Battle of Kursk Losses

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 4762
Joined: 04 Jun 2004 19:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Battle of Kursk Losses

Post by Art » 21 Sep 2008 12:05

Qvist wrote:Yep. These must be considered minimum figures, and the Heeresarzt ten-days certainly tend to be behind in this period - in part in a major way.

Uhu, look for example at losses of 4 PzA and 8 A in the first ten days of August.

Panzeralex
Member
Posts: 128
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 16:36
Location: Moscow

Re: Battle of Kursk Losses

Post by Panzeralex » 21 Sep 2008 21:18

Art wrote:
Michael Kenny wrote:64!!!!
Could you give some more details on it? Here is information on losses from Zetterling and Frankson:

I can give some details, I think, that information about German losses in Bergstrom's book is from German archival documents: Genst. Gen. Qu . (6 .Abt .) RL 2 III / 1191 and 1192 Flugzeugunfälle und Verluste bei den (Fliegenden) Verbänden 03.07.43-02.08.43 and 03.08.43-02.09.43, where mentioned detalied losses of all aircraft with showing the totall loss and damage percents.
Gen.Qu. provided more detailed informations, than Tagesmeldungen VIII Fl.Korps or Luftflotte 6.
I also have this information and for example can provide aircraft losses VIII Fl.Korps for 5 July (only fighter, because it's take much time to write about another aircrafts at forum) and you can compare its with numbers from Tagesmeldungen VIII Fl.Korps.
losses 5 July:
Bf 109G-4, 4./JG 3, W.Nr. 19965, damage - 40%, WIA in Luftkampf. Notlandung.
Bf 109G-4, 9./JG 3, W.Nr. 14883, damage - 100%, MIA after Luftkampf.
Bf 109G-4, 9./JG 3, W.Nr. 14856, damage - 20%, Pilot error.
Bf 109G-4, 7./JG 3, W.Nr. 14941, damage - 100%, Notlandung after Luftkampf.
Bf 109G-4, 5./JG 3, W.Nr. 19976, damage - 100%, WIA in Luftkampf over Charkow.
Bf 109G-4, II./JG 3, W.Nr. 15177, damage - 40%, Notlandung due to own Flak.
Bf 109G-4, 7./JG 3, W.Nr. 16172, damage - 20%, Bauchlandung due to engine trouble.
Bf 109G-4, 8./JG 3, W.Nr. 19307, damage - 100%, POW after Notlandung due to engine damage.
Bf 109G-4, Stab. III./JG 3, W.Nr. 19220, damage - 100%, KIA in Luftkampf.
Bf 109G-4, 8./JG 3, W.Nr. 19969, damage - 30%, Pilot error.
Bf 109G-4, 6./JG 3, W.Nr. 19302, damage - 15%, WIA in Luftkampf. Bauchlandung.
Bf 109G-4, 6./JG 3, W.Nr. 19323, damage - 10%, WIA in Luftkampf. Bauchlandung.


Bf 109G-4, 8./JG 52, W.Nr. 19709, damage - 100%, WIA in Luftkampf
Bf 109G-4, 8./JG 52, W.Nr. 19764, damage - 100%, Luftkampf
Bf 109G-4, 9./JG 52, W.Nr. 175819, damage - 60%, Landing accident.
Bf 109G-4, 8./JG 52, W.Nr. 19754, damage - 100%, MIA Flak
Bf 109G-4, 8./JG 52, W.Nr. 19534, damage - 100%, MIA in Luftkampf
Bf 109G-4, 9./JG 52, W.Nr. 19300, damage - 100%, MIA in Luftkampf
Bf 109G-4, 8./JG 52, W.Nr. 19709, damage - 100%, KIA, unknown, Bauchlandung
Bf 109G-4, I./JG 52, W.Nr. 20030, damage - 80%, Overturned on landing.
Bf 109G-4, 1./JG 52, W.Nr. 20004, damage - 100%, MIAin Luftkampf
Bf 109G-4, 2./JG 52, W.Nr. 15577, damage - 100%, MIA in Luftkampf
Bf 109G-4, 3./JG 3, W.Nr. 20031, damage - 100%, MIA in Luftkampf
Bf 109G-4, 7./JG 3, W.Nr. 20062, damage - 80%, Injured, overturning on landing.
Bf 109G-4, 2./JG 3, W.Nr. 20055, damage - 40%, Flak

Tagesmeldungen VIII Fl.Korps and Luftflotte 6 you can see here:
http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/tony/pawel/einz_mld.htm

best regards
Panzeralex

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 4762
Joined: 04 Jun 2004 19:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Battle of Kursk Losses

Post by Art » 22 Sep 2008 15:53

Thank you, Alex. So there are 14 completely lost fighters in the list (plus two which were definitely to be written off) while the daily report says about 12. Probably the difference is because # 19 307 was a non-combat loss - what do they mean by engine damage - technical or combat?

Panzeralex
Member
Posts: 128
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 16:36
Location: Moscow

Re: Battle of Kursk Losses

Post by Panzeralex » 22 Sep 2008 17:07

Art wrote: Probably the difference is because # 19 307 was a non-combat loss - what do they mean by engine damage - technical or combat?

I don't know, but more likely in air combat.
something else,
There were 3 Ju-87 lost, but no one of these listed in Tagesmeldungen:
Ju-87D-3, III./St.G.2, W.Nr. 100490, damage - 100 %, Flak.
Ju-87D-3, 9./St.G.2, W.Nr. 110341, damage - 100 %, Flak.
Ju-87D-5, III./St.G.2, w.Nr. 130528, damage - 100 %, Flak

best ragards,
Panzeralex

Michate
Member
Posts: 1424
Joined: 02 Feb 2004 10:50
Location: Germany

Re: Battle of Kursk Losses

Post by Michate » 22 Sep 2008 17:39

I would rather say Motorschaden refers to technical reason, as airfight (Luftkampf) or Flak seems to have been always mentioned, where known.

W.Nr. (I assume this stands for "Werksnummer" or serial number) 19709 is mentioned twice as a 100% loss:

Bf 109G-4, 8./JG 52, W.Nr. 19709, damage - 100%, WIA in Luftkampf
Bf 109G-4, 8./JG 52, W.Nr. 19709, damage - 100%, KIA, unknown, Bauchlandung

a typo?

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5137
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Battle of Kursk Losses

Post by Michael Kenny » 22 Sep 2008 18:13

Art wrote:Thank you, Alex. So there are 14 completely lost fighters in the list (plus two which were definitely to be written off) while the daily report says about 12. Probably the difference is because # 19 307 was a non-combat loss - what do they mean by engine damage - technical or combat?


Bergstrom list 19307 as lost due to ground fire and says the pilot, Heinz Ludtke, died of wounds whilst a POW

Art you should check your messages.

Panzeralex
Member
Posts: 128
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 16:36
Location: Moscow

Re: Battle of Kursk Losses

Post by Panzeralex » 22 Sep 2008 18:16

Michate wrote:Bf 109G-4, 8./JG 52, W.Nr. 19709, damage - 100%, WIA in Luftkampf
Bf 109G-4, 8./JG 52, W.Nr. 19709, damage - 100%, KIA, unknown, Bauchlandung

a typo?


I don't know, but there were two different aircraft and 2 different pilot.
more info, look here:
http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?p=72962

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5137
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Battle of Kursk Losses

Post by Michael Kenny » 22 Sep 2008 18:18

Michate wrote:W.Nr. (I assume this stands for "Werksnummer" or serial number) 19709 is mentioned twice as a 100% loss:

Bf 109G-4, 8./JG 52, W.Nr. 19709, damage - 100%, WIA in Luftkampf
Bf 109G-4, 8./JG 52, W.Nr. 19709, damage - 100%, KIA, unknown, Bauchlandung

a typo?


Bergstrom says 19709 is 'unknown' and the pilot Martin Lesckowitz was KIA (Ugrim)

And also:

'19709' Shot down in combat' with pilot Karl Schumacher wounded (North Of Belgorod)

Panzeralex
Member
Posts: 128
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 16:36
Location: Moscow

Re: Battle of Kursk Losses

Post by Panzeralex » 22 Sep 2008 18:28

Michael Kenny wrote:
Art wrote:Bergstrom list 19307 as lost due to ground fire and says the pilot, Heinz Ludtke, died of wounds whilst a POW

about 19307 look here:
http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/tony/pawel/units/jg3.htm

best regards
Panzeralex

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5137
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Battle of Kursk Losses

Post by Michael Kenny » 22 Sep 2008 18:36

As the pilot was taken prisoner I presume it crash landed in Soviet held ground. So how was it decided his engine failure was 'technical'?

Panzeralex
Member
Posts: 128
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 16:36
Location: Moscow

Re: Battle of Kursk Losses

Post by Panzeralex » 22 Sep 2008 19:25

Michael Kenny wrote:As the pilot was taken prisoner I presume it crash landed in Soviet held ground. So how was it decided his engine failure was 'technical'?

I don't know.
Heinz Lüdtke's aircraft landed in Soviet ground Pl.Qu. 61/6/3, 6 km NW of Schtschebekino and pilot was taken as prisoner by Russian solders.
Than, Heinz Lüdtke was shot and killed by Soviet soldiers when trying to run (according Russian sources)
(one of source - book:
Khazanov D.B., Gorbach V.G. Aviation in the battle over the Orel-Kursk arch. Defensive period. - M., 2004, Annex. № 9: POW German pilots)
Something esle, a Qu. causes of loss aren't always shown correctly, for example:
from Qu.:
5.7.43 Ju 87D-3, W.Nr. 1118 Heil, Uffz. Heinz (F)/Schramm, Ogefr. Gerhard (Bf), 7./St.G. 1, damage 100 %, both pilots MIA due to Flak.
But realy, Ju-87D-3 W.Nr. 118 was shoot down by Russian fighters, pilots jumped with parachutes and were taken as prisoner by Russian soldier from 70 Army and told about it during interrogation.

Panzeralex
Member
Posts: 128
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 16:36
Location: Moscow

Re: Battle of Kursk Losses

Post by Panzeralex » 22 Sep 2008 23:24

Something about losses:
One moment, in every day loss meldungen listed only daily loss, but there were night loss, which indicated in Division's Qu.reports (Unfortunately, most of these reports lost during the war),
for battle of Kusrk I see only Qu. LAH reports,
which show 2872 daily loss KIA, WIA, MIA in LAH during 5-20.7.43 and 329 night loss KIA, WIA, MIA during 2-20.7.43, total - 3201 men.
But daily meldungen list only - 2896 (for example see Zetterling N, Frankson A, p.207).
Therefore, the German losses for every divisions (and Armies) will be some higher than we see in tables in Zetterling N, Frankson A. book.

GaryD
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: 16 Feb 2004 06:17
Location: Washington, DC, USA

Re: Battle of Kursk Losses

Post by GaryD » 23 Sep 2008 00:09

Panzeralex wrote:Something about losses:
One moment, in every day loss meldungen listed only daily loss, but there were night loss, which indicated in Division's Qu.reports (Unfortunately, most of these reports lost during the war),
for battle of Kusrk I see only Qu. LAH reports,
which show 2872 daily loss KIA, WIA, MIA in LAH during 5-20.7.43 and 329 night loss KIA, WIA, MIA during 2-20.7.43, total - 3201 men.
But daily meldungen list only - 2896 (for example see Zetterling N, Frankson A, p.207).
Therefore, the German losses for every divisions (and Armies) will be some higher than we see in tables in Zetterling N, Frankson A. book.


This doesn't make any sense. You're saying that the German tagesmeldungen only covered casualties which occurred in daylight???

Panzeralex
Member
Posts: 128
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 16:36
Location: Moscow

Re: Battle of Kursk Losses

Post by Panzeralex » 23 Sep 2008 00:30

GaryD wrote:
Panzeralex wrote: You're saying that the German tagesmeldungen only covered casualties which occurred in daylight???

Yes, but I'm wrong, because I'm not attention look a document:(
Image
In this report (and another LAH O.U. reports) mentioned some more (additional) loses (16 KIA and 86 WIA during 11-12.7.43), which not included in previous report.
I assume, that this night loss, but there are only losses (16 KIA and 86 WIA during 11-12.7.43), which not included in previous O.U.report for 11.7.43.
But in any case documents O.U. show more losses than the daily reports,
according every day O.U. reports LAH loss 2872 men 5-20.7.43
and according additional to reports O.U. LAH loss 215 men also 7-20.7.43 and 114 men during 2-8.7.43.
In total - 3201 men during 5-20.7.43 (rather <3201, because 2872 + 215 = 3087 and + some men from 114, loss 2-8.7.43 and included in additional to report)
Question:
Could the other divisions to have such additional reports, which are not included in the overall statistics?

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 16:59
Location: Europe

Re: Battle of Kursk Losses

Post by Qvist » 23 Sep 2008 07:15

Yes, but I'm wrong, because I'm not attention look a document:(
Image
In this report (and another LAH O.U. reports) mentioned some more (additional) loses (16 KIA and 86 WIA during 11-12.7.43), which not included in previous report.
I assume, that this night loss, but there are only losses (16 KIA and 86 WIA during 11-12.7.43), which not included in previous O.U.report for 11.7.43.
But in any case documents O.U. show more losses than the daily reports,
according every day O.U. reports LAH loss 2872 men 5-20.7.43
and according additional to reports O.U. LAH loss 215 men also 7-20.7.43 and 114 men during 2-8.7.43.
In total - 3201 men during 5-20.7.43 (rather <3201, because 2872 + 215 = 3087 and + some men from 114, loss 2-8.7.43 and included in additional to report)
Question:
Could the other divisions to have such additional reports, which are not included in the overall statistics?


Every German division will have issued such reports, every day. But it is an open question whether they have survived.

Daily reports of course do not only cover daytime losses.

The problems you mention is always the case with the Daily reports. They were made quickly, close to events and probably extensively on the basis of assessment, and are hence almost always incomplete. Generally, they are adjusted in a major way by Nachmeldungen. Having gone through several Tagesmeldung series for several armies at different periods of the war, I would say the general impression is that it must have been a rare Tagesmeldung that was not subsequently corrected. And the inaccuracy is far from always in the direction of understating losses - I have seen Tagesmeldungen that removes three-digit figures of missing from a single division in a single day, for example. It depends also on whether these are the IVb or IIa daily reports - the latter seem to have been more extensively based on assessment.

Over considerable periods of time the daily reports do not generally seem to yield very different figures from other types of reports, but over short time spans (and especially during very active operations), they are often impossile to reconcile
with other reports (or with each other, if you compare the IIa and IVb ones). The obvious conclusion seems to me to be that a single day was simply too short a period for the reporting system to be able to deal accurately wit the distribution of losses, especially on a running basis with reports made so close to events. Hence I would consider the daily reports an inherently less reliable and valuable source than for example ten-day summaries. They can be improved upon by sorting all the endless Nachmeldungen to where they belong, but that too is only partially possible as the NM are not always specific enough to allow a precise allocation of losses. For instance, you can get, on 26 October, a Nachmeldung of 23 KIA, 2 wounded and 134 MIA for 134.ID pertaining to the period 3-17 September. But used with care they can give valuable and more detailed insights than ten-day summaries do into how losses distributed between units and in time, as long as we don't expect too much in the way of accuracy, or treat them as if they were personnell equivalents of the daily tank loss reports.

cheers
Last edited by Qvist on 23 Sep 2008 07:36, edited 1 time in total.

Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”