Hi, all
Records can be unclear in periods of heavy fighting, but still it seems that most real hard evidence like photographs or documents fits well with GenQu reports.
A larger problem seems to be the level of understanding of the reporting system among researchers.
However - the loss related to Kerkhoff is listed as following:
http://www.aviationhistory.no/ref_db...?lossid=132903
Based on this record one can conclude that the pilot in question was wounded, but the aircraft was either damaged below 10% OR in the first instance regarded as 100% but recovered before the report was filed.
The rule was that a NVM (yes it was not always possible to follow) was to be filed within 24 hrs of the incident. It is totally possible that authors with access to the NVM will use this and mistakingly report a 100% aircraft loss because that was the reality at the reporting date (pilot missing or returned wounded from emergency landing behind enemy lines), aircraft thus considered lost.
At the time the report was forwarded through the chain of command the information with regards to the aircraft was updated due to shifting front lines and recovery, and the message to GenQu was that the pilot was injured without an aircraft damage in the damage range for reporting.
In this specific case, the incidence occured on April 30th while it was processed and included in the GenQu report of May 25th - nearly a month later.
Regards,
Andreas B