[Andreas Brekken]

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