new research - readiness state, losses and logistics

[Andreas Brekken]

Dear all.

I would like to share a small part of my research with regards to the responsibilities concerning the readiness state and logistics connected to replacement aircraft in the Luftwaffe.

Sadly - as you all probably know - large amounts of Luftwaffe related documents were destroyed during (as a natural part of a running military security regime - report, consume, destroy) and in the aftermath of the World War II.

To get a broader picture with regards to what information was required and was available at the time, we have some scraps left, and these are often found in strange places, for example as copies used as attachments to letters concerning a given topic .

One such scrap of information that will be described in full in an upcoming article is the 'Erfassung des Flugzeugbestandes un Neuregelung der Ersatzgestellung bei Frontverbänden' - loosely translated to ' Reporting of aircraft inventory and new routine for requests for replacement aircraft for the frontline units' - a letter to the Luftflotten and other high level commands (30 copies...!) from the General Staff.

In this letter the role of the Generalquartiermeister in the General Staff as the responsible unit with regards to both upholding the operational strength of the units, but also the centralized control of the flow of replacement aircraft is made totally clear (as opposed to earlier comments by others on this board dismissing the Gen.Qu. as a statistics unit only...). The O.Qu. or Oberquartiermeister has as relayed in this letter the same responsibility in the Luftflotten.

One very important sentence reads (for those of you fluent in German):

"Um sicherzustellen, dass Verbände nicht mehr Flugzeuge anfordern als ihnen rüstplanmässig zustehen und um eine laufende Kontrolle über den Bestand an Flugzeugen zu besitzen, wird die Führung von Bewegungslisten bei den Staffeln, Gruppen, Geschwadern und Luftflotten bzw. beim Gen.d.Lw.b.Ob.d.H. und Gen.d.Lw.b.Ob.d.M. befohlen."

Again, loosely translated to : in order to have an overview of the different units aircraft strength and to ensure that the units does not request a larger number of aircraft than they are entitled to according to standards, the Staffeln, Gruppen, Geschwadern and Luftflotten and the Gen.d.Lw.b.Ob.d.H. und Gen.d.Lw.b.Ob.d.M. are all required to deliver lists of their aircraft inventory with changes.

These lists are to be made in 5! copies, split into List A with operational aircraft and list B with all other aircraft present in the unit.

The Verteiler or distribution of the lists were:

1. Geschwader
2. Fliegerkorps or Division (dependant on chain of command)
3. Luftflotte, Gen.d.Lw.b.Ob.d.H. und Gen.d.Lw.b.Ob.d.M. (dependant on chain of command)
4. Reichsluftministerium L.E.2

Last copy stays at the unit.

And now to a very interesting part - all aircraft leaving the units for any given cause is to be reported with Werknummer, and all communication with regards to the replacements are also to include the Werknummer.

And so to the final proof of the pudding my friends, and to show that the discussions we have had over the times with regards to what real importance and impact for a unit the loss lists kept by the Gen.Qu. had:

"In jedem Falle bleibt die werknummermässige Verlustmeldung die alleinige Unterlage für die ordnungsmässige Regelung des Nachschubes an Flugzeugen."

translated to

The loss report by Werknummer (serial number) will in every aspect be the basis for the request of an replacement aircraft.

There are further enhamncements which will be relayed later which underline this even more.

I hope that this small part of my research will enable us to come to terms with how the system was intended to work, and what responsibilities the different parts of the command chain had.

There were of course descrepancies and errors made, some even anticipated and importance of actions to reduce them outlined, as you will see from the full article.

Regards,
Andreas B

PS! The example report attached to the letter is a beauty... and this was to be used as a template

[mhuxt]

Thanks Andreas!

[Laurent Rizzotti]

Very interesting, Andreas, but I have an extra question: what was the date of this document ?

[Andreas Brekken]

September 1940. In my opinion these new systems were a result of difficulties when the number of losses increased, as well as the complexity of the entire Luftwaffe.

I am searching for information leading up to this and other letters, as I am sure it was discussed at length a bit earlier.

And of course it coincides pretty well with the inclusion of Werknummer in the GenQu lists.

Regards,
Andreas B

[Marcel Hogenhuis]

Hello Andreas,

Thank you for this enlighting piece of information ! The List A (operational aircraft) and List B (all other aircraft within that unit) can be found too in the monthly inventories of the Feldluftpark.

Feldluftpark 5/Holland (RL 25/77 up and including 25/88) shows for each unit within the boundaries of Luftgaukommando Holland, the number of each aircraft types and subversions (unfortunately no Werkenummer), operational and non operational and the number/types of the respective engines. For 1942 only the inventories of February and December survived, for 1943 it is nearly complete and for 1944 only January and February survived WW-2.

All the best, Marcel

PS. how is the 1944project going?

[Stig Jarlevik]

Very interesting Andreas

Is it possible to verify if this order is the reason why all of a sudden WNr is quoted on the loss lists? Perhaps this has been discussed before, but it has always puzzled me why no such details had been given before in Luftwaffe's loss reports. But if the document Andreas is quoting can be linked to this fact, then at least I have a good explanation....

Cheers
Stig

[RodM]

Hi Andreas,

even ULTRA provides a clue to the wealth of detailed information that was lost. Many detailed daily returns can be found in HW 5 relating to various units whereby the strength and operational serviceability/readiness in aircraft and aircrews is given. These returns also list, by WN, new aircraft taken on-strength, aircraft off-strength, and aircraft unserviceable.

For I. and III./NJG4, for example, it is possible to build up a daily picture of operational serviceability, and this indicates, among other things, that many instances of damage to aircraft that could be repaired on-base were simply never reported in the surviving Gen.Qu. returns. Also indicative are the vaious causes of unserviceability due to various mechnical faults or problems with electronic/radio equipment, which at times could lead to an aircraft being unserviceable for a long period of time.

Although I don't have the specific details in front of me, I clearly remember a signal from the likes of a JD to a JG unit in 1945 complaining that the last return was not accepted because of numerical discrepancies and the lack of detail provided by the JG on unserviceable aircraft.

Cheers

Rod

[AndreasB]

Vielen Dank Andreas. That explains what has puzzled me in the ULTRA intercepts, the inclusion of Werknummern in the loss reports.

Alles Gute

Andreas

[edNorth]

Thank you Andreas. Very interesting piece of info regarding early losses reports. Seems this branch is more important to researching than previously thought.
One I thought of reading this, this then must increase also the value (or Official "exactness" as closer to source) of the new aircraft distribution lists to the Luftflotten compiled by "Gen.Qu.(6. Abt. III C)" like these found for late 1944 early 1945 (RL 2 III/619, 620 and 621).

Do I understand correctly, then before September 1940, aircraft were simply drawn as needed from the Luftparks (with or without centralized control)?

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi, Ed

It more or less seems to have been the case - that requests were made directly to the Luftpark - possibly via the Luftflotte - but that they did not keep a very tight leash on this.

I would assume that the mounting losses due to the involvement agains England - and the corresponding continous demand on the Luftpark for replacements were an issue in developing a new system, and I will follow this issue when I return for my next research visit in Freiburg.

I guess you can imagine the situation when a pilot appeared at the Luftpark to pick up an aircraft that his colleague down the road just took off in - because two different clerks had 'given' two different units the same aircraft...

Regards,
Andreas B