GQM vs "Bestand und Bewegungsmeldungen"

[kalender1973]

Hello,

I have always interests if the “Bestand und Bewegungsmeldungen”(BBM) and GQM loss list are consistent and the data correlation between two lists is possible. As sample, I take an lost list from Martin Pegg’s “Hs 129” for year 1942(april-december) for II./SchG 1 and data for this unit from Michael Holm page. The result is some confusing for me. On the one hand, the loss summary is quite the same: 54 plane lost due Martin Pegg loss list (based as I assume on GQM list) and 56 plane lost due Holm’s page. But on the other hand, the monthly distribution is different. I could not found the month where the numbers from GQM and numbers from BBM are the same. The differences are sometimes high, e.g. april: due GQM 3 losses, due BBM no losses or june 8 losses due GQM vs 5 losses due BBM.

I am sure that for the other units and aircraft types I will have the same problem.

Could somebody explain this ?

Furthemore it looks for me that even the 15% plane damage caused, that plane must be withdraw from unit for external repair, otherwise the differences are even higher.

Best regards and thanks

[edNorth]

Hi Igor;

I tried matching losses for some Ju 88 Recce units from 6.Abt and BBM docs, where losses were few, many or most matched, but in other cases not! I came to the conclusion that BBM could be simply paper strength!
Matching can not be done accuaretely, as the real war was a different matter. Some losses were reported late (often 6 months or more in MTO), was it thats units plane, was plane borrowed from other unit?, that affecting statistics too. More comments from others are welcome.

cheers
ed

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi, Ed

I believe your comments to be very important.

The easiest way to do this comparison in my opinion is to use the summary loss records (which are numbers and dates only reflections of the GQM returns).

I have the Summary loss records in my SQL database, and if someone would volunteer to enter the records for the Bestand und Bewegungsmeldungen into my database, we would be able to compare these records instantly for any given unit in the period June 1941 through January 1945.

Regards,
Andreas B

[kalender1973]

Hi,

@Ed
I assume that the records for recce units are the most precise. The recce staffel was a small unit and they have not the repairs possibilities as e.g. bomber or fighter geschwader. I know at least one case, when the losses was not reported to GQM and the planes was "leased" by IV education group(LG 1, june 1942, Helbig)
It is clear also, that the GQM losses did not used for planes replacement, there are too late for this. But with this statistic, the LW can calculate e.g. the average "life expectation" of the planes and plans there production line.

@Andreas
I would sudgest to try to verify some units as example. E.g. one figther group for the east, west, some bomber groups, recce. And than, may be we can extrapolate. Or your data are not unit specific ? Then we can make the same for one time period, e.g. for half year.

But my main problem is still available: is the part of german archiv data is not reliable or accurate??

Best regards

[Pawel Burchard]

As far as I can say, the most reliable source for loss data when personal losses were involved are NVMs. GQM records are fairly accurate but there are some examples in timeframe that I research that the date could be a bit off, and misspelled names are common.

regards,
Pawel