Questions about Operation Steinbock losses

[Simon Trew]

I wonder if forum users can advise me on an issue that is causing me a bit of a headache?

I am currently writing a book for the Osprey ‘Air Campaign’ series about Operation ‘Steinbock.’ This is in addition to ongoing work on my bibliography (described in a series of posts over the weekend and today), plus the day job and domestic duties. Life is busy.

One of the things I am trying to do is get my head around Luftflotte 3 bomber losses from the start of January to the end of May 1944. There are numerous sources that provide various figures, among them a 2008 discussion on this forum partly about this topic that I looked at this morning.

In addition to reading the published sources (starting with Ron Mackay and Simon Parry’s excellent history, then numerous other books – among them, the various published Kampfgeschwader histories), I have been extracting and re-tabulating data from the detailed Luftflotte 3 aircraft loss lists for Jan-May found in TNA AIR 20/7709.

My calculations from the Luftflotte 3 tables can be summarised as follows:

TOTAL LUFTFLOTTE 3 LOSSES (ALL TYPES), January – May (inclusive) 1944

MONTH //// BY ENEMY ACTION (destroyed / damaged) //// ON OPS BUT NOT TO ENEMY (destroyed / damaged) //// NON-OPERATIONAL LOSSES (destroyed / damaged) //// TOTAL DESTROYED / DAMAGED
January //// 159 / 62 //// 46 / 58 //// 84 / 158 //// 289 / 278
February //// 192 / 86 //// 38 / 80 //// 78 / 164 //// 308 / 330
March //// 288 / 110 //// 41 / 47 //// 79 / 163 //// 408 / 320
April //// 260 / 104 //// 38 / 57 //// 78 / 208 //// 376 / 369
May //// 228 / 71 //// 27 / 51 //// 88 / 147 //// 343 / 269
TOTALS //// 1127 / 433 //// 190 / 293 //// 407 / 840 //// 1724 / 1566

A. Of 1724 planes destroyed, 674 (39.1%) were bombers, including: Ju 88 (258); Do 217 (97 – incl. 4 ‘Do 17’); Ju 188 (108); He 177 (74); Fw 190 ‘bombers’ (39); Me 410 (45 – incl. 1 ‘Me 210’); and He 111 ‘bombers’ (53). NB. This figure excludes Fw 200 (categorised in the loss tables as bombers) and also Fw 190 that are categorised as ‘ground-attack’ (as distinct from ‘bombers’).

B. Of 1566 planes damaged, 479 (30.6%) were bombers, including: Ju 88 (195); Do 217 (55 – incl. 3 ‘Do 17’); Ju 188 (69); He 177 (50); Fw 190 ‘bombers’ (31); Me 410 (33); and He 111 ‘bombers’ (46). Again, Fw 200 and Fw 190 G/A are excluded.

C. As far as I’m aware, no He 111 ‘bomber’ participated in any ‘Steinbock’ raid, so if these (53 destroyed and 46 damaged) are deducted, then Luftflotte 3 losses for 1 Jan to 31 May 1944 = 621 bombers destroyed and 433 damaged (excluding Fw 200 and Fw 190 G/A as well as He 111 bombers).

D. Of 621 bombers destroyed, 120 (19.32%) were destroyed on the ground in bombing and strafing attacks (and possibly in a few instances by partisans). Of the 120 destroyed on the ground, 49 (40.8%) were destroyed in April. These all count as ‘operational losses.’

E. Of 433 bombers damaged, 85 (19.63%) were damaged on the ground in bombing and strafing attacks (and possibly in a few instances by partisans). Of the 85 damaged on the ground, 32 (37.6%) were damaged in April. Again, these all count as ‘operational losses.’

F. Data for ‘non-operational losses’ (1) = 113 bombers destroyed, including: Ju 88 (39); Do 217 (19); Ju 188 (17); He 177 (23); Fw 190 ‘bombers’ (5); and Me 410 (10). 621 bombers destroyed MINUS 113 ‘non-operational’ losses MINUS 120 destroyed on the ground = 388 bombers destroyed in the air on operations. As above, this excludes Fw 200, Fw 190 G/A and He 111 ‘bombers.’

G. Data for ‘non-operational losses’ (2) = 182 bombers damaged, including: Ju 88 (91); Do 217 (23); Ju 188 (30); He 177 (17); Fw 190 ‘bombers’ (11); and Me 410 (10). 433 bombers damaged MINUS 182 ‘non-operational’ losses MINUS 85 damaged on the ground = 166 bombers damaged in the air on operations. As above, this excludes Fw 200, Fw 190 G/A and He 111 ‘bombers.’

So, to my questions:

1. Please can you advise me on your views regarding the ‘reliability’ in general terms of Luftflotte 3’s loss tables?

2. Please can you advise me on the distinction likely to have been made by Luftflotte 3 between ‘destroyed’ and ‘damaged’ aircraft? As a sub-question, is it reasonable to assume that some proportion (if so, what proportion) of ‘damaged’ aircraft might subsequently have been written off?

3. Having looked fairly carefully at English-, German- and French-language histories of KG 2 (Balke), KG 6 (Horn, Taghon), KG 51 (Horn), KG 54 (Radtke), KG 66 (Wakefield), KG 76 (Horn – only the briefest participation in ‘Steinbock’), KG 100 (Balke, Roba), I note that numerous aircraft are listed as destroyed or damaged that do not appear in more general histories (especially Mackay & Parry and Parker Luftwaffe Crash Archive 11). Please can you advise me on your views regarding the degree to which this is likely to be true for bomber units that participated in ‘Steinbock’ but for which unit histories do not seem to be available (KG 30 and KG 40?) Common sense suggests that if (for example) Balke lists a not insignificant number of bombers destroyed or damaged for KG 2, then presumably KG 30 and KG 40 had their fair share of otherwise unlisted losses? And forgive me for asking, but am I being ignorant in suggesting that detailed lists of KG 30 and KG 40 losses are not to be found anywhere?

4. Now to the really tricky one! As I understand (misunderstand?) it, KG 26 and (when it eventually arrived) KG 77 operated from southern French bases under the overall command of Luftflotte 3 during the months that concern me. Clearly, they suffered a lot of aircraft (and personnel) losses, and these would need to be subtracted from figures mentioned above in order to establish ‘Steinbock’ losses (IF the KG 26 and KG 77 losses are included in those tables). Yet I cannot get Luftflotte 3 loss tables even remotely to align with information that I have found in various sources about KG 26 and KG 77 losses. As just one example, Trendle (Point Blank 4/44, April 1944, p.119) identifies no fewer than thirteen bombers (twelve Ju 88, one Do 217) lost during the attack on Convoy UGS 37 on the night of 11-12 April 1944. Yet there is no sign of these losses in the Luftflotte 3 loss tables. Admittedly, there are seven Ju 88 listed as destroyed in air combat on 11 April, but they are identified as twin-engine fighters and seem to match (mostly) with ZG 1 losses on that date. So, put simply, were KG 26 and KG 77 losses omitted from Luftflotte 3 tables, either in specific cases or as a general principle? Or have I got something badly wrong in my assumptions / understanding, about which I need to be corrected?

5. Finally, are there any general or specific points that forum users think I need to take into account as I attempt to clarify and analyse Luftflotte 3 losses during ‘Steinbock’? I am trying to come at these questions from various angles, but I am sure things have occurred to other people that have not yet occurred to me!

PS. A thought has just occurred, specifically that ‘Steinbock’ did not begin until late January. So, an argument might be made that bomber losses for the first three weeks of January should be omitted. It seems to me, however, that many of those should be associated with ‘Steinbock’ – for example the four KG 2 Do 217s lost at Gilze-Rijen/Eindhoven on 4 January, which were involved in mission training when intercepted and shot down by RAF Typhoons. Obviously, the ‘appropriateness’ of linking pre-21 January losses to ‘Steinbock’ losses will vary from case to case. Still, it seems a point worth mentioning.

Many thanks in advance for any help and advice that forum users can offer. I hope the synopsis of data presented above is of some interest and assistance.

Simon