ratings of German experts

[csThor]

I'll read the stuff you posted when my headaches are gone. Too much at the moment.

[csThor]

I finally read a part of what you posted, wannabetheace, but after a quarter of the first part I simply stopped. What you posted is biased and suggestive, obviously attempting to spread disinformation rather than trying to produce an accurate picture of aerial warfare on the Eastern Front. It's just not worth my time and not worth to be answered ...

[KG26_Alpha]

Its getting "zooubiesque" this thread.

Your replying and debating to his cutting and pasting from another persons thread on another forum, its not even his original discussion.


Lets stop it here...............

[csThor]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Lets stop it here...............

Exactly!

[Thunderbolt56]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Your replying and debating to his cutting and pasting from another persons thread on another forum, its not even his original discussion.

S'what I was gonna say. Plagiarism at its finest.

I didn't read beyond the first paragraph either...so there.

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by wannabetheace

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrey


in the soviet air forces the personal score never was so important, they tried to fulfil their task at first. If the task of a group of pilots was to defend an important bridge they ought to do it at first and not to shoot as more as possible enemy planes. So Soviet fighter often began to fight at any conditions but the gErmans tried to fight only in the conditions favourable to them.

Also, in many Soviet airforce squadrons, the pilots might 'give' their kill of the day, to the squadrons main tally, so that often the squadron, or the larger formation would have tens or hundreds of kills more, than were listed as the individual pilots victories combined!

This was done on occasion in the RAF too... Also the Red Airfoce and RAF had in common, was that aircraft kills were not always displayed on aircraft. This not only because they were having a different plane every time, but it wasnt considered 'proper', in many RAF circles, as they felt that the squadron had earned the kills as a group effort... This kind of mentality or something similar, was also prevalent in the Red Airforce... And the Japanese fighter squadrons, ofcourse every side had some great individualist aces, who displayed their kills, this is only natural, especially after their country's media got hold of them!

I didn't know about Russian and Japanese, but for sure Italian air-force, at least in the beginning of the war, largely didn't count individual victories, as they attributed the kills to the squadron, in an effort to avoid any individualistic approach and exalt the teamwork. So, different ideologies (fascism is by no means a collectivist ideology) but same doctrines. This fact is traditionally used to explain the relatively low scores of Italian aces, coupled with the objective weaknesses of planes and guns.

Regards,
Insuber

[Furio]

“On 5 July 1943 (aboard his cannon armed Il 2) Ivanov attacked a column of 12 of the potent German Tiger tanks. Always aiming for the tank’s lightly-protected rear which housed engine and fuel, he was able to claim destruction of all 12 tanks single-handed.”

It is quite a piece of Soviet propaganda, isn’t it? Okay, now stop laughing. I’ve cheated, changing names and sides. The real one reads as follows:

“On 5 July 1943 (aboard his cannon armed Ju 87), Rudel attacked a column of 12 of the potent Soviet T34 tanks. Always aiming for the tank’s lightly-protected rear which housed engine and fuel, he was able to claim destruction of all 12 tanks single-handed.”
(From “German Aircraft of the second World War, by Anthony L. Kay and J.R Smith, published by Putnam).

This is the kind of “facts” that we accepted as historical for years, and that often still we accept without a doubt. Nazi propaganda is not dissimilar from Soviet propaganda, but, to be honest with ourselves, we accept it much more readily.

[csThor]

Actually Rudel claimed 12 tanks on the whole of July 5 1943 in several missions. Tank claims are a lot more difficult than the already difficult aircraft claims as it's nearly impossible to discern whether or not a tank is out of action - unless it's burning fiercely.

[Furio]

Originally Posted by csThor

Tank claims are a lot more difficult than the already difficult aircraft claims as it's nearly impossible to discern whether or not a tank is out of action - unless it's burning fiercely.

You’re right. Some fancy claims were made at the Falaise Pocket battle. RAF and USAf claimed 391 armored vehicles as destroyed. Shortly afterwards, in a close examination of battlefield, 133 vehicles were effectively found, of which only 33 had been effectively destroyed, sometimes indirectly, by air attack.
In my opinion, however, there is a widespread tendency to give more credit at German claims and less at Soviet ones.

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by Furio

You’re right. Some fancy claims were made at the Falaise Pocket battle. RAF and USAf claimed 391 armored vehicles as destroyed. Shortly afterwards, in a close examination of battlefield, 133 vehicles were effectively found, of which only 33 had been effectively destroyed, sometimes indirectly, by air attack.
In my opinion, however, there is a widespread tendency to give more credit at German claims and less at Soviet ones.

It's funny that even Goering didn't believe to the claim of his pilots during the Battle of Britain. He went mad accusing them of gross exhaggeration, and tightened the claim examination process. The pilots were scorned and demotivated by the distrust of their own leader (source: JG26, The Top Guns of Luftwaffe, Donald L. Caldwell).

Regards,
Ins