Luftflotte 4 losses Apr.-Jun.1943: a comparison of the different data

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Hello Andreas,

Thank you for the answer

Regards,
Andrey

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

New example of remarkable discrepancy between different German sources:

It is a fragment of German report about Soviet aviation activity 23.Jun.42:
http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/attach...1&d=1432415534

Among victims of the bombing of Bryansk airfield are listed the following FW189:

1 - 90%, 1 - 70%, 4 - 50%, 1 - 30%. In all 7 FW189 with damages 30% or higher.

GQM returns:
23 June during the bombing of Bryansk airfield:
w/n 0197 from 2.(H)/13 - 70%
w/n 2193 from 2.(H)/13 - 60%
w/n 2192 from 2.(H)/13 - 30%
All in all 3 instead of 7 losses.

Also, for comparison with “Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen”:
26 June w/n 2187 from 2.(H)/13 - 25% without enemy action.
So in GQM returns for June 4 FW189 with damages 25-70%

July GQM returns for 2.(H)/13:
9 July w/n 2111 - 25% due to enemy action
18 July w/n 0072 - 25% without enemy action
19 July w/n 0154 - 20% due to enemy action
All in all 3 FW189 with damages 20-25%

“Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen” for 2.(H)/13:
June 1942: 2 losses due to enemy action
July 1942: 3 to Überholung (overhaul)

It looks like two most damaged FW189 were written off and maybe 3 other were sent to Überholung in the next month, and the rest were repaired within the unit

Anyway for June losses of 2.(H)/13, from minimum 8 FW189 with damages 25-90% only half (4) are listed in GQM returns. 50% are missed.

[Andreas Brekken]

Originally Posted by Andrey Kuznetsov

Anyway for June losses of 2.(H)/13, from minimum 8 FW189 with damages 25-90% only half (4) are listed in GQM returns. 50% are missed.

Or the information, most likely with regards to damage extent, was corrected in a later correspondance that we do not have.

We have a hint with regards to the Einsatzbereitschaft of the unit, were it was reported as 9 FW 189, 7 serviceable on June 20th 1942 - and 8 FW 189 on June 30th, but only 4 serviceable.

The possibility that the unit received a large number of replacement aircraft of this type in such a short timespan is rather slim, looking at the Zuweisungen for June 1942, there is definitely no large number of FW 189 for the Luftwaffenkommand Ost which commanded the unit at the time - in reality it seems they have not requested any between June 16th an June 30th - possibly due to having 8 airframes available - even if the number of serviceable was only 4 on the 30th.

On July 10th the unit report 6 aircraft, 4 serviceable, most likely 2 of the 3 mentioned as sent to overhaul in July are the 2 deducted in the strength return.

A very nice find Andrey, hopefully it is possible to find something else to make this even clearer.

Regards,
Andreas B

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Hello Andreas,

thank you, valuable as always.

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

We have a hint with regards to the Einsatzbereitschaft of the unit, were it was reported as 9 FW 189, 7 serviceable on June 20th 1942 - and 8 FW 189 on June 30th, but only 4 serviceable.

Do you have the data for June 10th and July 20th? It may make clear the timeframe of delivery and “Abgang”.
And, June 20th, for example - is it the evening data or morning?

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

Or the information, most likely with regards to damage extent, was corrected in a later correspondance that we do not have.

I’ll try to find the June-July reports, maybe they contains a correction really.

Or maybe among 7 damaged FW189 were planes from other units or (more likely) planes in repair units.

Regards,
Andrey

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Yet another attempt to define whether the comparison of data in “Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen” with Gen.Qu.6.Abt. returns can help in verifying of the losses level.

In April 1943 only two FW189 units had operated with 17th German army (AOK17) on Kuban bridgehead – 1.(H)/21 and 7.(H)/32 (both under Stab NAGr9).

According to “Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen”, washout (Abgang) on April was:
1.(H)/21: 3 FW189 = 1 due to enemy action + 2 without enemy action [also 1 to tear-and-wear repair]
7.(H)/32: 1 FW189 (due to enemy action) [also 1 to tear-and-wear repair]

Losses in Gen.Qu.6.Abt. returns:

1.(H)/21:
2.4.43 FW189A-3 due to enemy action (90%) and nothing more.
So 2 losses/damages without enemy action are absent

7.(H)/32:
28.4 FW189A-3 due to enemy action (100%)
30.4 FW189A-3 due to enemy action (100%)
(20% damage 17.4.43 and 10% damage 30.4.43 ignored as probably repaired in the unit)
Both 100-% losses dates are correct (confirmed by German army units evidences).

So 1 loss « superfluous» [or it accounted as tear-and-wear].
Maybe «superfluous» loss was accounted in 1.(H)/21 instead of 7.(H)/32 for some reason (for example, crew was from 1.(H)/21 and the plane from 7.(H)/32), but it is strange. And, anyway, the absence in Gen.Qu.6.Abt. returns at least 1 loss of 1.(H)/21 remains unexplainable.

And due to zero losses in both in May 1943 (apart from tear-and-wear repair) it is impossible to explain the discrepancy in April through transfer of April’s losses to May reports.

Looks like some tear-and-wear washouts in «Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen» are losses really.

For the analysis, maybe 10-days strength reports are exists for these units?

[Andreas Brekken]

Hello, Andrey!

I can check the strength reports.

It is possible that the discrepancies for April is due to spill over from March. I see that the Abgang for March is only one aircraft, while I have three aircraft reported as damaged.

It is of course also possible that they damaged two aircraft (not enemy inflicted) with a damage percentage that did not neccessitate a GenQu report - but that they had to write these off later due to the fact that they were abandoned.

Also - I note that the loss reports for March and April were filed in May, it is possible that some of the reports did not reach the designated office at GenQu level due to the fact that it was a war going on.

Strength reports for Nahaufklärungsgruppe 9 (Verband Ist/Ensatzbereit):

10.03.43:
1./21 10/8
7./32 9/5

20.03.43:
1./21 10/9
7./32 10/4

31.03.43:
1./21 10/6
7./32 11/8

10.04.43:
1./21 9/7
7./32 11/8

20.04.43:
Stab 1/1 Bf 109
1./21 6/4
7./32 6/4

30.04.43:
Stab 1/0 Bf 109
1./21 6/4
7./32 9/6

10.05.43:
Stab 1/1 Bf 109
1./21 10/9
7./32 7/6

20.05.43:
Stab 1/1 Bf 109, 1/0 FW 189
1./21 10/9
7./32 7/6

31.05.43:
Stab 1/1 Bf 109
1./21 9/9
7./32 6/6

These numbers are consistent with the number of aircraft on the end of month dates as reported in the Flugzeugbestand- und Bewegungsmeldungen.

Posting this for now - more to follow on analysis!

Regards,
Andreas B

Originally Posted by Andrey Kuznetsov

Yet another attempt to define whether the comparison of data in “Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen” with Gen.Qu.6.Abt. returns can help in verifying of the losses level.

In April 1943 only two FW189 units had operated with 17th German army (AOK17) on Kuban bridgehead – 1.(H)/21 and 7.(H)/32 (both under Stab NAGr9).

According to “Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen”, washout (Abgang) on April was:
1.(H)/21: 3 FW189 = 1 due to enemy action + 2 without enemy action [also 1 to tear-and-wear repair]
7.(H)/32: 1 FW189 (due to enemy action) [also 1 to tear-and-wear repair]

Losses in Gen.Qu.6.Abt. returns:

1.(H)/21:
2.4.43 FW189A-3 due to enemy action (90%) and nothing more.
So 2 losses/damages without enemy action are absent

7.(H)/32:
28.4 FW189A-3 due to enemy action (100%)
30.4 FW189A-3 due to enemy action (100%)
(20% damage 17.4.43 and 10% damage 30.4.43 ignored as probably repaired in the unit)
Both 100-% losses dates are correct (confirmed by German army units evidences).

So 1 loss « superfluous» [or it accounted as tear-and-wear].
Maybe «superfluous» loss was accounted in 1.(H)/21 instead of 7.(H)/32 for some reason (for example, crew was from 1.(H)/21 and the plane from 7.(H)/32), but it is strange. And, anyway, the absence in Gen.Qu.6.Abt. returns at least 1 loss of 1.(H)/21 remains unexplainable.

And due to zero losses in both in May 1943 (apart from tear-and-wear repair) it is impossible to explain the discrepancy in April through transfer of April’s losses to May reports.

Looks like some tear-and-wear washouts in «Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen» are losses really.

For the analysis, maybe 10-days strength reports are exists for these units?

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Hello Andreas!

Thank you, your answer is valuable as always.

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

It is possible that the discrepancies for April is due to spill over from March. I see that the Abgang for March is only one aircraft, while I have three aircraft reported as damaged.

It seems only two damaged because Nr.2190 and Nr.2156 is the same plane really (the same crew, date, place and damage level in both records).

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

It is of course also possible that they damaged two aircraft (not enemy inflicted) with a damage percentage that did not neccessitate a GenQu report - but that they had to write these off later due to the fact that they were abandoned.

Seems unlikely for April because FW189s had used Kertsch and sometimes Anapa airfields, both airfields were lost too many months later. Nothing like emergency evacuation with abandonment of unserviceable planes.

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

Also - I note that the loss reports for March and April were filed in May, it is possible that some of the reports did not reach the designated office at GenQu level due to the fact that it was a war going on.

Maybe.
But the «superfluous» loss in 7.(H)/32 remains unexplainable. 7.(H)/32 looks strange a bit in April.
Seemingly during 11-20.Apr. 5 FW189 were transferred to other unit (or maybe to repairing unit) and during 21-31.Apr. they has returned, and these movements were ignored by Bewegungsmeldungen.
Also, against two 100-% combat losses (and a 10-% combat damage, that maybe was repaired within the Staffel) we have in Bewegungsmeldungen 1 combat loss and one Überholung. Looks like 1 combat loss was recorded as Überholung for some unknown reason. Both losses were recorded immediately in the reports of several army units so they weren’t “doubtful cases”.
Spilling over to May is impossible due to zero losses in May’s Bewegungsmeldungen. Abgang of 6 (!) FW189 to Überholung only. GQM returns listed two combat damages (35% and 25%). Maybe these damages were repaired within the unit of course, though both damages not looks very slight.

Interesting that 1 FW189 has appeared in Stab NAGr9 during 11-20.May and disappeared again before 31.May. Wonder if something known about that plane.

Best regards,
Andrey

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

And about 1.(H)/21 in April.

1-10.Apr.43:
decrement from 10 to 9.
It is a combat loss 2.Apr.43,

11-20.Apr.43:
decrement from 9 to 6.
According to Bewegungsmeldung for Apr.43, it is 1 Überholung and 2 losses without enemy action.
Both losses are absent in Gen.Qu.6.Abt. returns.

21-30.Apr.43: no changes

In May 1943 no losses (apart from 3 Überholung), so the missed April losses weren't spilled over to May or they were accounted as Überholung in May.

Best regards,
Andrey

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Another case

I./StG3
April 1943:
According to GQM returns, 11 losses (damages 50-100%) and 4 moderate damaged (15–20%)
According to Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen: 12 due to enemy and 5 without enemy action.
So 2-6 planes are absent in GQM returns.

One of them probably Ju87 crashed during combat mission 4.Apr.43. According to German army reports, one of Ju87 crashed (abgestürzt) between Krymskaja and Moldawanskaja (Taman bridgehead) after an abandoned (due to bad visibility) bombing of Soviet positions. The loss in question is absent in GQM returns.
It isn’t clear whether the plane was hit by Soviet AA fire or not.

As I./StG3 was the sole Stuka group operated on Kuban on 4.Apr.43, the crashed plane was from that group undoubtedly

May 1943:
GQM returns: 5 losses (90-100%) and 2 damaged Ju87 (15-30%)
Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen: 2 due to enemy and 7 without enemy action
So 2-4 planes are absent in GQM returns.

June 1943:
GQM returns: 3 losses (100%) and 3 damaged Ju87 (15-40%)
Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen: 1 due to enemy and 3 without enemy action
It is probably correct if 15% and 30% damages were repaired within the unit.

As in the previous case (with close recce units), maybe 10-days strength reports can help.

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Additional question about I./StG3.

1.Apr.43 the group had 49 (!) Ju87. What is the reason for that overstrength?
And how many planes were serviceable among these 49?

Best regards,
Adrey