Luftwaffe losses on the Eastern Front

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Luftwaffe air units and general discussions on the Luftwaffe.
Meyer
Member
Posts: 193
Joined: 12 May 2006, 23:05
Location: a1

Re: Was Soviet Union preparing to attack the Germany?

#16

Post by Meyer » 20 Feb 2013, 03:30

Classification of damage for the Lw:
0-10%: Minor damage that can be repaired by the aircraft's ground crew.
10-24%: Medium damage that can be repaired through small repair works at the unit.
25-39%: Damage that requires a major overhaul at the unit.
40-44%: Damage that requires whole replacements of landing gears or other systems, such as hydraulic systems.
45-59%: Severely damaged aircraft where large parts of the aircraft need to be replaced.
60-80%: Write-off category. Certain parts could be used as spare parts for other aircraft.
81-99%: Totally destroyed, crashed on German-controlled area.
100%: Totally lost, crashed or disappeared over enemy-controlled area or over sea.

So "destroyed" for the Lw means 60% and beyond.

It is costume when talking about aircraft losses to refer of total losses, otherwise when comparing numbers between different AFs there's the danger of comparing apple to oranges.
But many times this practice to take, if available, the number of damage aircraft of the Lw, is used in order to show the German losses as worse than they actually were (I've never seen this for the heavy USAAF bomber missions, when it was not rare than most of the bombers sustained some kind of damage, even if the total losses were not high.)

User avatar
1st Cavalry
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 20 Oct 2010, 10:54

Re: Was Soviet Union preparing to attack the Germany?

#17

Post by 1st Cavalry » 20 Feb 2013, 09:11

You are missing the point , all damaged aircraft become total losses when considering long periods such as a whole year , on shorter periods they cut down the serviceable numbers.

per Murray
aircraft destroyed 5002 not including November (all fronts )
aircraft damaged 3,562 not including November (all fronts )
1,658 were not repairable at unit level (40 % damage and more ).
1,894 were repairable at unit level ( less 40 % damage )

i will repeat the question ,what where LW losses in 1941 ?
a) > 5000
b) > 8000


paspartoo
Member
Posts: 835
Joined: 07 Feb 2009, 14:35
Contact:

Re: Was Soviet Union preparing to attack the Germany?

#18

Post by paspartoo » 20 Feb 2013, 09:39

Meyer wrote:.

It is costume when talking about aircraft losses to refer of total losses, otherwise when comparing numbers between different AFs there's the danger of comparing apple to oranges.
But many times this practice to take, if available, the number of damage aircraft of the Lw, is used in order to show the German losses as worse than they actually were (I've never seen this for the heavy USAAF bomber missions, when it was not rare than most of the bombers sustained some kind of damage, even if the total losses were not high.)
Exactly. If you look at US bombing missions you have 5-10 to 1 ratio between destroyed and damaged.
A simple economist with an unhealthy interest in military and intelligence history.....
http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/

User avatar
1st Cavalry
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 20 Oct 2010, 10:54

Re: Was Soviet Union preparing to attack the Germany?

#19

Post by 1st Cavalry » 20 Feb 2013, 11:47

The number of US heavy bombers destroyed in combat missions against Germany was 8310 but total losses were
higher 12,791 .
http://www.afhra.af.mil/timelines/index.asp

Any comparison with the LW losses is a moot point, since their heavy bomber fleet was ,to put it elegantly, non existent.
If you want a relevant comparison look at fighters or medium bombers.

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4889
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Was Soviet Union preparing to attack the Germany?

#20

Post by Urmel » 20 Feb 2013, 12:35

Meyer wrote:Classification of damage for the Lw:
0-10%: Minor damage that can be repaired by the aircraft's ground crew.
10-24%: Medium damage that can be repaired through small repair works at the unit.
25-39%: Damage that requires a major overhaul at the unit.
40-44%: Damage that requires whole replacements of landing gears or other systems, such as hydraulic systems.
45-59%: Severely damaged aircraft where large parts of the aircraft need to be replaced.
60-80%: Write-off category. Certain parts could be used as spare parts for other aircraft.
81-99%: Totally destroyed, crashed on German-controlled area.
100%: Totally lost, crashed or disappeared over enemy-controlled area or over sea.

So "destroyed" for the Lw means 60% and beyond.

It is costume when talking about aircraft losses to refer of total losses, otherwise when comparing numbers between different AFs there's the danger of comparing apple to oranges.
Thanks for the explanation. This is not about comparing between air forces. It is instead about trying to come to a realistic understanding of what constitutes a 'loss'. >60% is clear. But in my view anything >24% is a serious risk of turning into a loss, and anything >10% is at risk, because in these cases the ability to recover the plane is related to i) availability of spares, and/or ii) availability of capacity of the repairs unit. Just to give you an example, what would be prioritised, if there aren't enough repair personnel? If you have to make the choice, would you order five minor repairs to be carried out that will get the five planes in question flying again within a short time, or one big repair to get a more heavily damaged plane back in the air. If there is a constant capacity shortage, then the more difficult repairs, while feasible, will never get done, since they are always deprioritised.
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
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Was Soviet Union preparing to attack the Germany?

#21

Post by LWD » 20 Feb 2013, 16:17

Indeed that's one way you get "hanger queens"

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4889
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Was Soviet Union preparing to attack the Germany?

#22

Post by Urmel » 20 Feb 2013, 16:23

The other way is to order a 787.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF_P77VEPKA
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
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11561
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Was Soviet Union preparing to attack the Germany?

#23

Post by Juha Tompuri » 20 Feb 2013, 22:58

Meyer wrote:Classification of damage for the Lw:
0-10%: Minor damage that can be repaired by the aircraft's ground crew.
10-24%: Medium damage that can be repaired through small repair works at the unit.
25-39%: Damage that requires a major overhaul at the unit.
40-44%: Damage that requires whole replacements of landing gears or other systems, such as hydraulic systems.
45-59%: Severely damaged aircraft where large parts of the aircraft need to be replaced.
60-80%: Write-off category. Certain parts could be used as spare parts for other aircraft.
81-99%: Totally destroyed, crashed on German-controlled area.
100%: Totally lost, crashed or disappeared over enemy-controlled area or over sea.

So "destroyed" for the Lw means 60% and beyond.

It is costume when talking about aircraft losses to refer of total losses, otherwise when comparing numbers between different AFs there's the danger of comparing apple to oranges.
Thank you for bringing here facts (source(s)?) instead of just opinions
Urmel wrote: But in my view anything >24% is a serious risk of turning into a loss, and anything >10% is at risk, because in these cases the ability to recover the plane is related to i) availability of spares, and/or ii) availability of capacity of the repairs unit. Just to give you an example, what would be prioritised, if there aren't enough repair personnel? If you have to make the choice, would you order five minor repairs to be carried out that will get the five planes in question flying again within a short time, or one big repair to get a more heavily damaged plane back in the air. If there is a constant capacity shortage, then the more difficult repairs, while feasible, will never get done, since they are always deprioritised.
Am I correct that these are more like opinions, or are there sources to back up these claims?

Regards, Juha

Meyer
Member
Posts: 193
Joined: 12 May 2006, 23:05
Location: a1

Re: Was Soviet Union preparing to attack the Germany?

#24

Post by Meyer » 21 Feb 2013, 03:24

1st Cavalry wrote:The number of US heavy bombers destroyed in combat missions against Germany was 8310 but total losses were
higher 12,791 .
http://www.afhra.af.mil/timelines/index.asp

Any comparison with the LW losses is a moot point, since their heavy bomber fleet was ,to put it elegantly, non existent.
If you want a relevant comparison look at fighters or medium bombers.
See, this is what I was talking about, apples vs oranges. 8310 heavy bombers were totally lost on combat missions in the ETO and MTO (not just "against Germany"), while the 12,791 total losses for all theaters and any reasons, not just in combat missions.
So neither of those numbers includes damaged but repairable heavy bombers, for which I don't have the number but I guess they were in the order of hundreds of thousands.

Meyer
Member
Posts: 193
Joined: 12 May 2006, 23:05
Location: a1

Re: Was Soviet Union preparing to attack the Germany?

#25

Post by Meyer » 21 Feb 2013, 03:26

Juha Tompuri wrote:
Meyer wrote:Classification of damage for the Lw:
0-10%: Minor damage that can be repaired by the aircraft's ground crew.
10-24%: Medium damage that can be repaired through small repair works at the unit.
25-39%: Damage that requires a major overhaul at the unit.
40-44%: Damage that requires whole replacements of landing gears or other systems, such as hydraulic systems.
45-59%: Severely damaged aircraft where large parts of the aircraft need to be replaced.
60-80%: Write-off category. Certain parts could be used as spare parts for other aircraft.
81-99%: Totally destroyed, crashed on German-controlled area.
100%: Totally lost, crashed or disappeared over enemy-controlled area or over sea.

So "destroyed" for the Lw means 60% and beyond.

It is costume when talking about aircraft losses to refer of total losses, otherwise when comparing numbers between different AFs there's the danger of comparing apple to oranges.
Thank you for bringing here facts (source(s)?) instead of just opinions
This is taken from Christer Bergström's "Barbarossa: The Air Battle July-December 1941".

User avatar
1st Cavalry
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 20 Oct 2010, 10:54

Re: Was Soviet Union preparing to attack the Germany?

#26

Post by 1st Cavalry » 21 Feb 2013, 10:07

Meyer wrote:
1st Cavalry wrote:The number of US heavy bombers destroyed in combat missions against Germany was 8310 but total losses were
higher 12,791 .
http://www.afhra.af.mil/timelines/index.asp

Any comparison with the LW losses is a moot point, since their heavy bomber fleet was ,to put it elegantly, non existent.
If you want a relevant comparison look at fighters or medium bombers.
See, this is what I was talking about, apples vs oranges. 8310 heavy bombers were totally lost on combat missions in the ETO and MTO (not just "against Germany"), while the 12,791 total losses for all theaters and any reasons, not just in combat missions.
So neither of those numbers includes damaged but repairable heavy bombers, for which I don't have the number but I guess they were in the order of hundreds of thousands.
you where provided with a source ,so how about reading it before posting your opinions .
eto + mto means germany and her european allies
12,791 means losses in theaters against germany (also ETO + MTO )

it does not include losses against japan which are listed separately, combined losses in all theaters against japan and germany were higher than 18,000.

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4889
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Was Soviet Union preparing to attack the Germany?

#27

Post by Urmel » 21 Feb 2013, 10:46

Juha Tompuri wrote:
Urmel wrote: But in my view Am I correct that these are more like opinions, or are there sources to back up these claims?

Regards, Juha
Which part of 'in my view' do you not understand? I made it clear that this is an opinion, in the first part of the sentence. I explained the reasoning, which I believe is sound (unless you think that the LW had unlimited repair and maintenance resources within its units).

So I really do not understand why you mislabel my opinion statement as 'these claims', when it is clear that they are not claims at all.

But let me draw you a picture:

1) Assumption
The LW did not have unlimited repair and maintain resources within the unit
2) Deduction
Given 1) they had to prioritise which planes to repair
3) Deduction
Given 2) they would be likely to prioritise easier repairs over more complicated ones
4) Assumption
The Luftwaffe did not have an unlimited supply of spares at any unit at any time
5) Deduction
Given 4), they would sometimes not be able to repair repairable planes. This could then lead to building up a backlog of more seriously damaged planes. Revert to 3)

If you have an issue with the assumptions, please let me hear it. If you want to accept them and discuss the deductions, that's great. If you want to continue to mislabel my opinion statements as 'claims', I'll take it up with forum management.

Have a good day.
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
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11561
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Was Soviet Union preparing to attack the Germany?

#28

Post by Juha Tompuri » 21 Feb 2013, 21:08

Urmel wrote:
Juha Tompuri wrote: Am I correct that these are more like opinions, or are there sources to back up these claims?

Regards, Juha
Which part of 'in my view' do you not understand? I made it clear that this is an opinion, in the first part of the sentence.
No problem with understanding, just wanted to know had you invented that all by yourself, or were there by chance facts behind it.
Urmel wrote:I explained the reasoning, which I believe is sound
Sorry, but no.
Exactly that part of your post I found most misleading.
It somehow even sounds that you are not that well aware of Luftwaffe plane repair procedure.
Urmel wrote:So I really do not understand why you mislabel my opinion statement as 'these claims', when it is clear that they are not claims at all.
If opinion statement sounds better, let it then be so.
Urmel wrote:But let me draw you a picture
Let me give you "colors" to make a better one:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... it#p859747

Urmel wrote:Have a good day.
Hardly could have been better, thank you.

Gute nacht, Juha
Last edited by Juha Tompuri on 22 Feb 2013, 20:39, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: typo correcting

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4889
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Was Soviet Union preparing to attack the Germany?

#29

Post by Urmel » 21 Feb 2013, 22:31

Juha Tompuri wrote:Sorry, but no.
Exactly that part of your post I found most misleading.
I believe you meant 'that was the part I didn't get', since it was certainly not my intent to mislead, your insinuation notwithstanding.

While Larry's post is most illuminating, I would be grateful if you could point me to where it tells me anything about the actual capacity of the LW ground staff at unit level? How many planes could be repaired in a given time frame? How did that relate to peak demand on the organisation (i.e. were they ever at or above peak, or were they at all times able to cope with the demand of damaged planes)? If they were not able to service any amount of damaged planes at any given time, how did they prioritise work on damaged planes? Does the obvious growth of the organisation that Larry shows maybe relate to the realisation that it was not sufficient to cope with demand in the period prior to it reaching its peak strength? If not, what's behind it?

Furthermore, how were detachments of units served in the time frame up to 1943? I.e. if e.g. a Gruppe was sent off to a detached airfield for a time, what would happen to its damaged planes returning to that airfield? E.g. a Ju 87 Gruppe sent to an airfield which only had He 111 units stationed on it? What happened to damaged planes that had to land at another airfield because they could not make it home, e.g. a Ju 88 having to land at an airfield where only Me 109 units were stationed?
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

Meyer
Member
Posts: 193
Joined: 12 May 2006, 23:05
Location: a1

Re: Was Soviet Union preparing to attack the Germany?

#30

Post by Meyer » 22 Feb 2013, 06:06

1st Cavalry wrote:
you where provided with a source ,so how about reading it before posting your opinions .
Yeah thanks for the source, even if I already knew it. But I think you should take your own advice, see below.
eto + mto means germany and her european allies
I don't think you know what ETO and MTO means, google it.
12,791 means losses in theaters against germany (also ETO + MTO )

it does not include losses against japan which are listed separately, combined losses in all theaters against japan and germany were higher than 18,000.
Wrong and wrong (as you said, read before posting): 12,291 (not 12,791) is the number of USAAF heavy bombers totally lost for all theaters overseas (table 99 of AFD-090608-042.pdf). Curiously, table 102 of the same document gives 12,007 heavy bombers lost overseas.

For the combined overseas+continental US the number of heavy bombers lost is given as 14,280 (table 99).

The +18,000 number is nowhere to be seen.

Post Reply

Return to “Luftwaffe air units and Luftwaffe in general”