Wehrmachtsauskunftstelle fur Kriegeverluste und Kriegsgefangene (WASt) records reliability

[Richard T Eger]

From 12 O'Clock High!:

PK
Luftwaffe clerical error...??
Mon May 26 21:24:04 2003
158.195.97.17

HI all.

I am searching with my friends for Me 109 loss of JG 52 on 13. september 1944.
We found out loss of Me 109, which match for a location, JG (staffel) and photo identification...but is dated September 12, 1944 - one day sooner as we expected.
The mentioned plane had to be lost in battle with B-17s as reported by Germans. But on 12th, no action of such a type of bomber was in the area of the loss.
Is it possible, or how offen, if ever, does it happen, that the loss of the luftwaffe aircraft was badly dated or was mistaken by clerical error?
Can you someone write me, if in a almost perfect system, which luftwaffe had, was such a mistake possible?
Thanks

peter:)

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Franek Grabowski
Luftwaffe clerical error...??
Mon May 26 22:55:32 2003
213.25.54.73

Hello Peter
I'd reverse the question, would you believe the documents prepared by clerks at highest command level and based on reports send by Flotten, which were based on documents prepared by Geschwadern, those being prepared by Staffeln, would those document be errorless?
Few authors quote their sources, however it's well known most of the loss lists are either based on GQ 6 lists or WASt returns. Those contain multiple errors and IMHO are highly unreliable - must be cross referenced.
Cheers
Franek

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

PK
then...
Tue May 27 07:16:25 2003
158.195.16.233

Then Franek, the plane at Andrychow is 13.9.44 crash shot down by Kroschnewsky at aerial combat:)
bye and for more discussion contact me offboard:)

peter:)

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

John Vasco
Example of Luftwaffe clerical error
Tue May 27 11:23:42 2003
195.92.67.74

Luftwaffe records show that the Bf 110 of Fritz Ebner and Werner Zwick of 2./Erpr. Gr. 210, lost over England on 27/9/40 was S9+DU. RAF Air Intelligence report on the crash shows the code as S9+DK. S9+DK is correct, because it was on-the-spot reporting, and also it shows conformity with 2. Staffel identification: 'K'. No doubt a handwritten 'K' in the original Staffel return became a typewritten 'U' at a higher level. There are other examples.

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Bernd Barbas
Loss " Errors "
Wed May 28 12:34:36 2003
194.45.48.11

Hello PK ,

as also common in other areas , also here are different kind of errors possible .
For the official german loss list ( GQM - list ) was stolen for 1944 out of the IWM , ther are no " complete " loss lists existing .
Most losses for 1944 are with personal losses , so if there was a belly landing or even if a pilot had to parachute , but remained unhurt , it could be , that there is no document existing , showing this loss . The same is valid for ac remaining damaged at the last airfield during retreat .
Nearly all files were run in handwriting by different people so it would wonder myself if having here no mistakes !
All the best , Bernd