Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification

[Laurent Rizzotti]

From my own experience, I would say that it was usual for an air force to lose more aircraft in accidents than by enemy action, but only if you include rear area units (flight schools, operational training schools and so on).

From the summary of Luftwaffe losses between 22 June 1941 and the first days of 1945, frontline units will suffer 25-40% of their unrepairable losses (> 60%) in accidents and the rest due to enemy action (either in the air or on the ground)

Some examples:
II./JG 27: 140 accident losses, 509 total = 27%
III./JG 53: 177 accident losses, 477 total = 37%
II./JG 53: 121 accident losses, 467 total = 26%
I./JG 53: 129 accident losses, 422 total = 31%

JGr.West (an operational training unit): 399 accident losses, 477 total = 84%

As for the figures in your tables, you can see that the Q4 1942 and Q1 1943 are the ones where the percentage of losses in accidents are the highest, probably for four reasons:
1) lot of flying was done over water (between Tunisia and Sicily/Italy) or terrain where it was difficult to recover aircraft (desert or Tunisian mountains)
2) the Luftwaffe was operating from rude airfield compared to Germany or North Europe
3) there was a great number of transport units involved in MTO operations, and up to April 1943 and operation Flax they suffered more losses in accidents than due to enemy action
4) lack of spare parts and good workshops: an aircraft that could have been repaired in Germany or in France will be dumped in Tunisia.

If you exclude these two periods, from Q2 1943 to Q2 1944, your figures are 2931 losses due to enemy action and 1492 in accidents = 32%.

[RT]

In the Soviet VVS more than 50% of aircraft (ca. 45,200 out of total 88,300)

So few ,,,???

Rémi

[Maxim1]

Originally Posted by RT

In the Soviet VVS more than 50% of aircraft (ca. 45,200 out of total 88,300)

So few ,,,???

Rémi

Well... what figures did you expect to see?

88,300 are only the losses suffered by a frontline units, these figures don't include losses in training units, schools etc.

[Paul Thompson]

Originally Posted by Laurent Rizzotti

From my own experience, I would say that it was usual for an air force to lose more aircraft in accidents than by enemy action, but only if you include rear area units (flight schools, operational training schools and so on).

From the summary of Luftwaffe losses between 22 June 1941 and the first days of 1945, frontline units will suffer 25-40% of their unrepairable losses (> 60%) in accidents and the rest due to enemy action (either in the air or on the ground)

Some examples:
II./JG 27: 140 accident losses, 509 total = 27%
III./JG 53: 177 accident losses, 477 total = 37%
II./JG 53: 121 accident losses, 467 total = 26%
I./JG 53: 129 accident losses, 422 total = 31%

JGr.West (an operational training unit): 399 accident losses, 477 total = 84%

As for the figures in your tables, you can see that the Q4 1942 and Q1 1943 are the ones where the percentage of losses in accidents are the highest, probably for four reasons:
1) lot of flying was done over water (between Tunisia and Sicily/Italy) or terrain where it was difficult to recover aircraft (desert or Tunisian mountains)
2) the Luftwaffe was operating from rude airfield compared to Germany or North Europe
3) there was a great number of transport units involved in MTO operations, and up to April 1943 and operation Flax they suffered more losses in accidents than due to enemy action
4) lack of spare parts and good workshops: an aircraft that could have been repaired in Germany or in France will be dumped in Tunisia.

If you exclude these two periods, from Q2 1943 to Q2 1944, your figures are 2931 losses due to enemy action and 1492 in accidents = 32%.

Hello Laurent!

I am replying separately to you because I've got in a bit of a muddle when trying to merge my replies.

Thank you for giving the fighter Gruppe figures for comparison. It does seem that the non-combat losses were high, but as you say, the winter of 42/43 in the Mediterranean is somewhat of an exception. I see the merit of your points 1 through 3, but is point 4 really a case of many aircraft being dumped in Tunisia? I wonder whether the Luftwaffe field maintenance organisation was completely unsuitable for field operations as a whole, so any campaign in the African desert or Russian steppe would lead to large-scale accidental loss. Did the Gruppen you mention lose significantly more aircraft in accidents in Africa and the southern steppe than in the other areas where they operated?

I've found my note with the Eastern Front totals, reproduced below:

Quarter Year EA Accident Ratio of EA to Accident
Q4 1942 646 476 1.36
Q1 1943 740 491 1.51
Q2 1943 654 560 1.17
Q3 1943 1247 784 1.59
Q4 1943 560 433 1.29
Q1 1944 584 599 0.97
Q2 1944 798 739 1.08

Is the summary from 22 June 1941 to January 1945 a document, or your calculation? I am asking because I've never come across this before.

[Paul Thompson]

Well, this thread seems to have died somewhat! I am not resurrecting it out of vanity, but because I've found yet more information which has utterly confused me again. The Osprey book about the La-5/7 (see Amazon link at bottom) contains the following loss figures:

In July-August 1943 total Luftwaffe losses to all causes on the Eastern front are given as 2419, including 432 Fw 190s. This seems ridiculously inflated, but is another explanation possible? Could this be the total of all incidents of aircraft sustaining damage?

For a different period, July-August 1944, Khazanov and Medved say that JG 54 lost 115 aircraft to all causes and the Schlacht Geschwader lost 498. These figures seem much closer to the truth, at least if they are meant to be total losses. Can any forum members who have studied this area say if these numbers feel right?

http://www.amazon.com/La-5-Fw-190-Ea.../dp/1849084734

[Don Pearson]

July-Aug 1943 would have been during the Kursk battle...

Don

[Maxim1]

Originally Posted by Paul Thompson

In July-August 1943 total Luftwaffe losses to all causes on the Eastern front are given as 2419, including 432 Fw 190s. This seems ridiculously inflated, but is another explanation possible? Could this be the total of all incidents of aircraft sustaining damage?

These loss figures are based on mentioned Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen and include not only total losses but also aircraft sent to industry for major repair.

Month Lost to E/A Lost without E/A Sent to industry Total
Jul43 682 355 247 1284
Aug43 461 368 306 1135
Total: 1143 723 553 2419

[Laurent Rizzotti]

Using the same source as before (Luftwaffe losses summary), I found that in June-July 1944:
_ JG 54 on the whole lost a total of 207 aircraft, 123 being destroyed (damage > 60%) and 84 damaged.
_ if we exclude III./JG 54 that was on the West front, the figure is 112 losses, 55 destroyed and 57 damaged

For all SG units (almost all being on the Eastern front, except a short period on Western Front for III./SG 4), I have 503 losses, 309 destroyed and 194 damaged.

So Khazanov and Medved are close to truth for East Front losses in this period, but their figures included damaged and destroyed aircraft.

PS: by the way my source is the website of Andreas Brekken and co, where the data is available through a database: http://www.ahs.no/ref_db/lw_summ_los...iew.asp?PAGE=1

[Paul Thompson]

Originally Posted by Maxim1

These loss figures are based on mentioned Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen and include not only total losses but also aircraft sent to industry for major repair.

Month Lost to E/A Lost without E/A Sent to industry Total
Jul43 682 355 247 1284
Aug43 461 368 306 1135
Total: 1143 723 553 2419

Thank you Maxim1, it's great to see the detailed breakdown! Does this mean you know which specific Bewegungsmeldungen the authors used for the calculation? It would be very interesting to see which units they included.

Originally Posted by Laurent Rizzotti

Using the same source as before (Luftwaffe losses summary), I found that in June-July 1944:
_ JG 54 on the whole lost a total of 207 aircraft, 123 being destroyed (damage > 60%) and 84 damaged.
_ if we exclude III./JG 54 that was on the West front, the figure is 112 losses, 55 destroyed and 57 damaged

For all SG units (almost all being on the Eastern front, except a short period on Western Front for III./SG 4), I have 503 losses, 309 destroyed and 194 damaged.

So Khazanov and Medved are close to truth for East Front losses in this period, but their figures included damaged and destroyed aircraft.

PS: by the way my source is the website of Andreas Brekken and co, where the data is available through a database: http://www.ahs.no/ref_db/lw_summ_los...iew.asp?PAGE=1

Laurent, thank you for doing the calculations, they match the book figures very closely! Andreas Brekken and friends have done great work.
To go off on a slight tangent, is that database complete for the JG units? I've had a look at the Eastern front ones in the late 44-45 period, and the losses seem very small, especially compared to the West. Is that a true reflection of the reality of the war at the time, or do the Eastern units have some information missing?

[Nick Beale]

I should have thought when you're discussing a battle/campaign that losses might be the aggregate number of aircraft that the units engaged needed to replace during the period concerned — essentially anything that you can't patch up locally and return to action before the battle/campaign is over.