Luftwaffe vs RAF

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Luftwaffe air units and general discussions on the Luftwaffe.
Post Reply
User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008, 22:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

#61

Post by bf109 emil » 30 Jan 2012, 21:50

Only IF there's no way to repair or replace! Unflightworthy is NOT the same as written-off
that's what i was asking as a plane might have had her back broke upon landing or structural damage from a canon hit and thus deemed destroyed or written-off, yet she would still be whole along with almost every piece usable except her frame.

Hence my asking, as to how the RAF determined a plane as to being destroyed or lost?
How is loss of an aircraft defined?
Is it the destruction of the airframe itself, thus deeming that serial number or structure as to now be unflightworthy and a write off even though hundreds of parts might be used on another more damaged plane (but with a sound frame itself)

sorry phylo, wrote this without fully finishing your last post. so if a plane other then one which could be repaired say in a factory had a frame damaged, would it be listed as destroyed or write off, even though it might look like damage was minimal, other then to say a frame or structure.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

#62

Post by phylo_roadking » 30 Jan 2012, 22:49

so if a plane other then one which could be repaired say in a factory had a frame damaged, would it be listed as destroyed or write off, even though it might look like damage was minimal, other then to say a frame or structure.
Well, for a start - only the Hurricane had a "frame" - the Spitfire had its alloy monocoque fuselage. But I'm not sure what the rule was - I.E. what major assembly the serial number transferred with. In other words - could a spitfire fuselage/Merlin engine get new everything else in a CRO depot and still have the same number? Very possibly...even - probably.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...


User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008, 22:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

#63

Post by bf109 emil » 30 Jan 2012, 23:28

could a spitfire fuselage/Merlin engine get new everything else in a CRO depot and still have the same number? Very possibly...even - probably.
I agree with this...but was looking for something different. I will use an example, although i maybe incorrect in terminology.

A squadron returns from a sortie say in North Africa, Malta, etc. with some suffering damage...at what point does the engineer deem a plane to never be unflight worthy or repairable and thus authorize it's cannibalization so as to repair other planes.

hence would this aircraft now become a status as lost or as I posted "How is loss of an aircraft defined?"...simply somewhere between NEW and burnt to a crisp a plane might be recorded as lost. What I was curious about is when the RAF was to deem it lost and recorded as such (even though it's exterior damage and parts maybe 100%)

or might there be any RAF engineer records showing what damage upon a plane defines lost as compared to un-airworthy, serviceable, etc.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

#64

Post by phylo_roadking » 30 Jan 2012, 23:40

A squadron returns from a sortie say in North Africa, Malta, etc. with some suffering damage...at what point does the engineer deem a plane to never be unflight worthy or repairable and thus authorize it's cannibalization so as to repair other planes.

hence would this aircraft now become a status as lost or as I posted "How is loss of an aircraft defined?"...simply somewhere between NEW and burnt to a crisp a plane might be recorded as lost. What I was curious about is when the RAF was to deem it lost and recorded as such (even though it's exterior damage and parts maybe 100%)
That's what I tried to explain earlier -
Only IF there's no way to repair or replace! Unflightworthy is NOT the same as written-off...unflightworthy, or rather "unserviceable" - "U/S"...is something that can change.
...it's entirely relative to whether or not there's any reasonable expectation of repair in-theatre. The criteria for striking off charge would be different in the Delta from the UK from the Far East. Aircraft would be more readily struck-off in the Delta than inn the UK....for it also allowed its recoverable parts to be stored in an environment that was hellish on aircraft serviceability.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008, 22:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

#65

Post by bf109 emil » 31 Jan 2012, 00:13

Aircraft would be more readily struck-off in the Delta than inn the UK
see, here i would have guessed just the opposite. My thinking being every aircraft was deemed more precious and thus many more hours spent trying to avoid it from being written off would be spent in the Delta more so then the UK where a replacement aircraft could be shuttled easier to replace losses.

Just somewhere a maintenance engineer would have to make this call and have his mechanics role placed accordingly. Was there a manual or memo showing him (maintenance engineer ), what specs. would help him determine this, or was it more a personal ability (mechanical aptitude) to determine an aircrafts fate.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

#66

Post by phylo_roadking » 31 Jan 2012, 00:35

see, here i would have guessed just the opposite. My thinking being every aircraft was deemed more precious and thus many more hours spent trying to avoid it from being written off would be spent in the Delta more so then the UK where a replacement aircraft could be shuttled easier to replace losses.
They arrived in the Delta via the Takoradi Air Bridge in a sorry state from new after several thousand miles in sandy, hot air 8O Once in the Delta - and the Route itself had a high attrition rate! - they immediately had to be FULLY serviced, often right down to engine rebores, before being issued to squadrons.

There was a HUGE number of aircraft put into the Delta - remember, it even had its own Maintance Units, it's own OTUS and its own Fighter School at El Ballagh for WWII-era "Top Guns"!...but in turn, the environment took a huge toll; if you search, there are a couple of threads here on AHF dealing with the Luftwaffe's rate of serviceability issues in North Africa - the RAF would have been equally as bad - EXCEPT they had that developed support infrastructure in the Delta. The MUs were even able to make their OWN mods to aircraft marks, like the "slimline" Vokes they created for the Spitfire VC, and create types like the very high altitude Spitfires they created in the Delta to chase down German Ju86P-2 high-level photo recce aircraft...when the new pressurized HF MkVIIS sent specially out from the UK weren't up to the job!
Just somewhere a maintenance engineer would have to make this call and have his mechanics role placed accordingly. Was there a manual or memo showing him (maintenance engineer ), what specs. would help him determine this, or was it more a personal ability (mechanical aptitude) to determine an aircrafts fate
If it wasn't thoroughly obvious at squadron level...remember, these WEREN'T guys that were following manuals slavishly unless they were required for a specific job, fitter-sergeants and ORs went through a LONG technical course, even longer if they had been PRE-war servicemen...where they'd be only too aware of what was on their "shelves", then there was always the MUs in the Delta to check with, or send the aircraft back to. But I'm not going to paraphrase a lot of John James here - you need to get your hands on a copy of The Paladins, at least two chapters deal with the training of technical grades and how it was done and the training schemes were expanded.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008, 22:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

#67

Post by bf109 emil » 31 Jan 2012, 06:37

you need to get your hands on a copy of The Paladins, at least two chapters deal with the training of technical grades and how it was done and the training schemes were expanded.
8O :roll: Phylo i live in the middle of nowhere...I can try and see if my local library can reserve me a copy from another tiny towns library, but when the 30 books in the 940 have first edition copies of "The Rommel Papers" and Eisenhowers "Crusade in Europe" and Churchills 6 war volumes with maybe a dozen more total...it's slim pickings here. But hey, moneys great as finding a job in the oil field is easier then driving to a city and getting one at Walmart. :lol: plus a $1000 a day welding either risers or pipe is gravy, other then when it is -35 or above 0 when doing a stint in muskeg...

I will try and look for a copy, but my kid will most likely be home from his 2 year stint in Korea serving with the US Army before i secure one...lol

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

#68

Post by phylo_roadking » 31 Jan 2012, 18:14

Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Dunserving
Member
Posts: 757
Joined: 14 Sep 2009, 12:43
Location: UK, not far north of Dungeness

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

#69

Post by Dunserving » 31 Jan 2012, 18:56

Re the posts above discussing criteria for assessing aircraft as repairable or not, this data from the RAF Museum might be of interest..

Indicates that availability of repair facilities might have had something to do with it!

Damage Categories

Before 1941
Cat. U Undamaged
Cat. M(u) Capable of being repaired on site by the operating unit
Cat. M(c) Beyond the unit's capacity to repair
Cat. R(B) Repair on site is not possible; the aircraft must be dismantled and sent to a repair facility
Cat. W Write-off

1941 - 1952
Cat. U Undamaged
Cat. A Aircraft can be repaired on site
Cat. Ac Repair is beyond the unit capacity, but can be repaired on site by another unit or a contractor)
Cat. B Beyond repair on site, but repairable at a Maintenance Unit or at a contractor's works
Cat. C Allocated to Instructional Airframe duties (for ground training)
Cat E Write-off
Cat. E1 Write-off, but considered suitable for component recovery
Cat. E2 Write-off and suitable only for scrap
Cat. E3 Burnt out
Cat. Em Missing from an operational sortie (Missing aircraft were categorised 'Em' after 28 days)

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

#70

Post by phylo_roadking » 31 Jan 2012, 19:19

Thanks for that - it does illustrate that responsibility for striking off charge moves upwards - as we go DOWN the list :wink: - to successive levels of repair capability :wink: And thus where those facilities don't exist....or are too far out of reach - the responsibility for striking off charge cuts in "higher" on the chart...lower down the chain of command :wink:

Example? Crete, in the weeks prior to invasion; no MU on the island, so the squadrons - the operating units - were declaring aircraft unserviceable...and in effect writing them off as they then couldn't make it to the Delta for repair; thus "Cat R(B)" is not available...and THIS hierarchy of responsibility -
Cat. U Undamaged
Cat. M(u) Capable of being repaired on site by the operating unit
Cat. M(c) Beyond the unit's capacity to repair
Cat. R(B) Repair on site is not possible; the aircraft must be dismantled and sent to a repair facility
Cat. W Write-off
...locally in practice becomes THIS -
Cat. U Undamaged
Cat. M(u) Capable of being repaired on site by the operating unit
Cat. M(c) Beyond the unit's capacity to repair
Cat. W Write-off
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3727
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

#71

Post by Sheldrake » 12 May 2013, 23:19

Don't forget that the maintenance system was very different in the UK to in the Middle East.

There was a massive civilian organisation which was concerned with repairing aircraft back to operational use in the UK and could draw on the manufacturing capacity of the k which just didn't exist abroad. John Terrain in "Right of the Line" makes the point that by the end of the battle of Britain the majority of aircraft received by squadrons had been repaired rather than new. To take the case of the aircraft pranged with a hard enough landing to make it beyond repair might be a Cat. R(B)

User avatar
Barrett
Member
Posts: 240
Joined: 12 Dec 2004, 22:57
Location: Western US
Contact:

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

#72

Post by Barrett » 16 Jul 2013, 02:22

Gents, I heartily recommend Chris Shores' Vol. I of his N Africa/Mediterranean air war (but then I recommend anything from Chris.) He provides daily accounts and summaries from June 40 to Jan 42, building on his long-ago Fighters over The Desert and FO Tunisia. It's possible to compile pretty accurate comparisons of RAF, GAF and to an extent Italian claims vs Theirs-Our losses. Looking at random dates, the GAF was far more accurate (for instance June 41: RAF 38% accurate, GAF 80%) while outshooting the opposition roughly 3-1.

However, lest we become overly focused on The Score, eventually the Germans lost the campaign largely due to the numerical disparity.

Dupplin Muir
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 18 Jun 2010, 14:13

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

#73

Post by Dupplin Muir » 13 Sep 2014, 15:37

Since this is a sticky I thought it would probably be ok to raise it from the dead.

I bought Christopher Shores' book last year and only just got around to reading it, and I have some caveats. After the Luftwaffe arrived in North Africa the RAF claimed quite a few Bf109's and these claims are dismissed because they are not listed in German records...but...towards the end of the book there is coverage of the fighting during Operation Crusader, and when the British Army advanced during this offensive they overran a number of Axis airfields, where they found a significant number of German fighters which had been written-off due to battle damage. On one airfield alone there were sixteen 110's and 109's that had been damaged beyond repair, and I'd guess that most of these would be 109's because there were a lot more present in-theatre - yet these are not counted as losses! Clearly, in this theatre at least, the German definition of a loss was basically 'failed to return'. Given that RAF losses generally include write-offs these should certainly be counted as bona fide losses.

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

#74

Post by Urmel » 18 Sep 2014, 21:45

Dupplin Muir wrote:On one airfield alone there were sixteen 110's and 109's that had been damaged beyond repair,
I went through the list because of something I did not like in Shores.

http://rommelsriposte.com/2014/03/22/ax ... mber-1941/

18 109 and 8 110 on Gambut
17 109 and 2 110 on Gazala 2&3
11 109 and 8 110 on Derna (at least one almost flyable)
10 109 and 5 110 on Benina

Total 56 109s (out of which 36 were 109E types) and 23 110s.

It is of course impossible to say what caused their demise, but fundamentally I agree with your view.
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

#75

Post by phylo_roadking » 18 Sep 2014, 23:52

Dupplin Muir and Urmel - just a question...
I bought Christopher Shores' book last year and only just got around to reading it, and I have some caveats. After the Luftwaffe arrived in North Africa the RAF claimed quite a few Bf109's and these claims are dismissed because they are not listed in German records...but...towards the end of the book there is coverage of the fighting during Operation Crusader, and when the British Army advanced during this offensive they overran a number of Axis airfields, where they found a significant number of German fighters which had been written-off due to battle damage. On one airfield alone there were sixteen 110's and 109's that had been damaged beyond repair, and I'd guess that most of these would be 109's because there were a lot more present in-theatre - yet these are not counted as losses!
How did they know they were actual write-offs? Was this just the British' assumption at the time...or when the airfields were overrun, was their associated paperwork taken too?

I'm asking...because by the end of the war, we know that it wasn't unknown by any means for - for example - lots of Me262s and others to be sitting half-stripped and appearing to be write-offs...but in reality were waiting for spare parts and replacement engines that because of the Allied air interdiction of road traffic just never arrived?

Did the RAF actually know these listed 109s and 110s were written-off, or just assume it from the parlous state of them?
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Post Reply

Return to “Luftwaffe air units and Luftwaffe in general”