KG51 losses on 23 August 1942.

[Andreas Brekken]

Nope, Igor.

you missed the point entirely.

What I stated was that there is a POSSIBILITY that there are a lot of CORRECTIONS to the entries especially for 1943, but also for earlier entries. Some of them we can see traces of in the records, as they are entered in pencil onto the original records. This was however only done to some of the copies. The GenQu records were made in over 10 copies, sent to different higher headquarters as shown by the Verteiler.

All corrections in the documents (except a few still to enter for 1940 of bad quality) that are available have been entered into my database, giving more than 13000 corrections. This indicate that not only were these records filed, but there were some kind of double checking going on, especially with regards to personell losse based on the Vordruck II popularly called Namentliche Verlustmeldung.

The problem we are facing is that the records from 1944 is missing, we do not have the detailed information contained in them. Some of us are slowly piecing together the information from this year using other sources, a tedious process.

What I am really objecting to is the assumption that some people generalize some discrepancies into the conclusion that the records as a whole is totally worthless, because they contain some errors. What I, and Nikita earlier, and also yogybär mentioned is that the general quality of these records are good, and that there could be discrepancies in cases where:

- units were disbanded
- units were moved between different Luftflotten
- units were overrun

What I want to see more of in the discussion, is that people that make claims like you do:

25.10.42 in Armawir - 20 aircraft damaged. Here, firstly, the 20 aircraft are all aircraft lost to enemy action during the entire reporting month of October 1942. I can find 8 in the loss records, thus 12 are seemingly missing. I do not know this incident, but I guess that we are talking about twin-engined bombers - and we must keep in mind that the reporting to the GenQu only was done for aircraft being damaged MORE than 10% as estimated by the engineer examining the damage.
It might be possible that some of these aircraft that were damaged, and thus was transferred to a repair facility with regards to HALTER or holding unit , but were NOT reported to the Generalquartiermeister. But again, just a possibility, it could be that these aircraft were really destroyed or damaged to a high degree and that the report is missing.

This eyewitness - what is his name, how did he report it? Are there any additional records, for example aerial reconnoissance photos or reports from when and if the airfield was taken over by the allies showing what information could be gathered by examining the wreckage on the site (as far as I know there should be NKVD reports when german aircraft wrecks were encountered in Soviet controlled area)? Any intercepted radio traffic? Any reports made in remaining German records on unit or higher headquarters level?

And you seem to state that there was a general underreporting of losses in the Luftwaffe based on a court martial against Helbig? What was the outcome of this court martial? If this is the case, can you statistically or otherwise show it?

Also - how did the Luftwaffe units replace their aircraft? Or did they also invent numbers with regards to how many aircraft were in the unit in the strength reports? They must have since you state they didn't report their losses...

I guess most of the soviet and allied aircraft downed during the latter part of the war must have been downed by pilots running around on the ground flapping their arms and making engine noises with their mouth... since there were no more aircraft left in the units due to unreported losses.

It would also be interesting at some time to see the same kind of records emerge from the soviet side, so it is possible to make comparisons (and I am not meaning general reports stating 2 I-16 or 5 I-153, but detailed information with aircraft serials and so on)

Regards,
Andreas B

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi

An additional observation, as spotted by Nikita also:

The examples you seem to come up with are linked to the battle around Stalingrad under the command of Luftflotte 4. Isn't it a rather obvious explanation that records form part of this period is missing due to the ferocity of the battle?

The same can apply to the withdrawal from Africa where we see records turning up several months and even years after the losses occured, and some might have been missed due to the caotic conditions

Regards,
Andreas B

[Nikita Egorov]

Dear Andreas,

I understand your irritation. Let me explain, my purpose is not to put the blame on somebody for doing something deliberately, but to clarify some uncertain points that can be helpfull for further research. Working with original documents, I fully aware that it is almost impossible to chase every discrapancy or misidentification that occured. However, you said that deadly mess during Stalingrad battle is obvious explanation for lack of losses. I agree. Unfortunatelly the question "to what extent it happened" remains open by the time. Is it possible, using the Luftwaffe documents, to trace how many planes were deployed to Stalingrad units and disappeared after the battle with no sign of it GQ returns?

You asked for examples from Soviet side. First about the system itself. As I wrote you before the most reliable source from Soviet side is first hand accounts and reports of regimental level. Every day head of staff issued operational report that was comprised of operational strength on the beginning of the day (total and combat ready), detailed accounts of combat sorties (time of take off, complement of group, leader, task, area, description of combats (if were any), losses, claims, landing time.). Also included were: weather report, recon reports, notes for the previous days (clarifications of losses and claims missed in the previous files) and at operational strengh by the end of the day (total and combat ready with mention of the planes send to repair sections). This document along with pilots reports on claims and losses is basis for other second-hand accounts documents, that emerge on the division, corps, army etc. levels. Also, one can use summaries that also issued by periods on losses and claims. That is comprehansive books that take stock of every claim and loss for the period at issue with sircimstances, detailed area, height, etc.

But although they were general forms of reporting, documents of various regiments differ from each other (e.g. reports could include planes production numbers and personal markings, and could not.) In this case one should expand the research on to technical documents that shed the light on particular damage suffered by aircraft and giving aircraft details such as production number, engine number, armament, etc

Off course, that is applicable if there any witness or info on how the plane was lost, otherwise it is simply marked as missing. If the the sircimstances are revealed later, it is written as addition to other operational reports.

Here are the examples that can be found in Soviet documents relating losses:

07.08.1943. 248 IAP. Yak-7 (p.n. 3359), tail number "09". 9.42 (Moscow time) shot down in combat with Fw-190 area Khotynets - Moshenoje. Pilot Starshiy Leitenant Danelyuk bailed out. Injured. Returned to unit.

or

03.07.1943. 233 IAP. Yak-7 (p.n. 3483), fuselage number "23". 18.35 shot up in combat with Fw-190 area of Krivtsovo. Plane wrecked on belly landing. Pilot Mladshiy Leitenant Samokhin killed.

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi, Nikita!

Thanks for the information.

With regards to your first question about trying to find a number for aircraft that seem to have disappeared without a trace I would dare to say 'yes, it would be possible to do this to a good degree of accuracy, combining records from several sources', and it would be an interesting excercise in my opinion. If you are interested we can start this work together, I will provide you with information for the units of interest. I will PM you with regards to this in a couple of days.

It is also very interesting to see the records you provide with regards to Soviet losses. It would be VERY interesting to do the same with regards to Soviet losses as we are seeing the end to with regards to the German ones, namely entering them in a relational database accessible from the internet. If there is an interest to do this, I can provide a web-based solution which will be integrated with the German losses database.

Juha:

I have not seen any such order, but will do a bit of checking in my files. As the aircraft in case was lost on January 12 1943, this order could be in the remnants of the KTB of the Gefechtsstab of JG 5 i Kemi. It is of interest to note that the Bf of the aircraft Franz Kirchmayer who was wounded in the crash landing has the following text attached to his Namentliche Verlustmeldung (BTW, the Technikmuseum or RLM has got the date wrong... on the NVM it is written 11.1.43 by typewriter, but this is corrected in handwriting to 12.1.43, the same date as listed on the GenQu report.):

Etwa 3 Wochen nicht einsatzfähig, da durch Brennstoffmangel verursachte Notlandung ....

Out of action for about three weeks, wounded in a crash landing due to fuel starvation ...

The loss reason in the GenQu report states: Bauchlandung infolge techn.Mängel. Belly landing due to a technical problem

So I do not know who and what to believe in this case. If a single bullet was found in one of the engines of the aircraft as stated in this thread earlier.. would this suffice to make the aircraft go down? I doubt it, as these aircraft had two engines and were flyable on one of them. Did this bullet hit a fuel line and thus indirectly cause the emergency landing... I do not know and one should probably ask the technical people that investigated the aircraft if this is likely.

For all I know this reported bullet could have made the hole in the cowling of this aircraft on an earlier flight... and Ziegenhagen remember another flight when his aircraft was damaged by AAA.

Who knows... anyone got access to Ziegenhagens full story? Or his logbook?

Regards,
Andreas B

[Nikita Egorov]

Andreas,

Ok. Waiting for a PM from you.

BR,
Nikita

[Reiner]

Hallo Nikita!

Do you look for a photo of major Ernst Freiherr von Bibra? In “Luftwaffe im Focus” Edition No.12 page 19 (ISBN 978-3-9811042-4-0) you can find a picture from him!

Rene

[Franek Grabowski]

Igor nicely put the problem of GQ6 records. Such statistical data indeed serve long term planning purpose on every possible aspect, not only longevity of an airframe. Based on such data, the one may note that some types are dangerous, that aircraft built at some factories suffer higher losses, that some extra training is necessary for flying personnel, etc. In effect, safety, serviceability and combat efficiency may be improved.
From this point of view, it is really not that important if the date or the time of the loss is accurate. Accuracy of those records depended on distance from Berlin as well, and some units kept their own standards of information send. It is obvious eg. checking GQ6 returns for the BoB.
Assumption that they are accurate must be supported by some other means rather than someone's belief. Unfortunately, we do not have too many sources that allow us to compare data.
I am fully awared of overclaim and friendly fire incidents, but there is a slight but substantial difference between critical approach and ignoring Allied sources. Sorry, if a German airman is reported by several witnesses to bail out (or better, photographed), and still not listed by GQ6, then I really have no reason to trust the papers. The same for NVMs, my friend was wounded, but then still not appears in those lists. How many were omitted this way?
I am not neglecting the source as a whole, but please, do not consider this a definite list of losses.

[kalender1973]

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

What I want to see more of in the discussion, is that people that make claims like you do:

25.10.42 in Armawir - 20 aircraft damaged. Here, firstly, the 20 aircraft are all aircraft lost to enemy action during the entire reporting month of October 1942. I can find 8 in the loss records, thus 12 are seemingly missing. I do not know this incident, but I guess that we are talking about twin-engined bombers - and we must keep in mind that the reporting to the GenQu only was done for aircraft being damaged MORE than 10% as estimated by the engineer examining the damage.
It might be possible that some of these aircraft that were damaged, and thus was transferred to a repair facility with regards to HALTER or holding unit , but were NOT reported to the Generalquartiermeister. But again, just a possibility, it could be that these aircraft were really destroyed or damaged to a high degree and that the report is missing.

Andreas, I don't know exactly how LW organize their replacement, but this sample show you, that it was not based on GQM returns. In october 42 the unit became 15 new planes and one from reparatur. GQM is for me only statistical system, that was used for reporting and not operational. Based on these returns, the GQM can provide some information like "... the average lifespan of Bf109 in 1942 decreased from 12 month to 6...". And this information could be used as one of parameters for the future production plans.
Another point, that you reffer here, is how we understand term "loss"? You say, under 10% was not reported to GQM. Officially such damages could be easy repaired by unit and FBK staff. Neverthenless they leave the unit.
Furthemore I make some comparison between loss list from some units book as JFV and Bestand and Bewegungsmeldungen and it show clear, that quite all planes with damage 10% and more leave their the units and need replacement, most with new production planes.
[/quote]

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

And you seem to state that there was a general underreporting of losses in the Luftwaffe based on a court martial against Helbig? What was the outcome of this court martial? If this is the case, can you statistically or otherwise show it?

They found him not guility... But put yourself on the place of LW units commander and think, how oft you want to participate on such probes. And Helbig was one of the most decorated and popular LW man.
It is only sample, that the LW units commander have sometimes their reasons, why they send not fully correct updates to RLM

Regards