- Thread starter
-
- #321
Venomstick121
Airman 1st Class
- 291
- Dec 21, 2023
Wow, I did not realize my second post on the forum would cause this much controversy and end up getting someone banned
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Wow, I did not realize my second post on the forum would cause this much controversy and end up getting someone banned
You have to do it before you made any statement about him. You must then provide proof of aerial victories, only claims cannot be considered as sufficient. Thus, Emil Lang claimed 18 shot down on November, 3, 1943, but only 2 or 3 of them can be undoubtedly confirmed by Soviet documents. At the same time almost all victories of some of Lang's colleagues were confirmed by the Soviets - the same period, the same conditions, the same opponent. The average overclaim rate for Germans during the Battle of Kiev was about 3.5, whereas the Soviets overclaim was significantly higher (6 to 10 according to the same source). I assume, that two of eight claims could be real victories, not more (and it should be considered as an outstanding result!).1. I will find a photo of the pilot captain
I am not sure, that it was just a typo.2. Yes, it is indeed a typo. The P-38 was never supplied under lend-lease.
Evidently, Russian is your native language. You just follow an old Russian tradition: "never analyse the reason of your own losses if you won the war!"3. I did not write that the Air Force was the best in World War II. But you know, chickens are counted in autumn...who survived, and who died.
Seems, that the loss ratio would be a surprise to you.4. Did I generalize that no one has a clue about the war on the eastern front? You seem to take my posts very personally. Wild_Bill_Kelso was right when he wrote that After all, as I keep pointing out, the Germans didn't win the war in the East, which may come as shocking news to some...
You are trying to write like a typical propagandist.I'm trying to write like a historian,
Your opinion is worthless if not supported by reliable sources, preferably documents (monographs will do as well). So far you demonstrate complete ignorance of even modern Russian-language literature on the subject. And why am I not surprised?And each participant has his own opinion about certain facts in history.
If you are not sure of your opinion, ask a question prior to assert anything.Many people, including me, may have their own opinions and their own misconceptions.
Some participants dislike any unsupported opinion formed solely by propaganda.In almost all my posts, I didn't put pressure on anyone. I've only given you what I know. And I know that someone might not like it.
This is a typical GlavPUR (Main Political Directorate of the Soviet Army and Soviet Navy) production containing pure propaganda.The book is called "Bug on fire."
Savchenko himself claimed only two victories on June 23, 1941. Exactly as I guessed..."In total, on the first day of the war, the division's pilots shot down 30 enemy aircraft. 4 of them were shot down by Major Surin; 9 — Captain Savchenko (died in Pinsk), 5 — senior political officer Sirotin, 3 — Lieutenant Sakhno, 2 planes were shot down by Captain Mozhaev; Lieutenant Zhidov (now Hero of the Soviet Union, colonel in reserve).
Our pilots flew outdated aircraft, but still inflicted sensitive blows on the enemy who invaded our territory." There are also photos.
I made a mistake, not 8, but 9 planes.
You have to do it before you made any statement about him. You must then provide proof of aerial victories, only claims cannot be considered as sufficient. Thus, Emil Lang claimed 18 shot down on November, 3, 1943, but only 2 or 3 of them can be undoubtedly confirmed by Soviet documents. At the same time almost all victories of some of Lang's colleagues were confirmed by the Soviets - the same period, the same conditions, the same opponent. The average overclaim rate for Germans during the Battle of Kiev was about 3.5, whereas the Soviets overclaim was significantly higher (6 to 10 according to the same source). I assume, that two of eight claims could be real victories, not more (and it should be considered as an outstanding result!).
I am not sure, that it was just a typo.
Evidently, Russian is your native language. You just follow an old Russian tradition: "never analyse the reason of your own losses if you won the war!"
Seems, that the loss ratio would be a surprise to you.
The Germans did not win the war in the East simply because they were fighting not just the USSR alone, but a coalition of allies. Without American gasoline and high-octane components, Soviet aviation could not operate at all in the most critical moments of the war. Try to find annual figures of oil production and aviation gasoline production at least in Baku (where the main production facilities were concentrated) during the war. And then try to compare it with the figures of the total production of aviation gasoline in the USSR. I suppose you will be greatly surprised. Thanks to massive Allied raids, the Luftwaffe was forced to transfer the most fighters to the West, which allowed the USSR to achieve a vast numerical superiority in the East. But even under these conditions, the Soviet air force's actions were not effective enough.
You trying to write like a typical propagandist.
Your opinion is worthless if not supported by reliable sources, preferably documents (monographs will do as well). So far you demonstrate complete ignorance of even modern Russian-language literature on the subject. And why am I not surprised?
If you are not sure of your opinion, ask a question prior to assert anything.
Some participants dislike any unsupported opinion formed solely by propaganda.
This is a typical GlavPUR (Main Political Directorate of the Soviet Army and Soviet Navy) production containing pure propaganda.
Savchenko himself claimed only two victories on June 23, 1941. Exactly as I guessed.
P.S. I can comment with references every statement in your posts, unfortunately I don't have time to write lengthy replies - I'm completely overwhelmed working on several projects. But someday I will pay all debts - with charts, links to documents, etc.
I totally disagree.Otherwise your response is no more worthwhile than his you call worthless.
Dear colleague, You forget one thing, that this is a pure stormtrooper. So what is a stormtrooper? It is an aircraft belonging to assault aviation and designed for direct support of ground forces and naval forces, as well as for targeted destruction of various land and sea targets.It is to storm the enemy's fortifications at LOW altitude. And therefore it should be moderately protected. Why would a stormtrooper pilot look back?
A mighty magic arrow, I guess? And then you post two photos of a single-seat version without a gunner! Try to read books by Oleg Rastrenin, he is the most prominent Russian historian writing on Soviet ground-attack aircraft.There is an arrow to cover the tail.
There were armor plates on the left and right. which protected the pilot from small arms. So the review was good for the pilot. Forward and sideways.
Your post did not get anyone banned. Everyone is responsible for their own behavior/actions.
I hope Bill comes to his senses. For all he can be hard to take at times, I like his a lot of his contributions, and learn a lot.
Why would a stormtrooper pilot look back?
This is a very complex question with no straightforward answer. The number of sorties per loss increased during the war (from 8-9 in the first months of the war to 80-90 in 1945), but the contribution of the rear gunner was rather very low (my estimates are around 10%). The Il-2 got a rear gunner's position too late, besides, the design of the airplane was also changed (swept wing section was introduced to increase the stability), piloting became easier, which possibly had a greater impact on the final result. The training of young pilots did not increase noticeably, moreover, it decreased (!) in 1944, but the probability of encountering a German fighter decreased even more strongly, and the number of cover fighters increased dramatically. For the Il-10, the rear gunner was considered to be unnecessary ballast. Some analysis can be found in books and articles by Oleg Rastrenin, my conclusions are based on data from these sources.I do not know enough about the loss rates of the Il-2 before and after the addition of the armour plate - or before and after the addition of the gunner's position - to say what was effective or ineffective.
3. I did not write that the Air Force was the best in World War II. But you know, chickens are counted in autumn...who survived, and who died.
And it was not the Soviet aviation that was the best, but the entire Soviet army. Including aviation.
Great plane! It's a beautiful car. Only the US Army refused it. Well, I did not refuse, but there were very few purchases.
And the last thing...I'm not writing vaguely, I'm trying to write like a historian, you asked me for the name of the Russian captain, and I'll find him.
This is not categorical, this is anger at the fact that someone has, IMPERMISSIBLY has, a different opinion. Why such anger towards a stranger? What kind of fly has bitten you? I wrote from memory, I did not engage in propaganda. Everything that I have learned in my 64 years, I have outlined. All that I have learned from your post, we still have to measure our members. You insulted me, called me a propagandist, maybe I'm also a Cheka agent? And after all, do I have to report to you? You didn't have a discussion, you, as it was mildly noted here, fucked it up. Do you really think that there is only one opinion? And this is your opinion?
I will not write here anymore. I'm a busy person too...
Yo, the only criticism I had of you was the hypocrisy of telling the membership here they didn't know WWII history, and then going and pulling a couple of major boners yourself. Get off that high horse if you're going to make such basic mistakes as claiming the Western Allies didn't liberate Belgium and Western Germany.
Being corrected is a gift, not an insult.
Let's also not forget that Eisenhower ordered the Allies in the west to not advance on Berlin. The western could have likely reached Berlin sooner had they opted for it.
Agreed, a couple of times I considered reporting him but a healthy discussion or debate is a good thing I feel, and I don't want to hang out in an echo chamber you know? I did take issue about being made fun of but let it pass as it wasn't that egregious. Like you say, he has a lot of good information that he shares, sometimes almost too muchI hope Bill comes to his senses. For all he can be hard to take at times, I like a lot of his contributions, and learn a lot.