Definition of "Überholung" in LW monthly strength reports

[Kari Lumppio]

Hello!

In the Luftwaffe monthly stregth returns there is also column Überholung.
(I speak of the format seen at mr. Holm's homepage - the original document is different?)

Reading some recent posts has raised some questions in my mind:

1) does Überholung include also planes having combat damages and needing repairs or normal maintenance (= major overhauls) only? What would be the damage percentages in this classification?

2) were planes recorded as sent for Überholung necessarily airworthy? Or could they be delivered also via railroad etc.?

3) why the respective column in the Zugang side is named Reparatur and not Überholung?

Is there any primary sources for these definitions?

For example: if a plane falls into this Abgang-Überholung category and was not airworthy then in my opinion that would constitute a valid victory for the opponent if damages were received in air combat.




Thanking in advance,
Kari

[Norbert Schuchbauer]

Hi Kari,

generally speaking repair is necessary when there is damage to an aircraft. It does not matter if it was inflicted by the enemy or a pilot just crashing the thing. Überhohlung is when an aircraft is to receive scheduled maintenance. This is based either on time flown or number of landings and so on. There are several levels of Überhohlung and it also applies to different equipment installed. An aircraft is still servicable when it goes to Überhohlung. This is not necessarily true for repair.

I do not have a source from WW II as to the definitions. My knowledge is from personal experience as a pilot.

I hope this helps,

Norbert

[Kari Lumppio]

Good morning!

I am well familiar with the various aircraft maintenance concepts and schedules (both from former work and hobby).


Perhaps I should attempt to make my pondering more clear.

I have understood LW monthly reporting system as such:

Damage percentage below 10% (15%?) doesn't appear in the monthly strength returns at all.

Above 60% (?) was considered irrecoverable loss and was classified either ohne or durch Feindwinwirkung.

Damage percentages between 10-60% is the problem. These are not divided to ohne/durch Feindeinwirkung. It also seems they are lumped together with planes going out for a scheduled overhaul into the Überholung classification in the monthly returns. Is that so?

So there actually could be hidden combat losses in the category Überholung, yes or no?



Additionally I wonder if there was any similarities between the situation in Luftwaffe and Finnish AF. In the Finnish system there was two (or three) levels: unit level, depot and factory (VL). From the archived documents it looks like depot level repairs/maintenace left only job order and repairs report in the paper trail. On the other hand visit at factory involved also transfer and resulting deed of transfer document in the papers. Yet the actual repairs done on the aircraft could be more or less of similar difficulty level and extent! If only transfer documents (or monthly summaries) would be left in archives we would have no knowledge of the depot visits of FinnAF planes. As we all know the problem with Luftwaffe is the destroyed documents which do not allow getting detailed picture of the situation. Unlike for example Finnish AF, where practically all aircraft individuals have some paper trail left in the archives.

So does there exist a loophole in the LW monthly return system so that planes going for repairs at depots were not recorded in the Abgang as they were to arrive back at the same unit? And only those planes which were damaged enough or for some other reason were sent for higher level maintenance center were actually transferred and therefore appeared in the Abgang category of monthly returns?


Regards,
Kari

[Franek Grabowski]

Kari
The answer is hidden in the German damage categories as quoted by Christer Bergstroem.
I agree with Norbert that Ueberholung has nothing to any damage.

Below 10 %: Minor damage that can be repaired by the aircraft’s ground crew.
10 % - 24 %: Medium damage that can be repaired through small repair works at the unit.
25 % - 39 %: Damage that requires a major overhaul at the unit.

Those are not listed in Abgang as they can be repaired within the unit.

40 % – 44 %: Damage to that requires whole replacements of landing gears or other systems, such as hydraulic systems.

I am not sure with this one.

45 % - 59 %: Severely damaged aircraft where large parts of the aircraft needed to be replaced.

Listed in Abgang, to be repaired at specialised works etc.

60 % - 80 %: Write-off category. Certain parts could be used as spare parts for other aircraft.
81 % - 99%: Totally destroyed, crashed on German-controlled area.
100 %: Totally lost, crashed or disappeared over enemy-controlled area or over sea.

Listed in Abgang.

[rob van den nieuwendijk]

Hello,

See Die Jagdfliegerverbände der Deutschen Luftwaffe 1934 bis 1945, Teil 1, page 84:

"unter 10% geringe Beschussschäden, die zum Teil vom 1. Wart behoben werden konnten.
10-24% mittlere Schäden, die durch kleinere Reparaturen - auf Einheitsebene - behoben werden konnten.
25-39% Schäden, die eine Flugzeugdurchsicht beim Verband erforderlich machten.
40-44% Beschädigung, bei der Triebwerke oder Systeme (z.B. Hydraulik) ersetzt werden mussten; konnte vielfach noch bei der Truppe geschehen.
45-59% schwerbeschädigtes Flugzeug, bei dem Grossbauteile ausgetauscht werden mussten; zum Teil ebenfalls noch bei der Truppe durchführbar, zum Beispiel Austauch von Tragflächen o.ä.
60-80% unbrauchbares Flugzeug, noch verwertbare Teile ausgebaut zur weiteren Verwendung im Augenblick unbrauchbar etwa bei Rumpftauschung, oder dauerhaft unbrauchbar.
81-99% Totalschaden, auf eigenem Gebiet abgestürzt.
100% Totalverlust (über See oder über feindlichem Gebiet).

Good luck -
Best wishes,
Rob