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

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Hello friends and Andreas especially,

an addition to the untimely faded discussion.

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

Hi, guys.
Thus the unit was supposed to report losses under 60% also, and to indicate to which repair unit the aircraft were delivered for repair. If this was not indicated on the report sheet (column Bemerkungen - Comments) it was implied that the aircraft would be put back into operational state by local means (mentioned is local repairs at the unit, at the larger airfields with better facilities as opposed to the frontline bases - or by the fast repair units (Schnellreparatur-Kolonnen)).

In the GQM returns for Lfl.4 during Apr.-Jun.43 the remarks 'Er' (Ersatz) after % of damage are absent with two exceptions described below.

Transport units in the Lfl.4 area (not included in Lfl.4 and listed in GQM returns among "Transportverbände (Einsatz Osten)") has used the remark 'Er' really. I has counted 8 entries in the timeframe in question - 6 from TGr10 and 2 from III./TG3.

But in returns for Lfl.4 I has found 2 entries only - both from I./KG55 (ex-TGr10 mentioned above). Probably I./KG55 used the 'Er' remark by inertia as ex-transport unit.

Hardly to believe that among hundreds of damaged aircrafts none required the repair outside the unit!

It look like the 'Er' system hasn't worked in the Lfl.4 in the timeframe in question at least.

Any ideas?

Best regards,
Andrey