Suffix "Er" With GQM returns

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

And this raises the question (again), about the percentage system. What was the basis for calculation and what was the 100%? A total cost of the aircraft?

I've found an oddity recently, in signals from 1945. Aircraft that crashed and killed the pilot on German territory are classed as 99%; those on destroyed Allied territory are 100%. It just seems to have been a way of distinguishing, although I suppose if you have a wreck you can always salvage something, hoewever small.

[kalender1973]

Hi,

I assume that the really background of this percentage system is economic and resource situation in Germany. We need remember that the Germany have very limited resources in compare with west ally and USSR.

Threfore the germans try to use there resources so economical as possible. From this point of view the damage percent did't show how easy to repair the plane but how much from the plane (or material) could used again. Then is easy to explain, why is total loss over own territory should be noted as 99%: the rest of aluminium could be saved and used again.

Best regards

[Norbert Schuchbauer]

I think I posted this before but here it is:

DAMAGE

Er. Replacement necessary, aircraft can not be repaired with the means available in the field.
10% Small damage. Later in the war it was not even mentioned in the damage reports.
10 - 24% Medium damage. Could be repaired by unit.
25 - 39% Damage that required an inspection by the unit.
40 - 44% Damage that required engines or major systems to be replaced. Often the unit was able to carry out these repairs.
45 - 59% Heavy damage. Required larger section like wings to be replaced.
60 - 80% Aircraft was unsalvageable. Usable parts were cannibalized to repair other aircraft.
81 - 99% Write off, crashed on own territory.
100% Write off, crashed on enemy territory or over water.

Hope this will shed some more light on the issue. This is directly translated from original German sources.

Regards,

Norbert

[Franek Grabowski]

Norbert
It would be perfectly clear if followed eg. RAF categories like eg. A, AC, B or E, however in this case we have some mathematical explanation and you can somehow reach eg. 46 or 58%, still being in the same category.
Perhaps there were some tables to asses damage?

[Norbert Schuchbauer]

No tables, the % of damge was assested by maintenance personnel and the technical officer based on the kind of repair necessary and the means available at unit level.

I'm not a mechanic so I do not really know how they came up with the exact % in each window. Maybe it had to do with available personnel as well. Just a guess.

Regards,

Norbert

[Franek Grabowski]

Well, I must say I am surprised that nobody can provide the answer! For me the system seems some sort of calculation, but what and how?

[Kari Lumppio]

Hello!

Franek and others too.

Percentage MIGHT have been based on part/assembly price/value.

I do not know if this presents an adequate analogy but when FinnAF received Messerschmitts without radio (there were lots of those!) the price to be paid was IIRC 98% of total agreed selling value. In other words radio represented 2% of the (value) of the aircraft. There might exist a list where each part or assembly like wing, engine, empennage etc. has their percentage value. IF such animal exists there is slight possiblity list could be somewhere in Finnish archives for example. (I haven't looked for such nor do I intend to!)

So the loss% might be the sum of the percentages of replacement parts/assemblies needed to bring the aircraft back to flight condition.

IF for example a wing would be 10% value and the unit/depot in question did not have the part or the delivery waiting time would have been too long then replacement aircraft would be needed despite the low loss percentage.


Regards,
Kari

[Franek Grabowski]

Kari
That well could be, but it is still a (very well founded) hypothesis!