Suffix "Er" With GQM returns

[kalender1973]

Hello,

In the JG2 loss list in Years 1940-42 the suffix “Er”(Ersatz) apperas in addition to the percentage of plane damage. But this was used only between may 41 and april 42.

Why this information did not appeared later ? Or is it not appeared only by JG2 ?

http://www.ww2.dk/misc/jg2loss.pdf
Best regards

[RT]

He was used from the beginning nd for all the units, ersatz notwendig, the plane couldn't be used or repaired on site they need a new one, why it's no more in use ?, probably because they are no more using the GQM to make the replacement, or it's no more stacked in the GQM because no need to put in or....

Rémi

[edNorth]

Hi both, this is actually explained in Ge.qu.6.Abt. records...

The abbrevation ´Er.´ appears in Luftwaffe loss records (f.e. 08.10.1940) and is explained: ´Érsatz notwendig, d.h. Flugzeug kann mit Truppenmitteln nicht wieder hergestellt werden´ (Spare parts needed and can not be handled / repaired with Luftwaffe equipment and or needing an repair at factory level ...)

Translation is mine...

cheers
ed

[kalender1973]

Hi Remi, Hi Ed,

the meaning of „Er“ is clear for me. Unclear why it is not used later and how was the new planes was requested.

Why is the information important ? I have a feeling that we understand wrong the damage category of LW. The most research books claims “10% damage” – easy to repair. But this “Er” shows that it was not “easy to repair” and the damaged plane must be replaced. And that is in quite peaceful air base condition (regarding the maintenance equipment, short logistic way etc.) And what should we say about “10% damage” in Africa or in Caucasus?

[RodM]

Hi Igor,

'Er' was used later, for example return 1720/45, from 19-2-1945, which has two damaged (10 & 20%) Ju88s of NJG2 so notated....

If the RAF system is anything to go by, what appears to be comparatively a minor percentage of damage would still result in an aircraft requiring repair away from the unit.

Cheers

RodM

[Nick Beale]

The "Er." column is a standard part of the form in the loss returns for 1945 and it is included in deciphered loss reports as late as the second half of April 1945.

[kalender1973]

If I understand correct "Er" appeared again only in returns for 45 ? Or it was standard for all years ?

[Franek Grabowski]

And this raises the question (again), about the percentage system. What was the basis for calculation and what was the 100%? A total cost of the aircraft?

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

And this raises the question (again), about the percentage system. What was the basis for calculation and what was the 100%? A total cost of the aircraft?

I've found an oddity recently, in signals from 1945. Aircraft that crashed and killed the pilot on German territory are classed as 99%; those on destroyed Allied territory are 100%. It just seems to have been a way of distinguishing, although I suppose if you have a wreck you can always salvage something, hoewever small.

[kalender1973]

Hi,

I assume that the really background of this percentage system is economic and resource situation in Germany. We need remember that the Germany have very limited resources in compare with west ally and USSR.

Threfore the germans try to use there resources so economical as possible. From this point of view the damage percent did't show how easy to repair the plane but how much from the plane (or material) could used again. Then is easy to explain, why is total loss over own territory should be noted as 99%: the rest of aluminium could be saved and used again.

Best regards