There have been times I try to put the Eastern Front into perspective for people that are, say, less in-the-know. What i usually do is tell them a couple things that are fact and easily found.

1. 80% of all German ground casualties in WWII were on the Eastern Front.

2. The largest, bloodiest, most costly battle (in human life) in the history of mankind was the Battle for Stalingrad.

I think that's quite possibly mistaken.

It is apparently a fact that most of the German high scoring aces made those scores in the east. The scores were overstated probably, but the RAF overscored too, and it's probably not disproportionate, allegedly. Again allegedly the Germans found the east to be a target rich environment, and most of those targets undertrained, and under performing.

Stalin was prone to throwing numbers at his enemies when he couldn't match them in quality, in the air as on the ground. I've read that many I16s were sent into battle with no sights except markings painted on the windscreen.

German losses in the west were higher per allied aircraft, because of superior western allied training and aircraft. Even so, the "rodeo"s and "circus"es of 1942 and 1943 were apparently not profitable for the RAF and USAAF in hindsight, though they seemed so at the time due to overclaiming.

There probably were figures, there seem to be figures for almost everything in the west, the nazis were obsessive about documentation. If, as I suspect, there are numbers for the western front, it may be necessary to find those, and subtract them from the total to get a figure for the east, which I think there is a probability will turn out to be less than half.

The war wasn't a game that had to be fair or people wouldn't play, if they "didn't play" they would probably die anyway, so they did the best they could, even if the odds were hugely against them, because they had no better option.

The "blinding sun" campaign for the USSR isn't much fun, but it is probably as accurate a rendering of the actual eastern front as is possible without making it not a playable game at all.

I don't doubt any of that is true at all. The Germans had it much easier in the air.

As it seems, Igo Kyu, we are comparing more feelings than actual number, but...
I wouldn’t say that Eastern front was so easy for Luftwaffe. According to German archives, cited by Yefim Gordon, Luftwaffe lost 3.827 aircraft during the first six month of war, the most favorable period for Germany. In the same period, VVS lost more than 20.000, but it was the least favorable period for Russia.
Possibly, you’re right about more losses in West than in East, but there are numbers that makes one think twice. Citing again Gordon, VVS lost one aircraft per 32 sorties in 1941, 1 per 72 in 1943 and 1 per 165 in 1945. Luftwaffe lost 1 per 25,5 in 1942, 1 per 22,5 in 1943 and 1 per 11 in the last months of war.

Losses per sortie are not exactly a viable reference size unless both air forces are not only equal but identical. The VVS often had the numerical superiority and that became more pronounced in 1942 (exceptions were local occurences and owed to combat losses, a concentration of Luftwaffe forces at the expense of other sectors and similar facts).

A total number is probably always going to end in "approximate losses". BC/RS 3 lists the following losses for the VVS and Luftwaffe for the timeframe July to November 1942 (page 224):

VVS

Lost in air combat: 7415
Lost to AAA: 1642
On the ground: 487
Total: 9544

Luftwaffe

Lost in air combat/to AAA: 1039
On the ground: 96
Total: 1135

Interesting is the relationship between losses in air combat (don't know if the numbers include missing aircraft as well) versus claims. In this timeframe the VVS claimed 4500 german aircraft (losses include losses to AAA, don't know exact number of losses in air combat; overclaiming of 4,33:1) and the Luftwaffe claimed 14153 victories in air combat (includes approximate number of claims for various german Jagdgeschwader so the number is probably not that accurate, though; overclaiming of 1,9:1).

I don't have all of the numbers, no, but the scores of the aces tell of a lot of destroyed aircraft. There were 35 German pilots credited with 6,849 kills. If they were over claiming by a factor of three, thats still over 2,000. On the first day, June 22 (according to Mike Spick in Luftwafe Fighter Aces, as was the figure above) the soviets admit 1,200 aircraft lost, 800 on the ground.

I tend to view all authors as potentially biased, as I am sure I am myself. The question is "which sources did a particular author see themselves, and which did they quote from other authors who claim to have seen original sources?".

What you guys need to do is break the war into years.

In 1941 very large numbers of Soviet aircraft were lost while on the ground or due to desperate tactics attempting to protect ground troops.

By 1943 the situation has changed with air superiority beginning to shift in Soviet favour, but with a massive increase in anti-aircraft guns on both sides.

In 1945 Germany is producing a tremendous number of aircraft (eg. look at bf-109 production in 1939-43 vs. 1944-1945) and a very large number of these aircraft are being destroyed on the ground, being given to very poorly trained pilots or being slaughtered while attempting to intercept allied bomber fleets.

So, if you want to compare Soviet and Western Ally effectiveness, then it would be could to study casualty rate in 1943 when Germany the situation was more comparable on both fronts.

But tallying up the total number of aircraft produced on each side during the war (especially when some of the late war German figures may only exist on paper), isn't going to cut it.

I agree with you, Aviminus. Forget about my numbers. My main point is simple: at the end of the war, all Luftwaffe aircrafts must be counted as “losses”, minus only those lost in non-combat related accident. Soviet aircraft captured by the thousands in 1941 by advancing German troops are rightly counted as losses, and the reverse is true also. Focusing on air combat only is, in my opinion, quite misleading.

Nope, it was the battle for Moscow. Until recently the Russian official losses of this battle were grossly underestimated, both for simple ignorance and to preserve the reputation of some top brass as Zhukov. Hundreds of thousand men thrown in the furnace, sometimes without weapons.

"The Battle for Moscow was the biggest battle of World War II - indeed of all time. The combined losses amounted to 2.5 million men - 2 million on he Russian side. Even Stalingrad involved half as many troops and less than half as many losses." The Greatest Battle, the Fight for Moscow 1941-42, Andrew Nagorski, Aurum, 8.89 £.

Regards,
Insuber

No, I disagree completely. That can't be a measure of combat effectiveness and I'm sure you understand why. I really don't think you can discuss this question without numbers and by referring to "feelings."

Are you saying that captured on the ground aircraft shouldn’t be counted? Why not? Air, ground and sea forces fight the same war.
Even if we focus more on air combat, a thing is clear: if Luftwaffe were capable of winning the Battle of Britain, maintain air superiority over Russia, and defend oil fields by Allied bombing, then Germany would have won the war.
If we focus on fighters versus fighter combat, we forget that bombers were the real offensive weapons with a real impact on the battlefield. During war years, Luftwaffe bombers diminished constantly as fighters grew in number constantly, transforming an offensive arm in a purely defensive one.
War ended in April 1945, but Luftwaffe ceased to exist as an organized combat force probably in January, being thoroughly defeated. Almost all of its surviving aircraft were captured before Germany surrender.