Opinions are not evidence. What evidence have you actually shown. You have proven no one wrong. But you won't be checking this thread…
Pilots aiming at cockpits?
- Thread starter spicmart
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Opinions are not evidence. What evidence have you actually shown. You have proven no one wrong. But you won't be checking this thread…
Fair enough I didn't show evidence here. However you have seen my other thread which shows all the evidence, so you can check all the evidence which proves my point on that separate thread.
Let me be clear:
Genda's Blade is not a primary source.
However Genda's Blade only uses primary sources.
It's just as good as a primary source since it only includes primary sources.
Maybe I should have said this from the beginning
No, all I've seen there is your "strict definition"
Look at the images I've provided on that thread. It shows all the evidence.
It only shows a small sample size and nothing else.
I'm not going to take pictures of every Hartmann claim in the book. Buy the book to see the full sample size.
It still would not prove anything, because its not using the definition of a kill used by the Luftwaffe and quite honestly everyone else. Its a book with an agenda…
There are many people who have my definition of a victory too. It's a very simple definition and it logically makes the most sense. So no, it's not a book with an agenda, it's a book that analyses the facts with a logical definition of a victory.
It does not matter what your definition is. How did the Luftwaffe count victories? That is all that matters in the case of Hartmann.
I thought you were not checking this thread anymore… lol
Well I'm responding since we're talking about something that takes place on another thread. Let's move there... lol
Definitely, the Soviet archives are not perfect. However _you_ have to proof, whether the imperfectness does not allow to draw conclusions on particular topic.
Because the problem of Soviet causalities is much more complicated than it seems. Anyway. the problems of Soviet causalities and of the accounting of losses in the Soviet Air Forces are quite different, that should be considered independently.
Could you please give an example?
Have you read the collection of Soviet archival documents on the execution of Polish prisoners? I have.
They were tried and executed not for losing battles, but for the loss of control over the troops, cowardice and disobedience of orders. If we are talking about the top officers of the beginning of the war (Pavlov, Klimovskikh, Oborin, etc.), of course, they became scapegoats for Stalin's miscalculations.
For defeats, generals were transferred to lower positions and sent to command reserve units.
Could you give an example please? I have the opposite information - many convicted designers and engineers were released from imprisonment (in particular - from prison design bureaus). I am not aware of any cases when during the war they were shot for insufficient characteristics of armaments (before the war - known, but more likely for failure to meet deadlines).
They are very serious, but very closed. Even Russian researchers do not have access to all the archival materials. The declassification process was slow, something is processed and published even now. But I think most of the documents from the war will not be published in the next 50 years. Or maybe even 100. But i still keep a hope that at least in some cases the available information will be enough to restore the truth. In particular - to verify the enemy's claims.
Because in the Soviet era, these archives were only available to researchers from military academies. And they wrote dissertations, articles and monographs that were classified. Some of these became available in recent decades (I have scanned copies of some of these publications), but the Soviet system did not allow too truthful publications even under these conditions.
You never worked in the Soviet archives, but you assert indisputably that they contain false information. This is hardly a constructive approach to discussion.
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 41,493
- Mar 26, 2007
- Do you have the book?
- Do you know the writer. His work.
- Did you study this part of the conflict in the descibed enveloppe?
- Have you ever written a study deeper then a thread here?
- Do you know how soviet archives work
- Do you know what records are kept there.
- Do you know at what level and what depths they go.
Frankly i cant see any reason why you would dishonour an established writer.
Perhaps you can care to explain why.
No I have not read it. I might, I might not.
Have I ever written a study? Sure. I hold a graduate degree. It required a peer reviewed study. Not sure why that is relevant to this discussion.
I'm not dishonoring anyone. Most books have an agenda. I did not say it is a malicious one. Thank you for your opinion though.
Ok, I can understand why you think I am dishonoring or discrediting the author. Not my honest intent. Bad choice of words on my part.
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 41,493
- Mar 26, 2007
I think, in this, you do certainly know what is ment with the remark.
Not haven read the book knowing the work of the writer etc, but still giving this remark wich denotes a historian is very poor.
Well I'm certainly glad you can read my mind good sir, and know the exact thoughts going through my head.
Having said that…
Read the very next post I made.
GregP
Major
The book, Verified Victories, is openly advertised as being from an author who supports the notion that any combat victory should be supported by a reported combat loss from the other side.
That very notion is at odds with the accepted definition for aerial victories by all combatants. Recovery and repair back to flying status or the use of parts to keep other airplanes flying is not considered in ANY country's definition of aerial victories.
It seems to me that if you are going to write a book about the aerial victories for some country, pilot, or battle, and compare or contrast it with the reported data, then you almost HAVE to u8se the definition of an aerial victory used to generate the lists you are talking about. If someone takes a census and publishes it and you want to disagree with it because you are only counting the males, then you look pretty silly to the people who read your diatribe.
The way that book is advertised, the writer's agenda is to debunk the high-scoring Luftwaffe Aces by redefining what a victory should be and then rewriting the entire victory list to fit his own definition(s). That doesn't make me want to rush out and spend $34 USD on it to see if he might have something interesting. It makes me want to ignore him as a fanatic revisionist, which I very strongly usually disagree with.
But, hey, he might have some valid points. Then again, having spoken with former Soviet VVS pilots, I am not too keen on calling Soviet loss records more accurate than German claims, and he relies very heavily on Soviet loss records, from the book's writeup on pages where it is for sale. Don't know about you, but I usually read the reviews and advertising statements before I decide to buy a book. In this case, I'll pass.
That very notion is at odds with the accepted definition for aerial victories by all combatants. Recovery and repair back to flying status or the use of parts to keep other airplanes flying is not considered in ANY country's definition of aerial victories.
It seems to me that if you are going to write a book about the aerial victories for some country, pilot, or battle, and compare or contrast it with the reported data, then you almost HAVE to u8se the definition of an aerial victory used to generate the lists you are talking about. If someone takes a census and publishes it and you want to disagree with it because you are only counting the males, then you look pretty silly to the people who read your diatribe.
The way that book is advertised, the writer's agenda is to debunk the high-scoring Luftwaffe Aces by redefining what a victory should be and then rewriting the entire victory list to fit his own definition(s). That doesn't make me want to rush out and spend $34 USD on it to see if he might have something interesting. It makes me want to ignore him as a fanatic revisionist, which I very strongly usually disagree with.
But, hey, he might have some valid points. Then again, having spoken with former Soviet VVS pilots, I am not too keen on calling Soviet loss records more accurate than German claims, and he relies very heavily on Soviet loss records, from the book's writeup on pages where it is for sale. Don't know about you, but I usually read the reviews and advertising statements before I decide to buy a book. In this case, I'll pass.
It is quite reasonable notion.
So, you mean, the Soviets did not participate the war?
The Soviets counted only downed aircraft as an aerial victory for fighter pilots (Stalin's order No. 0299 of August 19, 1941). They even required confirmation from ground troops, but often accepted the evidence of pilots who observed the downing. This in no way prevented overclaime - it was quite high for the Soviet pilots. Especially after Pokryshkin's letter, in which he asked to cancel the mandatory confirmation from ground troops. The request was granted, and the combat accounts of Soviet pilots began to grow faster. Later, the Soviet command saw that the scale of deception became quite obscene and tried to require confirmation of shootdowns from ground units again.
As far as I know, the Luftwaffe used a similar definition. If I am not mistaken, the claim (Abschussmeldung) required answering 21 questions, and the final objective of this procedure was to establish the fact of shooting down or total destroying of the enemy aircraft.
Could you please provide any OFFICIAL definition of an aerial victory for RAF/USAF/etc.?
The contest for the wittiest analogy is in the neighboring thread.
So far, I see that the critics of this book invent their own definitions of air victory and revising history.
Oh yes, an attempt to verify using archival information means here revisionism. Undoubtedly, it is a very scientific approach.
Former Soviet pilots usually had a very vague idea of the German casualty accounting system. Moreover, even modern historians have to spend a lot of time and effort to verify and interpret German reports.
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
Back to the OP. My marksmanship training was to aim center of mass. My reading of aerial gunnery is that to achieve hits on a target maneuvering in 3 dimensions while the shooter is doing the same requires the shooter to correctly estimate range and deflection, and to aim at a point ahead of the target so that the rounds and the target arrive at the same point. I have read that German pilots were trained to shoot the tail gunner on heavy bombers to render them unprotected from the rear. A number of countries identified the most vulnerable locations on enemy aircraft and encouraged their pilots to target them. How much of that theory was ever exercised in battle?
