Hi Andreas,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken
Hi, guys.
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%.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken
Hi, guys.
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.
|
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