German aircraft production and losses 1939-45 and RL2-VI/204

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Hello!

Yesterday I discovered that RL2-VI/202 is already available online. Very interesting figures, and no less interesting comments.
At the end of the document, due to a damaged page, part of the results for 30.9.44 are not visible ("davon Verbaende" und Schulen). But the lower part of the digits of the line "davon Verbaende" is visible, and with some probability we can assume what these numbers are.

On luftarchiv.de figures from this document are laid out, although the reference itself (RL2-VI/202) is not directly indicated. There the results for 30.9.44 are given in full. Interestingly, is this a reconstruction based on the lower part of the digits and arithmetic operations, or is there some other document where these numbers are?
And one more difference: the production of aircraft 1.9.39-31.3.45 according to RL2-VI/202 = 13500, and according to luftarchiv.de = 13609. Where did 109 more planes come from?

And a more global question: is there now more precise credible data on the production and losses of German aircraft in 1939-45 than in the RL2-VI/202?
Of course I understand that it is impossible to establish absolutely accurate data.

Best regards,
Andrey

P.S. Sorry for the mistake in the topic title. Should be RL2-VI/202, not 204

[edNorth]

No need, the figures are there, but BArch scanner person has failed see page is crumpled, partly obscuring two five figure words. Person with simple camera and fingers (in glove of course) can unhinge paper so to speak, to read them. I come across many production plan in BAMA on my trips there, that are in such condition, on verge of turning to dust, or break-apart. I will look if I can find pictures of this doc taken elsewhere.

I presume figures on website are correct, if not, just another fail on that website. Everybody has fails, mis-info or plain wrong info these days. It´s the accepted norm to present "scewed reality". Else it dos not slip be the algorithms (sic).

BTW The colum setup in doc of adding Repaired to Newbau skews the picture. This is not Luftwaffe doc per se, but made be Allies.These are not exact figures, just what Allied Intelligance came up with, 1945, based on the documents they had. These are not "Production correct" but what Luftwaffe RLM LC or LE Departments gave. I Have studied one type in there and these are not ACTUAL totals made I like admit. More often than not a Repair plane was also Newbau, and Umbau also. (These are more like unchecked acceptance figures, with all them quirks that follow.)

You need understand Luftwaffe figures were often inaccurate, because
Changes-in-production (plan versus reality), many schenarios and different departments making the totals.

Ed

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Thank you, Ed!

Originally Posted by edNorth

BArch scanner person has failed see page is crumpled

Maybe.

Originally Posted by edNorth

This is not Luftwaffe doc per se, but made be Allies.These are not exact figures, just what Allied Intelligance cam up with, 1945, based on the documents they had.

The document shows that its originator was Maj.Platt [Gruppenleiter III of Gen.Qu.6 Abt. Siegfried Platt] and the document was signed by a German Major General with an illegible signature. So it was written for the Allies, but by 6.Abt. and no doubt it is the primary source.

Originally Posted by edNorth

More often than not a Repair plane was also Newbau, and Umbau also.

Do you mean that the same aircraft was Neubau at first, and then was counted as Reparatur (perhaps more than once) and possibly also as Umbau? Or the part of Umbau and Reparatur were sometimes counted as Neubau?

Best regards,
Andrey

[edNorth]

Q1. Page is crumpled, fact, not maybe.
Q2. Yes, many reports were written up for Allies, either by free will or by orders. I always doupt these kind of record, they are under influence.
- I know where they fail - And I will show that in my work (book). - I have studied this one type production for over 30 years and stick to my research, I belive that many ignore "irregularities" or take Plan as the Holy Grail. In these figures the Ju 88 spare fuselages are not counted, nor spares at all, or add Ju 188, 388, 488 (to make Grand total) and if half each a/c was made by Junkers and other half by other (Licence factory), you get into troble saying Primary or Licence. Or if some were rejected? This still counts! You need add correct figures, but you need sort correctly. If you want statistics be correct, just compare Oranges and Apples to as many Bananas, and throw in percentages ...
Q3. Yes, Yes and No No. Fact: Many REP aircraft were made into new variants, and counted in that variant totals, if adding all variants litterally this affects GRAND total being too high. So basically only Newbau, but add all lost before delivery or in factory (airstrikes) or rejects. For presenting actual totals built you need do survey all, by W.Nr. (or the part bearing fuselage W.Nr, which is the rear fuselage) but if you add old tail to new fuselage, it does not alter numbers built (but it changes numbers repaired). But this is impossible task and one must accept tiny errors, MACH 1,78 or MACH 1,8 are nearly the same, just tiny different. but keep REP separate (its Apples you see).

Found missing figures from other file I have.
"davon Verbande" 12.231 (line crumpled)
"Schulen 9.738 (line crumpled)
"im werften und reserve Bestande" 2.305
"Sonstige" 2.768
"Reparatur - Industri" 3.934
----------------------------
Gesamt 30.976

Ed

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Hello Ed,

I hope to see your book someday. Will it be about Ju88 and its subsequent variants?

Originally Posted by edNorth

Q2. Yes, many reports were written up for Allies, either by free will or by orders. I always doupt these kind of record, they are under influence.

What might this influence have been? Why in this case could the Allies be interested in false figures? I don't see why.

Undoubtedly, not all aircraft were accounted for by the 6.Abt., and there were other problems with accounting including the losses before delivery. Major Platt himself wrote about it in the comments.

Originally Posted by edNorth

Many REP aircraft were made into new variants, and counted in that variant totals

So they were counted as both REP and Umbau? If not, it doesn't seem to affect the totals.

Originally Posted by edNorth

MACH 1,78 or MACH 1,8

What is it MACH?

Originally Posted by edNorth

Found missing figures from other file I have.

If it's not a secret, what is the BAMA reference?

Best regards,
Andrey

[igorrB]

There is better quality same table in RL 2-VI/199. "Davon Verbande 12231, Schulen 9738..."

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Thank you a lot!