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

[Andreas Brekken]

Hello, Andrey!

I can check the strength reports.

It is possible that the discrepancies for April is due to spill over from March. I see that the Abgang for March is only one aircraft, while I have three aircraft reported as damaged.

It is of course also possible that they damaged two aircraft (not enemy inflicted) with a damage percentage that did not neccessitate a GenQu report - but that they had to write these off later due to the fact that they were abandoned.

Also - I note that the loss reports for March and April were filed in May, it is possible that some of the reports did not reach the designated office at GenQu level due to the fact that it was a war going on.

Strength reports for Nahaufklärungsgruppe 9 (Verband Ist/Ensatzbereit):

10.03.43:
1./21 10/8
7./32 9/5

20.03.43:
1./21 10/9
7./32 10/4

31.03.43:
1./21 10/6
7./32 11/8

10.04.43:
1./21 9/7
7./32 11/8

20.04.43:
Stab 1/1 Bf 109
1./21 6/4
7./32 6/4

30.04.43:
Stab 1/0 Bf 109
1./21 6/4
7./32 9/6

10.05.43:
Stab 1/1 Bf 109
1./21 10/9
7./32 7/6

20.05.43:
Stab 1/1 Bf 109, 1/0 FW 189
1./21 10/9
7./32 7/6

31.05.43:
Stab 1/1 Bf 109
1./21 9/9
7./32 6/6

These numbers are consistent with the number of aircraft on the end of month dates as reported in the Flugzeugbestand- und Bewegungsmeldungen.

Posting this for now - more to follow on analysis!

Regards,
Andreas B

Originally Posted by Andrey Kuznetsov

Yet another attempt to define whether the comparison of data in “Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen” with Gen.Qu.6.Abt. returns can help in verifying of the losses level.

In April 1943 only two FW189 units had operated with 17th German army (AOK17) on Kuban bridgehead – 1.(H)/21 and 7.(H)/32 (both under Stab NAGr9).

According to “Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen”, washout (Abgang) on April was:
1.(H)/21: 3 FW189 = 1 due to enemy action + 2 without enemy action [also 1 to tear-and-wear repair]
7.(H)/32: 1 FW189 (due to enemy action) [also 1 to tear-and-wear repair]

Losses in Gen.Qu.6.Abt. returns:

1.(H)/21:
2.4.43 FW189A-3 due to enemy action (90%) and nothing more.
So 2 losses/damages without enemy action are absent

7.(H)/32:
28.4 FW189A-3 due to enemy action (100%)
30.4 FW189A-3 due to enemy action (100%)
(20% damage 17.4.43 and 10% damage 30.4.43 ignored as probably repaired in the unit)
Both 100-% losses dates are correct (confirmed by German army units evidences).

So 1 loss « superfluous» [or it accounted as tear-and-wear].
Maybe «superfluous» loss was accounted in 1.(H)/21 instead of 7.(H)/32 for some reason (for example, crew was from 1.(H)/21 and the plane from 7.(H)/32), but it is strange. And, anyway, the absence in Gen.Qu.6.Abt. returns at least 1 loss of 1.(H)/21 remains unexplainable.

And due to zero losses in both in May 1943 (apart from tear-and-wear repair) it is impossible to explain the discrepancy in April through transfer of April’s losses to May reports.

Looks like some tear-and-wear washouts in «Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen» are losses really.

For the analysis, maybe 10-days strength reports are exists for these units?