Were repaired airplanes sometimes counted as new realy?

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Hello,

USSBS report No.59 quoted the following statesment of Dr. Rolf Wagenführ, Statistical Section of the Planungsamt, Speer Armaments Ministry:

Further sources of error are to be found In the way aircraft under repair were accounted for. There were three possibilities of repair which had to be considered:
a. Repair with the troops (not counted in the statistics).
b. Repair requiring up to 1,000 man-hours, which went to the repair shops [according to British report, he said about industry, i.e. probably Frontreparaturbetrieb (GL)]. At first, these repairs were counted as stocks. After the crucial period In i.943, they were no longer considered In the statistics.
c. The normal case: 'Extensive repairs,' which meant that the planes went back to the manufacturers and were counted both as losses and, later, (when they cams back) as new production.

Is the para "c." correct? Does this mean that the damaged Bf109 was actually returning, for example, to the Wiener Neustadt Flugzeugwerke and then it was counted as a new plane? And was the same true if the 'Extensive repair' was in Frontreparaturbetrieb (GL) instead? Where and by whom was it counted for as a loss before it?

Best regards,
Andrey

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

OK. Maybe it's better to ask with an example.

In 1944 a Bf109G-6 suffered 50% damage and sent from the unit to Industrie. In Gen.Qu.Abt.6 it listed as damaged.

What happens to it if it will repaired in:

1. Frontreparaturbetrieb (GL)
2. WNF or Erla etc (if these factories repaired airplanes damaged at the front)

If this plane was first counted as lost, where and who registered it? Or it was just a statistical trick? What happened to its WNr?

Best regards,
Andrey

[Dmitry Volodin]

Some times ago was discussion about aircrafts with two W. Nr. tables. Maybe after repair?

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Hello Dmitry,

Originally Posted by Dmitry Volodin

Some times ago was discussion about aircrafts with two W. Nr. tables

I missed this discussion. Do you have a link?

The aforementioned Rolf Wagenführ in his "Die deutsche Industrie im Kriege 1939-1945" deals with aircraft production in 1944, and fighters in particular, gives statistics, but doesn't mention the inclusion of repaired aircraft in new production, although this would seem to be an essential point.

Best regards,
Andrey

[Kari Lumppio]

Hi!

First I want to say this theme is something I have never researched myself and know little about.

A fellow researcher sent to me this Summer for some reason partial copy of Finnish representative's report about German reparation factory. The pages I have are undated, but in the text is mentioned status February (1944), the year coming from other deductions.

The reparation factory was Amme-Luther-Seck-Werke G.m.b.H (A.L.S) at Wien-Atzgersdorf. At the time (early 1944) they repaired only Bf 109 G -planes.


Some unarranged points from the text:

• Repair (remanufacture) and new build factories were separated
• Repair functions were spread to several smaller specialized factories
• Every repair factory specialized only on one aircraft type
• A.L.S did not manufacture any parts. Only disassembly, some repairs and assembly.
• parts over 50% damaged were discarded (not repaired nor used in the repairs)
• A.L.S had production target of 40 repaired planes per month and had 70-80 planes "on floor" simultaneously.
• A.L.S additionally had about 50 Bf 109 bombing damaged fuselages from Wiener Neustad (WNF?) which were repaired and assembled to aircrafts beside the main repair work.

The report mentions that one of the (first 30) Bf 109 G-2 to Finnish AF was repaired by A.L.S. I do not know which one. All Werke Nummern for those are known and AFAIK were for "new build" factories. So, even if counted new aircraft in statistics, seems no new W.Nr. for the plane? Something to research more deeply as this is only my deduction (read: guess).

I have absolutely no idea how this goes together with other sources on the matter (are there any books, articles or such?)

Cheers,
Kari

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Kari, thank you a lot!

Originally Posted by Kari Lumppio

parts over 50% damaged were discarded (not repaired nor used in the repairs)

Exactly the parts, not 50%-damaged planes?

Originally Posted by Kari Lumppio

So, even if counted new aircraft in statistics, seems no new W.Nr. for the plane?

Judging by your example, the old WNr really remained.

Cheers,
Andrey

[Kari Lumppio]

Hi!

The 50 % economical repair threshold was in effect for both whole airplanes and parts.

In earlier message I overlooked this report sentence:
"...peruskorjauksissa kunnostetaan vain alle 50% vaurioituneet koneet, huonommat puretaan varaosiksi."
Major repairs are performed only to less than 50% damaged planes, worse are disassembled for spare parts

(free translation by me, peruskorjaus can also include remanufacturing level stuff).


Cheers,
Kari

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Kari, thank you again!

Very useful info.

Cheers,
Andrey

[ArtieBob]

Andrey,
In several ways this thread relates to the one I am already working on with you, sorry for my delays. First, there are two main documents I am using when working with LW aircraft supply. First is the C-Amt Monatsmeldung and second is the Flugzeugverteilung. I have an incomplete copy of the C-Amt and successors for Jan. 44 to Jan. 45. It is a periodic report of Neubauflugzeuge supply by 8-Nummer, sub-type, and location plus Umbau, but not Reparatur. The second document translates pretty directly into aircraft distribution and there are copies of that through Mar. 45. It has information as to quantities by 8-Nummer, but not sub-type or location, most months have data for both Neu. and Rep. plus distribution destinations (Lfl. level, not individual units). In many instances, the Neubau quantities between the two reports are similar, but not exactly the same. It seems clear that Reparatur quantities are in addition to Neubau quantities. I do not know sources for data in the two report series, if we did it might help to explain differences. But it does seem clear that repaired aircraft were not considered new production. However, this is WW II Luftwaffe and there are probably exceptions to almost any normal "rule".

Next is the issue of whether there were new assignments of W.Nr. for repaired aircraft. My W.Nr.data (reasonably complete for Ju 88s) only has turned up one exception, the assignment of 5901xx W.Nr. to Mistel 3s (example: Ju 88G-1 W.Nr.714793 was the lower component of Mistel W.Nr.590156). I haven't checked recently but IIRC the Bf 109 G-12 conversions all retained their original W.Nr.

But LW aircraft production was a huge endeavor, and the sheer number of documents is difficult to combine into a single definitive record. In working on Ju 88 production, I collected at least 70 primary and secondary document, few of them agree exactly. The differences could result from a long list of causes, perhaps most depending from which side of the supply chain one is looking. If the C-Amt is a valid measuring stick, it appears that a US document I have located was made from a complete set of the Monatsmeldung from 1941 to 1944. So far my cross checking has been almost 100% (One value was off by 2, probably a typo.)
ArtieBob

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Hello Artie,

thank you a lot!

Originally Posted by ArtieBob

It is a periodic report of Neubauflugzeuge supply by 8-Nummer, sub-type, and location plus Umbau, but not Reparatur.

What is a "8-Nummer"?

Originally Posted by ArtieBob

But it does seem clear that repaired aircraft were not considered new production.

Thank you for the clarification. That's what I thought.

Originally Posted by ArtieBob

Next is the issue of whether there were new assignments of W.Nr. for repaired aircraft. My W.Nr.data (reasonably complete for Ju 88s) only has turned up one exception, the assignment of 5901xx W.Nr. to Mistel 3s (example: Ju 88G-1 W.Nr.714793 was the lower component of Mistel W.Nr.590156). I haven't checked recently but IIRC the Bf 109 G-12 conversions all retained their original W.Nr.

Mistel's exception is understandable and does not change the overall picture.

Thank you for your input. Very informative.

Best regards,
Andrey