View Single Post
  #4  
Old 7th May 2010, 05:08
edNorth edNorth is offline
Alter Hase
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,126
edNorth is on a distinguished road
Re: Losses for III.LG1

Hello Remi,

You are a little mistaken in assuming that "none" and "3+" losses by this Gruppen as proof of lots of "missing losses" - Maybe Taghon has not these (I understand you are meaning these are not in Peter Taghonīs book) - I have not studied this. First of all III/LG 1 was not in "a full year of fighting", only about just over four months (March to July/August). The Ju 88 A-4 L1+EP typed in my first post then likely should be listed with II Gruppen - as unit had long since left the East-Front for Germany - likely my (or QM) typo - sorry for that. I adwise also looking at and actually counting the "losses" first, before saying these are missing.

I see 27 listed on this website. (http://www.ww2.dk/air/lehr/lg1.htm) Checking were it was based and whose locations might indicate "intense fighting" - see here below (info from same website):

23.3.42 - 24.3.42 Jasianka Ju 88A
24.3.42 - 23.4.42 Nikolajew Ju 88A
23.4.42 - 12.7.42 Eupatoria Ju 88A
12.7.42 - 18.7.42 Poltawa Ju 88A
18.7.42 - 21.7.42 Eupatoria Ju 88A
21.7.42 - 4.8.42 Stalino Ju 88A
4.8.42 - 1.9.42 Heiligenbeil Ju 88A

Then it became III/KG 6 and based ....... in France.

Then we have the period we are looking for...

Losses in 03.42 - 0 + 0 = 0
Losses in 04.42 - 3 + 1 = 4
Losses in 05.42 - 8 + 3 = 11
Losses in 06.42 - 3 + 3 = 6
Losses in 07.42 - 4 + 2 = 6
Losses in 08.42 - 0 + 0 = 0
---------------------------
Total ......................... 27

Those III/LG 1 mentioned in QM losses in year 1942 are: Ju 88 A-4īs W.Nrīs ī2011, 2017, 0154, 0155, 0159, 0173, 0194, 4031, 4092, 5564, 5584, 5589, 5621, 5622, 5629, 5634, 5643, 5645, 5657, 5758, 6772, 8597 (twice), 8598, 8607, 8624, 8625 (total 27 reports).

... but I can have missed out some (some can have been under 10%, certainly many were less than 100%), but the QM people seems to have done their work allright. I think you will agree.

Best regards
ed
Reply With Quote