Interpretation of Luftwaffe Loss Statistics

[RodM]

Hello One & All,

thanks for the replies, and for the explanation of Feindeinwirkung. With regards to whether a loss was observed by the enemy or not, this appears a lot in translation in HW 5 ULTRA.

To be more precise, the statistics are a (presumed) literal translation of an OKL FüSt Ic/Fremde Luftwaffe West table of aircraft attrition statistics, originally prepared and submitted for the purpose of forward planning.

The table is divided as follows:

1. Missing
2. Through Enemy Action (presumably 'Feindeinwirkung')
- Sub-divided into: Destroyed - Enemy Contact (presumably 'mit Feindberührung'); Destroyed - No Enemy Contact (presumably 'Ohne Feindberührung'); <60% Damage - Enemy Contact; <60% Damage - Without Enemy Contact; Destroyed on the Ground; <60% Damage on the Ground
3. Without Enemy Action (presumably 'Ohne Feindeinwirkung')
- Sub-divided into: Destroyed - Operational; Destroyed - Non-operational; <60% Damage - Operational; <60% Damage - Non-Operational.


As can be seen the losses through enemy action on the ground are seperate from the 'Enemy Contact'/'No Enemy Contact' stats, and the losses not through enemy action are divided into operational and non-operational.

I would presume that any cases of fracticide with be included in the operational losses not through enemy action, and enemy Flak is mostly not applicable because the losses relate primarily to air defence over the Reich.

With regards to Nick's comment on non-operational losses through enemy action being shown as 'H' in the Gen.Qu. returns - for the 1945 period and for Nachtjagd losses I have found the opposite. Losses through enemy action on non-operational flights appear to have been classified as 'F' - that is, even if an aircraft took off on a non-operational flight, the flight became operational the moment the aircraft was destroyed or damaged by enemy action. As one can imagine this causes no end of trouble in trying to establish which losses in the Gen.Qu returns were on operational as opposed to non-operational flights. A fair number of Nachtjagd losses were shot down by day fighters on routine non-operational flights, but from the Gen.Qu returns this fact isn't clear.

To get back to the original question, I'm naturally assuming that the translators at the AHB weren't total muppets, so the translation of 'Enemy Contact' should refer to 'Feindberührung'/'mit Feindberührung', and thetranslation of 'Without Enemy Contact' should refer to 'Ohne Feindberührung.'

I would be surprised if the terms would refer to whether or not the crew saw the enemy aircraft or not because if there were no survivors then this could not be established, surely?

I was wondering if the terms could obliquely refer to aircraft lost/damaged through enemy action on operational and non-operational flights, but then it would seem that the term 'Feindflug' or 'Feindeinsatz' would have been used if this was the case.

Cheers

Rod

[Nick Beale]

I'm not absolutely sure about the "enemy contact" bit (although the term is often noted in log books and operational reports). If AHB were translating "Feindb.", the original may have meant "Feindbeobachtet" = observed by the enemy. The Luftwaffe seems to have been quite interested in whether its losses were seen by the other side.

So, to complicate life even more, an accidental loss could still be observed by the enemy while a loss from combat damage may not have been.

[RodM]

Hi Nick,

thanks for the additional 'observation' (pardon the pun). I guess that the answer lies with the original report (where ever within the BA/MA it may be hiding).

I suspect that it wasn't the Luftwaffe per se interested in whether a loss was observed by the enemy, as much as Dr. Goebbels' lot.

In much the same way the RAF, especially BC, used the term 'missing', which did not include losses that were definitely known about, in order not to 'provide comfort to the enemy'... It just seems strange that the BC ORS should work with these 'missing' figures during their research, making their statistical analysis rather skewed.

cheers

Rod