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

[Andreas Brekken]

Hello, Andrey

I believe that a more detailed overview of what you have counted and not is necessary in order to be able to support your hypothesis.

What I have seen (I have not used a lot of time on this kind of comparison) is that one has to take into account that the cut-off dates may differ between the Bestand- und Bewegungsmeldungen and what you suspect to be the losses counted towards the same period.

I found that this accounted for several of the discrepancies I found.

Will gladly help if I can - interesting project.

Regards,
Andreas B

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Hello Andreas,

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

Hello, Andrey
What I have seen (I have not used a lot of time on this kind of comparison) is that one has to take into account that the cut-off dates may differ between the Bestand- und Bewegungsmeldungen and what you suspect to be the losses counted towards the same period.

I found that this accounted for several of the discrepancies I found.

No doubt, some June losses maybe counted in July but hardly to believe that 3-months timeframe for entire Luftflotte 4 can give the difference 66% for that reason. Let’s take into consideration that some March losses are counted in April at once. For Luftflotte 4 March was the hot month too (support of Manstein’s counteroffensive, Kuban and so on).

Specific examples (two are easy to check due to small number of losses, and one hardly explainable):

4.(F)/Nacht: losses 21.Apr.43 (100%, Absturz bei Landung - it maybe result of the battle damages or maybe flying accident) and 18.Jun.43 (100%, MIA, really shot down by AA train) = 2
Bestand- und Bewegungsmeldungen:
Apr.: 4 o.F.; May: (2 Überholung); Jun.: 1 d.F.
Difference is 5-2=3

2.(F)/100: losses 27.May (35%, fighter attack); 11.Jun. (100%, MIA); 28.Jun. (100%, MIA) = 3
Bestand- und Bewegungsmeldungen:
Apr.: 0; May: 1 d.F. and 1 o.F. [35% required the repair outside the unit here? But o.F. loss is absent anyway]; Jun.: 2 d.F. (correct)

I./StG2 (one of egregious cases):
April losses: 3 - 100%
Bestand- und Bewegungsmeldungen: 3 d.F.+1 o.F. (+1 Überholung). Difference is 4-3=1
May losses: 1 - 100%, 1 - 80%, 1 - 30%, 2 - 20% (and at least 1 < 10%)
Bestand- und Bewegungsmeldungen: 14 d.F.+3 o.F. Difference is 15 (or 12, if we’ll count 30% and 20% as required the repair outside the unit too) (!!!)
June losses: 1 - 100%, 1 - 40% (and at least 2 < 10%)
Bestand- und Bewegungsmeldungen: 2 d.F.+2 o.F. (+2 Überholung). Difference is 4-2=2
Total difference is 1+15+2=18 !

I can post the details if needed.

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

Hello, Andrey
Will gladly help if I can - interesting project.

Thank you in advance!
It isn’t a project itself but one of calculations needed for the Kuban air battles analysis. I’ll accept any result but it must be reasoned.

Best regards,
Andrey

[Norbert Schuchbauer]

Hi Andrey,
I think you are putting too much emphasis on the dates. The above mentioned loss for 4./NachAufkl.St. dated 21-Apr-43 was not reported in the QM losses until 25-May 1943. Theoretically this loss could have been accounted for in the June Bewegungsmeldung. It took considerable time to transmit those reports to Germany as well.

Just my 5 cents,

Norbert

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Hi Norbert,

I think the Bewegungsmeldungen drew up in the units immediately in the end of the reporting interval (as it was in Soviet Air Forces for example). Otherwise these reports are totally aimless.

Maybe Andreas will make the situation clear.

Andrey

[Andreas Brekken]

Originally Posted by Andrey Kuznetsov

Specific examples (two are easy to check due to small number of losses, and one hardly explainable):

4.(F)/Nacht: losses 21.Apr.43 (100%, Absturz bei Landung - it maybe result of the battle damages or maybe flying accident) and 18.Jun.43 (100%, MIA, really shot down by AA train) = 2
Bestand- und Bewegungsmeldungen:
Apr.: 4 o.F.; May: (2 Überholung); Jun.: 1 d.F.
Difference is 5-2=3

2.(F)/100: losses 27.May (35%, fighter attack); 11.Jun. (100%, MIA); 28.Jun. (100%, MIA) = 3
Bestand- und Bewegungsmeldungen:
Apr.: 0; May: 1 d.F. and 1 o.F. [35% required the repair outside the unit here? But o.F. loss is absent anyway]; Jun.: 2 d.F. (correct)

I./StG2 (one of egregious cases):
April losses: 3 - 100%
Bestand- und Bewegungsmeldungen: 3 d.F.+1 o.F. (+1 Überholung). Difference is 4-3=1
May losses: 1 - 100%, 1 - 80%, 1 - 30%, 2 - 20% (and at least 1 < 10%)
Bestand- und Bewegungsmeldungen: 14 d.F.+3 o.F. Difference is 15 (or 12, if we’ll count 30% and 20% as required the repair outside the unit too) (!!!)
June losses: 1 - 100%, 1 - 40% (and at least 2 < 10%)
Bestand- und Bewegungsmeldungen: 2 d.F.+2 o.F. (+2 Überholung). Difference is 4-2=2
Total difference is 1+15+2=18 !

Best regards,
Andrey

Hi, Andrey

I believe the answer is the same for these two units as well:

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).

The next reported loss is for May 27th 1943, in the report of May 30th.

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

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 most likely reason is as follows:

The reports for Sachschaden - damage to aircraft only - has not gone through for the Luftflotte 4 area in a timeframe from roughly end of April 1943 until late May 1943 - for whatever reason.

The reports for losses were you had personnel wounded, missing or killed (what we usually refer to as NVM or which is most often referred to as Vordruck II by the GenQu) has gone through as they had higher priority (my article has a lot of ino on that too) and was to be transferred in another fashion promptly (in fact they were supposed to reach GenQu 6 Abt within 48 hrs!)

I believe that in order to really get your work on the campaign to be as detailed as possible, you should use all the sources we have seen here, and in addition any other communication available.

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.

And for your area of interest, Andrey, I can not see that there were many units operating Do 217s in the area of Luftflotte 4? So we could assign operations and losses of Do 217s if we are to find any to 4. Nacht.

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 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)

Regards,
Andreas B