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.
A look at German fighter Ace kill claims
- Thread starter RCAFson
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.
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.
GregP
Major
No, 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.
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.
Last edited:
GregP
Major
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.
We still have the German victory claims though and can compare them with Soviet losses.
@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?
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.
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.
There is always a loss. There is no circumstance where a loss isn't recorded
Because they would have to explain to Soviet high command where the aircraft went if they didn't recorded them
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.
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.
And the disorientated movements of the pilot were recorded
It depends how different the details are.
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?
Please define your version of a victory to remove any confusion. Any original documentation to support its validity helps too.
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.
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.
Total Luftwaffe aerial claims are thought to be around ~75,000. Then comes the flak claims.
It is possible to get a good list of the # of Bf 110s produced, we have the production plans, reports from the factories, delivery papers, logs in logbooks, etc. All this takes time to iron out but we can get a good number together. You need access to original documentation (some people appear to be allergic to it however).
A victory according to the RLM directives requires destruction as the threshold. HS-73 and HS-85 likewise. You conflate claims with victories and as Emil Nonnenmacher stated "Claims should be regarded as no more than that. Claims are not shoot-downs. To regard them as such is madness ". There may be a claim for no enemy loss, but there may only be a victory if there is an enemy loss (owing to combat obviously).
Historians cannot even agree on the total number of aircraft lost/shot down, and you believe the Soviets 100% for a fact were able to record every aircraft that was lost.
Again, it does not matter what was actually available or not. An actual person has to fill out the reports. How are you certain that reports were actually filed for every aircraft? You can't be. Reports can even become lost in the chaos.
So again I ask you. How can you be certain that the loss reports are in fact complete? You can't…
You are putting a lot of faith in something you cannot prove.
Soviet losses that may be missing reports.
Aircraft can't just go missing there is always a record of it.
And if Soviet records get lost, then how could they get lost more often for certain pilots' claims?
So the losses for Hartmann go missing more often but Fönnekold's losses don't go missing?
When you prove to me that the Soviet loss reports and data are flawless you'll get a response from me. Until then…
Your holier than thou condescending attitude makes my blood boil.
