Interpreting Gen.Qu.6 verlust records

[Mikael Olrog]

In the columns of the loss lists with the headings: Tote, Verl. and Verm. there are three different types of entries
1) - when there is nothing to report
2) 1 when there is one person who fits in that category
3) 1(1) - what does this (1) indicate?


Thanks!
/mike

[Rottler]

Hello mike,

the number in parentheses indicates the number of officer ranks.

Regards
Leo

[John Vasco]

Note: In the lists, there are a lot of mis-spellings of aircrew names. There are also errors in the identification of codes on aircraft. Example: The loss of Bf 110, S9+DK, of Ebner & Zwick of 2./Erpr. Gr. 210 on 27th September 1940 is given as S9+DU. Almost certainly due to bad handwriting at unit level when preparing the return to go up the line.

[Marcel Hogenhuis]

Hello John,

I believe it was my Dutch friend Jaap Woortman who once told me that the units reported their losses to the Gen.Qm. by telephone. I never have thought about that before, but it seems a credible explanation for most mis-spellings and perhaps bad connections added to the confusion ?

Best regards, Marcel

[Mikael Olrog]

Thanks Leo, now I can see that. Obviously they wanted to keep track of the officers!


@john - yes I know there are so many errors in these files - despite all the corrections and amendments!


Interesting if they reported via telephone. WOnder if they always did so or if telegram also was an option. But there are reports for incidents that occured just two days prior to the date of the report, so it means there must have been a very quick means of communication - at least when the units were connected and had the time. So connection and bandwith was an issue already back then :-)

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Mikael Olrog

Interesting if they reported via telephone. Wonder if they always did so or if telegram also was an option. But there are reports for incidents that occured just two days prior to the date of the report, so it means there must have been a very quick means of communication - at least when the units were connected and had the time. So connection and bandwith was an issue already back then :-)

I have a few cases where JGr. 200 sent encrypted reports of a day's operations by radio. These included losses but I don't know if there was a separate report to the Gen.Qu.

As for the names of people and places, my impression is that spelling mistakes were very common whenever they put something on paper. I don't think you were excused military service if your spelling was terrible!

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

I have a few cases where JGr. 200 sent encrypted reports of a day's operations by radio. These included losses but I don't know if there was a separate report to the Gen.Qu.

As for the names of people and places, my impression is that spelling mistakes were very common whenever they put something on paper. I don't think you were excused military service if your spelling was terrible!

The one thing, Nick, where both myself and Peter Cornwell could find no errors, was on the Namentliche Verlustmeldungen. As far as I could tell, these were typed up at unit level, and as they were used to notify the next-of-kin of the loss/death/injury to a flyer, they had to be spot-on with the information submitted, which would have been held at unit level.

[Franek Grabowski]

There is definitely a room for a thick book on Luftwaffe bureaucracy, but somehow I cannot see either an author or a publisher willing to take the risk.