MOST UNDERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII?

[michael rauls]

Also contrary to what most think and even what many ww2 history books will tell your there were front line P40 units in all theaters right up untill the end of the war. The 450th " desert harrasers" and two other RAAF groups were still fully equipped with p40s on ve day and at least one us and several Chinese groups on vj day.

 

[Shortround6]

This is about as close as you're going to get a side-by-side comparison of the Yak3 and P-51. Not dog-fighting, I know.
View attachment 492438

The Yak was using an Allison engine. Power rating unknown. Race engine was pulled due to cooling problems and "stock" Allison (whatever that is) replaced.

 

[gumbyk]

The Yak was using an Allison engine. Power rating unknown. Race engine was pulled due to cooling problems and "stock" Allison (whatever that is) replaced.

And running with other minor problems...
But, again, it's as close to a side-by-side comparison as you'll get.

 

[Smokey Stover]

Russian fighters generally, and the YAK especially, excelled in manoeuveribility. Where Soviet fighter's fell behind was in engine design, especially in supercharger technology in comparison to German, and indeed Western, designers. The only really competitive Soviet engine was the big radial ASh-82 which equipped late La-5 and all La-7 fighters.

Given that the Russian Front was very much a 'tactical' air war, this did not have such a detrimental effect on Soviet air tactics as one would suppose. Soviet missions were invariably flown at mid-altitudes or lower, allowing the Soviets to make best use of their aircraft relative strength's. So the Germans were forced to fight on the Soviets terms, as from roughly Stalingrad they were on the defensive. And at these lower altitudes the YAK-9 especially was the more manoeuverable fighter, in both the vertical and horizontal. It should be noted though that in almost all cases the 109G and the 190A were faster at all altitudes.

Although people often show highest scoring german acess, they also forget that some of those actually did get hit by soviet fighters. Some of them got either shot up or shot down on more occasions, the highest scoring german ace killed in combat was killed by Il 2 (Kittel), Nowotny was shot down twice on Eastern front, first time by I 153 (and i have some doubts that Nowotnys story about confusing I 153 for his wingmans is true), Barkhorn was almost killed by an aircobra etc. Rall was shot down numerous times and infact had his flying career ended or he probably would have been dead. Even Hartmann had problems narrowly escaping from Russian guards after being shot down/crash landing. It was no picnic for germans on eastern front, although post war propaganda tried to show it like a walk in the park for germans.

Infact there is a huge bias towards allied aircraft and pilots over German and Russian. What so many people fail to understand or even admit is the luftwaffe wasnt set up for dogfighting allied escort fighters. The majority of german machines were so weighed down with huge and heavy armament for trying to combat the formations of bombers. The effects of extra gunpods usually 20mm added to the standard array of 20/30mm cannon and even rocket projectiles. Being bounced by allied fighters that had used up any extra fuel or simply dropped tanks and with a better power to weight ratio not to mention handling. Plus german pilots would fly till they died, so many novice pilots towards the end of the war simply weren't capable of putting up a fight.

Russia on the other hand learned from their mistakes and began to adopt red banner units made up of highly skilled pilots and aces, many of which had much higher kill rates than allied pilots. We all know the Russian airforce (which was practically obsolete or useless anyway) was wiped out in the early months of ww2. The problem for germany was once Russia did start to adopt better tactics and field equal or better aircraft there was only ever going to be one outcome.

As for the Yak -9/Yak series, it was the most highly produced aircraft by Russia second only to the Il-2 stormovik. Around 30,000 units. And to say they were shot out of the sky in droves is simply rubbish. The high altitude Mig 3 suffered the most losses. German aviators also noted the advantage of the Yak over other Soviet fighter types. In the report on the JG54 combat experience it was noted:
"The Yak model was considered the best Soviet fighter plane. It had even better climbing performance and was faster than the I-18 (MiG-3 – authors), and approached the performance of the Bf 109F although it was not as fast. It was more difficult to set on fire when attacking from the rear than the Mig-3. Up to 19,100 feet it still climbed well but showed poor maneuverability". Some Luftwaffe pilots even considered the new Soviet fighters not inferior to their mounts:
"Major Rall confirms the above statements on the properties of the more modern Soviet fighter aircraft and also mentions their water-cooled engines and their closed cockpits. Rall himself declared the Yak -9 to be the best Russian fighter he had been in combat with.

 

[parsifal]

You saw earlier that figures are hard for the eastern front. Many dismiss Soviet history as sheer revisionism, and often it is , but in the same breath will accept German claims (and as a flip side to that, VVS losses) as gospel truth. most of what you read about massive Soviet losses is based on unadulterated German claims and not much else. People like Grohler (???) and Caldwell have turned this number crunching into a sort of perverse spectacle really.

The truth is we don't know the full extent of losses , especially for the Soviets.

It should also not be overlooked that in the final two years of the war, the soviets gave up trying to win front wide air superiority. frontages were so extensive and german fighters so few, that the best tactic was simply to swamp the defenders with broad front attacks . Fighters were there to keep the VVS strike aircraft alive long enough to help the ground battle . An air victory was a good outcome, but a successful mission was more important. and the successful mission was always related to the ground battle, not control of the skies for the VVS. If the air mission was a success, it heightened the extent of breakthrough achieved, and would lead to more losses for the enemy on the ground 9including grounded a/c) than could ever be hoped to be achieved by a more conventional application of airpower

Success ought to be measured against those criteria. For the germans, their bombers were reduced to inconsequence, whilst their fighters were shown to be quite unable to stop the Russians from dominating the land battle, and the skies immediately above it. .

 

[Schweik]

You saw earlier that figures are hard for the eastern front. Many dismiss Soviet history as sheer revisionism, and often it is , but in the same breath will accept German claims (and as a flip side to that, VVS losses) as gospel truth. most of what you read about massive Soviet losses is based on unadulterated German claims and not much else. People like Grohler (???) and Caldwell have turned this number crunching into a sort of perverse spectacle really.

I don't know who Grohler and Caldwell are but I think you really nailed it here. I've seen this in many other places far beyond this forum for decades. Somehow we can remember all too well that the Soviets were totalitarian, engaged in propaganda, and so on, but we tend to forget that the Germans were nearly the same. The Soviets did have that extra bit of internal repression - the prison design bureaus already mentioned, the jails for troops who had the misfortune of being captured by the enemy or shot down behind enemy lines.

But the Germans had their sinister side too, and not just toward the enemy. They too had their punishment battalions. They too had their forced "volunteers", they too had their secret police, their political officers, their slave labor, their firing squads, not to mention the Enisatzgruppen. The Soviets threatened their own troops with being sent to Siberia, but the Germans openly threatened to send their guys to The Russian Front - where they were supposedly scything away vast hordes of defenseless Slavs and creating acres of Liebensraum every day - Goering specifically made this threat to the German fighter squadrons in the Med more than once. If it was such a cakewalk why was it so feared (and so early on).

The truth is we don't know the full extent of losses , especially for the Soviets.

This was a frightening point made by the historian David Glantz when he was pointing out that the reason we never heard of some of the largest tank battles of WW2 is because neither the Germans nor the Soviets decided to use the events as propaganda vehicles, so they being totalitarian regimes, nothing came out about it. Almost as if the battles had been fought in silence. An eerie concept.

It should also not be overlooked that in the final two years of the war, the soviets gave up trying to win front wide air superiority. frontages were so extensive and german fighters so few, that the best tactic was simply to swamp the defenders with broad front attacks . Fighters were there to keep the VVS strike aircraft alive long enough to help the ground battle . An air victory was a good outcome, but a successful mission was more important. and the successful mission was always related to the ground battle, not control of the skies for the VVS. If the air mission was a success, it heightened the extent of breakthrough achieved, and would lead to more losses for the enemy on the ground (including grounded a/c) than could ever be hoped to be achieved by a more conventional application of airpower.

Astute description. This is essentially the same exact policy the DAF consciously decided to pursue in North Africa - at great hardship to their pilots, while the Germans ala JG 27 etc. pursued almost the opposite tactic - to maximize their kill ratios, and in particular, the kill counts of the experten, at the expense of protecting the ground forces.

Success ought to be measured against those criteria. For the germans, their bombers were reduced to inconsequence, whilst their fighters were shown to be quite unable to stop the Russians from dominating the land battle, and the skies immediately above it. .

Well put. The power of German propaganda is truly more formidable than a Tiger Tank or a Ta 152. After all these years and in spite of all we know, many people are still drawn to it and swallow it hook, line and sinker.

S

 

[parsifal]

O. Gröhler, "Stärke, Verteilung und Verluste der deutschen Luftwaffe im zweiten Weltkrieg", Militärgeschichte 17, pp. 316-336 (1978).

Caldwell

http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

(Luftwaffe Aircraft Losses By Theatre September 1943 - October 1944)

 

[Smokey Stover]

You saw earlier that figures are hard for the eastern front. Many dismiss Soviet history as sheer revisionism, and often it is , but in the same breath will accept German claims (and as a flip side to that, VVS losses) as gospel truth. most of what you read about massive Soviet losses is based on unadulterated German claims and not much else. People like Grohler (???) and Caldwell have turned this number crunching into a sort of perverse spectacle really.

The truth is we don't know the full extent of losses , especially for the Soviets.

It should also not be overlooked that in the final two years of the war, the soviets gave up trying to win front wide air superiority. frontages were so extensive and german fighters so few, that the best tactic was simply to swamp the defenders with broad front attacks . Fighters were there to keep the VVS strike aircraft alive long enough to help the ground battle . An air victory was a good outcome, but a successful mission was more important. and the successful mission was always related to the ground battle, not control of the skies for the VVS. If the air mission was a success, it heightened the extent of breakthrough achieved, and would lead to more losses for the enemy on the ground 9including grounded a/c) than could ever be hoped to be achieved by a more conventional application of airpower

Success ought to be measured against those criteria. For the germans, their bombers were reduced to inconsequence, whilst their fighters were shown to be quite unable to stop the Russians from dominating the land battle, and the skies immediately above it. .

I agree, and we know from as early as the battle of britain german pilots were wildly over inflating the amount of kills scored. Incorrect figures/over claiming was rife on both sides RAF included, but where the luftwaffe fell short was a lot of Georing's info was based on the fact german pilots were giving him wildly innacurate figures, therefore when the number crunching was done he was convinced the RAF was down to just 60 fighters by late September and on the brink of destruction. When in fact the british production figures were well above german aircraft production. We all know it was pilot shortage on the british side. But i dont think the german pilots ever got out of that habit of wild and innacurate figures of aircraft kills and this was simply transferred to the eastern front. Soviet claims are the most hardest to call accurately because of the nature of their secrecy/propaganda agencies not allowing bad news.

 

[Smokey Stover]

I don't know who Grohler and Caldwell are but I think you really nailed it here. I've seen this in many other places far beyond this forum for decades. Somehow we can remember all too well that the Soviets were totalitarian, engaged in propaganda, and so on, but we tend to forget that the Germans were nearly the same. The Soviets did have that extra bit of internal repression - the prison design bureaus already mentioned, the jails for troops who had the misfortune of being captured by the enemy or shot down behind enemy lines.

But the Germans had their sinister side too, and not just toward the enemy. They too had their punishment battalions. They too had their forced "volunteers", they too had their secret police, their political officers, their slave labor, their firing squads, not to mention the Enisatzgruppen. The Soviets threatened their own troops with being sent to Siberia, but the Germans openly threatened to send their guys to The Russian Front - where they were supposedly scything away vast hordes of defenseless Slavs and creating acres of Liebensraum every day - Goering specifically made this threat to the German fighter squadrons in the Med more than once. If it was such a cakewalk why was it so feared (and so early on).

This was a frightening point made by the historian David Glantz when he was pointing out that the reason we never heard of some of the largest tank battles of WW2 is because neither the Germans nor the Soviets decided to use the events as propaganda vehicles, so they being totalitarian regimes, nothing came out about it. Almost as if the battles had been fought in silence. An eerie concept.

Astute description. This is essentially the same exact policy the DAF consciously decided to pursue in North Africa - at great hardship to their pilots, while the Germans ala JG 27 etc. pursued almost the opposite tactic - to maximize their kill ratios, and in particular, the kill counts of the experten, at the expense of protecting the ground forces.

Well put. The power of German propaganda is truly more formidable than a Tiger Tank or a Ta 152. After all these years and in spite of all we know, many people are still drawn to it and swallow it hook, line and sinker.

S

These last few comments are some of the most common sense i've seen here. Your correct sir, people always talk about The battle of Kursk as being the biggest and most destructive tank battle in history. But i have reason to believe this is far from the truth and there were at least one other huge tank battle between germany and russia in 1941/42. Im still researching this as its long and lengthy trying to find accurate data. But im convinced there were huge battles and losses on both sides we dont even know about still to this day. Mixed in with the inaccurate data we have propaganda and deception from a lot of historians that simply were tying to either further their own careers or just muddy the waters until nothing can be made sense of. Either way we have never been told the whole truth not by a long shot....

 

[Dimlee]

...people always talk about The battle of Kursk as being the biggest and most destructive tank battle in history. But i have reason to believe this is far from the truth...

Far from the truth, indeed. The biggest was probably near Dubno in June 1941.

 

[Smokey Stover]

Far from the truth, indeed. The biggest was probably near Dubno in June 1941.

I,ve been looking into the battle of Brody.
The general accepted historical facts, The Battle of Brody, which has been called "the largest tank battle of World War II until the Battle of Kursk two years later," saw 800 Axis tanks line up against 2,500 of their Russian opposite numbers. The German victory was partly due to their air force, the Luftwaffe, flying over the Polish war fields, destroying up to 201 Soviet tanks. However, the tank battle was incredibly fierce, with the German forces finding that the new Soviet T-34 tanks were virtually impervious to their firepower. It was mainly due to the Red Army's supply chain drying up that the Germans were allowed to continue their offensive and press home their advantage.

I think it was a little more complicated than this, although research is still in progress.

 

[Milosh]

Wiki says 750 German and 3500 Soviet tanks at Brody and 5,128 German and 2,928 Soviet tanks at Kursk.

 

[parsifal]

I suspect the debate is trying to exclude certain numbers from Kursk, arguing they were not part of Kursk....like the reserves and certain flanling forces, while including everything that could move and was within cooee of the battlefield for these other fights. Just my 0.02 worth.

 

[Gemhorse]

I believe that the 'Po-2' was indeed one of the most under-rated aircraft of WW2 - I am really enjoying reading all of your most astute dissertations & discussions and I should like to add what I can...
The Polikarpov U-2 first appeared in early 1927, it became the Po-2 on 30 July 1944 in honour of it's designer after his death on that date. The Po-2 was built in the greatest number and in more variants than any other aircraft in history, in excess of 33,000 aircraft. - At a rough count in front of me there over 35 different variants.- Not bad for a 100 hp biplane that served in a variety of different roles, most notably were the night 'nuisance' raids over German lines in Russia.- In particular those performed by the 46th Guards Night Bomber Regiment, who received 18 of the highest military honour of 'the Hero of the Soviet Union', 18 women pilots and 6 women navigators. It was the only regiment of 3 that was entirely of women, in the others, men also served - Polina Gelman, one of these HSU recipients stated that the 46th "was not only equal to the men's regiments according to effectiveness and other indices, but was among the first"- In further explanation, "the effectiveness was determined by the accuracy of the hits from bombing and shooting. After completing a mission everyone had to report their results and the results of others, as they saw them, what and where it happened. Crews from other regiments reported on our results, as did ground reconnaissance - in fact, we worked for them. It was easy to verify everything, everything was recorded: the number of combat flights, of bombs dropped, of rounds fired... In the 4th Air Army our regiment was always first or among the first."
- August/September 1942 it got really hard, renewed German offensive pushing into Stalingrad, they were attacking columns of tanks who were advancing so fast they had no time to change bases, shortage of maps, they couldn't harvest the grain so it was torched by Stalin's old order of "scorched earth" policy. It was at this time they read Stalin's new Order No. 227: "not one more step back"... As I too know, duty and patriotism come first in wartime...

Although the Po-2 carried only a light bomb load {120-200kgs & also 4x RS-82 rockets], the rugged reliability and it being based right behind the front lines enabled it to maintain continuous harassment of German troops throughout the year, even in bad weather. The Germans themselves admitted that it would be "wrong to underestimate the effects of the attacks, since they were so unpredictable and therefore were extremely disturbing...[they] reduced the already short rest of the troops and had an adverse effect on supply operations, although the actual physical damage done in the raids was small." - In actual fact, it appears from the two books I've recently read on Russian WW2 Aviation victory claims etc. they were most accurate. The first one was written by a IL-2 pilot who claimed they recorded everything as described above, and this book on the Women pilots, including the Po-2 'Night Witches', was written in 1993 by an American woman called Reina Pennington who went over there and intensely viewed records and interveiwed surviving veterans...

I agree also that the Swordfish was also greatly under-rated especially if you factor-in Taranto, and we should mention 'Hope, Faith & Charity,' these Gloster Gladiators who 'saved' Malta in the early WW2 Mediterranean conflict...

I also agree the P.40 was under-rated [by some], but they were a sight for sore-eyes when passing through Singapore off to join the AVG while RAF, RAAF & RNZAF had to make do with the most useless piece of crap that flew, the Brewster Buffalo. The US Navy couldn't get rid of their first monoplane fighter fast enough, dumping it on the British who promptly sent it to Singapore where they sent all their potty Senior Air Staff. - Should also add the Grumman Wildcat to the Most Under-rated list too, it saved our arse in the South Pacific along with the P.40's - And finally, the Hurricane was the first with 4 cannon, first with rockets, first effective Nightfighter during the Blitz [until the Beaufighter got it's gremlins sorted-out] and the Hurricane was certainly better at Singapore than nothing, the Ki-43 was definately under-rated by both the Brits & US initially, they kept mis-identifying it as a Zero, it just lacked the latter's cannons ~
I can recommend a REAL book about the Singapore debacle - ''Last Stand In Singapore - The story of 488 Squadron RNZAF'' by Graham Clayton ISBN 978 1 86979 033 2 -It's quite an eye-opener on what really happened...

Cheers

 

[Juha2]

Wiki says 750 German and 3500 Soviet tanks at Brody and 5,128 German and 2,928 Soviet tanks at Kursk.

On Kursk, even Wiki put it outher way around, 5,128 Soviet and 2,928 German tanks.

 

[Milosh]

On Kursk, even Wiki put it outher way around, 5,128 Soviet and 2,928 German tanks.

oops BIG blush

 

[parsifal]

Brody is larger than Prokorovhka but only if you compare apples to oranges. brody, fought in late June 1941, was actually a composite of several battles fought over and extensive battlefield.

Prokorovhka was just one battle in a series .

To compare fairly one would either have to break down Brody into its component parts or combine Prokorovhka with all of the forces that are associated with Kursk. Applying things that way, so bananas are compared with bananas, Kursk easily outshines the earlier battle.

 

[Smokey Stover]

I believe that the 'Po-2' was indeed one of the most under-rated aircraft of WW2 - I am really enjoying reading all of your most astute dissertations & discussions and I should like to add what I can...
The Polikarpov U-2 first appeared in early 1927, it became the Po-2 on 30 July 1944 in honour of it's designer after his death on that date. The Po-2 was built in the greatest number and in more variants than any other aircraft in history, in excess of 33,000 aircraft. - At a rough count in front of me there over 35 different variants.- Not bad for a 100 hp biplane that served in a variety of different roles, most notably were the night 'nuisance' raids over German lines in Russia.- In particular those performed by the 46th Guards Night Bomber Regiment, who received 18 of the highest military honour of 'the Hero of the Soviet Union', 18 women pilots and 6 women navigators. It was the only regiment of 3 that was entirely of women, in the others, men also served - Polina Gelman, one of these HSU recipients stated that the 46th "was not only equal to the men's regiments according to effectiveness and other indices, but was among the first"- In further explanation, "the effectiveness was determined by the accuracy of the hits from bombing and shooting. After completing a mission everyone had to report their results and the results of others, as they saw them, what and where it happened. Crews from other regiments reported on our results, as did ground reconnaissance - in fact, we worked for them. It was easy to verify everything, everything was recorded: the number of combat flights, of bombs dropped, of rounds fired... In the 4th Air Army our regiment was always first or among the first."
- August/September 1942 it got really hard, renewed German offensive pushing into Stalingrad, they were attacking columns of tanks who were advancing so fast they had no time to change bases, shortage of maps, they couldn't harvest the grain so it was torched by Stalin's old order of "scorched earth" policy. It was at this time they read Stalin's new Order No. 227: "not one more step back"... As I too know, duty and patriotism come first in wartime...

Although the Po-2 carried only a light bomb load {120-200kgs & also 4x RS-82 rockets], the rugged reliability and it being based right behind the front lines enabled it to maintain continuous harassment of German troops throughout the year, even in bad weather. The Germans themselves admitted that it would be "wrong to underestimate the effects of the attacks, since they were so unpredictable and therefore were extremely disturbing...[they] reduced the already short rest of the troops and had an adverse effect on supply operations, although the actual physical damage done in the raids was small." - In actual fact, it appears from the two books I've recently read on Russian WW2 Aviation victory claims etc. they were most accurate. The first one was written by a IL-2 pilot who claimed they recorded everything as described above, and this book on the Women pilots, including the Po-2 'Night Witches', was written in 1993 by an American woman called Reina Pennington who went over there and intensely viewed records and interveiwed surviving veterans...

I agree also that the Swordfish was also greatly under-rated especially if you factor-in Taranto, and we should mention 'Hope, Faith & Charity,' these Gloster Gladiators who 'saved' Malta in the early WW2 Mediterranean conflict...

I also agree the P.40 was under-rated [by some], but they were a sight for sore-eyes when passing through Singapore off to join the AVG while RAF, RAAF & RNZAF had to make do with the most useless piece of crap that flew, the Brewster Buffalo. The US Navy couldn't get rid of their first monoplane fighter fast enough, dumping it on the British who promptly sent it to Singapore where they sent all their potty Senior Air Staff. - Should also add the Grumman Wildcat to the Most Under-rated list too, it saved our arse in the South Pacific along with the P.40's - And finally, the Hurricane was the first with 4 cannon, first with rockets, first effective Nightfighter during the Blitz [until the Beaufighter got it's gremlins sorted-out] and the Hurricane was certainly better at Singapore than nothing, the Ki-43 was definately under-rated by both the Brits & US initially, they kept mis-identifying it as a Zero, it just lacked the latter's cannons ~
I can recommend a REAL book about the Singapore debacle - ''Last Stand In Singapore - The story of 488 Squadron RNZAF'' by Graham Clayton ISBN 978 1 86979 033 2 -It's quite an eye-opener on what really happened...

Cheers

Without wanting to nitpick the Bristol Blenheim was fitted with the very first night fighter A.I. radar unit. The early radar units were big bulky pieces of equipment and only a twin engine aircraft was suitable. The Blenheim of 25 squadron which was equipped during the b.o.b also achieved the first night intercept, shooting down a Dornier Do -17. After modifications were made on the early A.I sets they were able to fit into single engine aircraft such as the Boulton Paul Defiant, which was useless as a day interceptor but gained some success as a night fighter. Hurricanes came a little later in 1940, around Nov/Dec.
And just one more mention regarding the Russian "night witches". Im not totally convinced they were quite as successful as the official Russian records show. And certainly more aircraft were lost than admitted. Imo, it was more of a propaganda/psychological tactic. The machines they flew were after all totally obsolete and maintenance was very poor leading to many accidents/losses.

 

[Smokey Stover]

I didnt say Brody was a bigger battle than Kursk, i said one of the biggest battles up to Kursk. If you put all your faith in the numbers for Brody, Kursk or any other major tank battle of WW2 thats just not being objective. And i certainly wouldnt rely on wiki for accurate numbers/details. The whole concept of it is flawed, therefore the data cannot be taken as anything other than a rough guide. And not even a good one at that. It's so difficult to find true Russian and German documents that can be used as genuine evidence of battlefield losses. One thing is for sure though, Kursk was noway near the biggest tank battle of WW2
How anyone can be so assured of history without either being there to witness it, or seeing genuine proof of what really happened worries me a little. All we can do is stay open to argument/evidence, as long as its genuine and not just pulled from an online site. Although im not presenting this as absolute proof. But it might maybe show everyone just how many people are divided when it comes to these events/claims. Idk what the truth is, but im just not buying the accepted history we have been spoon fed all these years. After all, wasnt it Goering (among others) who said history is written by the victors....

The Battle of Brody: The Biggest Tank Battle Ever (And It's Been Completely Forgotten)

 

[parsifal]

It depends on the terms of reference. If you want to just look at one battlefield, Kursk is not the largest battle. However if you want to group battles to some specific criteria, say the destruction of the Kursk salient, then Kursk is the bigger battle of WWII. Kursk pales compared to some of the other battles fought later on. Destruction Of Army Group Centre involved about 8500 AFVs in total, though it is stretching the concept of a single battle to breaking point. Similarly the advance from the vistula to the Oder-Niesse involed approximately 8500 AFVs

if you want to group Brody as part of the encirclement of Dubno, or Rovno as it is sometimes then it is a big battle, ivolving no less than 8 Soviet mechanized corps and an entire Panzer group (the forerunner of a Panzer Army), then you have a big battle. In troop numbers it was relatively small, but in the numbers of AFVs nvolved it was a biggie, but still not as big as Kursk.

Relying on Wiki is fine so long as the claims its makes can be cross referenced to some other more reliable source. A lot of people love Jentz, but I don't like him. far too pro-German for my taste. I prefer someone like Zaloga because he is more balanced. The advantage of a wiki source is that its easy to access and free.