Luftwaffe Genst.Gen.Qu.6.Abt. loss lists reliability

[Richard T Eger]

From 12 O'Clock High!:

Kai-Mikael Jää-Aro
Under-reporting vs over-reporting
Mon Aug 6 12:18:41 2026


The recent bickering over exactly how many had been killed by this and that ace made me think of another thing:
Often loss records are considered "definite" - in the sense that while pilot claims about how many aircraft were shot down might be exaggerated, at least the other side should know how many they lost.

What I wonder now is, do we have any measure of how trustworthy loss reports are? I read an article in Aeroplane Monthly a few years back which noted in passing that the loss figures for Bf 110s were so high that a number of aircraft that had been shot down were actually written off as due to technical problems. Apart from deliberate hanky-panky I can well imagine miswritten dates etc.

My point is that I get a bit nervous when people categorically say "so-and-so couldn't have shot down such-and-such a plane because it is not in the loss records". Is there any way of deciding approximately how dependable these records are?

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

JD
Bravo! A clever posting at last.
Mon Aug 6 12:54:52 2026


All I can say about your question is that "error is human" or something like that. Every grown-up person knows there are multiple opportunities of errors in combat and afterwards.

VERY INTERESTING STUFF on the 110's! I had been suspecting that for a long time. I still suspect it at least for the 109's in the 1940 French Campaign.

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Juha
Bf 110 losses up north
Mon Aug 6 14:32:34 2026


Hello,
if my memory serves me right, according to the AM article the reason of manipulating the cause of the Bf 110 losses was that the higher echelon had began to be worried of the high waste-rate of the Bf 110s of the Luftflotte 5 in strafing and train busting attacks, this happened later in the war, in 1942 or 1943, and ordered the stop of low level attacks. The men of the Bf 110 unit thought that they were getting useful results from these attacks and decised to continue them in spite of the ban and to explain any possible losses as caused by technical problem. So this might have been a special case in a sense that it was used as a mean to evade a ban.

Of course in research one can't have a blind faith on anything but always try to critically analyse one's sources, also the official documents. And there is always a "gray zone" when one talks on kills, one may shoot down an a/c by hitting for example its cooling system and so forcing its pilot to force-land. So one shot down a plane but the other side might well find out that the force landed plane was easily repairable and to them it was only lightly damaged. So to one side a genuine kill but not a total loss to the other side.

Best regards
Juha

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

JD
YES, very good Juha!
Mon Aug 6 17:11:27 2026

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Juha
AM article
Tue Aug 7 08:39:48 2026


Hello again,
I found the article, it's in Aeroplane Monthly July 1995 pp. 18 - 21. The title "Setting the record straight" written by Rick Chapman. And it is a good article on the last flight of the Bf 110 F-2/Trop WNr. 5052 LN+NR of the 13(Z)/JG 5. And my memory wasn't perfect. According to the article "..Higher HQ, the [unit's engineering] officer tried to explain, had complained about the constantly increasing number of a/c losses in connection with ground-attack missions and, furthermore, had strongly suggested that the blame lay with the pilots, who were exercicing insufficient care when attacking such targets. In an attempt to placate the high-ups and at the same time not to undermine aircrew morale, it had been dicided to attribute some losses to 'technical problems'!"
Time was that when the production of the Bf 110 had been run down because of the production of the Me 210 and maybe one reason for the anxiety of the higer HQ was a fear of how difficult it would become to get replacement a/c up north, which was a backwater to the OKL.

Sorry about my English, hope you understand my point.

Best Regards
Juha

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Christer Bergström
Grislawski bailed out four times, only two filed
Mon Aug 6 20:43:31 2026


When one compares the daily loss returns to Generalquartiermeister der Luftwaffe (GQu) with various other first-hand reports such as Luftwaffe pilot log books, it is easy to find numerous cases when losses simply are missing in the GQu lists. For instance, I've been doing deep research into Alfred Grislawski's career as fighter pilot during WW II (for my forthcoming biography on him and Hermann Graf). I've found four clear cases - from Grislawski's original wartime papers - where Grislawski was shot down and had to bail out. Only two of these cases are noted in the GQu lists. Just as an example. I don't imply that I draw any general conclusions from this.

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Jim P.
Re: Grislawski bailed out four times, only two filed
Tue Aug 7 01:18:23 2026


Christer, my first question to that statement would be - when did these bailouts occur? If any were in 1944 and Grislawski uninjured there won't be a record, at least within known surviving documentation.

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Christer Bergström
Grislawski's "unrecorded" bailouts
Tue Aug 7 19:41:42 2026


The "unrecorded" bailouts took place on:

Jan 18, 1943 - Kuban area, Eastern Front.
July 27, 1944 - Caen area, Western Front.

Best wishes

Christer Bergström
www.blackcross-redstar.com (http://www.blackcross-redstar.com)

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Jim P.
Re: Grislawski's "unrecorded" bailouts
Thu Aug 9 01:19:10 2026


Well, the 1944 date explains one of them. The other, if I recall correctly from loss data, was when JG 52 was in rapid retreat due to the Soviet breakthrough in the Stalingrad area. They left quite a number of aircraft behind on several airstrips at the time. The loss was actually recorded, I think, but for the wrong reasons, and for the wrong unit. Supposition on my part, but a hand written 7 in German script could be misinterpreted as a 1.

Bf 109G-2 13909 GRISLAWSKI, Ltn. Alfred 133 7. JG 52 18-Jan-43 FSA after Luftkampf while escorting Ju 87s. His 'regular' machine from 25.10.42. Loss report and Fast say destroyed by own forces on 2.1.43. Loss report says 1./JG 52. Ru§land Gen.Qu.6.Abt. (mfm #8)-Vol.14; Flugbuch; Fast, JG 52, IV p. 82 txt Krasnodar 100% F

Obviously some conflict as to details.

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Andreas Brekken
Date AND location/front area
Tue Aug 7 10:06:05 2026


Hi, all.

I just want to add one small comment to Jim P.'s on the GQM returns:

When comparing individual pilot log books and recollections with these returns, You would also have to take into consideration WHERE they occured, and under WHICH circumstances with regards to which front area and if the Luftwaffe units in the area was for example rapidly retreating.

You can easily find corrections and additions and first time reports of a loss weeks, months and even a year after it happened. So I would definitely not use one pilots recollection/log book as a "proof" that the German High Command or Luftwaffe units altered the records.

With Grislawski, whom I believe flew in JG 52, the records from the last days, weeks or even months of the life of the unit would be hard to find if not sent in. Also, there could be records from at least the last half of 1943 in addition to most of 1944 where one COULD have a loss suffered by him which cannot be found in the existing GQM reports.

The quality of the reports back through the system also differs. For example I would have to say that Horst Carganico of JG 5 was a sloppy person when it came to writing the reports of personell losses in II./JG 5, others were better at the paperwork.

Regards and pls keep searching for my holy grail!

Andreas B

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Jim P.
Re: Under-reporting vs over-reporting
Mon Aug 6 14:16:04 2026


So tell me this -- what possible reason is there for falsifying loss reports? Propaganda? For who? The Allies? The hometown crowd? In the case of the LW, these docs were for internal use, for allocating replacement equipment and manpower to units, recording casualties and notifying next of kin and probably a myriad of other reasons. If you go about systematically underreporting, falsifying or whatever, how do you replace your losses? How can command make any type of reasonable decision? And what about the survivors? Is there some kind of mass conspiracy amongst these guys to keep the 'real' losses secret? They pretend their missing comrades and friends never existed? That any mention of them was excised out of any and all wartime documentation - casualty reports, letters, logbooks -- photos? The proposition doesn't make much sense if you really think about it.

Were the loss reports complete? Certainly not. There are some maddening bits missing for incidents documented by German vets. And the 1944 Quartermaster reports are almost completely lost. Not to mention that aircraft assessed as under 10% damaged were seldom reported. If I had to make an educated guess, I would say that for what we do have, the data is better than 95% complete.

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

JD
Keep cool because...
Mon Aug 6 14:24:46 2026


... a loss (in aircraft)is a loss no matter whether in combat or because of technical problems and this does not falsify the statistics, replacements (of AC) etc. Many crews of 110s which were shot down made it back to their unit so it was easy to report the loss of AC as "non-combat". As I said I suspected this already. The main reason is probably that they feared Göring's reactions. he was called "der Eiserne" ("the Of-Iron", so the Ironman) during WW I (he was an ace and replaced Richthofen). The 110's were considered the very best AC of the LW and they got the very best, hand-picked crews but everybody shot them down in droves, especially the French (including Moranes) and the RAF. Of course in the BoB it was soon impossible to conceal the truth from Göring : most AC shot down could not be recovered and most crews were killed or taken prisoners. So the LW high command discovered the truth on the 110 in the BoB, which does not mean that they were not badly mauled before the BoB.

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Artie Bob
Documentation and recollections
Tue Aug 7 00:25:34 2026


I have read Jim Perry’s article and agree with him. Here are some additional comments from my experience. I left the military about 40 years ago and here is my take on documentation and recollections.
I remember an event, when I was flying in a formation of jet a/c at low altitude, when the lead pilot crashed as a result of pilot error. The question is, was I really in the flight that day? My memory is that yes, I was there and that is what I have told others. But what bothers me is that I cannot remember details of the incident. My only definite memory is a ”Mayday” call. Historically it is unimportant, but it serves to illustrate the principle that your personal recollections are really “iffy” ten, twenty, or fifty years later of an event that at the time was very important. I can remember the location, but not the date or names of anyone else involved, and at the time, these were my closest companions in the world.
Documenting the incident are: an accident report, log books, etc. that probably survive and if it really becomes an important enough issue for me, I can ascertain certain facts about the event, but many details will be lost. I doubt that my presence in the formation would be recorded, but I could compare the date and time with my personal log book and see if there is a match. It would be very difficult, if not impossible for any one else to confirm that fact. The reason for this is there were many documents that were created at the time of the event, only a small percentage of these make to permanent archives. For example, about the same time, I was friends with a USN photographer’s mate. On a six month deployment, he took hundreds of photos. When he left the ship he gave me several hundred negatives and prints, some of the “culls” that he felt were not good enough to submit as official USN archive material, or subject matter that he felt was not of “official” interest (some of the guys making out with local ladies in a bar, etc.). He also took hundreds more images for his personal collection. So, for the researcher now, the record is less complete than when it was created. On this same deployment, our ship “ran aground”. If you look at the official ship’s log in the Navy archives you will not see any entry for this event. If it had been recorded, it would almost certainly ended the careers of the captain and possibly other officers involved. They were lucky, the ship came off with very minor damage, which was repaired by ship’s company. The log was written in a manner sufficient to protect the “guilty”. Sometimes, we were just to busy to keep all the records required, so when it came time to send them to Washington, a group sat down and filled in forms, “creating” whatever data was needed. Any direct link to reality had been totally avoided
But these were exceptions, the majority of the archive records are probably correct, but not at a level of detail to prove every micro event.
So, my caveat is, when you do historical research, try to understand the conditions and POVs existing at the time the documentation was created. Realize the documentation, no matter how voluminous, is never complete in all details. And finally, first person accounts, given after the fact (even minutes), are likely to be at variance with reality, no matter what the intent and integrity of the individual involved. When done with the research, you are now at the point of classic historical analysis, trying to recreate a true and accurate account of events. Difficult even with the best of data, skill and intentions and too often, one or more of these essentials are missing, rendering the result worse than useless, which for the historian is spurious.

[John Vasco]

To JD (and everyone else)

Once and for all, please ditch the idea that Bf 110 crews were 'elite' and 'hand-picked'. They were not! The early crews were usually transferred from 109s when their unit was re-equipped with 110s. A unit like Erprobungsgruppe 210 (which I know a little bit about) had crews transferred from 110s (1st Staffel); from Stukas (2nd Staffel), and straight from training (both Staffeln)! A couple of pilots with 210 actually moved from 110s to 109s (Lt. Marx and Fw. Michi).

Hope this clarifies things.

John Vasco

[Richard T Eger]

From 12 O'Clock High!:

PK
Luftwaffe clerical error...??
Mon May 26 21:24:04 2026
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 2026
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 2026
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 2026
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 2026
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