Questions about Operation Steinbock losses

[Simon Trew]

I wonder if forum users can advise me on an issue that is causing me a bit of a headache?

I am currently writing a book for the Osprey ‘Air Campaign’ series about Operation ‘Steinbock.’ This is in addition to ongoing work on my bibliography (described in a series of posts over the weekend and today), plus the day job and domestic duties. Life is busy.

One of the things I am trying to do is get my head around Luftflotte 3 bomber losses from the start of January to the end of May 1944. There are numerous sources that provide various figures, among them a 2008 discussion on this forum partly about this topic that I looked at this morning.

In addition to reading the published sources (starting with Ron Mackay and Simon Parry’s excellent history, then numerous other books – among them, the various published Kampfgeschwader histories), I have been extracting and re-tabulating data from the detailed Luftflotte 3 aircraft loss lists for Jan-May found in TNA AIR 20/7709.

My calculations from the Luftflotte 3 tables can be summarised as follows:

TOTAL LUFTFLOTTE 3 LOSSES (ALL TYPES), January – May (inclusive) 1944

MONTH //// BY ENEMY ACTION (destroyed / damaged) //// ON OPS BUT NOT TO ENEMY (destroyed / damaged) //// NON-OPERATIONAL LOSSES (destroyed / damaged) //// TOTAL DESTROYED / DAMAGED
January //// 159 / 62 //// 46 / 58 //// 84 / 158 //// 289 / 278
February //// 192 / 86 //// 38 / 80 //// 78 / 164 //// 308 / 330
March //// 288 / 110 //// 41 / 47 //// 79 / 163 //// 408 / 320
April //// 260 / 104 //// 38 / 57 //// 78 / 208 //// 376 / 369
May //// 228 / 71 //// 27 / 51 //// 88 / 147 //// 343 / 269
TOTALS //// 1127 / 433 //// 190 / 293 //// 407 / 840 //// 1724 / 1566

A. Of 1724 planes destroyed, 674 (39.1%) were bombers, including: Ju 88 (258); Do 217 (97 – incl. 4 ‘Do 17’); Ju 188 (108); He 177 (74); Fw 190 ‘bombers’ (39); Me 410 (45 – incl. 1 ‘Me 210’); and He 111 ‘bombers’ (53). NB. This figure excludes Fw 200 (categorised in the loss tables as bombers) and also Fw 190 that are categorised as ‘ground-attack’ (as distinct from ‘bombers’).

B. Of 1566 planes damaged, 479 (30.6%) were bombers, including: Ju 88 (195); Do 217 (55 – incl. 3 ‘Do 17’); Ju 188 (69); He 177 (50); Fw 190 ‘bombers’ (31); Me 410 (33); and He 111 ‘bombers’ (46). Again, Fw 200 and Fw 190 G/A are excluded.

C. As far as I’m aware, no He 111 ‘bomber’ participated in any ‘Steinbock’ raid, so if these (53 destroyed and 46 damaged) are deducted, then Luftflotte 3 losses for 1 Jan to 31 May 1944 = 621 bombers destroyed and 433 damaged (excluding Fw 200 and Fw 190 G/A as well as He 111 bombers).

D. Of 621 bombers destroyed, 120 (19.32%) were destroyed on the ground in bombing and strafing attacks (and possibly in a few instances by partisans). Of the 120 destroyed on the ground, 49 (40.8%) were destroyed in April. These all count as ‘operational losses.’

E. Of 433 bombers damaged, 85 (19.63%) were damaged on the ground in bombing and strafing attacks (and possibly in a few instances by partisans). Of the 85 damaged on the ground, 32 (37.6%) were damaged in April. Again, these all count as ‘operational losses.’

F. Data for ‘non-operational losses’ (1) = 113 bombers destroyed, including: Ju 88 (39); Do 217 (19); Ju 188 (17); He 177 (23); Fw 190 ‘bombers’ (5); and Me 410 (10). 621 bombers destroyed MINUS 113 ‘non-operational’ losses MINUS 120 destroyed on the ground = 388 bombers destroyed in the air on operations. As above, this excludes Fw 200, Fw 190 G/A and He 111 ‘bombers.’

G. Data for ‘non-operational losses’ (2) = 182 bombers damaged, including: Ju 88 (91); Do 217 (23); Ju 188 (30); He 177 (17); Fw 190 ‘bombers’ (11); and Me 410 (10). 433 bombers damaged MINUS 182 ‘non-operational’ losses MINUS 85 damaged on the ground = 166 bombers damaged in the air on operations. As above, this excludes Fw 200, Fw 190 G/A and He 111 ‘bombers.’

So, to my questions:

1. Please can you advise me on your views regarding the ‘reliability’ in general terms of Luftflotte 3’s loss tables?

2. Please can you advise me on the distinction likely to have been made by Luftflotte 3 between ‘destroyed’ and ‘damaged’ aircraft? As a sub-question, is it reasonable to assume that some proportion (if so, what proportion) of ‘damaged’ aircraft might subsequently have been written off?

3. Having looked fairly carefully at English-, German- and French-language histories of KG 2 (Balke), KG 6 (Horn, Taghon), KG 51 (Horn), KG 54 (Radtke), KG 66 (Wakefield), KG 76 (Horn – only the briefest participation in ‘Steinbock’), KG 100 (Balke, Roba), I note that numerous aircraft are listed as destroyed or damaged that do not appear in more general histories (especially Mackay & Parry and Parker Luftwaffe Crash Archive 11). Please can you advise me on your views regarding the degree to which this is likely to be true for bomber units that participated in ‘Steinbock’ but for which unit histories do not seem to be available (KG 30 and KG 40?) Common sense suggests that if (for example) Balke lists a not insignificant number of bombers destroyed or damaged for KG 2, then presumably KG 30 and KG 40 had their fair share of otherwise unlisted losses? And forgive me for asking, but am I being ignorant in suggesting that detailed lists of KG 30 and KG 40 losses are not to be found anywhere?

4. Now to the really tricky one! As I understand (misunderstand?) it, KG 26 and (when it eventually arrived) KG 77 operated from southern French bases under the overall command of Luftflotte 3 during the months that concern me. Clearly, they suffered a lot of aircraft (and personnel) losses, and these would need to be subtracted from figures mentioned above in order to establish ‘Steinbock’ losses (IF the KG 26 and KG 77 losses are included in those tables). Yet I cannot get Luftflotte 3 loss tables even remotely to align with information that I have found in various sources about KG 26 and KG 77 losses. As just one example, Trendle (Point Blank 4/44, April 1944, p.119) identifies no fewer than thirteen bombers (twelve Ju 88, one Do 217) lost during the attack on Convoy UGS 37 on the night of 11-12 April 1944. Yet there is no sign of these losses in the Luftflotte 3 loss tables. Admittedly, there are seven Ju 88 listed as destroyed in air combat on 11 April, but they are identified as twin-engine fighters and seem to match (mostly) with ZG 1 losses on that date. So, put simply, were KG 26 and KG 77 losses omitted from Luftflotte 3 tables, either in specific cases or as a general principle? Or have I got something badly wrong in my assumptions / understanding, about which I need to be corrected?

5. Finally, are there any general or specific points that forum users think I need to take into account as I attempt to clarify and analyse Luftflotte 3 losses during ‘Steinbock’? I am trying to come at these questions from various angles, but I am sure things have occurred to other people that have not yet occurred to me!

PS. A thought has just occurred, specifically that ‘Steinbock’ did not begin until late January. So, an argument might be made that bomber losses for the first three weeks of January should be omitted. It seems to me, however, that many of those should be associated with ‘Steinbock’ – for example the four KG 2 Do 217s lost at Gilze-Rijen/Eindhoven on 4 January, which were involved in mission training when intercepted and shot down by RAF Typhoons. Obviously, the ‘appropriateness’ of linking pre-21 January losses to ‘Steinbock’ losses will vary from case to case. Still, it seems a point worth mentioning.

Many thanks in advance for any help and advice that forum users can offer. I hope the synopsis of data presented above is of some interest and assistance.

Simon

[Nick Beale]

As far as I’m aware, no He 111 ‘bomber’ participated in any ‘Steinbock’ raid

I'd agree but some bomber units (I'm thinking of KG 26) did retain a few He 111 for ferrying around personnel and equipment, usually with Geschwader and Gruppe HQ flights. Also (others can confirm/refute) there may have been some in the various France-based IV. Gruppen where bomber units' operational training took place.

[Bombphoon]

Originally Posted by Simon Trew

I wonder if forum users can advise me on an issue that is causing me a bit of a headache?

I am currently writing a book for the Osprey ‘Air Campaign’ series about Operation ‘Steinbock.’ This is in addition to ongoing work on my bibliography (described in a series of posts over the weekend and today), plus the day job and domestic duties. Life is busy.

One of the things I am trying to do is get my head around Luftflotte 3 bomber losses from the start of January to the end of May 1944. There are numerous sources that provide various figures, among them a 2008 discussion on this forum partly about this topic that I looked at this morning.

In addition to reading the published sources (starting with Ron Mackay and Simon Parry’s excellent history, then numerous other books – among them, the various published Kampfgeschwader histories), I have been extracting and re-tabulating data from the detailed Luftflotte 3 aircraft loss lists for Jan-May found in TNA AIR 20/7709.

My calculations from the Luftflotte 3 tables can be summarised as follows:

TOTAL LUFTFLOTTE 3 LOSSES (ALL TYPES), January – May (inclusive) 1944

MONTH //// BY ENEMY ACTION (destroyed / damaged) //// ON OPS BUT NOT TO ENEMY (destroyed / damaged) //// NON-OPERATIONAL LOSSES (destroyed / damaged) //// TOTAL DESTROYED / DAMAGED
January //// 159 / 62 //// 46 / 58 //// 84 / 158 //// 289 / 278
February //// 192 / 86 //// 38 / 80 //// 78 / 164 //// 308 / 330
March //// 288 / 110 //// 41 / 47 //// 79 / 163 //// 408 / 320
April //// 260 / 104 //// 38 / 57 //// 78 / 208 //// 376 / 369
May //// 228 / 71 //// 27 / 51 //// 88 / 147 //// 343 / 269
TOTALS //// 1127 / 433 //// 190 / 293 //// 407 / 840 //// 1724 / 1566

A. Of 1724 planes destroyed, 674 (39.1%) were bombers, including: Ju 88 (258); Do 217 (97 – incl. 4 ‘Do 17’); Ju 188 (108); He 177 (74); Fw 190 ‘bombers’ (39); Me 410 (45 – incl. 1 ‘Me 210’); and He 111 ‘bombers’ (53). NB. This figure excludes Fw 200 (categorised in the loss tables as bombers) and also Fw 190 that are categorised as ‘ground-attack’ (as distinct from ‘bombers’).

B. Of 1566 planes damaged, 479 (30.6%) were bombers, including: Ju 88 (195); Do 217 (55 – incl. 3 ‘Do 17’); Ju 188 (69); He 177 (50); Fw 190 ‘bombers’ (31); Me 410 (33); and He 111 ‘bombers’ (46). Again, Fw 200 and Fw 190 G/A are excluded.

C. As far as I’m aware, no He 111 ‘bomber’ participated in any ‘Steinbock’ raid, so if these (53 destroyed and 46 damaged) are deducted, then Luftflotte 3 losses for 1 Jan to 31 May 1944 = 621 bombers destroyed and 433 damaged (excluding Fw 200 and Fw 190 G/A as well as He 111 bombers).

D. Of 621 bombers destroyed, 120 (19.32%) were destroyed on the ground in bombing and strafing attacks (and possibly in a few instances by partisans). Of the 120 destroyed on the ground, 49 (40.8%) were destroyed in April. These all count as ‘operational losses.’

E. Of 433 bombers damaged, 85 (19.63%) were damaged on the ground in bombing and strafing attacks (and possibly in a few instances by partisans). Of the 85 damaged on the ground, 32 (37.6%) were damaged in April. Again, these all count as ‘operational losses.’

F. Data for ‘non-operational losses’ (1) = 113 bombers destroyed, including: Ju 88 (39); Do 217 (19); Ju 188 (17); He 177 (23); Fw 190 ‘bombers’ (5); and Me 410 (10). 621 bombers destroyed MINUS 113 ‘non-operational’ losses MINUS 120 destroyed on the ground = 388 bombers destroyed in the air on operations. As above, this excludes Fw 200, Fw 190 G/A and He 111 ‘bombers.’

G. Data for ‘non-operational losses’ (2) = 182 bombers damaged, including: Ju 88 (91); Do 217 (23); Ju 188 (30); He 177 (17); Fw 190 ‘bombers’ (11); and Me 410 (10). 433 bombers damaged MINUS 182 ‘non-operational’ losses MINUS 85 damaged on the ground = 166 bombers damaged in the air on operations. As above, this excludes Fw 200, Fw 190 G/A and He 111 ‘bombers.’

So, to my questions:

1. Please can you advise me on your views regarding the ‘reliability’ in general terms of Luftflotte 3’s loss tables?

2. Please can you advise me on the distinction likely to have been made by Luftflotte 3 between ‘destroyed’ and ‘damaged’ aircraft? As a sub-question, is it reasonable to assume that some proportion (if so, what proportion) of ‘damaged’ aircraft might subsequently have been written off?

3. Having looked fairly carefully at English-, German- and French-language histories of KG 2 (Balke), KG 6 (Horn, Taghon), KG 51 (Horn), KG 54 (Radtke), KG 66 (Wakefield), KG 76 (Horn – only the briefest participation in ‘Steinbock’), KG 100 (Balke, Roba), I note that numerous aircraft are listed as destroyed or damaged that do not appear in more general histories (especially Mackay & Parry and Parker Luftwaffe Crash Archive 11). Please can you advise me on your views regarding the degree to which this is likely to be true for bomber units that participated in ‘Steinbock’ but for which unit histories do not seem to be available (KG 30 and KG 40?) Common sense suggests that if (for example) Balke lists a not insignificant number of bombers destroyed or damaged for KG 2, then presumably KG 30 and KG 40 had their fair share of otherwise unlisted losses? And forgive me for asking, but am I being ignorant in suggesting that detailed lists of KG 30 and KG 40 losses are not to be found anywhere?

4. Now to the really tricky one! As I understand (misunderstand?) it, KG 26 and (when it eventually arrived) KG 77 operated from southern French bases under the overall command of Luftflotte 3 during the months that concern me. Clearly, they suffered a lot of aircraft (and personnel) losses, and these would need to be subtracted from figures mentioned above in order to establish ‘Steinbock’ losses (IF the KG 26 and KG 77 losses are included in those tables). Yet I cannot get Luftflotte 3 loss tables even remotely to align with information that I have found in various sources about KG 26 and KG 77 losses. As just one example, Trendle (Point Blank 4/44, April 1944, p.119) identifies no fewer than thirteen bombers (twelve Ju 88, one Do 217) lost during the attack on Convoy UGS 37 on the night of 11-12 April 1944. Yet there is no sign of these losses in the Luftflotte 3 loss tables. Admittedly, there are seven Ju 88 listed as destroyed in air combat on 11 April, but they are identified as twin-engine fighters and seem to match (mostly) with ZG 1 losses on that date. So, put simply, were KG 26 and KG 77 losses omitted from Luftflotte 3 tables, either in specific cases or as a general principle? Or have I got something badly wrong in my assumptions / understanding, about which I need to be corrected?

5. Finally, are there any general or specific points that forum users think I need to take into account as I attempt to clarify and analyse Luftflotte 3 losses during ‘Steinbock’? I am trying to come at these questions from various angles, but I am sure things have occurred to other people that have not yet occurred to me!

PS. A thought has just occurred, specifically that ‘Steinbock’ did not begin until late January. So, an argument might be made that bomber losses for the first three weeks of January should be omitted. It seems to me, however, that many of those should be associated with ‘Steinbock’ – for example the four KG 2 Do 217s lost at Gilze-Rijen/Eindhoven on 4 January, which were involved in mission training when intercepted and shot down by RAF Typhoons. Obviously, the ‘appropriateness’ of linking pre-21 January losses to ‘Steinbock’ losses will vary from case to case. Still, it seems a point worth mentioning.

Many thanks in advance for any help and advice that forum users can offer. I hope the synopsis of data presented above is of some interest and assistance.

Simon

If you're getting to this level of analysis and detail, I'll be buying a copy! Look forward to it. Any idea of publication date?

[Simon Trew]

Hello Bombphoon,

Thanks for your enthusiasm - I appreciate it.

Osprey want the manuscript and illustration briefs by 1 September. I'm not sure of the publication date but they have announced 'Air Campaign' titles up to spring 2023 (I think) and mine isn't among them. So I assume July or maybe autumn 2023.

Other contributors to the forum have written for Osprey and may have a better sense of the interval between manuscript delivery and publication. This is my first book for them so I'm afraid I'm not as clued-up as I might be.

Hope this helps,

Simon

[Chris Goss]

My last book was well over a year from delivery to publication

[Andy Fletcher]

~12 months from delivery of manuscript to planned publication date.

[Simon Trew]

Chris, Andy, thanks for the clarification. I just checked Amazon and they have Air Campaign title releases up to November announced. A year certainly sounds about right, and I guess that given the vast quantities of Osprey releases across diverse series, their machine is a well-oiled one by now.

Simon

[Laurent Rizzotti]

Regarding your 2nd query about the distinction between damaged/destroyed aircraft, the Luftwaffe was using a percentage system. Over 60% the aircraft was damaged beyond repair (or totally lost/missing for 100%) and was counted as destroyed. Under 60% it could be repaired, the place where it could be being linked to the percentage (<10% in the Staffel for example, so often not reported). 60% being the border, it seems to me it was not so clear, and my own expression is German clerks thought the same and don't use it as often as 50% and 70%, but have no number to prove it or not.

But this loss percentage is just an indication of the first report. An aircraft damaged at 50% and loaded in a train could be judged beyond repair when it arrived at the factory suppoed to repair it, while a wreck at 70%/80% could be repaired. Such cases exist in German loss lists... even if a good part are probable WNr errors.
More often, an aircraft damaged around 50%, and so requiring to be sent to a factory to be repaired, couldn't be sent there and will finish in a derelict state when the Allied overan its airfields. My guess will be that this would be the case with probably a good part of the German bombers landing or force-landing in France with heavy damage.

As for your 4th query, I think that the fact of 53 He 111s are included in the Luftflotte 3 tables seem to imply that KG 26 operations over the Med were included in it. If He 111 were not involved in Steinbock, they were used in convoy attacks up to May 1944. In https://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/kampf/bikg26.html we can see that I./KG 26 lost 27 He 111 due to enemy and 5 more without enemy action between January and April 1944.

My last advice would be to cross the Luftflotte 3 with the Flugzeugbestand available on the site https://www.ww2.dk/.

[Simon Trew]

Thank you Laurent, that is very helpful and I am grateful for the response.

So, in short, you think the destroyed / damaged figures in Luftflotte 3's reports are probably generally reliable. Some badly damaged (even 70/80% and therefore 'destroyed' at first glance) planes were repaired but other less badly damaged ones (50% or less) were eventually written off. The two figures probably don't balance (I imagine more lightly damaged planes were eventually written off than very badly damaged ones were eventually repaired), but there is no obvious reason for thinking the 'official' figures crazily out of line with reality.

Thank you for the very helpful suggestion and link to the unit tables of losses and acquisitions. I had that source in my bibliography but for some reason hadn't sued it. It is a thoroughly sensible suggestion and I will go there and tabulate the relevant data.

The thing is that I still have major problems aligning the losses of KG 26 (He 111s) and losses of Ju 88s that 'belonged' to Luftflotte 3 but which were really supporting operations relating more to what was going on in Italy and the wider Mediterranean. This morning I looked at Shores et al Vol 4, plus several other sources that shed light on operations by KG 26, KG 30, KG 76 and KG 77 from January - May 1944 in the Mediterranean. Some of these units certainly were based in southern France and 'technically' under Luftflotte 3's command. But time and again, any attempt to make the Luftflotte 3 loss tables 'fit' with what is recorded of those KG's losses vs convoys and other targets just don't work - and usually by some margin.

One thing does occur to me, which is that possibly losses to units that were based in southern France, under Luftflotte 3's command, might be recorded insofar as they were losses to bombing and strafing attacks on their airfields. Of the 53 He 111s recorded as destroyed, 26 were destroyed on the ground. Maybe losses to He 111s and Ju 88s belonging to KG 26, KG 76, KG 30 and KG 77 were recorded as Luftflotte 3 losses if they were sustained at French airfields, but NOT counted if they were sustained during sorties over the Mediterranean or in support of Luftflotte 2 operations in Italy?? Presumably, in such a case, the 'losses in the air' would fall to Luftflotte 2, or maybe they might be recorded elsewhere??

Does this argument make the slightest sense? Or am I just betraying my ignorance of how things worked in the bits of Luftwaffe bureaucracy that were concerned with such things?

Best,

Simon

[Laurent Rizzotti]

Originally Posted by Simon Trew

As just one example, Trendle (Point Blank 4/44, April 1944, p.119) identifies no fewer than thirteen bombers (twelve Ju 88, one Do 217) lost during the attack on Convoy UGS 37 on the night of 11-12 April 1944. Yet there is no sign of these losses in the Luftflotte 3 loss tables.

I don't know the Luftflotte 3 loss tables, but your sentence may imply that you have number of losses per type and day. It this is the case, you can write on this forum all reported He 111 with number and date and we can try to identify them.

Just two examples, IV./KG 55 (serving as operational training group for KG 55) lost 5 He 111s shot down on 23 April and 4 on 4 May, all shot down by Allied fighters (see https://www.histavia21.net/HISTAV2/Cra1944-1.htm). I don't know if they will be reported to Luftflotte 3 or another command.
In early 1944, many Luftwaffe training units were also based in France, especially SW France, and they lost tens of aicraft each month. I doubt they were reported to Luftflotte 3.
I./ZG 1 (formerly V./KG 40) was flying patrols over Biscay and escorts for convoy attacks in Med, and lost 27 Ju 88s between January and May 1944.

As for units being based in France and reporting losses to Luftflotte 3 for operation northward and to Luftflotte 2 for those southward, I don't believe in it. The Luftwaffe loss record was first used to manage replacement aircraft and crew, and so will be sent to the headquarters from the home base of the unit, not the one responsible for the operation zone.

Just checked the German loss lists for November-December 1943, IV./KG 55 and I./ZG 1 are reported under Luftflotte 3. And losses of KG 26 against a Med convoy on 26 Nov 1943 (Rohna was sunk in this attack) were reported under Luftflotte 3, in a sub-part titled "(Einsatz Süd)".