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:
Quote:
|
Bei Brüchen unter 60% hat der Verband zu melden, ob das Flugzeug zur Reperatur-Industrie geht und an wen es übergeben wird. Soweit diese Angaben nicht mit der Verlustmeldung noch nict abgegeben können, sind sie unter Bezug auf die Werknummer nachzuholen. Andernfalls wird angenommen, daß Wiederherstellung in eigener Werft bzw. durch Schnellreparatur-Kolonnen oder auf den Stützpunkthorsten erfolg; für diese Flugzeuge erfolgt keine Ersatzgestellung.
|
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