[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Yet another attempt to define whether the comparison of data in “Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen” with Gen.Qu.6.Abt. returns can help in verifying of the losses level.

In April 1943 only two FW189 units had operated with 17th German army (AOK17) on Kuban bridgehead – 1.(H)/21 and 7.(H)/32 (both under Stab NAGr9).

According to “Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen”, washout (Abgang) on April was:
1.(H)/21: 3 FW189 = 1 due to enemy action + 2 without enemy action [also 1 to tear-and-wear repair]
7.(H)/32: 1 FW189 (due to enemy action) [also 1 to tear-and-wear repair]

Losses in Gen.Qu.6.Abt. returns:

1.(H)/21:
2.4.43 FW189A-3 due to enemy action (90%) and nothing more.
So 2 losses/damages without enemy action are absent

7.(H)/32:
28.4 FW189A-3 due to enemy action (100%)
30.4 FW189A-3 due to enemy action (100%)
(20% damage 17.4.43 and 10% damage 30.4.43 ignored as probably repaired in the unit)
Both 100-% losses dates are correct (confirmed by German army units evidences).

So 1 loss « superfluous» [or it accounted as tear-and-wear].
Maybe «superfluous» loss was accounted in 1.(H)/21 instead of 7.(H)/32 for some reason (for example, crew was from 1.(H)/21 and the plane from 7.(H)/32), but it is strange. And, anyway, the absence in Gen.Qu.6.Abt. returns at least 1 loss of 1.(H)/21 remains unexplainable.

And due to zero losses in both in May 1943 (apart from tear-and-wear repair) it is impossible to explain the discrepancy in April through transfer of April’s losses to May reports.

Looks like some tear-and-wear washouts in «Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen» are losses really.

For the analysis, maybe 10-days strength reports are exists for these units?