Nikolay Gulaev. Forgotten ace

99
26 February 2018 was the birthday of Nikolai Dmitrievich Gulayev, the celebrated fighter pilot, twice Hero of the Soviet Union, the third of the Soviet aces in terms of the number of personally shot down aircraft during the Great Patriotic War. On his account was 100, according to other data, 55 personal victories, and 57 more victories in the group. It so happened that much less is known about Gulayev today than about two other famous Soviet fighter pilots: Ivan Kozhedub and Alexander Pokryshkin.

And if Nikolay Gulayev was inferior to some Soviet aces by the number of personally shot down aircraft, then by his effectiveness — the ratio of the number of enemy aircraft shot down by the number of air battles conducted — he was the best fighter pilot of World War II among all the warring countries. According to the calculations of researchers, Ivan Kozhedub, this indicator of efficiency was 0,5, the famous German ace Eric Hartman - 0,4, while Gulayev - 0,8. Almost every air battle ended with a downed enemy aircraft. Nikolai Gulayev was a super productive Soviet ace. Three times in one day, he managed to shoot down the enemy's 4 at once, twice - on the 3 of the aircraft and 7 once - two enemy vehicles per day.



The future pilot-pilot Nikolai Gulayev was born on February 26 of the year 1918 in the village of Aksayskaya (today it is the city of Aksai in the Rostov region) in a family of ordinary workers who are Russian by nationality. After graduating from 7 classes of junior high school and school of trade schools (factory apprenticeship), Gulayev worked for some time as a mechanic at a plant in Rostov. At the same time, like many Soviet young men, Nikolay Gulayev was filled with love for the sky, during the day he worked at the enterprise, and in the evenings he attended classes at the flying club. In many ways, these studies and predetermined his fate.

Nikolay Gulaev. Forgotten ace

In 1938, Gulaev was drafted into the Red Army, while classes in the flying club helped him in the army. He was sent for further training in Stalingrad aviation School, which he successfully graduated in 1940. The future World War II was met by the future ace pilot as part of air defense aviation. The regiment, in which Gulaev served, provided protection for an industrial facility located far from the front line, so his combat debut was delayed until August 1942.

The first star on board the Gulaev fighter appeared 3 August 1942 of the year. He shot down his first plane in the sky near Stalingrad. Already his first combat mission was unusual. The pilot, who did not have access to making flights at night, at that time, arbitrarily raised his fighter into the night sky, where he shot down a German bomber Heinkel-111. In the first battle in non-standard conditions for himself and without the help of searchlights, he shot down an enemy aircraft. For the unauthorized departure of a young officer, he was “rewarded” with a reprimand, but also presented a reward, and then he was promoted to the rank.

The fighter pilot Nikolai Gulayev was especially distinguished during battles in the Kursk Bulge area near Belgorod. Here there were several super-successful battles with his participation. In the very first fight in this direction 14 of May 1943, reflecting the enemy's raid on the Grushka airfield, Gulayev single-handedly engaged in combat with three Ju-87 dive bombers, which were covered by the 4 fighter Me-109. The Soviet ace approached the leading bomber at low altitude and hit him in the first line, the shooter of the second bomber had time to open fire, but Gulayev shot down him too. After that, he tried to attack the third Junkers, but he ran out of ammo, so he decided to ram the enemy. With the left wing of his Yak-1 fighter, Gulayev hit the right plane of the Ju-87, after which he fell apart. From the impact, the Yak-1 went into a corkscrew, the pilot managed to return the car’s handling to the ground and land the plane near the leading edge in the location of our rifle division. Arriving at the regiment from the departure, in which three bomber was shot down, Nikolay Gulayev again flew on a combat mission, but on another plane. For this feat of his, he was awarded the Order of the Red Banner.

Nikolay Gulayev in January 1944 of the Year in his "Air Cobra"

At the beginning of July, the four fighters, led by Nikolai Gulayev, carried out a sudden and very bold attack on a large group of enemy aircraft, in which there were 1943 machines, in early July. Having upset the enemy's battle formations, the fighter pilots were able to shoot down the 100 bomber and the 4 fighter, after which all four returned safely to their airfield. On the same day, the link of Gulayev made several more sorties, shooting down a total of 2 enemy aircraft.

Already 9 July 1943, Nikolai Gulaev makes his second air ram in the Belgorod region. After that, he had to leave his plane on a parachute. July 1943 of the year proved to be extremely productive for Gulayev. The following information was recorded in his flight book for this month: July 5 - 6 sorties, 4 victories, July 6 - Focke-Wulf 190 was shot down, July 7 - the enemy's 3 was shot down in a group, July 8 - Me was shot down -109 ", 12 July - two bomber" Yu-87 "shot down.

A month later, he retrained for a new fighter, the Aerocobra, and on the first flight he shot down a German bomber, and literally two days later another bomber - Ju-88. Already then it was possible to say that the list of his victories is not characteristic of most of the pilots of the front aviation, the list of victories of which consisted mainly of enemy fighters. It should be remembered that Nikolai Gulayev was almost never in the so-called “free hunting” mode, which, with the proper skill of the pilots, and the skill of Gulayev, of course, was abundant, allowed to significantly increase the air victories. Gulaev’s combat missions mainly consisted in covering ground targets: airfields, railway junctions, crossings.

On September 28, the senior lieutenant Nikolai Dmitrievich Gulaev, Deputy Commander of the 1943 Fighter Aviation Regiment (27 Fighter Aviation Division), was awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union with the award of the Order of Lenin and the Gold Star medal. By that time, he had already made 205 combat missions and personally shot down 95 enemy planes and another 13 vehicles in the group.

Nikolai Gulaev in the cockpit of his "Air Cobra"

At the beginning of 1944, Gulaev already commands a squadron. Together with his pilots, he takes part in the battles for the liberation of Right-Bank Ukraine. In the spring of 1944, he conducts his most effective air battle. In the sky over Romania over the Prut River, Nikolai Gulayev, led by six P-39 fighters, the Aircobra is attacking a large group of enemy bombers - 27 vehicles, accompanied by 8 fighters. In four minutes of the battle, Soviet pilots shot down 11 of enemy aircraft, of which Nikolay Gulayev personally shot down 5.

30 of May 1944 of the year over Skulyanami Nikolai knocks down the 4 of the enemy's aircraft in one day, while the bomber U-87 and the fighter Me-109 he knocks down in one battle. In the same battle, the Soviet ace himself was seriously wounded in his right arm. Concentrating all his willpower, he managed to bring the fighter to his aerodrome, put the car in the car, pulled into the parking lot and lost consciousness here. The hero came to himself only in the hospital, where he had an operation.

1 July 1944, the year of guard captain Nikolai Gulayev was awarded the second star of the Hero of the Soviet Union. He found out about the next award, returning from a combat departure. The famous ace finished his combat work on the front in August 1944, when, despite the protests, he was sent to study at the academy. This was the desire of the leadership of the country, which wanted to preserve the color of our aircraft, as well as to give officers-heroes the opportunity to receive education at the Air Force Academy. By that time, he had already managed to personally shoot down 55 of enemy aircraft in 69 air battles, which allowed him to set an absolute record of combat effectiveness for a fighter pilot. “It was a truly outstanding pilot,” RIA told reporters. News aviation historian Nikolai Bodrikhin. “For example, he scored more victories over twin-engined aircraft than anyone else. The same Kozhedub shot down only 5 of such aircraft, and on the account of the Gulayevs there were more than 10 "twin engines".


Despite his truly outstanding successes in the sky, Nikolai Gulayev failed to gain the glory that went to his eminent colleagues - two Soviet aces - Ivan Kozhedub and Alexander Pokryshkin. Historians believe that in many ways the reason was the difficult nature of the hero. Some sources said that Gulayev was already assigned to the third star of the Hero of the Soviet Union already in 1944, however, the show was “turned back”, as the pilot allegedly gave a riot in a Moscow restaurant. This did not prevent the hero pilot in 1950 from graduating from the N. Ye. Zhukovsky Air Force Engineering Academy, and in the 1960 year to the Military Academy of the General Staff. At the same time, in the post-war years, Gulayev was one of the first Soviet pilots to master the control of a jet fighter.

After the end of World War II, Nikolai Gulayev at various times commanded the aviation division in Yaroslavl, and then managed to reach the commander of the 10 Army of Air Defense with headquarters in Arkhangelsk. The fellow hero pilots of the 10 Air Defense Army recalled that the general did not perceive his life in the north of the country as a link and was always fully devoted to military service - the volume of tasks assigned to him was enormous. According to the memoirs of colleagues, among the officers of his army, there were rumors that Gulayev had high-ranking ill-wishers in Moscow. He could have become the commander-in-chief of the air defense forces, however, someone slowed down his career advancement. It may have played a role frontline straightness Nikolai Gulayev and his unwillingness to kowtow in front of the senior in rank.

Colonel Georgy Madlitsky, a former staff officer of the 10 Army, said: “Gulayev had the highest authority, although he did not like to talk about his military exploits. On the one hand, he was a very demanding and tough officer who couldn’t tolerate idlers and slobs in the army. On the other hand, he treated people with great attention, trying in every way to help them, to improve their living conditions and service. ” “Just imagine, in 1968, he personally invited Vladimir Vysotsky to our“ village ”, who spoke at the Officers' Club, it was a big and memorable event,” recalls George Madlitzky.

Bust of the hero of the Soviet Union Nikolai Gulayev in the city of Aksai

Nikolai Gulayev commanded the 10 army of air defense from 1966 to 1974 year, by this time he was already a colonel-general. In 1974, he was appointed to the post of head of the combat training department of the country's air defense forces. Formally, this could be considered an increase, but in fact meant the honorary resignation of the general. This event was preceded by an unpleasant episode. In 1973, Norwegian environmentalists turned to Moscow, reporting that the 10 Army personnel were poaching and shooting polar bears. In fact, according to Georgy Madlitsky, Gulayev ordered to shoot bears when they approached parts after two incidents of polar bears attacking soldiers. As a result, Gulayev was summoned to Moscow for a party committee, where the general again demonstrated his character, not restraining himself and saying: "I ask those who were at the front to stand up." Units rose ... ".

Colonel-General Nikolai Dmitrievich Gulaev retired in 1979 and lived in Moscow. He died on September 27, 1985 at the age of 67. Today, in the homeland of the hero in the city of Aksai, there is a street named after him, and a bust of the hero is also installed in Aksai. Not so long ago, on the house in Arkhangelsk, where the Colonel General lived when he led the 10th Air Defense Army, veterans of this army installed a memorial plaque. Every year on May 9, fresh flowers appear near it.

Information sources:
https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20180226/1515171440.html
http://www.aif.ru/society/people/neistovyy_gulaev_istoriya_samogo_effektivnogo_letchika_vtoroy_mirovoy_voyny
http://gorodskoyportal.ru/news/russia/42611329
Open source materials
99 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +8
    1 March 2018 07: 02
    In the 1973 year, Norwegian environmentalists turned to Moscow, saying that the personnel of the 10 Army were engaged in poaching and shooting polar bears.

    IMHO Alas. in this way you can remove any inconvenient General. With the flight of Rust, they removed our former commander of the 11-th Air Defense Army of the Chief Marshal of Aviation. “Dismissed from 11 June 1987 after the scandalous flight of the German pilot Matthias Rust to Moscow and his landing on Vasilievsky Descent, near Red Square. During this flight, air defense systems found the plane, fighters were sent to it repeatedly. However, the attack of a slow-moving sports aircraft was carried out was not."
    Painfully too often our rulers looked back at "international public opinion." Especially after the provocation with the "Korean Boeing": https://aloban75.livejournal.com/3664496.html Quote from the article at the link:
    "And earlier, before this report on the state of emergency on the air border of the commander of the Air Force fighter division during that period, Major General Anatoly Kornukov was warned that the American reconnaissance satellite Ferret D passed over Yakutsk and should reach the latitude of northern Sakhalin at 3 hours 07 minutes Therefore, according to experts, everything in this tragedy was coordinated as a very powerful and massive reconnaissance operation. During that period, a whole reconnaissance complex operated over the Soviet Far East. In addition to the Ferret D satellites, two more RS-135s scanned the space along the Kuril ridge. Powerful reconnaissance aircraft “AWAKS” were barring in the zone of violation of the air border, while US Navy ships were at sea, and American ground tracking posts were also working to radiate toward the Soviet Union, while the South Korean Boeing allegedly continued to deviate more and more from the permitted route flying farther west deep into the Soviet Far East. According to experts, including Army General Anatoly Kornukov, the South Korean pilot was specifically ordered not to obey the requirements to land, and to perform any maneuvers in the air. " And how many more villainies this CIA unit, under the name Greenpeace, has made and still will do the USSR and Russia is a matter of time.
    1. +2
      1 March 2018 10: 07
      Quote: Amurets
      In the 1973 year, Norwegian environmentalists turned to Moscow, saying that the personnel of the 10 Army were engaged in poaching and shooting polar bears.

      IMHO Alas. in this way you can remove any inconvenient General. With the flight of Rust, they removed our former commander of the 11-th Air Defense Army of the Chief Marshal of Aviation. “Dismissed from 11 June 1987 after the scandalous flight of the German pilot Matthias Rust to Moscow and his landing on Vasilievsky Descent, near Red Square. During this flight, air defense systems found the plane, fighters were sent to it repeatedly. However, the attack of a slow-moving sports aircraft was carried out was not."
      Painfully too often our rulers looked back at "international public opinion." Especially after the provocation with the "Korean Boeing":



      Because after that a document was adopted, under which all the countries included in ICAO subscribed.

      1. +2
        1 March 2018 21: 27
        Quote: shuravi
        Because after that a document was adopted, under which all countries included in the ICA subscribed

        And if the plane was hijacked by terrorists, as it was on September 11, it seems to me that such a document is outdated and does not correspond to reality.
  2. +10
    1 March 2018 08: 28
    List of all known victories of the Guard Major N. D. Gulaev
    1 03.08.1942/1/111 16 Ne-1 Novokhopersk I-XNUMX, Yak-XNUMX,

    "Aerocobra".
    2 24.08.1942/1/88 XNUMX Ju-XNUMX Korotoyak
    3 14.05.1943/2/87 XNUMX Ju-XNUMX (one shot down by a ram) Gostishchevo
    4 22.05.1943/1/88 XNUMX Ju-XNUMX air. Dirty
    5 1 Me-109 aer. Dirty
    6 08.06.1943/1/109 XNUMX Me-XNUMX Pokrovka
    7 22.06.1943/1/109 XNUMX Me-XNUMX Hotmyzhsk
    8 05.07.1943/1/87 XNUMX Ju-XNUMX Verkhopenye
    9 1 Me-109 Prokhorovka
    10 1 Ju-87 Korovino
    11 1 Me-109 Dragoon
    12 06.07.1943/1/190 XNUMX FW-XNUMX app. Verkhopenye
    13/07.07.1943/1 87 XNUMX Ju-XNUMX Belenikhino
    14 1 Hs-126 (in the group - 1/3) south. Belenikhino
    15 1 FW-189 (in the group - 1 / 3) sowing - west. Gostishchevo
    16/08.07.1943/1 109 XNUMX Me-XNUMX southern. Belenikhino
    17 12.07.1943/2/87 XNUMX Ju-XNUMX (one was shot down by a ram) Prokhorovka
    18 1 Me-109 Prokhorovka
    19 October 21.10.1943, 1 87 Ju-XNUMX Pyatikhatka
    20 October 24.10.1943, 1 87 Ju-XNUMX Saevka
    21 1 Me-109 Saevka
    22 26.10.1943/1/88 XNUMX Ju-XNUMX Saevka district - Chechelivka
    23 October 28.10.1943, 2 109 Me-XNUMX Chernyakhovka - Chechelivka
    24 29.10.1943/1/109 XNUMX Me-XNUMX New Prague - Camel
    25 29.11.1943/1/111 XNUMX Non-XNUMX Efimovka
    26 11.12.1943/1/88 XNUMX Ju-XNUMX east. Chervony Yar
    27 15.12.1943/1/109 XNUMX Me-XNUMX sowing. Undisputed
    28 1 FW-189 (in the group - 1 / 3) sowing. Kalinovka
    29 1 Me-109 Pokrovskoye
    30 17.12.1943/1/87 XNUMX Ju-XNUMX Pokrovskaya Rybchina
    31 1 FW-190 Pokrovskaya Rybchina
    32 08.01.1944/1/87 XNUMX Ju-XNUMX sowing. Marievka
    33 1 FW-190 Marievka
    34 02.02.1944/1/109 XNUMX Me-XNUMX Korotino
    35 09.02.1944/1/87 1 Ju-2 (in pair - XNUMX / XNUMX) southwest. Kosun - Shevchenkovskiy
    36 February 26.02.1944, 1 189 FW-XNUMX Kompaneevka
    37 12.04.1944/1/24 XNUMX PZL-XNUMX app. Sinesti
    38 16.04.1944/1/24 XNUMX PZL-XNUMX north - east. Petrikan
    39 18.04.1944/1/109 1 Me-2 (in pair - XNUMX/XNUMX) st. Bulbock
    40 1 Ju-87 south. Balabanesti
    41 1 Ju-87 Balabanesti
    42 25.04.1944/4/190 XNUMX FW-XNUMX Budeshty
    43 29.04.1944/1/190 XNUMX FW-XNUMX sowing - west. Iasi
    44 03.05.1944/1/111 XNUMX Non-XNUMX Valya Oilor
    45 1 Me-109 Movileni
    46 07.05.1944/1/111 XNUMX Non-XNUMX Dulchesti
    47 30.05.1944/1/126 XNUMX Hs-XNUMX Tederush
    48 1 Ju-88 Vulturu
    49 2 Me-109 Skuleni
    50 1 Ju-87 Schuleni
    51 10.08.1944/1/109 XNUMX Me-XNUMX southwest. Opatow
    52 11.08.1944/1/190 XNUMX FW-XNUMX southern. Brzezina
    53 12.08.1944/1/190 XNUMX FW-XNUMX app. Staszow

    Total downed aircraft - 55 + 5; sorties - 250; air battles - 49.
    1. +15
      1 March 2018 09: 49
      As I understand it, you took data from M. Bykov? If so, it’s very in vain. The true accounts of our fighter aces are actually more than Bykov presents in his research. I will explain briefly why. He takes the data of the German side for the ultimate truth. He is looking for confirmation from the Germans of the victories declared by our pilots. Allegedly, the Germans are a pedantic people, everything they have always been clearly taken into account, etc. etc. Nonsense and nonsense! They lied then, they lie now. I will give one indicative fact. Book: “Aviation in the Battle of Kursk.” We read: July 10, 1943 was shot down and captured by us Gerhard Lute, an ace from 52 squadron, who had 28 shot down on the account. During interrogation, this Lute said that his unit suffered the following losses: July 5 - 16 shot down, July 6 - 11 shot down and July 7 - 9 shot down. We look at the German report of the “quartermaster” about the losses of 52 groups on the same days. AND THERE IS INTERESTING: on July 5th, 13 shot down, and 6 and 7 are given in the amount of 10 shot down in two days! That is real: 36 shot down, and 23 pass in the reports !!! Thrown 13 aircraft! So the conclusion is obvious: the Nazis lied, hid their losses! Treasured their ranks, crosses and places! "Fraud" involved. And the "double-entry bookkeeping" on losses was definitely present for them. And now, they are slipping these "wrong" data to our "researchers". Most likely we will never know the true numbers of "their" losses ... And our "researchers" are happy to try! Especially M. Zefirov succeeded, directly, "The Luftwaffe Chronicler" - not otherwise ... Alas, we will not get used to humiliating and pouring mud on us, but we will "fill up" ... Some of us.
      Another indicative fact: In the same book it is written: one day the Germans allegedly “destroyed the Russian group of LaGG-3 and MiG-3 fighters, in the amount of as many as 12 aircraft !!! LaGG-3 in the summer of 1943, that's okay could be BUT MiG-3 OVER THE KURSK ARC IN THE SUMMER OF THE 43rd !!! Impudent shameless lie! After the battle near Moscow, the MiGs were withdrawn from the first line units and transferred to the air defense, where they served, guarding the sky over large strategic objects. to this - the MiG-3 was also discontinued at the end of 41st and beginning of 42. What is the Migu Kursk Bulge here? th: Battle through our CDB fighter MORE THAN WE TRY TO "presents".
      1. +3
        1 March 2018 10: 17
        Quote: fighter angel
        The Nazis lied, hid their losses!

        Not quite so, it's just that the loss was recorded in the quartermaster's reports if there was clear evidence of it. If the plane did not return from the departure, but there was no clear data, the loss was not recorded, because it could land on the emergency one with minor damage and was later evacuated and repaired. Such losses were written off later, and it is difficult to compare the plane written off, say, a month later with the declared victory on that day.
        1. +5
          1 March 2018 10: 39
          Well, of course, in a few days the front will “roll back”, and then there will definitely be no “clear confirmation”. Who will ask there? The territory is already under enemy control. Who will confirm how? Formally, everything is correct - and the losses are reduced and it is not possible to receive confirmation. The main thing: the "beautiful" otchetik left for Berlin. So the "conclusions" are now being drawn, and now on such "reports" ... Erroneous already from the very beginning.
        2. Alf
          +5
          1 March 2018 21: 17
          The Germans had another very “interesting” rule. If the given plane crashed to pieces during landing, then it was considered not a combat loss, but a flight accident. Then he was written off quietly, but was not recorded in combat losses.
          And how many of their victories Kozhedub and Pokryshkin gave away to the young.
          1. 0
            1 March 2018 23: 17
            Is this where you deducted this? The Germans had a percentage of what damage the plane suffered. For example, 20% of the damage was repaired in two days, 80% of the damage cannot be repaired. The Soviet Air Force has the same practice that it can be repaired, if not, for spare parts. And why did the quartermaster general hide the losses, he didn’t send reports on the losses to the newspapers. Historians have long recognized that if we take on faith the declared victories of Soviet pilots in the Battle of Kursk, it turns out that they destroyed all the Luftwaffe planes, on tea fighters, bombers and razvedchiki.Prichem the entire Eastern Front.
            1. +2
              2 March 2018 09: 22
              And what, didn’t the Hans also have? How many times have they destroyed our Air Force during the whole war? Yes, five times, according to them! So there is no need to "cram the unwelcome."
              1. 0
                2 March 2018 17: 17
                It’s you trying to “push”, and I’m trying to objectively look at some historical realities. Who attributed how much was discussed a hundred times, but all the same, the very most patriots scream, the Germans attributed, the Germans concealed the losses. And then you take for example the same book "Aviation in the Battle of Kursk "and you read that the Germans and Soviet pilots were mistaken in the losses of the enemy for objective reasons. But it’s probably not so convenient for you to consider the Luftwaffe to be a strong opponent. Then why did the Soviet Air Force fail to gain air supremacy until the 44th year? Yes still When multiple superiority over the enemy in numbers.
                1. 0
                  3 March 2018 09: 40
                  You, dear bask, do not distort! Do not do this. Did I say somewhere that I consider the Germans "weaklings"? Not at all! But what they lied is yes! And there are facts, see above! But you affirm that you could not have dominated the Air Force until 44, ostensibly with multiple superiority. Please, give the facts and figures here! Everyone is not talking about the 43rd year. Kuban, Kursk, Donbass. Give the figures and talk about the "multiple", supposedly superiority of the Air Force, and, again, supposedly, the "inability" to gain dominance ...
                  1. 0
                    3 March 2018 17: 29
                    For example, on the Kursk Bulge, in July, Soviet aviation concentrated 2800 aircraft, accounting for 33% of all Soviet aircraft on the Eastern Front. Germans 1800,80% of all German aircraft on the Eastern Front.
                    As a result, by the time the Citadel operation began, the Germans were able to concentrate only eight fighter groups in the Kursk Bulge region — about 340 aircraft. The northern and southern sections of the front had to be exposed. So, in the Leningrad region there was the only group II / JG 54, which was supposed to cover the Smolensk direction as well! Things were a little better in the south, where the Luftwaffe was supported by rather significant forces of the Romanian aviation, but here only one group II / JG 52 remained, reinforced by the Slovak and Croatian detachments. Of the groups concentrated on the Kursk Bulge, four (operating as part of the 6th WF) were armed with FW 190A aircraft, and four groups in the 4th air fleet flew on the Messerschmitts: II / JG 3, III / JG 3, I / JG 52 and III / JG 52. Trying to somehow compensate for the numerical superiority of Soviet aviation, the German command took measures to intensify combat use. To this end, fighter groups tried to transfer to a new state - 54 aircraft, of which 36 combat and 18 reserve; in addition, another 20 reserve aircraft were to be at the disposal of the squadron commander. Thanks to this, the problem of "horseless" pilots was temporarily left out of work while their aircraft were being repaired. However, the decision to transfer to new states was taken literally on the eve of the beginning of the German offensive - July 4, 1943, so they simply did not manage to realize it. All Bf 109 groups flew on the Gustavs. Bf 109E by that time did not even remain in the assault groups, and the few Bf 109F-4 (along with those replacing Bf 109G) still remained in two Hungarian squadrons.
                    On the Soviet side, the 4th and 6th air fleets were opposed by the 2nd air army of Voronezh and the 16th VA of the Central fronts, forces of the 17th VA of the South-Western front were also attracted. In terms of the number of fighters, the first two of the air armies significantly exceeded — each separately — all the forces of the Yagdwaffe on the Kursk Bulge, and only the third had more modest forces. In total, there were over 1200 fighters in them (522 in the 2nd VA, 474 in the 16th and 218 in
                    17th). In organizational terms, fighters were reduced to regiments of a 32-aircraft staff, and those - to divisions and corps. In addition to purely fighter formations, fighter regiments could be part of assault air divisions, and fighter divisions could be part of assault air corps.
                    Here you have the numbers for the Kuban and Donbass yourself, otherwise the whole article will work out.
                    1. +1
                      3 March 2018 20: 53
                      You accidentally took data from a marshmallow zephirov? He looked very much like him, for example, he claimed that in Kuban the Germans had only 120-150 fighters, which they "so skillfully maneuvered on a wide front, that the command of the Air Force of the Red Army had the impression of a" two thousandth fighter group " !!! In what !!! Well, apparently, the Soviet intelligence went on vacation for three months, and with all of its staff ... And the front-line, and undercover, and aviation ...
                      Now for Kursk.
                      Well, my numbers are different.
                      In short, I will not bore you with text.
                      Luftwaffe + satellites - the total number is 2.050 combat aircraft.
                      The Red Army Air Force - 2.600 vehicles, along with night bombers and "long-range", operating on targets on the Kursk Bulge.
                      Resolve the question: Where did you see the “MULTIPLE EXCELLENCE” from the Air Force?
                      Request: less text, more facts and figures.
                      And if you are interested in where my numbers come from, the source is ready to voice it.
                      1. 0
                        3 March 2018 21: 48
                        Here is the link: http: //aviair.ru/yakimesser/id/406. If it doesn’t work, in the same book that you gave as an example
                        Khazanov Dmitry Borisovich; Gorbach Vitaliy Grigorievich
                        "Aviation at the Battle of the Oryol-Kursk Bulge" is slightly different from Soviet aircraft 3900, 2300 German. 1,7 times superiority. Since there is no multiple superiority? Rastrenin’s book "Broken Sky" about battles over the Kuban.
            2. Alf
              0
              2 March 2018 20: 13
              Quote: Bask
              ? The Germans had a percentage percentage of what damage the plane received. For example, 20% of the damage was repaired in, say, two days, 80% of the damage cannot be repaired.

              You read inattentively. I said that a Messer and a foker who was beaten in a battle and crashed during landing due to the injuries suffered were attributed to the Germans as a CLAIM, not a downed plane. That is, it was not entered into the statistics as “lost in battle,” but went as “crashed during landing,” and these are completely different losses.
              1. 0
                2 March 2018 21: 18
                Sorry, but what difference does this plane have? It crashed, can not be recovered, all the loss. Often recorded as shot down by anti-aircraft artillery, but historians involved in the study and comparison of losses compare the battle area, time and records of military journals on both sides. losses on the day of the battle, which coincide in time and in the approximate area, we can say with certainty who and how many shot down. And how they write down there without a difference. By the way, the Soviet Air Force also wrote, it crashed during landing, even if the investigation m fall were combat damage.
      2. +3
        1 March 2018 11: 01
        Quote: fighter angel
        On July 10, 1943 he was shot down and captured by Gerhard Lute ... During interrogation, this Lute

        The authenticity of the German’s testimony can be questioned, don’t you find it?
        Quote: fighter angel
        "the Russian group of LaGG-3 and MiG-3 fighters was destroyed, in the amount of as many as 12 aircraft !!! ... OVER THE KURSK ARC IN SUMMER of the 43rd !!!.

        And here I completely agree with you that this is complete nonsense and falsification !!!
        1. +3
          1 March 2018 11: 31
          Well, yes, of course, the "bloodthirsty" SMERSH tried to the death of poor Gerhard Lute !!! Why then "knocked out" of him only 36 shot down? You need at least then 50, and preferably 70 “Messers" in three days!
          1. +2
            1 March 2018 11: 38
            But what reason is there to lie to him? If the infantry, when captured, did not immediately kill, and did not cripple, further for the captured pilots the Luftwaffe was more or less normal ... They even provided medical assistance. Moreover, he was interrogated at many levels, at many headquarters, and everywhere he called these very figures.
        2. +1
          1 March 2018 13: 54
          Quote: bionik
          And here I completely agree with you that this is complete nonsense and falsification !!!

          Banal recognition error. At a distance of a couple of hundred meters to distinguish between the Yak-1, LaGG-3 (by the way, it was mass-produced until 1944 and could still be in the army, though it was mainly going to the Southern Front) and the MiG-3 is almost unrealistic. Information about the cessation of their production is unlikely to be passed on to the Germans.
          1. +1
            1 March 2018 14: 16
            Perfectly! Then we would consider the total number, why bother, take into account some types and modifications ... No recognition errors! He shot down a single-engine fighter and so 12 times in a row !!!
            1. 0
              2 March 2018 11: 19
              Try to determine the type of fighter shot down. The note to the photo indicates that this is Bf.109, although you can take it for FW.190.
              And to distinguish the Yak-1B from the Yak-7B or Yak-9 is generally unrealistic.
              1. +3
                2 March 2018 12: 14
                It’s easy for you to determine VF-109 in the LOCK OUT (until you met the ground, it’s not shot down!). No problem. Even without your photo caption. For no FV-190 "Messer" not to accept!
                And you see, pilots, and especially military, and especially fighter jets, always differ by at least 100% vision, as well as visual acuity. It is professional with them. Therefore, distinguished, do not hesitate! And MiG-3 from LaGG or "Yakovlev" - rest assured.
                1. +3
                  2 March 2018 13: 08
                  ".... And to distinguish the Yak-1B from the Yak-7B or Yak-9 is generally unrealistic."

                  Enough of you! Just the Yak-7b is very easily IDENTIFIED BY GARGROT! Yak-1B and Yak-9 have NO GARGROT!
                  Yak-9 modifications "T" and "K" - are identified by a rearward-shifted cockpit and a "sticking out" barrel of a gun from a Coca screw. This is if simplified.
                  The Yak-9U is another engine, VK (M) -107, the nose is quite different from the outside, there is no "beard" at the bottom, and an air intake at the top of the hood.
                  You understand one thing for yourself:
                  Experienced pilots are well aware of all the subtleties and nuances, and even if they want to "nai.ppp @ t" somewhere, someone, their other colleagues perfectly "figure it out".
                  But to ordinary mortal inhabitants, alas, this is not always clear ... Well, it’s not easy to understand.
                  1. +1
                    2 March 2018 14: 39
                    Yak-7B late without gargrot

                    Moved back 400 mm! is it easy to spot a cockpit or a sticking gun barrel in fractions of a second in a dogfight? And even from the front view? There is not always time to look at the target in detail. They can bring down.
                    Quote: fighter angel

                    You understand one thing for yourself:
                    Experienced pilots are well aware of all the subtleties and nuances, and even if they want to "nai.ppp @ t" somewhere, someone, their other colleagues perfectly "figure it out".
                    But to ordinary mortal inhabitants, alas, this is not always clear ... Well, it’s not easy to understand.

                    Here is Vasily Fedorovich Golubev an experienced pilot. And many years after the war he wrote in his memoirs how he fought with the Finnish Spitfires, although in reality it was a Hawk-75 (very similar, right?).
                    1. +2
                      2 March 2018 15: 32
                      Firstly.
                      You were talking about the Yak-7B. And in the photo you can imagine, the Yak-7D, sometimes it was called the Yak-7DI, the predecessor of the Yak-9. There weren’t any Yak-7Bs of the “later series” without the garrot! From the word at all! There was a Yak-7D, or Yak-7DI.
                      Second.
                      In the memoirs of Vasily Fedorovich, I don’t remember something like that, so that he would say Finnish Spitfires ... I look through at my leisure.
                      You make a discount on a person’s age. At what age did he write his memoirs? He must have already been deep in 60-70 years ... The memory is not the same as in his youth! He wrote his memoirs not in the 45th, in hot pursuit, but after years, distortions are quite possible here. The Old Man simply could and “speak up” ... in some details. So then in general, he is quite normal and believable describes.
                      Thirdly.
                      Let me ask you a question, did you fly? Not in IL-2 (although the flying game is cool!) Not in Wordofplane or VarTandyr, but for real?
                      1. +1
                        4 March 2018 15: 30
                        You were talking about the Yak-7B. And in the photo you can imagine, the Yak-7D, sometimes it was called the Yak-7DI, the predecessor of the Yak-9. There weren’t any Yak-7Bs of the “later series” without the garrot! From the word at all! Was Yak-7D, or Yak-7DI .... "
                        Somewhat recklessly, in the sense of "completely," they were in nature, both in the factory version, and refitted by the forces of front-line aircraft repair units. How many of them I did not know, nevertheless, here is a fragment from the “Memo to the Pilot on the Operation of the Yak-7 (b) Aircraft with M-105 PF Engine” You can google this memo, it is on the internet.
                        Well, otherwise I completely agree with you.
                      2. 0
                        5 March 2018 10: 19
                        Quote: fighter angel
                        There weren’t any Yak-7Bs of the “later series” without the garrot! From the word at all! There was a Yak-7D, or Yak-7DI.



                        Yak-7B later series release. 976th IAP, 1st Baltic Front, March 1944
                        Quote: fighter angel
                        You are here to make a discount on the age of the person.

                        Downed Spitfires were announced immediately after the battle. The answer was simple, although it turned out much later, after the death of Golubev. He had never seen either Spitfire or Hawk. Then it was believed that the British delivered the Spitfires to the Finns, so they decided to consider the unknown plane Spitfire.
                        Likewise, German pilots who were expecting to meet the MiG-i, about the cessation of production of which there was no information, could take what was wanted for real.
                        Quote: fighter angel
                        Let me ask you a question, did you fly?

                        For real - how is it? Waving wings - did not fly, on an airplane - flew.
                2. +2
                  2 March 2018 13: 27
                  If you are interested, then I will identify the second fighter in your photo, and I will name the signs by which I recognize it. Do you yourself know what kind of machine the Messer attacks?
                  1. 0
                    2 March 2018 14: 43
                    I know. Thunderbolt, a rather characteristic silhouette. Especially if you know that the P-43 Lancer did not fight in Europe.
                    Do you recognize the modification of the "Pitcher"? The nose of the P-47B is slightly shorter, the P-47D has underwing suspensions. Recognize?
                    1. +1
                      2 March 2018 16: 03
                      Oh, and you have the terminology- "underwing suspensions" ... Underwing UNIT OF SUSPENSION, well, or underwing HOLDER, at least.

                      And why are these subtleties?
                      I understand what you are driving towards.
                      I explain on the fingers.
                      I see clearly in front of me the Thunderbolt-Riplik R-47, B or C - these are the details! And THIS IS COMPLETELY ENOUGH! Do you want me to name the series and the manufacturer Farmingdale, Evansville or Curtiss?
                      It will not be this.
                      I’m not saying that this is Spitfire or Mustang.
                      THIS IS SOMETHING!
                      I will not confuse them.
                      And also Mig-3 with Yak or LaGG - an experienced pilot will never confuse.
                      If you don’t decide to lie, of course ...
                      It is more complicated with the “Yakovlevs” in terms of distinguishing between them, but if the "eye is shot" - then the Yak-3, and Yak-9T, and Yak-7B and Yak-9U are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
                      1. +1
                        2 March 2018 18: 43
                        I wonder why then the Germans, British, Americans, Japanese bother with quick recognition color codes or with the color and size of the cockade. If it is so easy to recognize the plane in which New Zealanders have attached so-called “ears” like the Americans have to their blue-and-white cockades? because the Americans saw the circle without hesitation attacking. The same Americans in North Africa on spitfires in the British cockade inscribed a star, but at the same time removed the "ears". Although the American star with "ears" does not look like German crosses at all. German D- 9 in the Reich air defense from JV-44 "Parrot Stuffel" had a bottom painted in red and green with white stripes. About the yellow hoods and endings of the consoles RLM04 generally keep silent. Why all these troubles?
                      2. 0
                        5 March 2018 09: 47
                        Quote: fighter angel
                        I see clearly in front of me the Thunderbolt-Riplik R-47, B or C - these are the details! And THIS IS COMPLETELY ENOUGH! Do you want me to name the series and the manufacturer Farmingdale, Evansville or Curtiss?

                        Yes, these are the details. But you said that it’s all easy to recognize. It turned out to be not so easy.
                        Quote: fighter angel
                        And also Mig-3 with Yak or LaGG - an experienced pilot will never confuse.

                        An experienced pilot Saburo Sakai (one of the best Japanese aces) confused the Dontless (according to another version it was the Avengers) with the Wildcat, which cost him his eyes.
                        And most pilots generally could see enemy planes only in pictures like this before departure

                        We can conditionally say that accurate identification was possible 50/50 depending on the conditions of the battle (whether it was time to identify the target), conditions of visibility, qualification and development of the pilot's vision.
                3. +1
                  2 March 2018 17: 24
                  Read the same Drabkin, they had no time to determine the type of aircraft. When the battle is fought at speeds from 400 to 600 km / h, but also on the verticals, but looking at the ass all the time. Why do the pilots themselves say, “I saw hits, smoke and you’re falling off, because the Messer is attached to you from behind. "
          2. 0
            1 March 2018 16: 51
            So I say that LaGG-3 could be on the Kursk Bulge, theoretically. You read above. And that LaGGi were built before the spring of the 44th, by the Tbilisi aircraft factory, but as for their receipts in the troops, there are several other data. They went mainly to the naval aviation of the KBF and the Black Sea Fleet, remember Yuri Shipov, the “lion heart” on the fuselage. He was just on LaGG-3 of the 66th series and flew in the Black Sea and Baltic. And according to the residual principle, they were delivered to the Caucasian and North Caucasian directions.
        3. Alf
          0
          1 March 2018 21: 20
          Quote: bionik
          And here I completely agree with you that this is complete nonsense and falsification !!!

          I do not agree. Remember how many XE-113 our pilots shot down? Yes, and the Germans often called LA-5 LAGG-5, which, in general, seems to be true, because LA-5 is the next model for LAGG-3.
          1. 0
            1 March 2018 21: 42
            Quote: Alf
            Yes, and the Germans often called LA-5 LAGG-5, which, in general, seems to be true, because LA-5 is the next model for LAGG-3.

            Well, as it were, and as if not, the weapons are different, the engines are different, one is liquid and the other is air, and it’s very difficult to confuse LAGG-3 and LA-5 visually !!!!!
            1. Alf
              0
              1 March 2018 22: 29
              Are FV-109A8 and FV-190D9 very similar? But w-development.
          2. +1
            2 March 2018 12: 23
            I quote Alf - “I do not agree. Remember how many XE-113s our pilots shot down? Yes, and the Germans often called LA-5 LAGG-5, which, in general, seems to be true, since LA-5 is the next model behind LAGG-3. "

            What do you disagree with? Heinkel, He-112 (113) fighters were used at the front, depending on the modification, they were called that. Romanians seem to have Bulgarians and Croats, and participated in battles. And they also went astray by our pilots. Of course, there were not many Heinkels — there were not many fighters, BUT THEY WERE!
            And “Lavochkin” with ASH-82, the first issues, was called LaGG-5, later LaGG-5, when M. Gudkov “split off” from the triumvirate and began to create himself, first Gu-82, and then Soviet Air -Cobra, "she is Gu-1, a very unsuccessful one, who buried Alexey Nikashin underneath her.
            1. Alf
              0
              2 March 2018 20: 08
              Quote: fighter angel
              And they also went astray by our pilots. Of course, there were not many Heinkels — there were not many fighters, BUT THEY WERE!

              So I’m talking about this. Everyone knew that the Germans had such a fighter-XE-113. So, if a German fighter went down, then this is certainly XE-113. A common mistake is that with us, that with the chances, that with the allies. So the P-51 can take a side view from afar to drive behind the Yak-1 with the garrot. The British also first confused the FV-190 and P-36.
            2. 0
              2 March 2018 21: 29
              Improved He 113 was described as an aircraft that was widely used in the Luftwaffe, but in reality there were only nine such aircraft and they remained at the factory in Rostock, carrying out the task of its defense, although they did not fire a single combat shot. Romanians in August-September of the 112st.
              1. 0
                3 March 2018 12: 56
                Do not bring a lot of words, any arguments, facts and references to sources ... Therefore, there is nothing to talk about with you so far ...
                1. 0
                  3 March 2018 17: 39
                  Yes, at least take a look at the “Sky Corner” aviation encyclopedia, and then demand links, facts, investigations. Have you read the book “Aviation in the Battle of Kursk”? Between the lines? Or read only what you like? I'm in your I didn’t see any facts about the lies of the pilots and the command of the Luftwaffe either, but patriotic statements like Soviet pilots could not be attributed cheerless allegations, but the Germans are still nonsense. You need evidence in questions that are easy to check on the Internet. for language, just type in a request to Google.
                  1. 0
                    3 March 2018 21: 04
                    Dear, but did I, somewhere higher in the comments, specifically say that "Soviet pilots could not ascribe" ???
                    I stated that "the accounts of Soviet pilots are larger than some" researchers "try to present to us !!!
                    About our postscripts, I did not say a word !!!
                    Why are you distorting again?
                    It starts to bother me.
                    I warn you, once again, a similar attack on your part, and I will end
                    unilaterally our discussion with you.
                    I'm not going to make excuses for the words that I did not pronounce.
              2. 0
                3 March 2018 21: 26
                In total, about 112 vehicles were built in He-100, of which 15 are prototypes. Serial respectively- 85 aircraft.
                Most of it was handed over to the Romanians and was actively used AGAINST the Air Force of the Red Army from the very beginning of the fighting.
                And the prototypes, maybe somewhere the plants were guarded ...
                This data, dear bask, from the "Corner of the Sky" and from the Kozyrev "Aviation of the Axis Countries in the Second World War", supplemented by G. Kornyukhin.
                So do not blame me for the limitations and inability to work with sources of information!
                And more.
                If you have only emotions left, then let's finish our communication,
                and in a gentlemanly way we’ll disperse.
                Until the next articles on VO ...
                1. 0
                  3 March 2018 22: 05
                  I wrote about He-112 that Romanians fought on them. He-113 didn’t fight at all, that’s all I wanted to say. I don’t reproach you for anything and didn’t call you limited. In Smirnov’s book, “Falcons washed with blood” the author takes for the average that all declared victories, pilots of all countries participating in WWII should be roughly divided by three. I personally don’t have any negative emotions for you personally, but I don’t understand why accuse the German pilots and the command of juggling facts and lies. articles about the air war in WWII, because in them all starts a sur about postscripts and lies of the Germans. What is it for? I don’t understand. If my comments hurt you, I’m sorry, I didn’t want to offend anyone, but for the sake of truth. Once again I apologize hi !
                  1. 0
                    4 March 2018 11: 37
                    A colleague, bask, you are probably unnecessarily trying to idealize the Germans. In a war, each side tries, to one degree or another, to smooth and minimize its losses and to exaggerate the losses of the enemy. It is truth. It has always been so and it will be so. And the Luftwaffe was no exception. I’m sure that all the warring parties suffered without exception. You recall the accounts of Japanese aces, for example. And the fact with Gerhardt Luthe in this sense is indicative. What actually wanted to inform.
                    I have an offer for you.
                    Apparently, we are both “stubborn” people, and each one will remain in his own opinion.
                    Therefore, I suggest you finish the communication within the framework of this article.
                    We will still meet and talk at VO if you are interested.
                    I listened with interest to your point of view.
                    I respect the persistence with which you defend it.
                    I suggest - "Until we meet again at VO".
                    In new publications, I would discuss with interest.
                    1. 0
                      4 March 2018 17: 18
                      Agreed. Always FOR, constructive discussion.
      3. +6
        1 March 2018 11: 06
        Well, since quotes and capslocs have gone:
        “So covering up your troops - a crime and not fulfilling my order - is also a crime. For all the days of battles, a tiny amount of bombers were shot down, and according to the report of the pilots, the fighters were “filled” as many as the enemy didn’t havewhile bombers (meaning German bombers) go even without cover in hundreds. "(from a directive dated July 10, 1943, commander of the 16th Air Army, General S. I. Rudenko, TsAMO RF. F. 486th Iap. Op. 211987. D. 3. L. 131.)
        “The radio command is not fulfilled, it was 11.7, when the Dub-1 walkie-talkie ordered Comrade Vinogradov, Mishchenko, Silaev and Babenko to go on the bombers. The latter accepted the team, but did not go. The air during the flight of our fighters is clogged with unnecessary empty talk and other “obscenities,” they do not execute exact commands. "(From the order of the commander of the 16th Air Army, General S. I. Rudenko, TsAMO RF. F. 486th Iap. Op. 211987. D. 3. L. 127).
        "I order: 1. Bring me the names of all the leading groups to be held accountable for the failure to comply with my order. I demand that all leading groups and all pilots barrage over the front line and warn that for failure to comply with this order I will be held accountable - send to penal battalions and even shoot before the ranks for cowardice. " (from the order of the acting commander of the 6th fighter aviation corps of the 16th Air Army, Colonel N.P. Zhiltsov, TsAMO RF. F. 486th IAP. Op. 211987. D. 3. L. 131).
        "... all our fighters patrol 10 kilometers behind the front line, stubbornly do not go to the front line, fearing anti-aircraft fire, and allow enemy bombers to stay over the target for an hour. I am ashamed to look at it." (from the report of the commander of the 279th Fighter Aviation Division of the 6th Fighter Aviation Corps of the 16th Air Army, Colonel F.N. Dementyev, TsAMO RF. F. 486th Iap. Op. 211987. D. 3. L. 127. )
        Quoted from the book of V.G. Gorbach "Over the Arc of Fire. Soviet Aviation in the Battle of Kursk"
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. +4
            1 March 2018 11: 42
            Those. nothing to say in the case, except for the capsloc and combinations with the word "g.no." Clear.
            "A terrible thing, these archives!" (with)
            Inconvenient moments still "under the bench" to hold about 70 years, not to disclose, not to let, not to think ..
            It is good that Rudenko did not think so in 1943, but wrote orders based on reality. Otherwise, there would have been no victory.
            1. +1
              1 March 2018 12: 14
              He who has eyes, let him see. He said that he said, and I will repeat, despite the deleted comment. Read below. As for the archives, they are different, but there are ...
          2. The comment was deleted.
            1. +2
              1 March 2018 12: 11
              Well, to you then in Canada, to Serebryakov, what is there to catch in Russia? To drink vodka, to "reason" about Russia ... We’re boors, in your opinion? And what you communicate with us is not clear ...
              1. +2
                1 March 2018 13: 05
                Yes, not "In my opinion" -You everything is written above .. Correctly, Serebryakov said, pour mud, roll in a brown person who did nothing wrong to you and whom Ham never even saw ...
                1. +2
                  1 March 2018 13: 38
                  I ended the conversation with you. Morals will be read to those whom you will see in the mirror. Essentially the question is, you have nothing.
                  All the best to you, dear Serebryakov "fiery" greetings.
                  1. +1
                    1 March 2018 17: 14
                    Scream)))))
        2. +4
          1 March 2018 12: 03
          So I understand here I "swung" at the sacred, right?
          I want to say one thing - to make a book on "digging" negative aspects alone regarding the IA of the Red Army Air Force, in my opinion, is wrong in the root. Such "unpleasant nuances" of course were, where would they be without them. But! Focusing only on them alone, as the author of this book does, is a crime against the truth. A whole galaxy of our outstanding fighter pilots, Ases, also fought very successfully on the Kursk Bulge! This is Kozhedub, Evstigneev, Lugansk, Baevsky, Popkov, Sementsov, Vorozheikin, Zaitsev, Lavrinenkov, Stepanenko- and many, many others! So why about them in the book is not mentioned at all? And the whole "narrative" is built precisely on these shortcomings, violations and other "bad things." Why? Absolutely incomprehensible and wrong! He reads such a book, for example, a teenager with his fragile brains and life position - and what should he think? How did we win this battle at all? This is an ideological diversion, in my opinion. Against your country and its history. You can’t write about the Great War like that. So, excuse me, the author of this book needs to be “on the soap”, as they shout at the stadiums.
          1. +1
            1 March 2018 18: 33
            It’s just that in Soviet times, they probably wrote to us that the Germans were shot down in bundles and, having taken offense atheism, were doing postscripts, but the Stalin falcons, on the contrary, weren’t counted for a couple of dozen. But the truth seems to me that the Germans were really well trained and experienced pilots. Soviet pilots had to deal with a skilled, experienced and armed with modern technology enemy, but despite the terrible losses, the inefficient use of aircraft in the initial period of the war, Soviet pilots withstood and learned how to fight. Humiliating opponents with "cheers of patriots" humiliate Soviet pilots. The same book that you cited as an example indicates that the Soviet Air Force almost doubled the Luftwaffe, but could not gain air supremacy.
      4. +3
        1 March 2018 11: 41
        Quote: fighter angel
        In the same book it is written: one day the Germans allegedly "destroyed the Russian group of LaGG-3 and MiG-3 fighters, in the amount of as many as 12 aircraft !!! LaGG-3 in the summer of 1943, that’s okay, maybe, BUT MiG-3 OVER KURSK ARC SUMMER 43rd !!!

        It is very similar to the July 5, 1943 fight between 157 IAPs on the Yaks and III / JG 51 on the FW 190A. Ours tried to cover their ground forces from Ju 88 attacks, the Germans covered the area of ​​their bombers.
        The results are significant:
        According to our data:
        declared downed: 4 Ju 88 and 9 FW 190A, counted 3 and 2; own losses: 2 downed and 4 damaged Yaks.
        According to German data:
        declared downed: 5 MiG-3 and LaGG-3; own losses: 1 Ju 88 and 1 FW 190A.

        By the way, the MiG-3 is not the coolest blunder with identification yet. On the account of the Finnish ace Yuutilainen were downed red star P-38 “Lightning”, P-51 “Mustang” and a couple of “Spits” (which at that time were not at all near Leningrad).
        1. +2
          1 March 2018 12: 34
          Ilmari Utilainen is the one who wrote the book- "I fought about the Stalin Falcons."?
          He is also a nonsense, in the spirit of a Hartman with a "poodle."
          1. +1
            1 March 2018 13: 11
            Everyone lies. © We, too, you know, was Ivan Evgrafovich Fedorov.
            A mistake in identifying an airplane is a common thing. It’s good if they were mistaken only with the model - otherwise they confused their own with strangers, knocking down the Su-2 and even TB-7.
            1. +3
              1 March 2018 14: 05
              Quote: Alexey RA
              It’s good if they were mistaken only with the model - otherwise they confused their own with strangers, knocking down the Su-2 and even TB-7.

              And even Pokryshkin knocked down. And his memoirs "The sky of war ... - Why have we never been shown the SU-2, which we attacked today, mistaking for strangers? - asked the agitated pilots. - They say there is some other PE-2. And that may get from their own.
              “This is a state matter,” some argued. - New planes were kept secret!
              - Wow, "secret"! - were heard in response to objections.
              - SU-2 are in Kotovsk, very close, every day all the market women saw them. Is it right if you get to know the planes of your division only in the air? "
              And I have seen similar things several times in different publications of different authors.
              1. +1
                1 March 2018 16: 14
                Quote: Amurets
                And even Pokryshkin shot down.

                I hinted at him, talking about the Su-2. smile
                By the way, another future air marshal (then the flight commander) Pstygo witnessed that battle: Pokryshkin shot down his commander’s car.
                1. 0
                  2 March 2018 01: 28
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  I hinted at him, talking about the Su-2. smile
                  By the way, another future air marshal (then the flight commander) Pstygo witnessed that battle: Pokryshkin shot down his commander’s car.

                  Here are the memoirs of A.I. Yakovlev, at that time deputy commissar of the NKAP:
                  “In the air defense units, not everyone could distinguish their aircraft from the enemy. In the early days of the war, our planes were sometimes mistaken for German, and then a mess was opened. I had to urgently publish a small album with mass circulation depicting the silhouettes and describing the main characteristics of ours and German "Of course, all of this: bomb shelters, and military camouflage, and acquaintance of anti-aircraft gunners with the external signs of their own and enemy aircraft, and much more - had to be done in advance." As well as the memories of ADD pilots. I.I. Shelest: “Winged people ... On July 401, they flew to the battlefield to the west, to the Orsha region, carrying ammunition for the 2st fighter regiment Stepan Pavlovich Suprun - a famous test pilot, Hero of the Soviet Union, colleague Molchanov’s training at the Air Force Research Institute, and when they were already approaching the destination field airfield, an artillery shell hit their Li-XNUMX aircraft.
                  The pilot instinctively removed the gas. The height did not exceed thirty meters, the plane relatively smoothly fell by rye at the moment when the shot tail part collapsed and flew off.
                  Getting out, the pilots were surprised that they were safe and saw fighters running towards them with rifles at the ready. They shout, shoot into the air ... It turns out they were mistaken for the Germans in disguise. "
                  1. 0
                    2 March 2018 09: 25
                    Yakovlev - Alexander Sergeevich! Initials, please, indicate correctly!
      5. +1
        1 March 2018 12: 53
        Quote: fighter angel
        BUT MiG-3 OVER KURSK ARC SUMMER of the 43rd !!!

        Are you sure that the Germans correctly identified the aircraft? Our soldiers, too, all the tanks were "tigers", and self-propelled guns "ferdinandy". I don’t know why, but the MiG-3 impressed the enemy pilots. On the propaganda poster of 43 years, Italian, our fighter was shot down and a pilot jumping out of it, so on the plane was the inscription MiG-3
        1. +1
          1 March 2018 12: 57
          Do you answer me for the Germans? Am I sure of them ... Do not confuse anything with the formulation and addressing of the issue?
          1. +1
            1 March 2018 13: 03
            And the MiG-3 just did not find its pilot in the 41st. The car is cool, it was on it that Pokryshkin started fighting “on the verticals”. MiG allowed it completely. Therefore, the Germans both remembered him and called him “Ivan” respectfully ... Only now, the MiG pilot was required “above average qualifications”. Thinking, proactive, experienced and tactically competent. You know how many there were at the beginning of the war ... And of course, weak on-board armaments. The Berezina and a couple of ShKAS are not quite serious ...
          2. 0
            3 March 2018 07: 58
            Quote: fighter angel
            Do not confuse anything with the formulation and addressing of the issue?

            Quote: fighter angel
            BUT MiG-3 OVER KURSK ARC SUMMER of the 43rd !!!

            Well, if you didn’t write it, then yes, I was mistaken.
            Quote: fighter angel
            Only now, the MiG pilot was required "above average qualifications."

            I knew this common truth without you
            1. +1
              3 March 2018 13: 04
              No, not I wrote it. In the original, about MiG-3 over the Kursk Bulge V. Gorbach wrote in the book "Aviation in the Battle of Kursk".
              I just brought this moment to the discussion ...
              1. 0
                4 March 2018 05: 21
                Quote: fighter angel
                I just brought this moment to the discussion ...

                peremptory tone
                Quote: fighter angel
                BUT MiG-3 OVER KURSK ARC SUMMER of the 43rd !!! Impudent shameless lie!

                whose lies?
        2. +2
          1 March 2018 13: 08
          German tankers also had all our tanks T-34
          1. 0
            3 March 2018 08: 13
            Quote: novel xnumx
            German tankers also had all our tanks T-34

            yes, for sure, only this relates more to the infantry, and by the 43rd year, when the Germans began to fear our tanks, we did not indulge them with a variety of models, there was little Lend-Lease
  3. BAI
    +5
    1 March 2018 09: 14
    In 1973, Norwegian environmentalists turned to Moscow, reporting that 10th Army personnel were poaching and shooting polar bears

    And this is after the "seal war" on the White Sea in the 20s?
    1. +1
      1 March 2018 21: 35
      And the herd of seals, according to the reports of our ecologists, cannot be restored until now. According to rough estimates during the "seal war", more than eighty percent of the seal population in our Arctic have been destroyed.
  4. +1
    1 March 2018 10: 04
    What a beautiful talented person!
    Sorry, little lived ....
    Some sources said that in 1944 Gulaev was assigned to the third star of the Hero of the Soviet Union, but the idea was “wrapped up”

    They claim that the decree on conferring the title of Hero was even published, and then annulled
  5. +1
    1 March 2018 10: 17
    Hmm, third in performance? But what about Rechkalov with 57 victories?
  6. +1
    1 March 2018 10: 27
    Gulaev's glance

    Some as if born to fly and shoot down
  7. +2
    1 March 2018 10: 31
    I hesitate to ask: who forgot? Those who are interested in military history know about him, and about Kamozin, and about other aces of all the warring parties.
    Moreover, interesting articles often appear on VO, for example this one:
    https://topwar.ru/28299-gulaev-nikolay-dmitrievic
    h.html The best sniper pilot of the twentieth century - Gulaev Nikolay Dmitrievich.
  8. 0
    1 March 2018 11: 58
    Quote: Olgovich
    What a beautiful talented person!
    Sorry, little lived ....
    Some sources said that in 1944 Gulaev was assigned to the third star of the Hero of the Soviet Union, but the idea was “wrapped up”

    They claim that the decree on conferring the title of Hero was even published, and then annulled

    And yet, it is “submitted” to the award, and not “assigned”.
  9. +1
    1 March 2018 12: 12
    I would advise you to change the title of the article: to remove the statement that Nikola Gulyaev is a “forgotten ace”. This is not true. Another thing is that the history after 1991 took a different direction, but in this sense, everything is forgotten. I wonder what will happen in ten years?
    1. +1
      1 March 2018 13: 15
      A lot of useful and informative books based on a huge array of archival documents have been written about the real actions of Soviet aviation and its opponents over the past 15 years. Until 1991, this was objectively impossible.
      Some interviews taken by Artem Drabkin to understand the realities of the air war give an order of magnitude more than any Soviet varnished memoirs mercilessly distorted by censorship. In addition, dozens of full-fledged memoirs of pilots were published and reprinted ..
      I've highlighted for myself:
      Evstigneev K.A. Winged Guard. There is rapture in battle - Yauza, Eksmo, 2006,
      Emelianenko V.B. IL-2 attacks. - M .: Yauza: Eksmo, 2007.
      Reshetnikov V.V. 307 sorties. On a bomber through anti-aircraft fire. - M .: Eksmo, Yauza, 2006.
      1. +1
        1 March 2018 13: 55
        At the end of last year, an interesting book was also published - Yevgeny Yakovlevich Savitsky, "I-Dragon. Memoirs of Marshal Aviation."
    2. +2
      1 March 2018 14: 58
      Quote: iouris
      Another thing is that the history after 1991 took a different direction, but in this sense, everything is forgotten. I wonder what will happen in ten years?

      WWII won Private Ryan. Almost no one remembers the legendary flight from captivity and the hijacking of the Ne-111 lab-lab from Usedom Island, the Peenemuende Research Center. M. Devyatayev. "Flight to the sun"
      “During the visits of specialists to the airfield and intensive missile tests, my comrades and I noticed that the same plane was flying in the sky, standing in the extreme caponier closest to us. The new twin-engine“ heinkel ”was always neatly sheathed, and it was busy More people were hanging around than near the others. It was easy to guess that this plane was connected with missile tests. Once, when we were working at the airfield, we even saw some small ones being released from this “heinkel” when it was high in the sky missiles that, after flying six hundred meters, exploded ... Heinkel was returning to the ground, cars were approaching him, engineers surrounded him, and the fuel truck immediately poured fuel into the plane. "
  10. +2
    1 March 2018 12: 47
    The strange title of the article. Who is forgotten Gulaev? Those who are not interested in either history or aviation? Well, for them, Pokryshkin and Kozhedub are nothing more than "famous pilots." In this way (mentioned less frequently than Pokryshkin with Kozhedub), all of our pilots can be called forgotten. Would that be true? In my opinion, no.
  11. +1
    1 March 2018 13: 40
    Comrades, good day to all hi Maybe someone will clarify the question. request
    The award for Nikolai Dmitrievich to the award of the Order of the Patriotic War was signed 13 June 1944g.

    but in the most award-winning it is indicated that he was awarded 2 GSS from 02.07.1944

    Here is the question in the award data added or retroactively framed?
    1. +1
      1 March 2018 16: 39
      And good to you!
      A wonderful and unique document, but I'm afraid that hardly anyone will be able to answer you now ... unfortunately.
      1. 0
        1 March 2018 18: 05
        ,,, which only planes were not during fights
        1. 0
          2 March 2018 09: 30
          As I understand it, this is a sheet from the presentation / personal file of Captain Ryazanov?
          I couldn’t make out what kind of car it was with the “200” index ... Please tell me, I can’t increase something and make out the brand.
          Thank you in advance!
          1. +1
            2 March 2018 10: 47
            Quote: fighter angel
            I couldn’t make out what kind of car it was with the “200” index ... Please tell me, I can’t increase something and make out the brand.

            5.10.42 Italian fighter Mackey-200. District of Stalingrad.
            1. +1
              2 March 2018 10: 56
              Well, thank you! Exel-moxel, old "Mackie" !!! "Regia Aeronautics" ... Stalingrad. How did he not guess? Aging, damn it ... Of course, this is it.
              1. +1
                2 March 2018 11: 11
                And by the way, say, twice Hero of the Soviet Union Alexei Ryazanov, the document about which you posted, is a very remarkable and outstanding Soviet Ace fighter. In total, on his account, 48 shot down, 32 personal and 16 group victories. In addition, it was he, according to some sources, who is the victor of Hauptmann O. Kittel, February 16, 1945. Kittel was shot down and died in battle. However, in that battle, Ivan Stepanenko, also a well-known Soviet Ace, or, more precisely, Yak-As, could bring down Kittel, all his victories were won by A.S. Yakovleva. Stepanenko was the commander of our Yak-9 group in the same battle.
  12. +2
    1 March 2018 16: 00
    People of steel and flesh. Generation of winners. Honor and praise be to them.
  13. 0
    1 March 2018 17: 10
    I read about the "free hunt" and remembered the story of the son of one twice GSS. The author of this article could have named the name of the pilot, who was very fond of flying out on this "hunt." He insinuated more enemy aircraft than Gulaev, and therefore received the third Star. Many can say, they say, what difference does an enemy plane or a “wounded" enemy return to their airfield during a battle? Real soldiers disdained to finish off the wounded, albeit enemy.
  14. 0
    3 March 2018 12: 53
    Bask,
    Especially for bask, I will answer your question about the quick recognition adopted for the allies. You ask why they did it? I will explain. What percentage of professional, experienced pilots did they have? Offhand of the total, 15-20%. The rest are young people and "yellowhorotics." They have very little experience, but most importantly, “BATTLE VISION” is completely absent so far! While the hand and eye are full, how much time will pass? Beginners' eye is not shot. And it is NECESSARY to fight! Here for them basically the quick recognition system was made. Experienced pilots needed this system as a "hare stop signal in the bath." There is - well, no - well, it’s not scary, they can do without them ...
    1. 0
      3 March 2018 18: 47
      Here it’s specially for you. Honestly, believe it or not, but I knew that you would answer like that. Only a little bit ruder, like, it’s Western crooked-handed. But since you started talking about experienced pilots, they were not rich in the Soviet Air Force either. On the same Kursk Bulge in the Soviet regiments there were up to 40% of young pilots with a flying time of 15-20 hours. The Germans had a higher percentage of trained pilots, but they used a fast recognition code everywhere. Moreover, each TVD had its own. The eastern front had a yellow stripe around the fuselage, color the endings of the consoles for beavers, and sometimes for fighters, are also yellow. Northern Africa and Italy the color of the strip and the endings is white. In the Reich’s air defense, there are colorful stripes around the fuselage. So this was done not for young pilots, but for their erroneous identification, including for experienced pilots.
      1. 0
        3 March 2018 21: 37
        I heard you. The point of view is understandable.
        Not convinced.
        We will remain each in our opinion.
  15. 0
    4 March 2018 11: 23
    Bask,
    Well, since your 1.7 is "Multiple", then there’s nothing more to talk about with you.
    For some reason, the rest of them believe that many times, on average, MORE THAN THREE TIMES.
    The numbers you provided. The source is clear. I will not discuss this source.
    I can only say that it is controversial, very, very.
    I operated and brought you data from the Soviet archives.
    2.050 enemy vehicles versus 2.800 Soviet ones. And the point.
    These data are also confirmed from the multivolume "The Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945."
    I predict that criticism will begin now, they say everything is written under the dictation of the CPSU, ideology, etc. etc...
    But the same thing I will tell you about your sources.
    It is written on the basis of data from the German side that was not taken from where.
    For an example - to you data of the "western" source on losses in the Battle of Kursk.
    The publication “World Aviation. War in the Air” claims that I quote: “In air battles in the region of the Oryol-Kursk ledge on July 5–8, 1943 556 Soviet planes and 854 German planes were shot down."
    How do you like these numbers? The source is unbiased, neither ours nor German ...
    And by the way, they give exactly the same figures as Soviet sources.
    That is, 2.050 against 2.800 aircraft.
    I have an offer for you.
    You couldn’t prove anything to me and you won’t be able to, as well as I, probably.
    Therefore, I propose to end our dialogue in the framework of this article.
    In new publications of VO we will meet and discuss, if there is a desire.
    Until next time at VO.
  16. 0
    5 March 2018 13: 35
    Snakebyte,
    Yes, I am aware that the "corner of the sky" gives a photo of the Yak-7B, the later series, and with a "drop-shaped" lamp.
    But there is other evidence in this regard.
    I claimed, based on these sources: Nikolay Yakubovich "Unknown Yakovlev." Iron "Aircraft Designer", and "Yakovlev Fighters."
    They argue that the "non-ashamed" Yak-7 had the indices "D" and "DI", and very few were issued, because modified Yak-7D and later - Yak-7DI - began to be called Yak-9 in a large series. If interested, after a while I can give you a binding to the text.
    The fact that you yourself are not a pilot is now clear. This is not a rebuke. It just explains a lot.