by enemy action
Not in table: 12 Feb: 4 MIA for I./KG 26 in Med in book “Torpedo Los”, 1 He 111 in Corsica in MAW4
13 Feb: 1 damaged (non-operational)
Not in table: 13 Feb: He 111 P-5 WNr 1691 of FFS B-15 100% loss in accident near Bourges (7 KIFA), Avions n°82
16 Feb: 1 destroyed (non-operational)
26 Feb: 1 destroyed (non-operational) – possibly Heinkel 111 Z-1 WNr 2704 of IV./LLG 2 (3 WIA) https://www.histavia21.net/HISTAV2/Cra1944-1.htm, but was shot down by an Intruder
Not in table: 3 March He 111 E WNr 1268 of Ld.Kdo Westküste Frankreich damaged at 40% by enemy fire (no crew loss), Avions n°88

4 March: 1 destroyed (non-operational)
18 March: 1 destroyed and 1 damaged on ground by bombs
Not in table: 21 March: He 111 P-5 WNr 1993 of FFS B-15 100% shot down by P-51 (2 KIA, 3 WIA), Avions n°88
Not in table: 27 March: 1 He 111 destroyed and 1 damaged at Cazaux by bombs (both of Erpr.St.d.Lw Rechlin), Avions n°88
28 March: 7 destroyed and 7 damaged on ground by bombs – possibly at Dijon (2 WIA for IV./KG 55) and/or Tavaux (1 KIA, 1 WIA for IV./KG 55) https://www.histavia21.net/HISTAV2/Cra1944-1.htm
Not in table: 28 March: 1 He 111 of FFS B-15 1 damaged at Nimes in accident, Avions n°88
Not in table: 30 Mar: 4 MIA for I./KG 26 in Med in book “Torpedo Los”, 1 He 111 crashed off French Med coast (3 MIA, 1 KIA) in MAW4
20 April: 1 damaged (non-operational)
23 April: 3 destroyed and 2 damaged in air combat – 5 He 111 of IV./KG 55 shot down or crash-landed (9 KIA, 7 WIA) https://www.histavia21.net/HISTAV2/Cra1944-1.htm
25 April: 4 destroyed and 3 damaged on ground by bombs
28 April: 1 destroyed on ground by bombs and 1 damaged on ground ‘by aircraft fire’ [strafing]
4 May: 4 destroyed in air combat – 4 He 111 of IV./KG 55 shot down (8 KIA, 3 WIA) https://www.histavia21.net/HISTAV2/Cra1944-1.htm
8 May: 1 destroyed on ground by bombs
11 May: 1 destroyed on ground by bombs

Remarks:
_ of all I./KG 26 known losses in the period, only 1 on 1 Februay is possibly in the Luftflotte 3 table, and it is not even sure (2 KG 26 losses that day, only one in table)
_ of all the second-lines losses in the period, probably none are in the table, except possibly 2 on 5 February
_ identified losses with correct number and cause are from IV./KG 55, and possibly IV./KG 53

Comparison between Luftflotte 3 and Flugzeugbestand show no clear link:
January: 15 due to enemy action (I./KG 26 15), 6 without enemy action (I./KG 26 4, IV./KG 53 1, IV./KG 55 1)
February: 5 due to enemy action (I./KG 26 4, IV./KG 55 1), 1 without enemy action (IV./KG 55 1)
March: 5 due to enemy action (I./KG 26 2, IV./KG 55 2, IV./KG 53 1), 2 without enemy action (I./KG 26 1, IV./KG 55 1)
April: 21 due to enemy action (IV./KG 55 14, I./KG 26 6, IV./KG 53 1), 4 without enemy action (IV./KG 53 4)
May: 7 due to enemy action (IV./KG 55 7), 5 without enemy action (IV./KG 55 5)

Table:
January: 4 destroyed on the ground, 3 destroyed non-operational
February: 1 missing on operational flight, 1 destroyed in air combat, 8 destroyed on the ground, 2 destroyed non-operational
March: 8 destroyed on the ground, 1 destroyed non-operational
April: 3 destroyed in air combat, 5 destroyed on the ground
May: 4 destroyed in air combat, 2 destroyed on the ground

Re: Questions about Operation Steinbock losses
 

Thanks Laurent, that is all very helpful and I appreciate you going to the trouble to do this.

I have Schmidt's 'Torpedos Los!' but as you know, the loss list at the back is of personnel, not planes, which is less helpful than one might want. I don't have unit histories for KG 53 or KG 55 since they had nothing to do with 'Steinbock', nor do I have the editions of 'Avions' to which you refer, so your clarifications are very welcome.

I do have Balss's February loss book (though not Trendle for the same month - I ought to get that), which - as an example - shows that the 7 February loss (crew mentioned in Schmidt but missing from MAW 4) was He 111 H-11, Wnr. 8067, 1H+BB of 2./KG 6, which took off from Salon and crashed near Cassino.

I probably should mention that in the Luftflotte 3 loss tables, He 111 'bombers' are distinguished from He 111 transports, which are recorded separately. There is also a 'miscellaneous' category, which I take to include hack and personal aircraft, but which I guess might include the occasional He 111.

From what you write, it seems like a working hypothesis is that losses for aircraft technically under command of Luftflotte 3 and based at airfields in southern France, but which operated over Italy and the Mediterranean, are NOT included in the Luftflotte 3 loss tables. If that turns out to be true, that is very good news for me, since it means I don't have to try to separate KG 26, KG 77 etc. losses in the south from the Luftflotte 3 loss tables (since they aren't included in those tables in the first place). In your reply of 8 April, you mention that at least some of the KG 26 losses (possibly all) were included under a separate heading ('Einsatz Sud'). If that turns out to be true for the entire January - May period (which would seem to make sense), then my problem largely goes away.

I'll continue to work on this. My impression is that 'Steinbock' losses do align well with the Luftflotte 3 loss tables. But the problem is that as Balke's KG 2 and Horn's KG 6 and KG 51 histories (for example) show, lots of aircraft were lost during non-operational activities, or in attacks on airfields, and hardly any of these appear in Mackay and other 'Steinbock' accounts. It is a matter of opinion whether they should do, but my basic line of argument is that 'Steinbock' losses should be interpreted widely, and should include aircraft lost in training flights, transfers, accidents etc. So it would be good to be able to confirm as many of Balke's and Horn's claims as possible, and fill gaps for units (e.g. KG 30) which must have lost aircraft in similar circumstances, but for which equally useful unit histories do not yet exist.

Anyway, thanks again and remember that I'm happy to send you the Luftflotte 3 loss tables if that interests you. Just let me know.

I'll update when I've done so more work and am more confident in my own views.

Best,

Simon

Re: Questions about Operation Steinbock losses
 

Having taken Laurent's suggestion into account and used the 'Flugzeugbestand un Bewegungsmeldungen' data accessible on Michael Holm's website, I get the data below (see also explanatory notes).

Much of this agrees with data presumably taken from the same source in Medcalf, 'Junkers Ju 88 Vol.2 p.620'. But this book seems to omit several 'Steinbock' units which 'joined in' a bit late (III/KG 30 and III/KG 54), as well as one (I./KG 76) that was only briefly involved. It also omits KG 101 elements that were occasionally involved, and there are a couple of data transcription errors. For example, Medcalf has 11 I./KG 40 losses to enemy and another 3 not to enemy in January 1944, when the actual tables on Holm's website have 3 losses to enemy and 3 not to enemy, plus 5 planes transferred to other units (i.e. a total loss of 11 planes, of which three were destroyed). Medcalf also counts II./KG 30 losses during February 1944 as 'Steinbock' losses, when they were actually sustained in Italy.

The biggest difference between my table and Mecalf's lies in the data concerning I./SKG 10. See notes below my data for comment.

Obviously, this table still needs work, not least in matching data to known and suspected losses. And damaged planes also need to be taken into account. Still, I said I would update when I had done a bit more work, and one or two people might find this of some interest or deserving of comment / constructive criticism.

Here goes:

Consolidated losses table

First figure = to enemy / second figure = to other causes
N/A = 'Not applicable'

Unit //// Jan //// Feb //// March //// April //// May //// Total

Stab KG 2 //// 0 / 0 //// 0 / 0 //// 0 / 0 //// 0 / 0 ////1 / 0 //// 1 / 0
I./KG 2 //// 3 / 1 //// 6 / 3 //// 2 / 1 //// 9 / 1 //// 2 / 3 //// 22 / 9
II./KG 2 //// 1 / 2 //// 7 / 2 //// 4 / 1 //// 9 / 1 //// 0 / 1 //// 21 / 7
III./KG 2 //// 6 / 3 //// 5 / 1 //// 11 / 3 //// 13 / 3 //// 4 / 0 //// 39 / 10
V./KG 2 //// 7 / 1 //// N/A //// N/A //// N/A //// N/A ////7 / 1

I./KG 6 //// 2 / 3 //// 2 / 2 //// 3 / 2 //// 0 / 0 ////11 / 1 //// 18 / 8
II./KG 6 //// 3 / 5 //// 8 / 0 //// 5 / 0 //// 5 / 0 //// 2 / 0 //// 23 / 5
III./KG 6 //// 4 / 2 //// 7 / 0 //// 7 / 0 //// 4 / 1 //// 0 / 0 ////22 / 3

II./KG 30 //// 1 / 1 //// N/A //// 9 / 0 //// 5 / 0 //// 5 / 0 //// 20 / 1
III./KG 30 //// N/A //// N/A //// 7 / 1 //// 6 / 0 //// 0 / 0 //// 13 / 1

I./KG 40 //// 3 / 3 //// N/A //// N/A //// N/A //// N/A //// 3 / 3

Stab KG 51 //// 0 / 0 //// 0 / 0 //// 0 / 0 //// 1 / 0 //// 0 / 0 //// 1 / 0
I./KG 51 //// N/A //// N/A //// 3 / 2 //// 4 / 3 //// 0 / 3 //// 7 / 8
II./KG 51 //// N/A //// 4 / 0 //// 0 / 0 //// 4 / 1 //// 2 / 2 //// 10 / 3

Stab KG 54 //// 0 / 0 //// 0 / 0 //// 1 / 0 //// 0 / 0 //// 0 / 0 ////1 / 0
I./KG 54 //// 3 / 1 //// 9 / 0 //// 5 / 1 //// 7 / 1 //// 4 / 0 //// 28 / 3
II./KG 54 //// 3 / 7 //// 4 / 1 //// 6 / 1 //// N/A //// N/A //// 13 / 9
III./KG 54 //// N/A //// N/A //// N/A //// 5 / 2 //// 6 / 0 //// 11 / 2

I./KG 66 //// 5 / 2 //// 9 / 2 //// 5 / 2 //// 11 / 1 //// 1 / 0 //// 31 / 7

I./KG 76 //// 4 / 1 //// N/A //// N/A //// N/A //// N/A //// 4 / 1

I./KG 100 //// 4 / 11 //// 3 / 2 //// 6 / 1 //// 7 / 3 //// 4 / 1 //// 24 / 18
III./KG 100 //// N/A //// N/A //// N/A //// N/A //// 2 / 0 //// 2 / 0

Elts KG 101 //// 0 / 0 //// 1 / 0 //// 1 / 0 //// 3 / 0 //// 1 / 0 //// 6 / 0

I./SKG 10 //// 6 / 0 //// 3 / 2 //// 5 / 0 //// 3 / 2 //// 2 / 1 //// 19 / 5

TOTALS //// 55 / 43 //// 68 / 15 //// 80 / 15 //// 96 / 19 //// 47 / 12 //// 346 / 104

Possibly add two 1.(F)/121 Me 410 sent to photograph results of 25-6 April Portsmouth raid, which were shot down: TOTALS if so = 348 / 104 (452 total)

Notes:

KG 6: Stab KG 6 participated in ‘Steinbock’ with a small number of aircraft, but apparently sustained no losses to enemy action or other causes (other than to overhaul or transfers to other units). Consequently, it is omitted from the table above.

KG 30: Stab KG 30 and I./KG 30 were in north-west Europe until late January 1944 but there is no evidence that they participated in the 21-22 January raids. If any elements did so, they almost certainly suffered no losses. III/KG 30 only joined ‘Steinbock’ in March 1944. II./KG 30 losses suffered during February were sustained in Italy, not ‘Steinbock’ sorties (therefore excluded from table).

KG 40: I./KG 40 includes 1./ and 2./KG 40 only (3./KG 40, with Fw 200s, was based in Norway throughout).

KG 51: II./KG 51 was until 6 February known as V./KG 2 (see separate line above). Some KG 51 aircraft were lost in intruder role rather than in bombing attacks on London and other targets.

KG 54: II./KG 54 was removed from operations at the start of April and dissolved later the same month. III./KG 54 replaced it as a ‘Steinbock’ unit and participated in attacks on the U.K. until the end of May.

KG 76: There is no evidence that Stab KG 76 or II./KG 76 participated in the first ‘Steinbock’ raid, even if either was available. The Stab lost no aircraft in January, so even if it did participate, no record is included here. II./KG 76 lost three aircraft to enemy action in January, but there is evidence that all were destroyed after the Gruppe’s transfer to Italy, from the night of 24-25 January onwards.

KG 100: Figures for III./KG 100 refer solely to its participation in Plymouth raid on 29-30 April (two Do 217 K-3s shot down).

Einsatzstaffel 101: This unit contributed intermittently to ‘Steinbock’ and associated raids. Figures in table above include only confirmed losses during operational sorties against the U.K. Possibly, one or two non-operational losses should be added.

I/SKG 10: Problematical. Reasonably detailed information about 22 or 23 losses during ‘Steinbock’-period raids exists, but Beale ‘Hit & Run Raiders’ appendix lists numerous other losses in accidents etc. If Beale is used, figure for I/SKG 10 is not insignificantly higher, as is overall total.

Re: Questions about Operation Steinbock losses
 

Credit for “Hit and Run Raiders” belongs to Chris Goss, not me!

Re: Questions about Operation Steinbock losses
 

Yes, apologies to you both. I had you in mind for another reason, Nick, and the fact that 'Hit and Run Raiders' was open on my desk doesn't seem to have helped me. Mind you, so was Kampfflieger Vol 4, which might be part of the explanation. Again, I apologise for the error!