Question about Luftwaffe aircraft losses with Bruch percentage not stated

[Paul Thompson]

Hello,

I have seen a few Luftwaffe aicraft loss records with remarks like the following: "Bruchlandung. Bruch ? %." If the aircraft concerned was flying a Frontflug (operational flight), does this mean that it was written off and no assessment of the damage was made? Or is the opposite true, that the damage was so slight that no damage assessment was required?

Regards,

Paul Thompson

[Paul Thompson]

While I am at it, a note for the moderators. I cannot post in at least one other thread because the forum software keep returning an error report. Can anything be done about this? Thank you in advance for your help!

Regards,

Paul

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Paul Thompson

While I am at it, a note for the moderators. I cannot post in at least one other thread because the forum software keep returning an error report. Can anything be done about this? Thank you in advance for your help!

Regards,

Paul

Have you tried clearing your browser cache?

On the subject of the damage %, I thought that a question mark just indicates that the figure hasn't been reported (yet) but someone here may well know better.

[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).

[Paul Thompson]

Originally Posted by edNorth

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).

Hello edNorth,

I generally agree with your understanding of the meaning of loss percentages. The problem for me is as follows:

I am trying to calculate a total of Luftwaffe losses for a particular month of the war. I hoped to be able to do this by adding up the Fronftlug losses above 60%. However, it turns out things are not nearly as easy. You will see above that I have put two part of your message in bold.

Problem 1: how does one determine which of the aircraft with relatively minor damage were not repaired?

Problem 2: what happens if there was no folgt, that is no follow up report.

The problems very often occur when there was a significant combat. For example, during the Soviet raid on Tatsinskaya (also rendered as Tazinskaja) airfield on 24 December 1942, some aircraft are shown as having suffered minor damage and others have simply "Bruch ? %" reported. Given that the description of the loss circumstances is similar in many of these cases, including obvious terms like "Panzerbeschuss", how can total Luftwaffe losses be determined?

Warm regards,

Paul

[Paul Thompson]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

Have you tried clearing your browser cache?

On the subject of the damage %, I thought that a question mark just indicates that the figure hasn't been reported (yet) but someone here may well know better.

Hello Nick,

I am afraid that clearing caches, changing browsers etc. does not affect the situation in the slightest. This seems to be a recurring problem with the forum, in various guises. For reference, see messages by others this year:

Alex Smart - 16 March 2015 - http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showth...919#post197919

AndreasB - 5 April 2015 - http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showth...986#post198986

Simon Schatz - 17 July 2015 - http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showth...843#post203843

edNorth - 29 September 2015 - http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showth...259#post207259

It's always one and the same - Service Temporarily Unavailable
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.

Warm regards,

Paul

[edNorth]

You need have "unknowns" included in your calulations and state them as such - I adwise not try guess it. I recommend use minimum 80% as total loss.
But there are cases of loss (or incident reports) not getting thrugh, but these are few (so far), but also many are without W.Nr.s, especially in 1940.

[Paul Thompson]

Originally Posted by edNorth

You need have "unknowns" included in your calulations and state them as such - I adwise not try guess it.

I understand your point, I think I might have to do just as you suggested! I have just sent you a private message on a related issue.