So Juha, are you actually capable of contributing something, or is your role to prevent a discussion that may bring some information forward?
The working hypothesis here is that in some cases damaged planes may have become losses for either of the two reasons below:
i) That the LW maintenance staff may at certain times have been overburdened with the amount of required repairs, and consequently had to devise a prioritisation system; and that in periods of prolonged overburdening of the system, planes with damage levels >10% and >25% were at risk of being permanently de-prioritised, and consequently became effective losses without ever (or at least not during the period of reporting) being considered losses.
ii) That the LW did not always manage to get spares to the places where they were needed when they were needed there, and that consequently planes with damage levels >25% were at risk of becoming permanent losses, because they might receive further damage while awaiting the spares, or because the airfield might be lost before they were repaired, and that this might happen outside the reporting period when they were considered damaged (e.g. plane is damaged in November 41, and no spares are received, and in January 42 the airfield is overrun by the Red Army).
Now, let's look if this is a reasonable hypotheses?
Is it testable - well yes it is, someone somewhere must know about this sort of thing, it's just that we don't have easy access to the files.
Is it parsimonious - well yes it is, it would be a simple explanation for a supposed phenomenon
Does it have an appropriate scope – well yes it does, it would explain the supposed phenomenon across all fronts
Is it fruitful – well yes it would be, it would explain the same thing going on in other theatres or other air forces
Is it conservative – well yes it is, since prioritisation in reaction to lack of capacity is a well known phenomenon (my team does it all the time, for example, even though we don't repair airplanes)
Do I care what the answer is? Not really, either 'yes, that's right, that's exactly how it happened', or 'no, you are totally off your trolley on this one, it never happened' are perfectly fine by me.
NONE of your links has helped in answering this question I'm afraid. So before you post the next link that won't help with some snide remark, think.
This looks like it would be relevant:http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/ammt/ia ... o?AM016510
This is a general overview of ABDR approaches in the 90s:http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a278635.pdf
I also think this whole discussion should be moved to the Luftwaffe section, since it has little if any bearing on the question initially raised in this thread.