KG51 losses on 23 August 1942.

[Juha]

Yes, the Bf 110 case was interesting. The given explanation was that Berlin had ordered to end the use of Bf 110s in ground attack/fighter bomber missions in far North. The locals had thought that 110s was still very potent in that kind of work and had continued to use them as fighter bombers contrary to the order. The 110 in question was hit by AAA fire during an attack against a train on Murmansk railway line and because of that its crew had to made a forced landing on way home. The pilot (the crew was rescued) was ordered to sign a combat report in which the reason of forced landing was given as an engine failure. At least that was how the story was told in an old AM or AI.

Juha

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi, all

Yes of course the GenQu 6 Abt loss records we know of are incomplete. The entire 1944, the part of the war with the heaviest losses are not available in the archives, most likely containing among other things hundreds or maybe thousand of corrections for 1943, 1942, 1941 for one thing.

Secondly - no matter how well a system was designed, in time of war things happen that you cannot control, and that will of course have an influence on the quality of the data...

Please Franek and other consistent critics of the quality of the data:

1. This was before the computer - even having top of the line databases is no assurance of getting EVERYTHING right

2. A lot of the information was sent via courier, or over radio transmission, often coded. (and thus would need to be decoded... additional errors could be introduced by a sloppy radio operator/encoder/decoder)

3. In a war people die or get wounded or freak out, and communications get destroyed. We can not say how many reports that went missing due to enemy action... a railroad car blown up can contain a lot of documents... and dead people are really bad at filling out reports

I think that some of you should stop whining about this and rather try to do some real research and come up with real and undisputable data on the losses you claim happened and that weren't recorded (wartime records with for example aircraft codes and Werknummer for german aircraft, ID badge numbers of crew, photographs from crash sites etc). And please try to do this for losses that should be covered roughly by the periods we have records of (I have examples of loss records filed TWO YEARS after the incident! Thus it is not unlikely that losses form 1943 could be contained in documents from 1945... after they stopped recording the summary losses.)

And please - some 'eyewitness' account stating that the reason for an aircraft crashing was enemy inflicted damage is not very hard evidence. As we have proven on this board time and time again for all parties in this large conflict: The human mind is NOT necessarily the best storage place for these memories made under a high level of stress now more than 60 years ago...

And of course, a pilot experiencing engine trouble would immediately know that this was due to AAA and not to for example over-revving in a dive... and of course the DB engines in the Bf 110 never overheated and never developed oil leaks of various origin.

And Franek, please do show us using copies of original wartime documents that the RLM did not use the documentation from the Statistics department (ie GenQu 6 Abt under different guises) to control the flow of aircraft to the frontline units, by means of their organization which was quite hierarchical - and in fact not only scrutinized by the clerks and what one could maybe call that times layer of bureaucrats in said department, but also by the historical department under Von Rohden.

Sadly most of the people from this office has died. Sad, because if some of you older guys had bothered to thoroughly research this issue some years ago, one would be able to interview them, and not just assume - I have the name, rank and birth date of every person that ever worked in the GenQu 6 Abt on file...

And how many really have investigated what happened to the files of the historical department? I have at least not seen any publication on this - but stumbled upon the reports relaying the actions of the historical department - even recording the registration numbers of the railroad cars used to transport the files out of Berlin and the number of and origin of files stored in the basement of a given address in Berlin and how several employees of the historical department were killed or wounded during an air raid on a given date.

I did not really mean to get fired up about this one more time... but I get really irritated by comments like yogybär's that he have 'heard' that the germans falsified their loss records. But he makes a fairly important point:

If you do not report your losses... how the fuck do you get replacements? Believe me, I've been in the 'system' that the armed forces can be called - and we couldn't even get a new pair of underpants without filling out a loss record, not to speak of ammunition or guns (hell if you couldn't account for those parts the whole barracks would be turned upside down and at one time we had to spend an entire night outside on the parade ground because some moron lost a clip on the way back from the shooting range) . And you imply that the GERMAN Luftwaffe would just send aircraft to a unit without getting some piece of paper stating WHY they needed it... dream on!

Regards, and as always I am trying to use a bit of humour and irony!

Andreas B

[kalender1973]

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

If you do not report your losses... how the fuck do you get replacements? Believe me, I've been in the 'system' that the armed forces can be called - and we couldn't even get a new pair of underpants without filling out a loss record, not to speak of ammunition or guns (hell if you couldn't account for those parts the whole barracks would be turned upside down and at one time we had to spend an entire night outside on the parade ground because some moron lost a clip on the way back from the shooting range) . And you imply that the GERMAN Luftwaffe would just send aircraft to a unit without getting some piece of paper stating WHY they needed it... dream on!

Regards, and as always I am trying to use a bit of humour and irony!

Andreas B

Andreas, you assume, that replacement was based on the GQM returns? And at the same time, you say, that even for years 41-43 you missed thousends of GQM cases? And neverthenless these planes were also replaced. How were replaced the planes from II/KG51 after the 25.10.42 in Armawir? Only 5 were reported destroyed and damaged. But according the Bestand&Bewegungsmeldungen 20 planes leave unit "Durch Feindeinwirkung" and this confirm also the eyewitness?

And how were replaced the planes from II/LG1 after english special forces destroyed more then 10 and the Helbig reports to GQM only 3 or 4 of them. And here is explanation and sample, why LW commanders try to hide the losses: Göring personally send martial court to Helbig, that must decide about his personally responsibility in this case.

And I would say, your sample with with underpants is fine, but you mix peace with war time. Bureaucracy is really decreased at the war time. Even the german

[Juha]

Hello Andreas
Quote:” And please - some 'eyewitness' account stating that the reason for an aircraft crashing was enemy inflicted damage is not very hard evidence. As we have proven on this board time and time again for all parties in this large conflict: The human mind is NOT necessarily the best storage place for these memories made under a high level of stress now more than 60 years ago...

And of course, a pilot experiencing engine trouble would immediately know that this was due to AAA and not to for example over-revving in a dive.”

The Bf 110 case was that the crash-landed plane was found in say 80s and bought into West and it was noticed that there was bullet holes in a cowling and around an engine even if LW records say that it was lost because of engine problems. Fortunately the pilot was still alive and he was contacted and he gave the explanation I gave in my previous message. Now I don’t claim that this was a common phenomenon, the explanation for giving wrong reason for the loss sounds credible. Of course it would be nice to get confirmation that there was an order that forbidden the use of 110s in low level attacks in Far North sometimes in 1942 or 43. You know the LW operations up there much better than I, have You came across such a order?
So I don’t have a problem to accept that the case was an exception but on the other hand I don’t believe that it was the only one.

Juha

[Andreas Brekken]

Nope, Igor.

you missed the point entirely.

What I stated was that there is a POSSIBILITY that there are a lot of CORRECTIONS to the entries especially for 1943, but also for earlier entries. Some of them we can see traces of in the records, as they are entered in pencil onto the original records. This was however only done to some of the copies. The GenQu records were made in over 10 copies, sent to different higher headquarters as shown by the Verteiler.

All corrections in the documents (except a few still to enter for 1940 of bad quality) that are available have been entered into my database, giving more than 13000 corrections. This indicate that not only were these records filed, but there were some kind of double checking going on, especially with regards to personell losse based on the Vordruck II popularly called Namentliche Verlustmeldung.

The problem we are facing is that the records from 1944 is missing, we do not have the detailed information contained in them. Some of us are slowly piecing together the information from this year using other sources, a tedious process.

What I am really objecting to is the assumption that some people generalize some discrepancies into the conclusion that the records as a whole is totally worthless, because they contain some errors. What I, and Nikita earlier, and also yogybär mentioned is that the general quality of these records are good, and that there could be discrepancies in cases where:

- units were disbanded
- units were moved between different Luftflotten
- units were overrun

What I want to see more of in the discussion, is that people that make claims like you do:

25.10.42 in Armawir - 20 aircraft damaged. Here, firstly, the 20 aircraft are all aircraft lost to enemy action during the entire reporting month of October 1942. I can find 8 in the loss records, thus 12 are seemingly missing. I do not know this incident, but I guess that we are talking about twin-engined bombers - and we must keep in mind that the reporting to the GenQu only was done for aircraft being damaged MORE than 10% as estimated by the engineer examining the damage.
It might be possible that some of these aircraft that were damaged, and thus was transferred to a repair facility with regards to HALTER or holding unit , but were NOT reported to the Generalquartiermeister. But again, just a possibility, it could be that these aircraft were really destroyed or damaged to a high degree and that the report is missing.

This eyewitness - what is his name, how did he report it? Are there any additional records, for example aerial reconnoissance photos or reports from when and if the airfield was taken over by the allies showing what information could be gathered by examining the wreckage on the site (as far as I know there should be NKVD reports when german aircraft wrecks were encountered in Soviet controlled area)? Any intercepted radio traffic? Any reports made in remaining German records on unit or higher headquarters level?

And you seem to state that there was a general underreporting of losses in the Luftwaffe based on a court martial against Helbig? What was the outcome of this court martial? If this is the case, can you statistically or otherwise show it?

Also - how did the Luftwaffe units replace their aircraft? Or did they also invent numbers with regards to how many aircraft were in the unit in the strength reports? They must have since you state they didn't report their losses...

I guess most of the soviet and allied aircraft downed during the latter part of the war must have been downed by pilots running around on the ground flapping their arms and making engine noises with their mouth... since there were no more aircraft left in the units due to unreported losses.

It would also be interesting at some time to see the same kind of records emerge from the soviet side, so it is possible to make comparisons (and I am not meaning general reports stating 2 I-16 or 5 I-153, but detailed information with aircraft serials and so on)

Regards,
Andreas B

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi

An additional observation, as spotted by Nikita also:

The examples you seem to come up with are linked to the battle around Stalingrad under the command of Luftflotte 4. Isn't it a rather obvious explanation that records form part of this period is missing due to the ferocity of the battle?

The same can apply to the withdrawal from Africa where we see records turning up several months and even years after the losses occured, and some might have been missed due to the caotic conditions

Regards,
Andreas B

[Nikita Egorov]

Dear Andreas,

I understand your irritation. Let me explain, my purpose is not to put the blame on somebody for doing something deliberately, but to clarify some uncertain points that can be helpfull for further research. Working with original documents, I fully aware that it is almost impossible to chase every discrapancy or misidentification that occured. However, you said that deadly mess during Stalingrad battle is obvious explanation for lack of losses. I agree. Unfortunatelly the question "to what extent it happened" remains open by the time. Is it possible, using the Luftwaffe documents, to trace how many planes were deployed to Stalingrad units and disappeared after the battle with no sign of it GQ returns?

You asked for examples from Soviet side. First about the system itself. As I wrote you before the most reliable source from Soviet side is first hand accounts and reports of regimental level. Every day head of staff issued operational report that was comprised of operational strength on the beginning of the day (total and combat ready), detailed accounts of combat sorties (time of take off, complement of group, leader, task, area, description of combats (if were any), losses, claims, landing time.). Also included were: weather report, recon reports, notes for the previous days (clarifications of losses and claims missed in the previous files) and at operational strengh by the end of the day (total and combat ready with mention of the planes send to repair sections). This document along with pilots reports on claims and losses is basis for other second-hand accounts documents, that emerge on the division, corps, army etc. levels. Also, one can use summaries that also issued by periods on losses and claims. That is comprehansive books that take stock of every claim and loss for the period at issue with sircimstances, detailed area, height, etc.

But although they were general forms of reporting, documents of various regiments differ from each other (e.g. reports could include planes production numbers and personal markings, and could not.) In this case one should expand the research on to technical documents that shed the light on particular damage suffered by aircraft and giving aircraft details such as production number, engine number, armament, etc

Off course, that is applicable if there any witness or info on how the plane was lost, otherwise it is simply marked as missing. If the the sircimstances are revealed later, it is written as addition to other operational reports.

Here are the examples that can be found in Soviet documents relating losses:

07.08.1943. 248 IAP. Yak-7 (p.n. 3359), tail number "09". 9.42 (Moscow time) shot down in combat with Fw-190 area Khotynets - Moshenoje. Pilot Starshiy Leitenant Danelyuk bailed out. Injured. Returned to unit.

or

03.07.1943. 233 IAP. Yak-7 (p.n. 3483), fuselage number "23". 18.35 shot up in combat with Fw-190 area of Krivtsovo. Plane wrecked on belly landing. Pilot Mladshiy Leitenant Samokhin killed.

[kalender1973]

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

What I want to see more of in the discussion, is that people that make claims like you do:

25.10.42 in Armawir - 20 aircraft damaged. Here, firstly, the 20 aircraft are all aircraft lost to enemy action during the entire reporting month of October 1942. I can find 8 in the loss records, thus 12 are seemingly missing. I do not know this incident, but I guess that we are talking about twin-engined bombers - and we must keep in mind that the reporting to the GenQu only was done for aircraft being damaged MORE than 10% as estimated by the engineer examining the damage.
It might be possible that some of these aircraft that were damaged, and thus was transferred to a repair facility with regards to HALTER or holding unit , but were NOT reported to the Generalquartiermeister. But again, just a possibility, it could be that these aircraft were really destroyed or damaged to a high degree and that the report is missing.

Andreas, I don't know exactly how LW organize their replacement, but this sample show you, that it was not based on GQM returns. In october 42 the unit became 15 new planes and one from reparatur. GQM is for me only statistical system, that was used for reporting and not operational. Based on these returns, the GQM can provide some information like "... the average lifespan of Bf109 in 1942 decreased from 12 month to 6...". And this information could be used as one of parameters for the future production plans.
Another point, that you reffer here, is how we understand term "loss"? You say, under 10% was not reported to GQM. Officially such damages could be easy repaired by unit and FBK staff. Neverthenless they leave the unit.
Furthemore I make some comparison between loss list from some units book as JFV and Bestand and Bewegungsmeldungen and it show clear, that quite all planes with damage 10% and more leave their the units and need replacement, most with new production planes.
[/quote]

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

And you seem to state that there was a general underreporting of losses in the Luftwaffe based on a court martial against Helbig? What was the outcome of this court martial? If this is the case, can you statistically or otherwise show it?

They found him not guility... But put yourself on the place of LW units commander and think, how oft you want to participate on such probes. And Helbig was one of the most decorated and popular LW man.
It is only sample, that the LW units commander have sometimes their reasons, why they send not fully correct updates to RLM

Regards

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi, Nikita!

Thanks for the information.

With regards to your first question about trying to find a number for aircraft that seem to have disappeared without a trace I would dare to say 'yes, it would be possible to do this to a good degree of accuracy, combining records from several sources', and it would be an interesting excercise in my opinion. If you are interested we can start this work together, I will provide you with information for the units of interest. I will PM you with regards to this in a couple of days.

It is also very interesting to see the records you provide with regards to Soviet losses. It would be VERY interesting to do the same with regards to Soviet losses as we are seeing the end to with regards to the German ones, namely entering them in a relational database accessible from the internet. If there is an interest to do this, I can provide a web-based solution which will be integrated with the German losses database.

Juha:

I have not seen any such order, but will do a bit of checking in my files. As the aircraft in case was lost on January 12 1943, this order could be in the remnants of the KTB of the Gefechtsstab of JG 5 i Kemi. It is of interest to note that the Bf of the aircraft Franz Kirchmayer who was wounded in the crash landing has the following text attached to his Namentliche Verlustmeldung (BTW, the Technikmuseum or RLM has got the date wrong... on the NVM it is written 11.1.43 by typewriter, but this is corrected in handwriting to 12.1.43, the same date as listed on the GenQu report.):

Etwa 3 Wochen nicht einsatzfähig, da durch Brennstoffmangel verursachte Notlandung ....

Out of action for about three weeks, wounded in a crash landing due to fuel starvation ...

The loss reason in the GenQu report states: Bauchlandung infolge techn.Mängel. Belly landing due to a technical problem

So I do not know who and what to believe in this case. If a single bullet was found in one of the engines of the aircraft as stated in this thread earlier.. would this suffice to make the aircraft go down? I doubt it, as these aircraft had two engines and were flyable on one of them. Did this bullet hit a fuel line and thus indirectly cause the emergency landing... I do not know and one should probably ask the technical people that investigated the aircraft if this is likely.

For all I know this reported bullet could have made the hole in the cowling of this aircraft on an earlier flight... and Ziegenhagen remember another flight when his aircraft was damaged by AAA.

Who knows... anyone got access to Ziegenhagens full story? Or his logbook?

Regards,
Andreas B

[Nikita Egorov]

Andreas,

Ok. Waiting for a PM from you.

BR,
Nikita