[edNorth]

My view of GQM losses % is: Bruch % was for eqiuvalent value of new airframe, not percentage of how damaged the actual airframe was - i.e. an minimum damage for a "perfect belly landing" for an Ju 88 A/C/D seris was 15-20% (bent props meant engines must be overhauled, but crushed gondola was not that great value loss) - if fact very little damage and aircraft be flying again in just a few days - but I think, in many cases it took several days for (qualified/certified ?) inspectors to do assessment of damage. Furhermore damage % varied between reports (Ultra reports often has exact % like 17, 23 etc). And in many cases this was amended (changed) at a later date. And in some cases, it appears, especially East Front, airframes were not repaired despite relatively little damage, simply because they could not be retrived from the battlefield. In short, if no Bruch was stated, this was not yet known at time of report, often "folgt" was written instead, but listers of GQM often just set ? instead (Folgt means "to follow", or % to come later).