Lw-losses without enemy actions!

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi, Jens

Sorry, but it is ignorant fools like yourself that make long standing errors like this available on the internet and in publications.

Luckily, your example nicely underline the fact that you must be totally illiterate when it comes to studying losses of the Luftwaffe.

In the original records by the Luftwaffe this loss is noted as a category 2:

durch Feindeinwirkung durch Flakbeschuss total

or in english as I guess you have to get this translated:

Destroyed due to anti-aircraft gunfire

The detailed loss record states that the aircraft was damaged 80%, and that Krupinski was wounded, and the loss reason is stated as 'Flakbeshuss'.

In fact I get a bit sad, if you are going to show examples to underline your position on this, at least TRY to find something that has not been translated or edited by an author, and please... try to find some losses that at least are a bit questionable when it comes to facts, in this case you have just shot yourself in the foot....

I have said this so many times to people now that I end up getting bored - you have to check contemporary references. If for some reason you can not do this, it would at least be wise not to state that the original documentation is erronous, while some large scale numbers published by one or more authors MUST be correct.

There are numerous clerical errors in the original documents also, not strange considering the amount of information... but it is the best references we have. So - if you want to do something useful, stop reading coffetable books and start reading original documentation.

Sorry, Jens if you think I am being to harsh on you, but this message of yours really irritated me a lot!

Regards, and do not be too offended!

Andreas

[odybvig]

And all the loss record are avaible in digitized form

Olve

[Jens]

So where are the losses of SG-101?

[Jens]

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

Hi, Jens

Sorry, but it is ignorant fools like yourself that make long standing errors like this available on the internet and in publications.

Luckily, your example nicely underline the fact that you must be totally illiterate when it comes to studying losses of the Luftwaffe.

In the original records by the Luftwaffe this loss is noted as a category 2:

durch Feindeinwirkung durch Flakbeschuss total

or in english as I guess you have to get this translated:

Destroyed due to anti-aircraft gunfire

The detailed loss record states that the aircraft was damaged 80%, and that Krupinski was wounded, and the loss reason is stated as 'Flakbeshuss'.

In fact I get a bit sad, if you are going to show examples to underline your position on this, at least TRY to find something that has not been translated or edited by an author, and please... try to find some losses that at least are a bit questionable when it comes to facts, in this case you have just shot yourself in the foot....

I have said this so many times to people now that I end up getting bored - you have to check contemporary references. If for some reason you can not do this, it would at least be wise not to state that the original documentation is erronous, while some large scale numbers published by one or more authors MUST be correct.

There are numerous clerical errors in the original documents also, not strange considering the amount of information... but it is the best references we have. So - if you want to do something useful, stop reading coffetable books and start reading original documentation.

Sorry, Jens if you think I am being to harsh on you, but this message of yours really irritated me a lot!

Regards, and do not be too offended!

Andreas

Yes it is too harsh, since i made three points and you counterattacked one, cause i overlooked the "F". For your surprise, i was already in the BAMA and checked loss stats even divided in (F/H), besides other documents. If you look at the global stats, it must be seen, that something isn't very relieable in the system of LW. Even more i know (from docus) complains from higher staffs about that fact.
One example: One unit in 1942 lost 6 Ju-88 totally in one sortie. The cause was reported due engine failures and fire (noncombat), even more the unit started complains about the unrelieability of Ju-88 and their engines. The GL started a commission to check these fact, indeed five of the six Ju-88 were shot down by AAA and the 6th also most probably.
So you can't just critizise Tolliver/Constable to make the look of stats better, you have also to ask why they wrote such an information. I believe such a detailed story in a book has a bit more relieability than others, besides this the story stated that Krupinski fought with the LaGG over the own airfield, claims lists give him a LaGG at 18.05 (last kill this day). Of course in their (T/C) books is written many senseless stuff and sometimes they changed history to their own attitude, but on the other hand they interviewed most pilots when they were quite near the events of WW2.

BTW: Where can i find a definition if H and F? F means IMHO Front not Feind?, H = Heimat. So if a loss is F, it is not necessary by enemy?

[Andreas Brekken]

In the document series called 'Flugzeugunfälle und Verluste bei Schulen und sonstigen Dienststellen'.

The units with numbers ranging from 101 - 11x were what one could translate to operational training units, and were reported as such.

A couple of examples:

http://www.ahs.no/ref_db/lw_loss_pub...?lossid=107194

http://www.ahs.no/ref_db/lw_loss_pub...?lossid=100985

F is Feindflug. (Heimflug and Feindflug). This is an indication on the mission flown, not an indication that enemy action was involved. One example is of course an aircraft lost due to pilot error, while on an operational mission. This would have an 'F' attached in the loss list, but no enemy were involved (other than by inducing stress....).

The categories 20 and 21 cover this situation in the Summarische Verlustemeldungen, 20 being 'ohne Feindeinwirkung mit Feindauftrag total', and 21 being 'ohne Feindeinwirkung mit Feindauftrag beschädigt'

Third - you did not make three points. You simply quoted information from three different sources stating as your point that these three references (two books and a webpage) must be the proof that the Luftwaffe original documents are not to be trusted. Sorry - but that doesn't quite cut it as a scientific evaluation of the available sources, at least not to me.

Regards,
Andreas

[RT]

F= feindflug
H= Heimat

At the beginning sept 39, no mention of H or F, then in oct 39, manuscript mention heimat/feindflug, then in march 40 a special "column" with H/F, , concerning the gen.reports there are "schematicaly" 2 types one where all losses/?/ of op.units are reported so JG1 to ZG76, even the erg.gr. nd IV.trainings groups, unit on the front or at rest with mention of H/F, second one is where are reported the losses of training nd some second lines units, incl. the units spec. in transfering planes Fl.ü.G 1 that could hv to do with ennemy in their route..., here there is no mention of H/F, even is these units are bombed by ennemy.
at the beg. this system had sense then lwf used categories to "analyse'' the losses sometimes they appeared in the reports, 20 ,22, 23 others like explained andreas, we could see sum.reports where you find mont/month all the losses due to bombing.

So F, could be due to ennemy or without ennemy action, just "feindflug" seems explicit, H turn to H is there action of the ennemy it seems

I think but no proof of it , that the case related BY jENS, is an 'accident', but clerks are clerks they could make mistakes, nd further they reported what people asked them to write, it could be also difficult to know the real cause of a loss....

I just write that to make the things clearer, nd report what I hv understand.
The fact important is that on maybe 50% of the case the ennemy as nothing to do with the loss..

rt

[Jim P.]

As another who has done a lot of work with the loss materials, for both sets of losses, as well as numerous casualty reports, I wholeheartedly agree with Andreas and RT's statements. Lots of combat patrols, bombing sorties, photo recon missions that were indeed 'missions against the enemy' where the enemy was not encountered. Also the machines these guys were flying were the leading edge in high performance for their time and as such were bound to have blown engines and other types of technical failures. You'd probably be surprised at the number of famous names that died in crashes versus actually being shot down in combat.

One other point - RT I think there is an 'E' entry in the Sonntige losses that seems to correspond with the H/F for the GenQu. reports. Not sure how consistently applied, or it may mean something else?

[RT]

Jim "E" entry, I give a look at some pages of these docs don't find this "E", where hv you find it ?? manuscript note ??

RT= Remi tracanelli

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi, Jim

I have always understood this as 'Einsatz', as they seem to occur in connection with training units operating against the enemy.

The 'E' is a standard column like the 'F/H' in the Verbänden lists.

Regards,
Andreas

[Jens]

About F and H:

There is a table about airplane losses in 1942, was made to present Hitler (published in some books but i have it also as copy from BAMA) where losses of planes are diveded in Heimat and Front. This wouldn't be not so interesting since these stats are diveded into several fronts, meaning africa has home and front losses, eastern front also, reich and so on. So i thought Heimat means losses of Ergänzungsgruppen and similar, Front losses of combat units located at the front. Interesting total losses of Heimat and Front are 1:7 at eastern front but 1:1 in the Reich.

Maybe you know this table?


If i look at Buchards Compilation there is IMHO F if the aircraft started at Front air field and H if not or way behind the lines.
http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/tony/...units/jg52.htm


About SG-101

This unit flew also combat sorties right? Are there any losses mentionend?