Ju 87 losses at Tmimi airfield September 1941

[Andrei Demjanko]

Stig,

Luftwaffe (Fliegerführer Afrika, to be precise) submitted this information to the Army.

[AndreasB]

Originally Posted by Andrei Demjanko

Andreas,

There were no Luftwaffe Stuka units at Benghazi at that time, according to Michael Holm's web-site. I can only second that II./StG 2 was based at Tmimi so the 95% loss fits perfectly.

I think this report could not refer to Italian Ju 87's as they were not under Fliegerführer Afrika (HQ that submitted this information to Pz.Gr.)

Priviet Andrei

I agree it would be very odd. I also agree with you that this report raises some interesting questions about LW reporting, even though it could be as simple as initial reports overestimating the damage as well.

All the best

Andreas

[Stig Jarlevik]

Andrei

If that was the case then it sounds to me like someone had made a rather bad initial assessment of the damage, or perhaps someone was trying to gain time?

By overestimating the losses, Luftwaffe would gain some time from the Army requirements of perhaps making a dawn mission?

It would have been very foolish for anyone to make false loss reports back home, so in my mind the GQM return is pretty accurate.

Cheers
Stig

[Andrei Demjanko]

Originally Posted by AndreasB

...even though it could be as simple as initial reports overestimating the damage as well.
Andreas

Originally Posted by Stig Jarlevik

If that was the case then it sounds to me like someone had made a rather bad initial assessment of the damage
Stig

Gentlemen,

Yes, initial reports often overestimated the damage inflicted, and I've seen several examples of it in German documents

What I found interesting is that the damage to aircraft, which at the first look appeared heavy, was in the event not as serious as "even" 10%.

Originally Posted by Stig Jarlevik

Luftwaffe would gain some time from the Army requirements of perhaps making a dawn mission?
Stig

Stig,

Let's presume it. But why to go into such details in reporting? Light or heavy was the damage, these aircraft would be unavailable for such a mission.

Originally Posted by Stig Jarlevik

It would have been very foolish for anyone to make false loss reports back home, so in my mind the GQM return is pretty accurate.

So these returns are in my opinion too. My point is: Gen.Qu returns shows only really seriously damaged airframes with structural damage. So even 10% was in fact very serious damage