27/08/43:JG2,JG26 losses and allied claims

[Laurent Rizzotti]

Hello,

The Luftwaffe summary aircraft losses is a Luftwaffe document that has been put online by Andreas Brekken and co (thanks to you).

URL is http://www.ahs.no/ref_db/lw_summ_los...iew.asp?PAGE=1

This is the public access giving access to the summary of losses. All JG units are covered and some extra units, but most KG and TG units have not been entered in the database. The source covers 1944 and is especially useful for this year.

As for 27 August 1943, I would say we are missing a I./JG 26 loss:
I./J.G.26: 2 destroyed by gunfire from enemy aircraft during operational flight, observed by enemy (reported on 31/08/1943)
I./J.G.26: 1 destroyed by gunfire from enemy aircraft during operational flight, observed by enemy (reported on 11/09/1943)

Next step would be to check GQM loss lists for 31 August and 11 September 1943. Either the above is true and a third loss was added on 11 September, or it is a typo, or a correction that has been wrongly entered as an addition.

[Stig Jarlevik]

Thanks Laurent

I have Andreas home page registered, but I cannot see how one can get from there to these lists. Anyway I have now added them separately so I can locate these pages again.

Cheers
Stig

[Rottler]

Hello Stig and Laurent,

in the Gen.Qu. loss reports are listed:

Report from 31 August 1943 no. 19
27.8. I./JG 26 Feindflug Ort: St. Nicola, Ursache: Absturz infolge Bordwaffenbeschuß, Aufschlagbrand (F unverletzt, Feindbeobachtet) Fw 190 A-5 2532 100%

Report from 31 August 1943 no. 18
27.8. I./JG 26 Feindflug Ort: bei Nieuport, Ursache: Absturz infolge Bordwaffenbeschuß, Aufschlagbrand (F unverletzt, Feindbeobachtet) Fw 190 A-5 250 100%

Report from 11 September 1943 no. 24
27.8. I./JG 26 Feindflug Ort: bei Ostende, Ursache: Absturz nach Luftkampf (F unverletzt, Feindbeobachtet) Fw 190 A-5 410250 100%

The entries of the 250 and 410250 obviously cover the same aircraft, so on 27 August 1943 the I./JG 26 has lost two Fw 190 A-5. The entry in JFV Vol. 10/III is correct.

Regards
Leo

[Stig Jarlevik]

Thanks Leo

Seems quite likely indeed

Cheers
Stig