You seriously believe that?
And I'm not saying it was all intentional, war is confusing and never black and white. Combat reports very often contain a lot of uncertainty and leave much to question. Reporting often as a motive as well.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
When the Soviets filed the reports, it would be impossible to lie.
No, there isn't always a loss, and you have had many such circumstances described.Do you mean a valid victory won't generate a loss?
If a victory is real, there will always be a corresponding loss. It will be logged in some way. Whether it's a damaged aircraft crash landing or an aircraft exploding completely.
They would contain overclaims and because they don't know enemy losses. They are working with the knowledge they have. The loss reports will mention when the aircraft went down, where it went down and why. They will fill these details out accurately and we know they're accurate because they're is always a corresponding Axis claim which fits.You seriously believe that?
And I'm not saying it was all intentional, war is confusing and never black and white. Combat reports very often contain a lot of uncertainty and leave much to question. Reporting often as a motive as well.
Very many German records were lost in the war.Soviet losses have a matching Axis claim.
Axis claims don't always have a matching Soviet loss.
Likewise I've seen Soviets overclaim. Loads of Soviet claims don't have a matching Axis loss.
This of course doesn't make the Soviet report fraudulent because it has an overclaim, the people filling out the report were mistaken but filled it honestly
You can't make mistakes filling out losses though because you obviously know if an aircraft is still available to you or not. They know which aircraft haven't returned on their side, but they can't check the enemy's losses so they have overclaims.
We still have the German victory claims though and can compare them with Soviet losses.Very many German records were lost in the war.
It is impossible to get a good list of the Bf 110s produced, much less a complete list of all aircraft losses. Get real.
Get real.
Good, now prove it. Here post 296 applies to yourself as well.I just think we are starting with a flawed definition of a victory, simply because nothing is certain in combat, and I question the accuracy of loss reports.
There is always a loss. There is no circumstance where a loss isn't recordedNo, there isn't always a loss, and you have had many such circumstances described.
It's hard to fill a cup that is already full.
Because they would have to explain to Soviet high command where the aircraft went if they didn't recorded themNo, let me make myself more clear. How are you 100% certain that all losses are in fact recorded?
All very true. In Verified Victories we have a story of a Soviet pilot which was so disorientated he landed at like 2-3 different airports before crashing. From memory he wanted to follow a river, but ended up following a different one, then followed a second wrong river, then crashed into the side of a building.I'm so sorry for my poor wording.
Let me try again. Let's skip the PVO-PRO claims to simplify the picture.
Ukrainian aircraft is shot down when the pilot has no idea about his actual position.
Afterwards, he hardly remembered the time and altitude and couldn't identify the weapon used against him. The Ukrainian report is based on guesses, - just because it was required to put some numbers in.
There is a claim from the Russian pilot. Compared to the Ukrainian report, time, altitudes, and coordinates are off by a certain measure.
Can we say with confidence, that the Russian claim is 100% wrong just because the Ukrainian report has different details?
If I have no idea about the circumstances and I believe that every Ukrainian report contains true figures, I'm tempted to say - yes, the claim is wrong.
If I happen to interview the surviving Ukrainian pilot and I understand that the reporting system is not perfect, I will have to think again.
Now, I bring the modern war in only due to the coincidence, as said. However, one can find similar real incidents in WWII history. Loss of orientation, stress, errors, shock, loss of conscience and memory - on the side of the pilot.
Bureaucratic requirements, human and technical errors, self-interests, corruption (in various forms) - in the office on the ground.
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.
And the disorientated movements of the pilot were recordedAll very true. In Verified Victories we have a story of a Soviet pilot which was so disorientated he landed at like 2-3 different airports before crashing. From memory he wanted to follow a river, but ended up following a different one, then followed a second wrong river, then crashed into the side of a building.
To remove confusion, as a researcher we have to use all available documentation to get the full picture. getting that picture is possible you just need a hell of a lot of data and it takes time.
It depends how different the details are.Can we say with confidence, that the Russian claim is 100% wrong just because the Ukrainian report has different details?
A maneuver claim as allowed by the Americans (HS-73 or HS-85, one of those too). If the 'enemy' plane was not even damaged how can you possibly call that a victory?I think that depends. In general no, but lets say a pilot flies his plane into the ground trying to evade an opponent I think there is am argument it could be a victory.
Experience working with them, and then experience working with others and making a comparison. Then also experience in wreck recovery where these documents are applied in the real world.But how can you definitely be certain of their accuracy?
Because aircraft can be accounted for. Find yourself an air force's accounting department, check the in-and-out documents, diaries, orders, losses, resupply shipments, have the aircraft down to their construction number for a start. There is a lot of paperwork that goes into tracking these assets, planes do not disappear without a trace.No, let me make myself more clear. How are you 100% certain that all losses are in fact recorded?
Total Luftwaffe aerial claims are thought to be around ~75,000. Then comes the flak claims.Very many German records were lost in the war.
It is impossible to get a good list of the Bf 110s produced, much less a complete list of all aircraft losses. Get real.
I have a list of German claims ...some 67,000+ of them. But, that is not ALL the claims, just the ones I have records of.
Soviet losses have a matching Axis claim.
Axis claims don't always have a matching Soviet loss.
Likewise I've seen Soviets overclaim. Loads of Soviet claims don't have a matching Axis loss.
This of course doesn't make the Soviet report fraudulent because it has an overclaim, the people filling out the report were mistaken but filled it honestly
You can't make mistakes filling out losses though because you obviously know if an aircraft is still available to you or not. They know which aircraft haven't returned on their side, but they can't check the enemy's losses so they have overclaims.
They would contain overclaims and because they don't know enemy losses. They are working with the knowledge they have. The loss reports will mention when the aircraft went down, where it went down and why. They will fill these details out accurately and we know they're accurate because they're is always a corresponding Axis claim which fits.
We still have the German victory claims though and can compare them with Soviet losses.
Aircraft can't just go missing there is always a record of it.How are you certain that reports were actually filed for every aircraft? You can't be.
DerAdlerIstGelandet , your post LITERALLY block quoted my post 300 specifically. You responded directly to that post. Go read your post 301 if you don't believe me. While you are at it read post 228 as well and let me know if your present in it.
In post 260 you said our definition of a victory is not true, so in part as mentioned above post 296 also applies to yourself. This is not being an ass, this is me pointing out the obvious. You went from modding to participating in the thread, calls for clarity also apply to you. The RLM-directive-dismissive-side does not agree with what the German's themselves said a victory is, then when asked to present their evidence the best they can come up with is either personal opinion or memes.
To your post 306: data can definitely prove things. As I clearly stated, you need many pieces of data to do so, not just lost reports.
Don't call people an ass, it looks bad. If you are in a mod position it only looks worse.
You will receive a civil response appropriate when you call someone an ass, don't be surprised when you do.
At the end of the day you went from modding to participating in the discussion and have not provided any documented evidence.
No one is asking for you to change your mind, no one is insulting you either.
You have your personal experience, I have documents form war time outlining how back then the RLM saw it. This thread is about German ww2 claiming. Which is closer to the subject at hand?
Good, now prove it. Here post 296 applies to yourself as well.
Post 327, really? This is exaclt the stuff that boils my blood!
There is too much action I cant keep up... breakign this up into 2 posts.