List from TsAMO of 99 (!) German warplanes and 22 motors captured at the Chir (Tschir) station (Stalingrad area)

[gogh]

Hi Andreas Excellent stuff please go one

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Hi Andreas,

Thank you for the info about 1st page entries.

Maybe the Tschir list is one of the keys to understanding the problem.

Some questions are appeared.

Planes in the entries 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 were damaged during Aug.42. Tschir station was liberated in the end of Nov.42. So damaged planes (incl.3 with 20% damages and 3 with 30% damages) for some unknown reason more than three months has remained at the airfields and some time on railroad.
It seems German repair service wasn’t very quick at the place in this case. Or these planes has received additional damages during Soviet air raids, for example. Or something else.

About item No.2 (Ju87R-2 WNr.6160 6G+DS, i.e. from II./StG1): production date (Apr.1941) is corresponded to known 61xx series Ju87Rs. Probably WNr.6160 was damaged in Aug.42 like bulk of 1st page entries. II./StG1 really had 3 Ju87R-2 in Aug.42 and according to “Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen” one of them lost due to enemy action. Maybe that's he? Or other lost/damaged Ju87R-2 is known?

As the final fates of these planes wasn’t reported by units to GQM Abt.6, it seems they were (on paper) between the front units and repair units at the time of final loss. Is it right?

Best regards,
Andrey

[Juha]

One reason might be the supply difficulties. The logistical situation of the German 6th A was rather catastrophic even before the Soviet counteroffensive and the very difficult supply situation might well has its effects on the LW. Maybe many of the damaged planes were kept there as sources for spare parts.

Just a thought.

Juha

[Nikita Egorov]

Andrey,

The majority of these 10-30% and so are marked as Er in GQ.

Ju-87R-2 only loss was 6111 with groupkommander Hpt. Johann Zemsky on August 28, 1942.

Originally Posted by Andrey Kuznetsov

Hi Andreas,

Thank you for the info about 1st page entries.

Maybe the Tschir list is one of the keys to understanding the problem.

Some questions are appeared.

Planes in the entries 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 were damaged during Aug.42. Tschir station was liberated in the end of Nov.42. So damaged planes (incl.3 with 20% damages and 3 with 30% damages) for some unknown reason more than three months has remained at the airfields and some time on railroad.
It seems German repair service wasn’t very quick at the place in this case. Or these planes has received additional damages during Soviet air raids, for example. Or something else.

About item No.2 (Ju87R-2 WNr.6160 6G+DS, i.e. from II./StG1): production date (Apr.1941) is corresponded to known 61xx series Ju87Rs. Probably WNr.6160 was damaged in Aug.42 like bulk of 1st page entries. II./StG1 really had 3 Ju87R-2 in Aug.42 and according to “Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen” one of them lost due to enemy action. Maybe that's he? Or other lost/damaged Ju87R-2 is known?

As the final fates of these planes wasn’t reported by units to GQM Abt.6, it seems they were (on paper) between the front units and repair units at the time of final loss. Is it right?

Best regards,
Andrey

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Nikita, thank you!

So Ju87R-2 No.6160 was discarded from II./StG1 in Sep.-Oct.42 probably.

Originally Posted by Nikita Egorov

The majority of these 10-30% and so are marked as Er in GQ.

"Majority" - so with some exceptions?

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

hello Juha,

Originally Posted by Juha

One reason might be the supply difficulties. The logistical situation of the German 6th A was rather catastrophic even before the Soviet counteroffensive and the very difficult supply situation might well has its effects on the LW. Maybe many of the damaged planes were kept there as sources for spare parts.

Just a thought.

Maybe you are right. Logistic situation went down every month from July. But it seems the August-September is too early for the word "catastrophic" (my impression is mainly from the excellent Hayward's book "Stopped at Stalingrad").

Best regards,
Andrey

[Nikita Egorov]

My guess is that 6160 may be a wear and tear loss and was not reflected in GQ at all.

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Originally Posted by Nikita Egorov

My guess is that 6160 may be a wear and tear loss and was not reflected in GQ at all.

Maybe it was tear and wear loss initially, yes. But it became a total loss in Nov.42, and nevertheless is absent in GQM returns.

[Nikita Egorov]

Originally Posted by Andrey Kuznetsov

Maybe it was tear and wear loss initially, yes. But it became a total loss in Nov.42, and nevertheless is absent in GQM returns.

It could not appear in GQ since the plane left the unit. All presented in the list were marked as 10-90% of damage and Er together with wear and tear planes moved out of the units, scrapped in Tshir, Oblivskaya etc. Thus, in GQ we see only reason and percentage due to that they were withdrawn from the units.

Just tantamount when damaged plane leaves IAP to PARM for repair and further fate of this plane should be traced in PARMs documents.

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Originally Posted by Nikita Egorov

It could not appear in GQ since the plane left the unit. All presented in the list were marked as 10-90% of damage and Er together with wear and tear planes moved out of the units, scrapped in Tshir, Oblivskaya etc. Thus, in GQ we see only reason and percentage due to that they were withdrawn from the units.

So GQM returns contains only the part of losses, as I try to say from time to time. In the topic about Lfl 4 losses during Apr.-Jun.43 for example:
http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showth...tflotte+losses

Originally Posted by Nikita Egorov

Just tantamount when damaged plane leaves IAP to PARM for repair and further fate of this plane should be traced in PARMs documents.

In Soviet Air Forces all turnover of the planes was in the documents of IAS (Engineer-Aviation Service) of the Air Armies - including repair units (PARM, PAM, SAM etc), at least from 1942-43. I saw the correspondence between Organizational Dept and Aircraft Accounting Dept of 4.VA with detailed analysis of discrepancy in the number of planes. It was because Organizational Dept didn’t accounted the planes en route between front units and repair units. But on Air Army Staff level the full picture was available.

It seems the same info for Luftwaffe is a total blind-spot. We even can’t say now whether the Luftflotte Staff knew the full info or not.