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

[Laurent Rizzotti]

I will not add much to the discussion, except one personnal opinion and one question.

I have always thought that the losses reported in the "Bestand und Bewegungsmeldungen" were not only total losses, but all aircraft destroyed and damaged enough to be repaired outside the unit.

Can someone confirm this from official Luftwaffe documentation ?

[Andreas Brekken]

Hello, Laurent.

You are correct. I will type down some info on this later ln tonight.

Regards,
Andreas B

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi, guys.

Had to work last night = no Luftwaffe research.

With regards to your question, Laurent, the distinction is clear (and I include the German original text so that we do not get confused):

First on damaged aircraft:

Bei Brüchen unter 60% hat der Verband zu melden, ob das Flugzeug zur Reperatur-Industrie geht und an wen es übergeben wird. Soweit diese Angaben nicht mit der Verlustmeldung noch nict abgegeben können, sind sie unter Bezug auf die Werknummer nachzuholen. Andernfalls wird angenommen, daß Wiederherstellung in eigener Werft bzw. durch Schnellreparatur-Kolonnen oder auf den Stützpunkthorsten erfolg; für diese Flugzeuge erfolgt keine Ersatzgestellung.

Thus the unit was supposed to report losses under 60% also, and to indicate to which repair unit the aircraft were delivered for repair. If this was not indicated on the report sheet (column Bemerkungen - Comments) it was implied that the aircraft would be put back into operational state by local means (mentioned is local repairs at the unit, at the larger airfields with better facilities as opposed to the frontline bases - or by the fast repair units (Schnellreparatur-Kolonnen)).

So to make a long comment shorter - the number of losses reported in the Bestands- und Bewegungsmeldungen consist of all losses with and without personnel losses involved and an estimated damage of above 10%. I cannot repeat this often enough - smaller damages which were estimated by technicians to be below 10% was NEVER reported unless by error - and if they were erronously reported, they were often stricken by a correction report later.

So the 'missing' losses in the Luftflotte 4 records would with a high degree of probability be losses of aircraft only, no personnel injuries etc involved.

I have attached a screenshot of an example of a report I have a copy of which is used as an example for the units on how to fill out the report - so the units etc can be masked - even if it seems the Ju 88 Werknummern are valid...

I also have other lists which is 'the real thing' for a given unit, but as this is going to be used in the upcoming book by Kjetil Åkra, me and a couple of authors which I can not disclose at this time, I can not publish it here now.

Regards,
Andreas B

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Hi Andreas,

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

Hi, guys.
So to make a long comment shorter - the number of losses reported in the Bestands- und Bewegungsmeldungen consist of all losses with and without personnel losses involved and an estimated damage of above 10%.

About the 10%: do you mean the reports such as the document which you kindly attached to your post or the de-identify Bestands- und Bewegungsmeldungen published by Michael Holm? No doubts that 'Abgang' columns in the Holm’s tables not include the planes whose repair was possible by local means, so the bulk of 10%-39% wasn’t included.

By the way, too few 'Er' remarks are in the 'Ers.Erf.' column (means that replacement is required for the damaged aircraft) in GQM returns for Luftflotte 4 on Apr.-Jun.43. It seems the units reports has ignored this column in the most cases. If this guess is incorrect, the difference between number of losses in GQM returns and in Bewegungsmeldungen is far higher than 60+ % in my calculation posted some days before.

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

Hi, guys.
So the 'missing' losses in the Luftflotte 4 records would with a high degree of probability be losses of aircraft only, no personnel injuries etc involved.

Probably yes with few exceptions.

One of the possibly exceptions (from Chronik KG27 Bd.5 by Walter Waiss, s.115-116):
14.(Eis)/KG27 He111 1G+KY 28.04.1943 Start from Kirowograd at 21:00, shot down by AAA fire. Lt Karl Schmidt (FF) and Fw Heinz Hoffmann (BF) became the POWs in Lager 27. Humpe (BO), unnamed BM and
war correspondent Lt Schäfer (as BS) KIA.
As far as I know these losses are absent in GQM and NVM returns

Whether the some documents like in your attachment for the Luftflotte 4 on the timeframe in question has survived the war?

[/quote]

Best regards,
Andrey

[Matti Salonen]

I have this loss on another day (according to WASt info):
1943-08-09, 14./KG 27, He 111 H-16, 160277, 1G+HY, (Belgorod - Kursk), Flakbeschuß um 20.57 Uhr. Bruch 100 %.
Flugzeugführer Lt Schmid, Karl, vermißt
Beobachter Uffz Humpe, Hannes, vermißt
Bordfunker Fw Hofmann (Hoffmann?), Johann, vermißt
Bordwart Uffz Derfert, Otto, vermißt
Bordschütze (Kr.Ber.) Lt Schaefer, Helmut, vermißt
Have I made a typo or misred the documents or what?

Matti

P.S. If you look at the book of Waiss, you will find this loss also on page 189. The info on page 115-116 must be an error.

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Hello Matti,

thank you! You a right undoubtedly, Waiss has placed that loss twice. Moreover, on page 151 Hoffmann and Humpe are listed in Ist-Bestand for 24.Jun.43, i.e. two months after their "loss" on 28.Apr.

Best regards,
Andrey

[Andreas Brekken]

Hello.

This loss is in the GenQu loss list:

http://www.aviationhistory.no/ref_db...?lossid=123287

Regards,
Andreas B

[Andreas Brekken]

Hello, Andrey.

All losses with a loss percentage ABOVE 10% was to be reported - with no regards to if it could be repaired by local means.

If it could be repaired locally, there was to be no request for Ersatz and the aircraft would be treated as still on the strength of the original Halter. We can find these aircraft all over the loss records, with no 'Er' marking in the loss record. It is obvious when you have studied these reports for a while that the local capabilities varied largely - and some units would request Ersatz for aircraft with far lower damage percentage (or it could be the type of damage sustained) than others.

Mathematically we could set up an equation for this for a given month - with groups or sets that are partially overlapping.

One group are the aircraft reported to GenQu 6 Abt which SHOULD be all sustained losses with a damage percentage estimated at over 10%. Thus the only situation were we should have discrepancies are where there has been corrections not carried over to another statistical level of aggregations (which could happen - as the Bestands- und Bewegungsmeldungen were filed on a given date - and correction coming in a year later would not be taken into account).

(I just wish I had located a damage assessment form - someone out there must have kept at least one! Problem is that these were most probably kept at unit level and most technical unit level documentation for the Luftwaffe was bombed and burnt. My hope is to find something in the UK and/or US archives.)

In cases where there are larger discrepancies and we suspect that the detailed 'line by line' reports are not exhaustive - we should take into account the Bestands- und Bewegungsmeldungen were we will then have to know what aircraft that would be in them - namely all aircraft that the unit had to replace which could include all the above - but where the number could be lower than the total aircraft involved in an incident - because a given number of aircraft could have been repaired at the unit or by the means I mentioned in my second to last post.

The numbers of 'losses' if we are to call it that will the for a given unit and period be at least as high as the numbers relayed by the Bestands- und Bewegungsmeldungen and the mimimum number being the number of registered entries by the GenQu 6 Abt.

The problem is that it seems that when we talk about 'losses' or 'claims' there are no real interest in differentiating these on either 'side' of the discussion. If we say that a loss is only counted when the crew is dead, the aircraft beyind any kind of repair - then it would be quite easy - and the losses few.

Another thing which I find that some researchers seem to be unable to get is the '10% rule' - if the damage is very small - lets say a couple of small calibre rounds penetrating the skin of an aircraft - this would never be reported, or a undercarriage leg collapsed but there were no structural damage. Someone could state (I have seen it done) that 'I have a photo of a Luftwaffe aircraft with a flak hole in the elevator and the WNr xxxx - and this is not showing in the GenQu reports - so the Luftwaffe loss numbers are falsified and can not be trusted at all!'. This is lack of knowledge - but sadly it seems that to try to enlighten those 'researchers' is futile - and I have refrained from it lately - not worth the time spent.

And then we have the 100% losses - most of them listed as missing (Vermisst). For some reason people get very upset when a 100% loss (missing) or even 100% loss shot down reappear in the lists. But on all fronts the front line moves. A belly landed aircraft due to fuel starvation, overheating or whatever - recovered within days or weeks would certainly be repaired! And counted in the large aggregated statistics as two losses if it was damaged again.

I believe that an important task for all the professional, semi-professional and amateur researchers of the WWII is to try, with an open mind, to understand the systems, and also acknowledge them.

In my case I have a detailed knowledge down to the point that if there are obvious errors in the GenQu 6 Abt lists - Stabsh. Scheibert-Ruda, Obergefreiter Wikowski and Stabsh. Rakofski have been slacking in their duties (or some of the units have not delivered their reports). If there are problems with the prosessing of the NVMs (Vordruck II), we would have to ask Fw. Stiemerling or Stabsh. Prüsse about that!

But more of all that in the upcoming article.

Regards,
Andreas B

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Hello Andreas,

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

This loss is in the GenQu loss list:
http://www.aviationhistory.no/ref_db...?lossid=123287

Yes, no doubts now that Waiss gave that loss twice erroneously.

About the rest of questions a bit later today.

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Hello Andreas,

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

If it could be repaired locally, there was to be no request for Ersatz and the aircraft would be treated as still on the strength of the original Halter. We can find these aircraft all over the loss records, with no 'Er' marking in the loss record. It is obvious when you have studied these reports for a while that the local capabilities varied largely - and some units would request Ersatz for aircraft with far lower damage percentage (or it could be the type of damage sustained) than others.

So the monthly Bestands- und Bewegungsmeldungen Abgang durch Feindeinwirkung and ohne Feindeinwirkung contains all 60%-100% damages and damages <60% with the 'Er' mark only? If so, the discrepancies between Bewegungsmeldungen and GQM returns is even higher for the amount of data in question than I wrote before.

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

Mathematically we could set up an equation for this for a given month - with groups or sets that are partially overlapping.

If the ‘Abgang’ in Apr.-Jun.43 for StG2 for example is higher than GQM returns due to overlapping, probably in the nearest previous and/or following months the difference is inverse. Can you look at the data for StG2 for example on March and July 43 in your database?

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

In cases where there are larger discrepancies and we suspect that the detailed 'line by line' reports are not exhaustive - we should take into account the Bestands- und Bewegungsmeldungen were we will then have to know what aircraft that would be in them - namely all aircraft that the unit had to replace which could include all the above - but where the number could be lower than the total aircraft involved in an incident - because a given number of aircraft could have been repaired at the unit or by the means I mentioned in my second to last post.

OK. For example 12 planes are listed in the GenQu 6 Abt returns, 6 of them has repaired at the unit etc, so ‘Abgang’ should be 6. But we have a reverse picture – 10 planes in ‘Abgang’ instead of 6.

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

Another thing which I find that some researchers seem to be unable to get is the '10% rule' - if the damage is very small - lets say a couple of small calibre rounds penetrating the skin of an aircraft - this would never be reported, or a undercarriage leg collapsed but there were no structural damage. Someone could state (I have seen it done) that 'I have a photo of a Luftwaffe aircraft with a flak hole in the elevator and the WNr xxxx - and this is not showing in the GenQu reports - so the Luftwaffe loss numbers are falsified and can not be trusted at all!'. This is lack of knowledge - but sadly it seems that to try to enlighten those 'researchers' is futile - and I have refrained from it lately - not worth the time spent.

One of the numerous problems of the analysis of Kuban battles is the calculation of the German losses/damages. It is easiest to summarize GQM returns and to write something like 100% losses = XXX, 60-99% = YYY, 40-59% = ZZZ …, including xxx planes due to AAA fire, yyy due to dogfights, zzz due to accidents etc.
But as the great discrepancy between GQM returns and Bewegungsmeldungen exist, it require explanation. Nothing about ‘falsification’. The attempt to establish a real state of things only.

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

And then we have the 100% losses - most of them listed as missing (Vermisst). For some reason people get very upset when a 100% loss (missing) or even 100% loss shot down reappear in the lists. But on all fronts the front line moves. A belly landed aircraft due to fuel starvation, overheating or whatever - recovered within days or weeks would certainly be repaired! And counted in the large aggregated statistics as two losses if it was damaged again.

It was a usual situation in the Soviet Air Force also. Some planes might land on the other airfield (or in the steppe for example) due to damages or fuel shortage or disorientation and counted as missing for the some time. Then they has appeared again in the Soviet analogue of Bewegungsmeldungen (it was a daily reporting in many cases) as ‘returning from the forced landing place’. And how such planes reappeared in the German Bewegungsmeldungen?

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

I believe that an important task for all the professional, semi-professional and amateur researchers of the WWII is to try, with an open mind, to understand the systems, and also acknowledge them.

beyond all doubt

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

But more of all that in the upcoming article.

I’m looking forward to your article

Regards,
Andrey