[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Hello Andreas,

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

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.

So the monthly Bestands- und Bewegungsmeldungen Abgang durch Feindeinwirkung and ohne Feindeinwirkung contains all 60%-100% damages and damages <60% with the 'Er' mark only? If so, the discrepancies between Bewegungsmeldungen and GQM returns is even higher for the amount of data in question than I wrote before.

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

Mathematically we could set up an equation for this for a given month - with groups or sets that are partially overlapping.

If the ‘Abgang’ in Apr.-Jun.43 for StG2 for example is higher than GQM returns due to overlapping, probably in the nearest previous and/or following months the difference is inverse. Can you look at the data for StG2 for example on March and July 43 in your database?

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

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.

OK. For example 12 planes are listed in the GenQu 6 Abt returns, 6 of them has repaired at the unit etc, so ‘Abgang’ should be 6. But we have a reverse picture – 10 planes in ‘Abgang’ instead of 6.

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

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.

One of the numerous problems of the analysis of Kuban battles is the calculation of the German losses/damages. It is easiest to summarize GQM returns and to write something like 100% losses = XXX, 60-99% = YYY, 40-59% = ZZZ …, including xxx planes due to AAA fire, yyy due to dogfights, zzz due to accidents etc.
But as the great discrepancy between GQM returns and Bewegungsmeldungen exist, it require explanation. Nothing about ‘falsification’. The attempt to establish a real state of things only.

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

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.

It was a usual situation in the Soviet Air Force also. Some planes might land on the other airfield (or in the steppe for example) due to damages or fuel shortage or disorientation and counted as missing for the some time. Then they has appeared again in the Soviet analogue of Bewegungsmeldungen (it was a daily reporting in many cases) as ‘returning from the forced landing place’. And how such planes reappeared in the German Bewegungsmeldungen?

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

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.

beyond all doubt

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

But more of all that in the upcoming article.

I’m looking forward to your article

Regards,
Andrey