The score of victorious battles of one of the Soviet air divisions over the Germans - "5: 1": from the history of the Second World War

For people interested in history air battles of the Great Patriotic War, I would like to know for sure about what was the real ratio of losses of the Soviet aviation and the Luftwaffe. The fact is that in this regard, a dogma was formed that the Soviet losses were allegedly ten times higher than the German losses. Various kinds of materials appeared with a claim to historical ones, in which it was stated that the losses were "incomparable", and it was not in favor of the air fleet THE USSR.

Not everyone agrees with this dogma. Moreover, disagreement in this case is not expressed in the form of unfounded statements that "German losses could not be ten times less." It is based on a whole series of historical facts that were recorded even during the Great Patriotic War itself. Among such facts are the narratives of Soviet pilots, staff officers, representatives of the technical level of aviation divisions. Among the interesting data are the narratives of the servicemen of the Guards Air Division, in which the Soviet aces Pokryshkin, Fadeev, and others served.

A video has appeared on the SkyArtist channel, which tells about this kind of narratives by the participants in air battles. Such assessments from the direct participants are a real chronicle of the Great Patriotic War, which sheds light on the real ratio of losses in battles between the pilots of the Soviet air force and the Nazis.

The score of the victorious battles of one of the Soviet air divisions against the Germans is "5: 1". Could everyone show such a result?

From the history of the Second World War:

Comments

[certero]

The loss ratio is considered wrong. Not according to the stories of the participants in the battles, but according to our documents and the documents of the enemy. Then the picture is objective.

[Cowbra]

Only the documents on the losses of the Luftwaffe by order of Goering were destroyed. So the picture is biased anyway. Kohl losses of the Germans are looking for the left numbers. Type of movement of aircraft hulls at repair bases

[Machito]

Akhtung. Akhtung. Pokryshkin in de play.

[Zug]

They order documents in the states, it's quite normal

[Cowbra]

I know I know. With holes! For example, figs there you will find losses in Tatsinskaya. When tanks crushed several hundred aircraft. Because they were compiled on the basis of LEFT documents and miraculously preserved stubs

[IL-18]

Quote: Cowbra

Only documents on the losses of the Luftwaffe by order of Goering - destroyed

Documents! For my service as a clerk, I myself printed the documents, and sometimes even composed ... And, let's say, at the level of the regiment, a slightly embellished summary is drawn up, the division is also very small, the corps, well, just a drop, the army is so, for beauty. The front did not embellish anything, only slightly underreported. Well, why does the Supreme Commander spoil the mood? We will report only what He likes.
And they declassified the archives. And there ... You just wonder: how are the losses of the Germans on the Eastern Front with satellites approximately equal to ours? We put them on paper both in the tail and in the mane. And as a result - parity.
And this applies to all participating countries.

[War in the air without myths]

It is not good to lie so rudely and subtly. The documents have not been destroyed, the losses are well known, moreover, on a monthly basis, and in most cases on a daily basis.

[Cowbra]

https://afirsov.livejournal.com/614645.html
That's for sure:

Quote: War in the air without myths

It is not good to lie so rudely and subtly.

Or
https://afirsov.livejournal.com/614061.html
Ask, by the way, what kind of Firsov, yes, yes ...

[fighter angel]

Yes, but provided that the documents reflect true data, and are not fabricated, not falsified according to the principle: "we will write down two of our shot down now, we will hold ten in our minds, and then we will arrange them in parts as written off due to wear and tear", not compiled for the sake of "beautiful figures in reports ". The fact that the Hans had "double-entry bookkeeping" for losses and victories has long been known, and there are facts confirming this. Will we see the true numbers of their losses? I don't think so.

[War in the air without myths]

The Germans did not and could not have any double-entry bookkeeping. This is nonsense. These documents were classified as documents of strict accountability. It never occurred to anyone to falsify them. And there was no point in it. If you lost 10 planes and wrote that only 5, then only 5 will be sent to you. And then you will have no planes left and they will ask you, where did they go?

[fighter angel]

This you tell the one whom you see in the mirror, standing in front of him.
Go treat somebody else, commentator with a long, bombastic callsign.
Without you, smart people have figured it out for a long time.
At school, read political information to German children. They will appreciate it. And in Urengoy, tell the boy Kolle, he will also like it.

[War in the air without myths]

Those you think are smart are really smart. But they are so only because they deceived you on the elementary. By the way, what are the names of these "smart" ones?

[fighter angel]

There will be no dispute. Look for other loose ears and blow in them. Follow your course.

[War in the air without myths]

Of course it won't. Liars always avoid exposure. The main thing for a liar is to throw in and get away from the answer. After all, if they begin to ask with partiality, he will have nothing to answer.

[fighter angel]

Pretentious, don't provoke. Nothing will come of it. Get out of here, pick up, hello ...

[War in the air without myths]

This is your sandbox.

[fighter angel]

You will shock and poke at yourself, in Khokhlostan!
Get out of here, unfinished provocateur!
Another such comment from your side - and the moderator will fly "warm greetings" ...
Want to ban?

[War in the air without myths]

Come on, go to the moderator of anything. I don't break the rules. He threatens me.

[Alekseev]

Quote: certero

Not according to the stories of the participants in the battles, but according to our documents and the documents of the enemy

It is unlikely....
Documents are also different. This requires an integrated approach. It is necessary to analyze both the documents and testimonies of participants and eyewitnesses and, most importantly, the final result.
After all, no way has been invented to defeat the enemy in a war other than inflicting losses on him. Destroy, incapacitate, capture (capture).
If the enemy is defeated, then he is forced to retreat, to surrender important territories, if we are defeated, then our troops have to do this.
Yes, if we have more troops and weapons, then we can suffer more significant losses than the enemy. But not at times and not constantly throughout the war.
Otherwise, the front after Stalingrad would not have moved to the West.
If you look at other "studies" that seem to be based on documents, you immediately see their complete inconsistency ..
So in the Battle of Kursk, the Germans lost "according to documents" a ridiculous number of tanks and aircraft, and as a result did not turn the tide of the war at all, but lost Kharkov, Oryol and rolled back to the Dnieper.

[Zug]

Yes, not a ridiculous number of planes they lost, according to their own reports. Where did you get it? Look at the Gorbach-specialist in Kursk by vozduuu.Tam on the faces, by day and hour, all the losses are painted. Documents are attached. They pressed the Germans in the air. Not immediately, of course, not from the first day, but then they gave them some good dust.

[War in the air without myths]

And let me write to you how many pilots of fighter aircraft the Germans lost in July in this sector, and you write to me how many tips you lost. A very simple comparison and indicator of who gave the dust to whom. Are we going to do this, or are you in the bushes?

[Zug]

Duck, on what materials will you provide me with the numbers? I hope if you threw the glove at me, then these are at least German reports in the original. Otherwise, you will be in the bushes.

[War in the air without myths]

Well, of course, there won't be any scans of the originals. Will be banal generally known, data that have long since migrated into the works of well-known and respected authors (Prina, etc.). And you tell me the same, well-known data on the advice. Don't bother. Everything has already been studied. There's a lot more to learn in detail. But the overall picture and the order of the numbers cannot be changed. 11-12 thousand pilots from the councils, and about 1300 from the Germans. You can dig further, and throw a hundred or two to the Germans, and reduce the advice to a thousand or two. Has it gotten easier? Has the overall picture changed? Now the falcons are giving backlash dust?

[War in the air without myths]

Well, apparently, it was you who did not read Gorbach. The book is old, all overgrown with moss. And everyone knows her. And of course they read how the divisional commander of the 8th Giad personally watched the battle in which there was no downed enemy, but 2 pilots (one of them GSS) wrote down 2 Me-109s for themselves, and was very indignant about this. And if the aggregate Soviet claims are compared with the German losses, one wonders what a rich imagination Soviet fighters had.

[Zug]

Once again I will advise you, at least to familiarize yourself with his lectures on Kursk, look at new ones. Losses of the sides by hours, days and facets of the arc. All on objective data, with the involvement of reports and summaries on the results of days, well, according to the data of the German side. in a lecture by Miroslav Morozov on the actions of the Germans in the Baltic in the Seeigel 4 area when the "magic order" for, in my opinion, less than three months sent 61 combat aircraft to the bottom, including 54 IL 2.Pe2 well, and according to the list. 85 Percent of them were shot down by these very Well, 15 percent aviation. We could not do anything. We sent three air regiments to the bottom of the Baltic Sea. The most sad thing. As it happens with us, according to the results of the drowning of kittens, an IL-2 regiment was sent from the Black Sea Fleet with specialists, which drowned this "warrant" in three days. And yes, in three months of this massacre, we were sunk by THREE small boats and damaged another 6. ALL! and IT'S -1944 YEAR ....

[War in the air without myths]

This new thing does not fundamentally change anything in the picture. You can get a few planes here or there. And that's all. There, the general proportions are already unchanged. And they will never change drastically. Only correct. On July 05, German fighter aircraft lost 13 pilots. Soviet more than 70-80. What else can be learned here? Find a couple of German pilots. Well, find it. Well, it will be 20 (with a horse reserve took) against 70-80. Has the picture of the world changed dramatically? Do the tips give a light now? It's funny.

[Zug]

And I don’t argue. We all the same began to level out the situation.

[War in the air without myths]

Align? Well that is if one earns $ 1.000.000 and the other $ 10, and after a few years the first one is still $ 1.000.000 and the second one is $ 50, it is they are equalized Wonderful.

[Zug]

If Sky Clown said, ours won, then it is (sarcasm) This comrade is just for fun to listen to. Let him provide summaries on the days of the air regiment or air division with losses for the current days and those with whom they fought. And the rest is the chatter of a pregnant woman

[Vechernick]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixfjswfwYhw - изучайте

[Vechernick]

and more https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPC3bVd2nPU

[Baron pardus]

Well then, documentary filmmakers will write this. I have already made a note on this topic. For example, in the US Navy and Air Force, an aircraft that FLY to an aircraft carrier is not considered downed, this is at the discretion of the Wing Commander. Even if it is so exhausted that it is dangerous to land on it. Even if after landing it is written off and pushed overboard (and this happened in Vietnam more than once), they write "Damaged during landing, cannot be restored." Or "lost as a result of an accident" or as a result of "severe weather conditions". For example, they write that the Corsairs were lost 100 of them in the battle 55, but the Intruders lost 62 of them in the battle 51. The trick is that the Corsair is considered simpler, more reliable and ... tenacious than the intruder. So to think that our naval pilots "SUDDENLY" began to beat tenacious, simple and reliable Corsairs, or that on the same tenacious and simple corsairs SUDDENLY everything that was possible began to fail .. The fact that 15% of Intruders' losses fall on jambs and those problems can be believed. The aircraft was considered much more difficult than the Corsair or Skyhawk in both control and maintenance. And they teach that A4 pilots, A6 pilots, and A7 pilots are the same.

And after all, everything is "true". Did the plane fly to the airfield or about to the aircraft carrier? Flew. Did Lyotchik eject himself or get out of the plane? Yes. It means not shot down, and not damaged in battle, but "broken on landing". So they write it down, if necessary. Just like a soldier who was stuffed with shrapnel, but if he was taken to the hospital in the form of a vegetable, but with a pulse, he is considered not KIA, but DOW. Or even "Killed while executing" ... You can record a lot of things and how. And everything is true. The plane flew to the area of ​​the aircraft carrier? Flew. Did the pilot get out anyway? I got out. So we write down, "Broken on landing." After all, it can be trumpeted in the newspapers and on the news. That they say, 50 aircraft participated in the raid and "DURING THE BATTLE" not a single one was lost. And that will be the ABSOLUTE truth. After all, "almost" flew to the aircraft carrier? Yes. So it is POSSIBLE to write that it was broken during landing. If the political situation calls for it.

After Vietnam, our military really, really does not like to show their losses so that: a) people continue to enroll in the Armed Forces. b) so that "public opinion" does not object to the war (after all, there are "no" losses). And if earlier the coffins with our soldiers were shown on TV and it oh, how it beat on the brains of EVERYONE, both civilians and the military, now only their families and colleagues know about our killed and crippled people. They are rarely shown on TV, especially coffins, such as "caring for the privacy of the families of fallen soldiers." And in real life it turns the country into TWO societies. In one society, everyone knows about losses and everyone has at least one dead or crippled acquaintance, while in another society they generally think that there are practically no losses. But back to our "documents". The downed plane can be recorded, with imagination, as you like. And don't lie too much. "After the battle, pilot Billy went to land but his landing gear hydraulics failed and the plane crashed, Pilot Billy survived." Absolutely TRUE, they simply kept silent that the hydraulics of the chassis "failed" because it was stuffed with fragments of an anti-aircraft shell :-). And Pilot Billy's plane will be considered "lost due to technical problems." And Pilot Billy himself will tell everyone this, because he will not say that he came under fire FOR. Therefore, the greater the losses, the more the US Armed Forces will attribute them to "non-combat" or "technical" or "weather". No, they will not hide losses, but how they will record them is a completely different matter. Although they will even hide. For example, the pilot rescue service wrote that EMNIP saved about 10000 pilots during the Vietnam War. This is much more than the "officially recognized" number of aircraft losses of the Air Force. And there are also reports from the rescue service of the pilots of the Navy, too, well, they do not agree very much with the "official" lists of losses. This is a common information war. The Anglo-Saxons are masters of it.

So "official" losses should be checked skeptically. By the way, even in the US Armed Forces, the wing commander or squadrons there will not be patted on the head for high losses. Well, "equipment failures" and "difficult weather conditions", including "a sharp gust of crosswind" - well, it happens, it does not happen to anyone. So you never know how the really lost plane was recorded. Especially if the pilot survived. I think the Luftwaffe and the Israeli Air Force worked on the same principle, although, let's admit that, according to the level of nonsense, the Goebbels department should have taken lessons from the Angloskax. What is the story of Lusitania (here everyone needs to learn, so to substitute the poor, unsuspecting Germans, who, in general, absolutely LEGALLY let this steamer sink to the bottom, yes, yes, with ammunition) or is there "an insidious attack on the US Navy destroyer in Tonkin Gulf" , The media raised such a howl ... and of course they made our sailors heroes, and they are happy to try, thanks in the order to their personal file "for valiant service" everyone wants, or even "The insidious explosion of the Maine Cruiser by the Spaniards." Well, or even the screams of British newspapers about how the Kaiser's army trained bayonet techniques on Belgian and French children. So you can take a fact and present it as it is beneficial. "Facts are facts, but if not you, twist them this way and that," well, or make it up. A downed plane or a killed soldier, in the presence of some circumstances, can be lifted as you like. Again, you can record several hits on an enemy plane on a photo-machine gun, and record it into the downed ones, but the plane (and the pilot) may well survive, reach the airfield, where if the plane is not too damned, they can even restore it. But even if it is not restored, the plane can be LEGALLY recorded as "crashed during landing in difficult conditions." (Landing without half a wing is a very difficult condition.)

[New Year day]

The winners write history. It has always been that way.

[Cowbra]

Scammers write it in this case. The numbers shot down during WWII - the Japanese were cut three times from the Japanese official, they say, it can't be! And those announced at Khalkhin-gol were left unchanged. So it comes out))) They don't lie, they say)))

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Silvestr

The winners write history. It has always been that way.

And now the defeated are trying to rewrite it, and even some of the winners.

[Andros]

And who is the winner now?

[Ros 56]

Of course this pleases, but where to write off the thousands of aircraft destroyed in the first days of the war?

[New Year day]

Quote: Ros 56

and where to write off the thousands of aircraft destroyed in the first days of the war?

Good question! +
But not needed

[Ros 56]

Therefore, they minus. And what to hide from the truth, especially after so many years?

[New Year day]

Quote: Ros 56

Therefore, we minus

How without it!

Quote: Ros 56

And what to hide from the truth

Truth is an expensive pleasure and only the brave is able to admit it. There is also political expediency, and with it to the truth, like to Kiev on all fours

[Fat]

And because hundreds are not thousands, comrade accountant.

[Andros]

Not politically correct?

[boris epstein]

They were destroyed by bombers and attack aircraft or abandoned from bombed airstrips, but not in combat. And this is not a lot, not a little, 1800 machines. And the conversation, as far as I understand, is about shot down in air battles. The destroyed enemy aircraft did not count for the Soviet pilots during the attack on the airfield. But the Germans did. Already incorrect. Soviet pilots did not count aircraft that were shot down in a free hunt and fell on enemy territory or at sea. And the Germans were counted.
But continuing your comment: where to write off those shot down by anti-aircraft artillery on both sides? After all, the Germans had excellent numerous anti-aircraft artillery. And read Pokryshkin's. From the autumn of 1944 until the Victory, most of the losses of Soviet aviation were inflicted by anti-aircraft artillery. Where to write off those destroyed at airfields (the village of Tatsinskaya, where the Soviet tank corps crushed German aircraft with tracks). Exactly the same can be attributed to the Germans, when their tankers in 1941 destroyed Soviet aircraft at airfields.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Ros 56

Of course this pleases, but where to write off the thousands of aircraft destroyed in the first days of the war?

They were not destroyed. They disappeared. The question is that the Luftwaffe never claimed the thousands of aircraft that we lost in the border battle. They write down much more modest numbers for themselves, EMNIP are several times smaller. As a result, it turns out that according to our data, they were lost, but according to the German data, they were not destroyed. So understand how you want ...
However, I'm not a specialist in the air war.

[Vechernick]

for reflection https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixfjswfwYhw

[IL-18]

Quote: Ros 56

Of course this pleases, but where to write off the thousands of aircraft destroyed in the first days of the war?

Well, so 1200 adversaries at the airfields in the first 14 minutes 15 seconds and destroyed.
Or admit that the German corporal struck a match and set fire to the planes dragged out of the captured airfield after a few days of fighting? And under a tribunal? The fate of General Pavlov and others like him eloquently shows how everything will turn out. And then the suddenness, as opposed to.

[Ros 56]

Let's just say that General Pavlov was shot for the cause, for his cowardice and complacency. For some reason, the Black Sea Fleet and the south-west of the country met the Germans as it should be, the hominy felt all the delights in their own skin on the first day of the war.

[Avior]

There is a simple principle in the work of military historians - their losses are counted according to their own credentials, the enemy's losses - according to the enemy's credentials.
Of course, it does not give a complete guarantee of accuracy, but at least it gives the data as close to real as possible.
What can not be said about the calculation of enemy losses according to your own data.

[Destiny]

I agree, the most (as far as possible) the best option.

What can not be said about the calculation of enemy losses according to your own data.

And counting their victories (especially among the Germans) is also, to put it mildly, controversial in terms of objectivity ...

[yehat2]

Quote: Ros 56

Of course this pleases, but where to write off the thousands of aircraft destroyed in the first days of the war?

planes are just things. They are of little interest to anyone. Much more important is the fate of pilots and aerodrome personnel. Before the war, hundreds of I-16s were written off. And none of this makes a tragedy.
Therefore, it is better to abandon purely provocative questions about thousands and ask questions to the point. For example, in the 40-minute-3 unit, 3 pilots are able to fly them and have never taken off on them into battle. All 40 were destroyed after the raids and the capture of the airfield. Are you going to count them too?

[Andros]

Why not. The enemy is not to blame for the poorly trained pilots. And losses are losses. At least they need to be replenished.

[yehat2]

equipment losses are not equal to the loss of aircraft with pilots
after all, in the end, they constantly compare, meaning vehicles equipped with crews,
and especially stupid ones even assume that all the cars were lost in battle and there were no unsuccessful landings, malfunctions, navigator errors and other reasons.

[certero]

Quote: Cowbra

Only the documents on the losses of the Luftwaffe by order of Goering were destroyed. That

Well, of course. All the war logs were destroyed, all the data that flocked to the headquarters was also destroyed ... excuse the stupidity, don't write this.
Dofiga German documents, including ours.

[Snail N9]

Well, funny zhezh- "in the stories." That it is "in-stories, memories", it is enough to listen to the stories of hunters and fishermen. As for one division ... Well, this - we are the only d'Artagnan, and all the rest - ... well, so ...
And the losses have long been calculated and everyone knows that they are far from in our favor.

[Federal1]

Article Fake

[Force multiplier]

Starting with a completely reasonable and well-founded criticism of Timin's 10k1, the channel's author predictably began preaching the other extreme - 5k1. Which means that viewers are again presented with a false dilemma. I wouldn't be surprised if both authors' channels receive funding from the same source.
It seems that in the near future no one will analyze the combat work of aviation, instead of perceiving it as a sporting event. However, given the ability to analyze in people writing on "military-historical" topics on parallel Internet portals, it is for the better

[Zug]

In the Baltic in 44, according to our own documents, during the fight against the "magic" or whatever its German Order (Raumbots, minesweepers, etc.) for 3 months, without any serious results, 52 IL-2 attack aircraft fell. The same documents. Without practically losses on the German side. All from the fire of the anti-aircraft artillery of this very Magic Order. And this is 1944. And they mined the Baltic as they wanted and when they wanted.

[Constanty]

The results are admirable, but it should be remembered that the 9th Guards. iad was not a typical Air Force combat unit.
It was rather an elite team of experienced and battle-hardened aces (Pokryshkin, Rechkalov, Fadeev, Trud, Babak, Glinka ...), with better aircraft than other regiments and divisions.

[Vladimir Mashkov]

BATTLE The losses of the Red Army Air Force in the Great Patriotic War were comparable to those of Germany, and - no matter how surprising it may seem to the "connoisseurs" of "real history" and amateurs-admirers of German experts - there were slightly less German losses in terms of both aircraft and pilots. I will not describe in detail, I wrote about this in the article "Aces of the Third Reich." The phenomenon of "huge personal accounts", published here on VO. Whoever wants to read it.

The score of victorious air battles against the Germans - "5: 1" - could and was shown, of course, not all and not always. And the performance of one of the best air divisions (possibly the best) for individual periods and battles is not an indicator. Moreover, the 9th Guards (216) air division fought a lot, actively with active opposition and the presence of an enemy. Others were less fortunate: they performed routine tasks to protect troops, attack aircraft, bombers and waited for the arrival of the enemy with the task of only driving him away from the guarded. A small number of groups and regiments of "free hunters" appeared in the Red Army Air Force only at the end of the war, and throughout its war, Soviet "hunters" were episodic, although the Germans acted so constantly ..

As for the questions, what kind of aircraft: La-5FN, Airacobra, Spitfire, are better and more effective - rather stupid and provocative. Why? It all depends on the application and the tasks to be solved! Definitely you cannot answer them. Although, of course, a comfortable cockpit with a side door, a nose wheel (inexperienced pilots and in the mud many aircraft with a tail wheel were nosing), a powerful 37-mm cannon and a rear engine protection for the pilot speak in favor of the Airacobra. Although the engine at the rear, with the consumption of ammunition and fuel, led to the rear centering and the danger of stalling into a spin, and the side door - to the danger of damage to the pilot when jumping out of the cockpit.

[Konnick]

Most of our aces, the most effective ones, fought on Cobras due to the fact that the control of this fighter with powerful weapons was difficult - the centering of the aircraft did not allow piloting errors, so pilots who flew well on I-16s with a similar centering were put on Cobras. Those. almost all of our aces on Cobras had pre-war experience. The pilot, who shot down 9 planes in one battle on the Kursk Bulge, Gorovets, flew a La-5 and died while leaving the damaged plane, hitting the stabilizer. Such cases made the pilots all the more wary of a different layout of the lantern, considering the Aircobra to be very dangerous when jumping out of the plane because of the side doors, this phobia was in young, inexperienced pilots. And Pokryshkin, with its dimensions, really liked these doors. The Cobra's problem was also in the original profile of the lower contour, very rounded, like a paperweight, such a profile contributed to the nosing of the aircraft when landing on the belly. Therefore, pilots with great experience and without any phobias flew on Cobras, and this plane suited them. Some even removed the wing machine guns in order to reduce weight and further increase maneuverability. And experienced pilots had to shoot down more than recruits. And the fact that the Americans and others did not favor this aircraft, they did not have a "training" I-16, and they did not need the extra maneuverability that distinguished air battles on our front. If our aces switched to Yaki or La, they would have shot down no less, but they got a capricious aircraft in piloting, but excellent in battle.
The R-39 Airacobra was a very expensive aircraft to board inexperienced pilots. For the ferry from Alaska it was, but for the fight only those who flew the I-16.

[victor50]

Quote: Konnick

pilots who flew well on the I-16, with a similar alignment, were put on Cobras.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems that Pokryshkin flew a MiG before Cobra.

[Konnick]

55 IAP, in which Pokryshkin served, rearmed MiGs before the war, and before that Pokryshkin flew the I-2 for 16 years.

[Zug]

MiGG-then YAK then Cobra

[victor50]

Quote: Zug

Yak then cobra

Yak is not mentioned everywhere.

[Zug]

It is mentioned in his novel.

[Konnick]

Pokryshkin flew the U-2, R-5, I-16, MiG-3, R-39 Airacobra, MiG-15, MiG-17.

[Zug]

Roman his-Sky of War read-will help

[War in the air without myths]

The Airacobra cannot be an expensive plane, because it was received absolutely free of charge. And inexperienced pilots were still planted on them, and in considerable numbers.

[Vechernick]

but it will not be shown on any TV channel ... for the ideology of the ALL political palette cannot do without at least "a few grams" of anti-Soviet

[certero]

Quote: Alekseev

So in the Battle of Kursk, the Germans lost "according to documents" a ridiculous number of tanks and aircraft, and as a result did not change the course of the war at all,

The Germans rolled back because ours launched an offensive on the other front.
The ratio of tank losses on the Kursk Bulge is far from in our favor.

[War in the air without myths]

Another attempt to rewrite history "for yourself". Calm down already, the Luftwaffe shot down much more and lost much less. All numbers are available, there would be a desire.

[War in the air without myths]

Quote: Cowbra

https://afirsov.livejournal.com/614061.html

Yes, everyone knows this clown. A person with logic is not friendly with mathematics either. Even a first-grader understands that irrecoverable losses are compensated exclusively by new production, and nothing else. That is why it just looks like a single column "New aircraft arrived." And this is enough to generally assess the overall level of irrecoverable losses for the period. Without even delving into the Augean stables under the name% damage, repairs are not repairs, and so on. information that is actually unnecessary for analysis.

[War in the air without myths]

Soviet fighter aircraft, from the point of view of efficiency and any threat to the enemy, did not represent anything. She actually played the role of flying targets to replenish the personal accounts of the Germans and improve their skills. At the same time, the Soviet aviation was engaged in massive postscripts, writing to their accounts 20-30 times more than they could shoot down (usually by luck).

[War in the air without myths]

The backlash is not overstated. In any case, with regard to the most massive Soviet fighters. Backlash shot down about 25-30% of the Soviet fighters produced in the air. These are more than real numbers.... Here is the layout for the most massive and modern fighters [Airacobra received about 4700, shot down 1700 or 36%], [Yaki released about 36.000, shot down 5400 or 15%], [LaGG and La released about 22.400, shot down 7.500 or 33% ], [MiG released about 3.300, shot down 2.500 or 76%]. In some cases, this is even less than the advice themselves announced their losses in air battles.