Hartmann: claims vs. victories

[Juha]

^while true one much remember that planes were also lost because of operational reasons: mechanical, weather, pilots errors etc. So not all of those which "failed to return" were shot down by Axis forces. Same to forced landings. And one must know to which class of repair shops the plane was sent. You probably meant mobile aircraft repair shops or PARMs. PARM-1s were subordinated to mobile aircraft repair bases for administration, and to the Chief Engineer of the Air Regiment to which they were attached for operations. So planes transferred to PARM-1s were not badly damaged, those went to to PARM-4s or -5s. To my understanding PARM-1s operated at same airfields as the air regiments they were attached, so it was not a big deal to transfer a plane to it.

[HGabor]

Very true! Many empty and parking planes were also lost on their own airfields when returning planes with damaged breaks, or hydraulic system lost control at touch down and ran into them along the landing strip! If one checks only the number of the aerial claims and the number of losses on the other side without checking the actual cause of the losses can go down the wrong path with incorrect conclusions.

Gabor

[BenFolk]

Departed to the workshop (translation from Russian убыло в мастерскую), so it wasn't about ПАРМ. So these were aircraft that left VA territory and returned after being repaired. The mechanics from the IAP, BAP or SchAP repaired damaged aircraft with PARM-1 and PARM-3 on their own airfields and even on the emergency landing sites. Such matters were mostly not mentioned at all by the employees of the VA - and these were aircraft with as much as 70% damage and sometimes more.

why are the technical losses not in Combat logs, Combat reports and so on?

[HGabor]

As opposed to the American MAC Reports where the aircraft data, crew data as well as details of the loss were all recorded in one folder, the Soviets used a multi-level style of documentation. They had personnel records, mechanical records, combat records, etc. In order to get a full picture of the events, all of these reports should be reviewed and combined. After a mission they knew what was obvious: how many planes were missing. But this did not necessarily represent the real number of losses.

If a plane landed on another Soviet airfield after the mission due to fuel shortage, combat damage, etc. and returned to its base only the next day or the day after, then for the unit it could be a temporary loss at the end of the day, but was not a permanent loss!

So daily combat reports, VA daily reports are only 'the first impression' after the battles. They knew how many planes did not return and that's what they put in the report. But: if a plane returned and belly landed on its airfield, first the aircraft mechanics had to inspect the plane and decide if it was a write off, or it could be repaired. This inspection usually took a few days. So after a battle, the units did not really know how many planes they permanently lost (this is also why the inventories are different in various levels of reporting). The final number of losses pointing to the proper dates were recorded by the aircraft mechanics in their printed form, called: 'Контрольный список на поступившие, убывшие и потерянные (самолеты, моторы).......за .....194. г. в ....(полка)......' which were filled with ink (hand written) which showed the inventory reduction if a plane was permanently lost. Also, if a belly landed plane was broken, but its engine remained in good condition (which was eg. a common thing with the Il-2 Sturmoviks), then in the loss reports the airframe was written off, but the engine was not - it was salvaged and later could be installed on another plane.

In short: daily unit reports (diaries) are nice, but not necessarily 100% accurate in terms of losses. The final loss numbers are always in the mechanical reports, written after the events in a few days in the forms called: 'Контрольный список на поступившие, убывшие и потерянные (самолеты, моторы).......за .....194. г. в ....(полка)......' These were the aircraft inventory 'in and out' sheets.
Too bad, attaching a sample sheet here is not an option.
I hope this helps.

Gabor

[Juha]

Hello Ben
thanks for the clarification!

When one thinks about how different society the SU was in early 40s compared to say the UK or the USA, it was not so surprising that the VVS had somewhat different system of documentation. I'd even say that even with the differences the paperworks were surprisingly similar.

Hello Gabor
thanks for the explanation of how the VVS documentation worked.

[HGabor]

Hi Juha, you are most welcome. I must add that what I described was true for the final years of the war. Aircrafts and aircraft engines were all inventoried in separate lists. Certainly there was some level of overlap between the different kind of reports, but generally speaking they were focusing on specific aspects of the operation. Operating an Air Force, or an Air Army was an extremely complex, dynamic process since they were always on the move, etc., and the situation could change in any minute. This certainly required tons of paperwork. For those who are interested in the Soviet mechanical (loss) reports, here is a sample of the forms mentioned previously. Enjoy!

Gabor

https://kepkuldes.com/image/JW3LkR

[Juha]

Hello Gabor
thanks for the link!

Juha