Terms from the GQM Verluste und Unfall list
 

Hi Everyone,

I was looking at this term from the GQM Verluste und Unfall list abbreviated as "Ers. erf." From Andreas Brekken's web site I see it explained as "Ersatz erforderlich - Indicator of the need for an replacement aircraft" . So even if the aircraft in question is 10% 30% 45% damaged if it has the "ER" written after it that means the aircraft is replaced with a new one ? Does it also mean the aircraft is shipped back home for repairs ?

Thanks in advance
oquaig

Re: Terms from the GQM Verluste und Unfall list
 

oquaig,

Have a look at post #6 on the following thread on Axis History - https://forum.axishistory.com/viewto...panien#p859747.

This does not answer your question directly but explains the complexities and structure involved in Luftwaffe aircraft maintenance.

Re: Terms from the GQM Verluste und Unfall list
 

I don't think it necessarily had to go back home to Germany, but at least as far a repair facility away from the unit's base. In occupied France for example there were a number of places an aircraft could be sent: Fw 190s to Cravant/Auxerre, Bf 109s to Villacoublay, while Junkers had set themselves with one or more French aviation factories (I think that's where the Free French got some of the Ju 88s they operated).

Re: Terms from the GQM Verluste und Unfall list
 

Balke refers to a " zugeteilten Stützpunktwerft " in Deblin that serviced aircraft from Luftflotte 2. I assume this is one of the places you are talking about.

Thanks Andy for the link to "Axis History" That was very informative and the kind of things I am looking for. My understanding of aircraft sent back to Germany for "repairs" went there for reconstruction and that these never went back to the front but instead went to the training schools.


Thanks both of you
oquaig

Re: Terms from the GQM Verluste und Unfall list
 

Yes, that one and a Junkers facility in Warsaw was another example. In Italy Weserflu-CANSA at Cameri (Novara) was repairing Fw 190s until about September 1944. In The Netherlands, ERLA at Antwerp repaired Bf 109s and 110s.

Re: Terms from the GQM Verluste und Unfall list
 

Thanks for that information !

One last question: when an aircraft is marked for "Ersatz erforderlic" does that aircraft remain on strength for the unit as shown in, let's say RL 2-III/712, or is it removed from the strength returns until it comes back from the repair facility ?

Re: Terms from the GQM Verluste und Unfall list
 

I think (but I’m not certain) that getting a replacement meant the original aircraft was now off your strength and one repaired would be allocated to whoever needed it. There are plenty of cases of aircraft serving in more than one unit.

For example Bf 109 G-6 W.Nr. 163161: allocated to II./JG 11 in December 1943 as a newly-built fighter; taken over by 5.(F)/123 in August 1944 from Guyancourt workshops as a reconnaissance machine.

Re: Terms from the GQM Verluste und Unfall list
 

Nick, small correction, Antwerp is still in Belgium.

Jaap

Re: Terms from the GQM Verluste und Unfall list
 

Which I ought to know since I’ve been there!

Re: Terms from the GQM Verluste und Unfall list
 

Thanks for your last post. Learning about "Ersatz erforderlic" answered a long standing question about why RL 2-III/709-735 reports just didn’t mesh with the GQM loss list. By removing the "Ersatz erforderlic" (ER) aircraft from the strength reports the numbers almost match what is contained in them. By looking at the dates aircraft were actually reported to GQM 6 as lost or damaged (ER) or repaired at the airfield, I subtract the losses reported after the report date and then I get a match.

For example: the RL 2-III/713 file shows I./KG 53 with 5 serviceable and 12 unserviceable aircraft, but after going thru the GQM 6 list I get 5 serviceable and 8 unserviceable... A closer look at the GQM 6 list shows that four of these losses were reported only after the RL 2-III/713 doc was published. Knowing this I can figure out what the strength of a given unit was on a given day.

So thanks so much for your input Nick
Regards
oquaig