I'm not responding to this thread anymore since it's clear that people aren't listening to me and they are ignoring my posts. People either seem to ignore my post entirely, or go back previous points which I have already explained. Even when I prove conclusively with evidence people just ignore it. People don't like their beliefs challenged and get upset when someone proves them wrong. So that's fine, but I won't be checking this thread anymore.
Pilots aiming at cockpits? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter spicmart
- Start date
Snautzer01
Marshal
- 46,292
- Mar 26, 2007
You would be wrong. It is in combining the soviet documents like pilots, engine numbers, frame numbers that tell a story. That is why quite a few "victories" the Luftwaffe claimed can be debated. For the simple fact it didnt burn nor crash nor was the pilot dead
It was a slaughterhouse but some tried to make fame. Like .... lets pic one "bully" Lang.
Snautzer01
Marshal
- 46,292
- Mar 26, 2007
You would be wrong right there.
This is a board of people:
- Want to build a kit
- Want to know why something
- Debate about it.
Its enhancing knowledge. Quite a few members have that in abundance. You read some stuff here and you know.
Debate if you feel like it. There are more people you think reading. Its not that the last post is right. By far here.
GregP
Major
Including primary sources does NOT produce another primary source. It means you have some well-referenced data in your work. It says nothing about the rest of the work.
Mind you, I have nothing against Genda. But unless his book is primarily a data book citing primary sources for most of his text, then perhaps not. I have not read it, so I have no real basis for agreeing or disagreeing. As such, perhaps I was hasty in saying it is not a primary source. Perhaps it is a record of missions compiled by after-action reports.
But your statement that including primary sources produces a primary source is rather obviously wrong or perhaps you don't know what a military primary source is. A military primary source is the document stating the data used to compile the official military record of an action or the result of an action. For a mission it would be the mission order (regardless of what it is called, it is the document defining what the mission is including the unit(s), date, and target) and for a result of a mission it would be the after-action report as noted by the unit that flew the mission. The unit that flew the mission is the only one that can state anything about the mission with any degree of certainty.
This thread has certainly deviated from "Pilots Aiming at cockpits!" But, hey, that happens in MOST of the threads.
Popular wisdom says that people retain:
- 10 percent of what they READ
- 20 percent of what they HEAR.
- 30 percent of what they SEE.
- 50 percent of what they SEE and HEAR.
- 70 percent of what they SAY and WRITE.
- 90 percent of what they DO.
Last edited:
Your posts are full of contradictions. You say something and three lines below you say the opposite.
You baptized the yak fighters flying tanks.All your claims are based on the unproven assumption that soviet archives are perfect
Soviet union never officially publiced a list of her casualties
Soviet union massively manipulated the lists of German pows perished in gulags
What your russian archives report about katin?
Do you know the soviets c
Do you know that soviet officers were execu for battle defeats?Aircraft designers send to Siberia for under performing aircraft designs
Hartmann attacks can not agree even to the extent of his supposedly lies. He had 80? 150? You say 190. Make a symbosioum to agree on a number
You say that in hungary hartmann was 30%reliable but in the rest of his career 55%! Cause unknown!
Did you find every Soviet wreck in Hungary and you are sure that you find all! Really your statements are beyond common sense
Personally I just consider hartmann just top 20 eastern front fighter pilot, based on personal fighting skills. If we add commanding skills probably is not even top 50. He was too young and a war time officer. But if you decide to call him fraud,(regardless what you say, that s what you are doing)you have to provide a serious presentation of evidences
All you do is to give personal statements that soviet archives are serious
Why nobody in soviet era,for 50 years, did not use these archives ?
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
I'm not saying they're entirely wrong. I'm saying that between overclaiming and the desire to satiate a hierarchy known for harshly punishing a lack of results suggests that the records may not be as accurate as you think.
Me too, get the biggest part in the sight hold steady and let rip potato chip, watch the tracers, watch for the flash of a strike but most importantly fill the sight by getting in close, no time for fancy.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
..and hope not to fixate.
GregP
Major
And, whatever happens, don't enjoy it!
Might as well be miserable since war is otherwise so relaxing.
Might as well be miserable since war is otherwise so relaxing.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
So you didn't invent trans-phasic interwarp FTL drive?
Whatever that is, I invented it.
GregP
Major
Don't most of those guys live in Washington D.C.?
I think I would at first, especially over England, bore right in singling one bomber out and giving it the beans, we all would until we got a few kills under out belt.
Greg Boeser
1st Lieutenant
A friend who was a naval aviator, and Air Guardsman, related one of his early training missions was a mock combat with a group of other fighters. He described how he became a victim of target fixation and nearly collided with his target, which only evaded destruction when the rear seater spotted the rapidly closing attacker and warned his pilot to dive out.
special ed
1st Lieutenant
- 7,089
- May 13, 2018
Regarding the original idea of aiming specifically at a certain part of the target, I am reminded of the U.S. ace who includes an American plane on his scoreboard. Recall, he carefully shot the C-47's engine and no injuries on board the plane, easier to do with no one shooting back
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,306
- Jun 25, 2013
Something that includes primary sources isn't a primary source; it's a secondary one.
There are degrees of accuracy, and 100% accuracy is probably completely unobtainable: records can contain errors, deliberate or otherwise, be damaged by water, vermin, fire, or bad researchers, get misfiled, stolen, or copied to microfilm incorrectly (I've run into that last, where many microfilm copies of, alas, discarded originals included folded 11" by 17" pages that weren't unfolded during microfilming, causing a significant loss of data).
Last edited:
GregP
Major
Having a task done by your people doesn't always equal your perception of what was actually accomplished.
I am reminded of an order to "Secure the building."
The Marines destroy the building.
The Navy and Army surround it, check it out, and make it ready to be occupied.
The Air Force takes out an option to lease or buy it.
I am reminded of an order to "Secure the building."
The Marines destroy the building.
The Navy and Army surround it, check it out, and make it ready to be occupied.
The Air Force takes out an option to lease or buy it.
Last edited:
And that is the tough part. No two people react to the stress and trauma of war in the same exact way.
This is the same door mat in front of my house. lol
I need to find it without air force wings since I was not an air force pilot (got my PL after leaving the military).
