Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
OkDerAdlerIstGelandet , I am going to be civil about this. Please read posts. Don't call people asses. Your a mod, be above that.
This is the second time you think I'm going after you or want to insult you (post 103). IDK why but you do. Never thought of it, nor will I. I have no beef with you.
You were not part of post 228, the other mod was. If you read the post you would see this clear as day.
My post 296 could have been better worded to direct it at the party which dismisses the archival evidence, not solely at yourself. Sorry. Not everything is directed against you.
From your post 260 I guess you align yourself with the dismissive part. If yes, then post 296 partly applies to yourself then too.
Its OK to not agree on what constitutes a victory. One side has the documented evidence, the other side does not. One is welcome to choose which one they wish to stay in.
? Have I not been posting evidence this entire thread ?For someone who claims to do otherwise you have a habit of doing it.
Oh boy...data does not prove anything definitely, in this particular topic for reasons already discussed by many
Did you again fail to read post #300 before you began typing? Truly unbelievable.
"My post 296 could have been better worded to direct it at the party which dismisses the archival evidence, not solely at yourself. Sorry. Not everything is directed against you."
? Have I not been posting evidence this entire thread ?
While you are at it, please point out to me where are you present in post 228?
Keep calling people asses though.
Because, as explained above, the Ukrainian pilot didn't know his true position. However, some coordinates were required to be filed in the report.Unfortunately I don't know much about missiles and fighter jet combat and how they work, but why is the loss 300km away?
Oh boy...
Data does prove things definitely. You may need more than 1 piece of data to do so. But to get the data, you need to do more than sit around and think up an opinion.
This idea of yours on data is perhaps second only to yours about people not caring if an aircraft was repaired.
I'm so sorry for my poor wording.The above example is probably poorly worded and is the reason why it seems fantastical. 300km is a BIG distance to travel without crew. Going off this hypothetical example, the pilot ejected. Go back to back to post 97 (many people on this thread would benefit from reading those directives), if the entire crew abandons the plane mid flight then that is grounds for a victory because this will cause the aircraft to crash (fast forward 50 years when aircraft are remote controlled this may change, we are not there yet).
How was he being an ass? He asked if you could prove your point with evidence. Nothing wrong with that.Why are you calling me out? No need to be an ass. I'm NOT disputing your research, nor do I disagree that there was definitive over-claiming.
I just don't agree with what constitutes a victory, and that there will always be a corresponding loss recorded to a claim, and therefore you and I will not agree with the outcome/analysis. That's it, and nothing will change that.
I hadn't read this yet lolNow, I do apologize for saying you were being an ass (at the time you came across as such), as you admitted that your post should have been better worded. Had it been better worded, there would be no issue or problem.
Maybe we both can agree that we should read/think about our posts before submitting them.
And once again, don't take it as a critique of your book or the research related to Hungary. After all, the topic is much broader.
How was he being an ass? He asked if you could prove your point with evidence. Nothing wrong with that.
I'd say they are 95% accurate. They might have a different cause of the crash, the time or location could be slightly wrong, but it is accurate enough to decide overclaims or kills.Are you 100% certain that loss reports are 100% accurate?
I hadn't read this yet lol
Just curious, do you consider it a victory if the plane that was attacked didn't get hit by the attacker but was still claimed as a victory?I will never agree that a shot down aircraft that was repaired is still not a victory that should not count for a pilot.
I'd say they are 95% accurate. They might have a different cause of the crash, the time or location could be slightly wrong, but it is accurate enough to decide overclaims or kills.
I think I said this before but the Soviet archives in 1943-45 are the most detailed and accurate of any archive I have seen.
Just curious, do you consider it a victory if the plane that was attacked didn't get hit by the attacker but was still claimed as a victory?
I think I said this before but the Soviet archives in 1943-45 are the most detailed and accurate of any archive I have seen.
Well the time of the loss could be 1217 hours but the claim is at 1207 hours. The time is close enough.How can you be certain that its 95% or is that just your opinion?
And if the data is not 100%, how it can be "good enough" to decide anything. All it does is confirm confirmation bias.
When the Soviets filed the reports, it would be impossible to lie.But how can you definitely be certain of their accuracy?
Well the time of the loss could be 1217 hours but the claim is at 1207 hours. The time is close enough.
The location of the loss could be Várpalota but the claim is at Csór. (You can use google maps to see the close proximity of these locations)
The location is close enough
It's clear the losses are linked to the claims
So my guess is 95% because that's how close I consider the differences