Suffix "Er" With GQM returns

[kalender1973]

Hello,

In the JG2 loss list in Years 1940-42 the suffix “Er”(Ersatz) apperas in addition to the percentage of plane damage. But this was used only between may 41 and april 42.

Why this information did not appeared later ? Or is it not appeared only by JG2 ?

http://www.ww2.dk/misc/jg2loss.pdf
Best regards

[RT]

He was used from the beginning nd for all the units, ersatz notwendig, the plane couldn't be used or repaired on site they need a new one, why it's no more in use ?, probably because they are no more using the GQM to make the replacement, or it's no more stacked in the GQM because no need to put in or....

Rémi

[edNorth]

Hi both, this is actually explained in Ge.qu.6.Abt. records...

The abbrevation ´Er.´ appears in Luftwaffe loss records (f.e. 08.10.1940) and is explained: ´Érsatz notwendig, d.h. Flugzeug kann mit Truppenmitteln nicht wieder hergestellt werden´ (Spare parts needed and can not be handled / repaired with Luftwaffe equipment and or needing an repair at factory level ...)

Translation is mine...

cheers
ed

[kalender1973]

Hi Remi, Hi Ed,

the meaning of „Er“ is clear for me. Unclear why it is not used later and how was the new planes was requested.

Why is the information important ? I have a feeling that we understand wrong the damage category of LW. The most research books claims “10% damage” – easy to repair. But this “Er” shows that it was not “easy to repair” and the damaged plane must be replaced. And that is in quite peaceful air base condition (regarding the maintenance equipment, short logistic way etc.) And what should we say about “10% damage” in Africa or in Caucasus?

[RodM]

Hi Igor,

'Er' was used later, for example return 1720/45, from 19-2-1945, which has two damaged (10 & 20%) Ju88s of NJG2 so notated....

If the RAF system is anything to go by, what appears to be comparatively a minor percentage of damage would still result in an aircraft requiring repair away from the unit.

Cheers

RodM

[Nick Beale]

The "Er." column is a standard part of the form in the loss returns for 1945 and it is included in deciphered loss reports as late as the second half of April 1945.

[kalender1973]

If I understand correct "Er" appeared again only in returns for 45 ? Or it was standard for all years ?

[RT]

Standart for all years, the plane is requested because the one involved in the accident couldn't be used or repaired at the unit
the GQM is just for statistics, to ask for a replacement they hv to go thru an other channel, that's depend on the period;;;maybe one could give the way to go thru to get a new plane ???

rémi

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi all.

The explanations given are of course correct, just wanted to add one comment with regards to Igor's question on damage percentages.

The percentage does not necessary say how easy it was to repair an aircraft, but rather, based on a set of parameters an assesment of damage. For example, it would be impossible for a given frontline unit to repair structural damage to a fuselage rated as 10% or more, but other kind of damage rated the same or even much higher damage percentage (for example wing damage to a Bf 109), would have been an easy task for the same unit.

I would suspect that a major influence here also would be location. A Ju 88 bellylanded between Murmansk and Kirkenes could have been rated as 10%, but the location of the aircraft would have made a replacement necessary. And I would suspect this also would be a question on just which repair facilities was available for the given unit (large peacetime airfield vs frontline strip)

Just some thoughts,
Andreas B

[Franek Grabowski]

And this raises the question (again), about the percentage system. What was the basis for calculation and what was the 100%? A total cost of the aircraft?