Hooton's Luftwaffe Loss Totals - request for clarification

[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.

[Paul Thompson]

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree with you, Nick, but with a caveat. Since the campaign is a part of the war as a whole, it is very significant for the outcome of the war how many aircraft are total losses and therefore leave the order of battle permanently. I suspect, although I cannot prove it, that the Luftwaffe wrote off a greater percentage of damaged aircraft than the RAF or USAAF, because of the weakness of its repair infrastructure. In consequence, Germany began losing the air war even before the superiority of the Allies in productive capacity became overwhelming.

Originally Posted by Laurent Rizzotti

The database is complete for JG and SG units, or at least as complete as the original Luftwaffe documents are. In the late 44-45 period, most of the German fighters were on the Western front, and suffered far more losses there. On the Eastern front, there were more Fw 190s SG units than Jagdgruppen.

Laurent, thank you for making that clear. I understand that most Luftwaffe fighters were in the West during this period, but that does not wholly account for the difference in losses. Both JG and SG units in the East lost aircraft at a much lower rate than those in the West, according to the database. This is somewhat surprising in view of the fact that this was a time of successful large-scale Soviet offensives. Could it be that the German units flew very few sorties and largely avoided air combat? That may be a very broad generalisation, but it is strange that the Eastern front units never reported particularly significant losses in air combat, or indeed from any other form of enemy action.

Originally Posted by Maxim1

Paul, in fact, the source for this breakdown is my own work

I have analysed all Bewegungsmeldungen that are available on Michael Holm's site and compiled several Luftwaffe loss tables.
Regards,
Maksim

Maksim, thank you for your work! So you provided these figures to Khazanov and Medved?

The lists you provided raise interesting questions. I presume you relied on Michael Holm's data for the location of Luftwaffe units. That should introduce significant errors, since Henry de Zeng and Douglas Stankey have demonstrated in their books that Holm's location data is often erroneous and incomplete. That's not to criticise you, since Hooton's data is from the same source and should suffer from exactly the same problem! There is of course also the problem of monthly data being provided in the tables, which does not account for some units losing aircraft in different theatres in the same month. Be that as it may, the data is still very interesting. I'll be back within the hour with a comparison of your monthly data to Hooton's. The data, from the same source, vary by quite a bit!

[Maxim1]

Originally Posted by Paul Thompson

Maksim, thank you for your work! So you provided these figures to Khazanov and Medved?

Well, no. It seems like Khazanov and Medved have made their own calculations, using the same source.

[Paul Thompson]

Originally Posted by Maxim1

Well, no. It seems like Khazanov and Medved have made their own calculations, using the same source.

That is strange, because given the uncertainty over which units to include in calculations, there should be at least some discrepancy in independently compiled data. Are you sure you didn't post these tables somewhere else, where one of the two authors could have seen it?

In any case, suddenly a big question mark has appeared over all this data. There is a link to similar threads at the bottom of this one, which is the source of the question. In the "Luftwaffe fighter losses in Tunisia" thread dating from 2005, Christer Bergström wrote that "The website you refer to lists all aircraft above 10 % damage degree." The website in question is Michael Holm's. However, this raises the problem of the significance of the "repair" category. How can it exist if the "combat" and "non-combat" categories include damaged, as well as destroyed, aircraft? Can anyone answer this question?

[Kutscha]

Wouldn't 'in repair' mean a/c that are having maintenance done on them.

[Paul Thompson]

Originally Posted by Kutscha

Wouldn't 'in repair' mean a/c that are having maintenance done on them.

We need someone who knows to provide the answer to that, but I would suggest that if they are in the "Abgang" column, they would be leaving the unit for repairs, not undergoing routine maintenance.

[Kutscha]

Reparatur is in the Zugang (received) column.

Überholung is in the Abgang (sent out) column.

[Maxim1]

Originally Posted by Paul Thompson

In the "Luftwaffe fighter losses in Tunisia" thread dating from 2005, Christer Bergström wrote that "The website you refer to lists all aircraft above 10 % damage degree."

With all respect to Mr. Bergström, it is only his own assumption. I suggest that all aircraft that have been listed in "Durch Feindeinwirkung" and "Ohne Feindeinwirkung" columns were irreplaceable (i.e. total) losses. One reason for this is that the aircraft were completely excluded from their units. If an aircraft received a minor damage and only needs a minor repair, it would be still listed in unit strength returns as "temporarily unserviceable".

[Paul Thompson]

Originally Posted by Maxim1

With all respect to Mr. Bergström, it is only his own assumption. I suggest that all aircraft that have been listed in "Durch Feindeinwirkung" and "Ohne Feindeinwirkung" columns were irreplaceable (i.e. total) losses. One reason for this is that the aircraft were completely excluded from their units. If an aircraft received a minor damage and only needs a minor repair, it would be still listed in unit strength returns as "temporarily unserviceable".

But Christer Bergström is a noted researcher who deals with a specific example in the message under discussion and seems very confident in his opinion. Since this is a matter fundamental to the use of a major documentary source on the Luftwaffe, we cannot discard Mr. Bergström's views so easily. See link:

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showpo...98&postcount=3

Originally Posted by Maxim1

Yes, that is a big problem. However, my totals of aircraft being on strength are based on the same Bewegungsmeldungen (down to Gruppe or in some cases even to Staffel level) and seems like they have a very good coincidence with Luftwaffe strength figures for Eastern front known from other sources.

I am not so sure your strength numbers match the published data well. Here is a table comparing your figures to Hooton's, with breaks inserted for ease of reading:

Hooton Maksim M greater by
March 1943 1571 br 2496 br 925
April 1943 1777 br 2813 br 1036
May 1943 2070 br 2844 br 774
June 1943 2095 br 2955 br 860
July 1943 2002 br 3094 br 1092
August 1943 1858 br 2752 br 894
September 1943 1608 br 2432 br 824
October 1943 1510 br 2322 br 812
November 1943 1629 br 2353 br 724
December 1943 1583 br 2464 br 881

By way of minor addition to the loss data, Hooton lists 65 day combat losses in the West in the first half of 1943, so the Luftflotte 3 dayliight activities do not affect the loss picture significantly.

[Maxim1]

Originally Posted by Paul Thompson

The lists you provided raise interesting questions. I presume you relied on Michael Holm's data for the location of Luftwaffe units. That should introduce significant errors, since Henry de Zeng and Douglas Stankey have demonstrated in their books that Holm's location data is often erroneous and incomplete.

Yes, that is a big problem. However, my totals of aircraft being on strength are based on the same Bewegungsmeldungen (down to Gruppe or in some cases even to Staffel level) and seems like they have a very good coincidence with Luftwaffe strength figures for Eastern front known from other sources.