Luftflotte 4 losses Apr.-Jun.1943: a comparison of the different data

[Andreas Brekken]

Hello, all

Very short this time to ensure the message isn´t obscured:

I believe that what we see for the units subordinated to Luftflotte 4 at this time is that for some reason the losses were personnel was not injured, killed or went missing, these have not reached GenQu.

The losses were personnel was involved did reach the GenQu.

As can be seen by the orders describing how these losses are to be reported, the records ending up as Namentliche Verlustmeldungen have a higher priority - personnel more important than machinery.

Regards,
Andreas B

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Hello Andreas,

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

Further - the same picture for 4./Nachtstaffel where you have the last report before the gap reported on April 30th - and then the next loss reported for April 21st 1943 appear in the GenQu report of May 25th.

The enigmatic April/May gap is interesting really. Is it was for all Luftflotte 4 units (or even for Ostfront units in whole) or it was a local phenomenon?

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

For 2.(F)/100 you have the last loss before 'the gap' reported for March 30th 1943, in the report of April 1st 1943. March 1943 is 100% in line between GenQu 6 Abt and Bestand und Bewegungsmeldungen - the same with April 1943 (no incidents).

To me this indicates that we have a 'missing loss' in the same timeframe as for the I./St.G.2.

It isn’t a gap but the real absence of losses between the March and 27.5.43 apparently.

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

For example for my main area of interest I have been able to locate so-called Luftlage Einzelmeldungen. These are in fact the original Fernschreiben strips - the paper strips that came out of the telegraph or teleprint machines and were glued to report sheets - pink color! which detail all operations for a given area and date, number of aircraft and their task for the day. All special incidents - claims, losses etc are outlined here.

The Luftflotte 4 and I.Fliegerkorps especially are unsuitable command structures for the timeframe in question. I have found the good daily reports of Luftflotte 6 and partly the daily reports of the VIII.Fliegerkorps. But have only the poor daily reports of Luftflotte 4 (even without the number of missions with few exception) and nothing at all from the most interesting for me I.Fliegerkorps and IV.Fliegerkorps. The reports of the Flak units attached to the infantry forces are interesting but specific. The info about Luftwaffe actions in the Heeres and Kriegsmarine documents is valuable but specific also.
Don’t know if the Einzelmeldungen of Luftflotte 4 for the timeframe survived the war.

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

I can not see that there were many units operating Do 217s in the area of Luftflotte 4?

Do217 had 1.(F)/Nacht (no losses) and 4.(F)/Nacht only.

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

So we could assign operations and losses of Do 217s if we are to find any to 4. Nacht.

What is the sources for the research of Do217s in particular?

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

But for now I find it safe to state that you can use the Bestand- und Bewegungsmeldungen to say that in addition to the losses given in the reports from the GenQu6Abt you have some additional aircraft losses without personnel being killed, wounded or missing in action, which you can not give an exact date for due to missing information.

It seems yes.

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

It is also interesting to note that the apparent loss of a Ju 88D-1 by 4. Nacht is a 4.(F)/122 aircraft with (possibly) crew from 4./Nacht (April 10th 1943)

Speak by call sign (F6+EM) the aircraft was from 4.(F)/122 indeed but why do you think that the crew was from 4.(F)/Nacht? I thought the info about 4.(F)/Nacht is the obvious error in GQM list.

Probably I made too many messages during a short time
But the theme seems interesting and important really.

Best regards,
Andrey

[kalender1973]

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

Hello, all

Very short this time to ensure the message isn´t obscured:

I believe that what we see for the units subordinated to Luftflotte 4 at this time is that for some reason the losses were personnel was not injured, killed or went missing, these have not reached GenQu.

Not only for the Lfl 4. The JVF12,2 indicates huge difference also for JG51 subordinated to Lfl6.

[Laurent Rizzotti]

I will not add much to the discussion, except one personnal opinion and one question.

I have always thought that the losses reported in the "Bestand und Bewegungsmeldungen" were not only total losses, but all aircraft destroyed and damaged enough to be repaired outside the unit.

Can someone confirm this from official Luftwaffe documentation ?

[Andreas Brekken]

Hello, Laurent.

You are correct. I will type down some info on this later ln tonight.

Regards,
Andreas B

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi, guys.

Had to work last night = no Luftwaffe research.

With regards to your question, Laurent, the distinction is clear (and I include the German original text so that we do not get confused):

First on damaged aircraft:

Bei Brüchen unter 60% hat der Verband zu melden, ob das Flugzeug zur Reperatur-Industrie geht und an wen es übergeben wird. Soweit diese Angaben nicht mit der Verlustmeldung noch nict abgegeben können, sind sie unter Bezug auf die Werknummer nachzuholen. Andernfalls wird angenommen, daß Wiederherstellung in eigener Werft bzw. durch Schnellreparatur-Kolonnen oder auf den Stützpunkthorsten erfolg; für diese Flugzeuge erfolgt keine Ersatzgestellung.

Thus the unit was supposed to report losses under 60% also, and to indicate to which repair unit the aircraft were delivered for repair. If this was not indicated on the report sheet (column Bemerkungen - Comments) it was implied that the aircraft would be put back into operational state by local means (mentioned is local repairs at the unit, at the larger airfields with better facilities as opposed to the frontline bases - or by the fast repair units (Schnellreparatur-Kolonnen)).

So to make a long comment shorter - the number of losses reported in the Bestands- und Bewegungsmeldungen consist of all losses with and without personnel losses involved and an estimated damage of above 10%. I cannot repeat this often enough - smaller damages which were estimated by technicians to be below 10% was NEVER reported unless by error - and if they were erronously reported, they were often stricken by a correction report later.

So the 'missing' losses in the Luftflotte 4 records would with a high degree of probability be losses of aircraft only, no personnel injuries etc involved.

I have attached a screenshot of an example of a report I have a copy of which is used as an example for the units on how to fill out the report - so the units etc can be masked - even if it seems the Ju 88 Werknummern are valid...

I also have other lists which is 'the real thing' for a given unit, but as this is going to be used in the upcoming book by Kjetil Åkra, me and a couple of authors which I can not disclose at this time, I can not publish it here now.

Regards,
Andreas B

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Hi Andreas,

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

Hi, guys.
So to make a long comment shorter - the number of losses reported in the Bestands- und Bewegungsmeldungen consist of all losses with and without personnel losses involved and an estimated damage of above 10%.

About the 10%: do you mean the reports such as the document which you kindly attached to your post or the de-identify Bestands- und Bewegungsmeldungen published by Michael Holm? No doubts that 'Abgang' columns in the Holm’s tables not include the planes whose repair was possible by local means, so the bulk of 10%-39% wasn’t included.

By the way, too few 'Er' remarks are in the 'Ers.Erf.' column (means that replacement is required for the damaged aircraft) in GQM returns for Luftflotte 4 on Apr.-Jun.43. It seems the units reports has ignored this column in the most cases. If this guess is incorrect, the difference between number of losses in GQM returns and in Bewegungsmeldungen is far higher than 60+ % in my calculation posted some days before.

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

Hi, guys.
So the 'missing' losses in the Luftflotte 4 records would with a high degree of probability be losses of aircraft only, no personnel injuries etc involved.

Probably yes with few exceptions.

One of the possibly exceptions (from Chronik KG27 Bd.5 by Walter Waiss, s.115-116):
14.(Eis)/KG27 He111 1G+KY 28.04.1943 Start from Kirowograd at 21:00, shot down by AAA fire. Lt Karl Schmidt (FF) and Fw Heinz Hoffmann (BF) became the POWs in Lager 27. Humpe (BO), unnamed BM and
war correspondent Lt Schäfer (as BS) KIA.
As far as I know these losses are absent in GQM and NVM returns

Whether the some documents like in your attachment for the Luftflotte 4 on the timeframe in question has survived the war?

[/quote]

Best regards,
Andrey

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

I have attached a screenshot of an example of a report ...

In the attached document the column "Total über 60%" means (strictly speaking) that 60% damages were counted as repairable. Is it right?
According to all other accounts 60% means the lower limit of the irrepairable damages.

Also, let's return to "Er" mark after % of damages in GQM returns.
If really only total losses and items with "Er" mark were included in columns "durch Feindeinwirkung" and "ohne Feindeinwirkung" in Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen, the difference between losses in the sources in question is even higher than I wrote before.

Surprisingly few Lfl.4 losses during Apr.-Jun.43 has the "Er" mark.

By the way, a strange record on the page 10 on 22.5.43 (record 183): Lfl.2 30.4.43 7./JG77 Bf109G-6 wn 16569 70% (!) with "Er". Is it a typo?

Best regards,
Andrey

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Hello friends and Andreas especially,

an addition to the untimely faded discussion.

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

Hi, guys.
Thus the unit was supposed to report losses under 60% also, and to indicate to which repair unit the aircraft were delivered for repair. If this was not indicated on the report sheet (column Bemerkungen - Comments) it was implied that the aircraft would be put back into operational state by local means (mentioned is local repairs at the unit, at the larger airfields with better facilities as opposed to the frontline bases - or by the fast repair units (Schnellreparatur-Kolonnen)).

In the GQM returns for Lfl.4 during Apr.-Jun.43 the remarks 'Er' (Ersatz) after % of damage are absent with two exceptions described below.

Transport units in the Lfl.4 area (not included in Lfl.4 and listed in GQM returns among "Transportverbände (Einsatz Osten)") has used the remark 'Er' really. I has counted 8 entries in the timeframe in question - 6 from TGr10 and 2 from III./TG3.

But in returns for Lfl.4 I has found 2 entries only - both from I./KG55 (ex-TGr10 mentioned above). Probably I./KG55 used the 'Er' remark by inertia as ex-transport unit.

Hardly to believe that among hundreds of damaged aircrafts none required the repair outside the unit!

It look like the 'Er' system hasn't worked in the Lfl.4 in the timeframe in question at least.

Any ideas?

Best regards,
Andrey

[Andreas Brekken]

Hello, Andrey

I agree to your comment that this system has (probably not) worked in the area of the Luftflotte 4. There could have been specific orders for the units not to use this - as i have seen specific orders to units within Luftflotten to deviate from standard reporting practice (specifically Luftflottenkommando Süd-Ost which I believe was operating close to Luftflotte 4).

Sorry for the short answer and for letting this quite important thread die - will try to bring it back to life from my part after my vacation! (Family, sand, sea and sun is the priority these days...)

Regards,
Andreas