Myths about the number of aircraft shot down by German aces

On what basis during the Great Patriotic War could the pilots say: "He is a real ace"? When it comes to German pilots, historians usually operate on German data, noting that all successful operations in the air were recorded by objective means of control. These are called photo-machine guns, they are also FKP - photo-machine guns. Historians point out that in the Luftwaffe there was no option in which the command could be misled, for example, about the number of aircraft destroyed. Therefore, all statements about hundreds of aircraft shot down by individual German pilots are true. Is it so?

In its next issue devoted to this topic, the SkyArtist channel is very skeptical about the system for recording aerial victories.

One of the arguments against the fact that the fixation was absolute and unbiased has to do with such a factor as the number of PCFs in the Luftwaffe. Objective data indicate that not every German aircraft was equipped with a photo-machine gun. This alone suggests that the system for recording successful sorties of German pilots can hardly be called comprehensive and objective.

Even if you monitor images of German wartime aircraft that have ever been published on the web, it is extremely difficult to find FKP on them.

Details about the myth about the number of aircraft shot down by German aces and the objectivity of the Luftwaffe air victories system, as well as how these myths can be easily dispelled:

Comments

[dgonni]

An old song in a new way?

[alpamys]

Quote: dgonni

An old song in a new way?

That's for sure ... like mushrooms.
Right now, videos in German about the tank aces of Germany have appeared on YouTube, a lot of new information.

[Vladimir_2U]

In general, it can be considered "shot down" according to reports, in fact, fired upon and caught in the frame. Well, the nuances, where without them.

[Pavel57]

Any story is not absolute.

[Torins]

If Kozhedub had the same number of sorties as Hartman, then the number of those shot down would have been no less. Well, since the postscripts were everywhere, ours too.

[Sergey Valov]

"Then the number of those shot down would have been no less" - a very controversial question. The Germans had two or three times fewer planes passing through the Eastern Front than ours, therefore, our pilots had less chances to meet and destroy the enemy. This is the first thing. Second, the increase in combat missions also increases the likelihood of death, and not only green youths died, but also experienced aces. Third, why does Kozhedub have many times less combat missions?
And as far as the postscripts are concerned, I completely agree, and the postscripts were not always from malicious intent.

[boris epstein]

"Third, why does Kozhedub have many times less combat missions?"
Before the Battle of Kursk, IN Kozhedub was an instructor pilot and achieved a secondment to the front only in 1943.

[Sergey Valov]

Kozhedub made about 2 sorties in 330 years and fought since March 1943)
Hartman flew 2,5 sorties in 1300 years (he fought since November 1942). The question "why does Kozhedub have many times less combat missions?" continues to be relevant.

[Torins]

Kozhedub has fewer combat missions, primarily because units of the Soviet Air Force were tied to certain sectors of the front and sometimes could not fly for weeks due to the absence of the enemy in the sky. The Germans moved their formations back and forth along the entire front, where it was required to create air superiority. So it turned out that Hartman flew every day five times throughout the war, and Kozhedub flew five times every day for a week, then not once in a week.

[Sergey Valov]

"In view of the absence of an enemy in the sky" - the absence of an enemy in the sky, this is not a reason, for not flying, the war continued, after all. Starting in the summer of 1943, our troops attacked almost constantly, we had a strategic initiative, so I think we had to fly constantly. But if this was actually the case, then this is called the transfer of initiative in the air to the enemy.

[boris epstein]

Vyacheslav explained to you that a specific air army was assigned to each Soviet front, and this air army fights when its front advances or repels the enemy's offensive. Germany had 4 air fleets, and the Germans moved their entire air fleets, for example, removing all aviation from Africa and throwing them on Taman (air battles over the Crimean village) or near Kursk. And then Rommel remained without air cover at all. Read the book "The True Story of the Luftwaffe. The Rise and Fall of Goering's Brain." Moscow, Yauza, Eksmo, 2006

[Sergey Valov]

"The air army fights when its front advances or repels the enemy's offensive" - ​​I also wrote, "since the summer of 1943 our troops have been attacking almost constantly, we had a strategic initiative, so I think we had to fly constantly."
In your opinion, it turns out that when the front stopped, the war in the air stopped on our side? By the way, I'm ready to believe it, but somehow it's sad ...
"The Germans transferred their entire air fleets, taking off, for example, all aviation" - not necessarily the entire fleets, they transferred both corps and individual groups. I am aware of the use of the Luftwaffe.

[boris epstein]

The war in the air did not stop COMPLETELY, no need to distort, but from the Soviet side it was either reconnaissance flights or local local operations with small forces.
"I am aware of the use of the Luftwaffe." Mass transfer is knocking out a motor resource and a huge expenditure of fuel, which Germany was not too rich in. And the assignment of air armies to the fronts made it possible to save motor resources, fuel, to repair aircraft on time, replenish troops with equipment and train flight personnel arriving from schools.
Still, read the book I have proposed. You will know more, and that never gets in the way.

[Sergey Valov]

“Mass transfer is knocking out a motor resource and a huge expenditure of fuel,” - a massive transfer is an opportunity, having less forces, to be stronger than the enemy in the required area. This is the ability to beat the enemy in parts.
"Consolidation of air armies behind the fronts" - the consolidation of air armies behind the fronts, in addition to positive factors, led to the waste of resources (aircraft, l / s), gave the initiative to the enemy's hand, led to regular, local, losses of air supremacy during the enemy's offensive ...

[boris epstein]

When air armies assigned to the fronts appeared in the USSR, there could be no talk of any air superiority over the USSR Air Force; there could be only approximate equality.
And if you really root for the Luftwaffe, tell me how many WORKING planes Hartman threw in battle (he jumped with a parachute when the battle was not in his favor), how many times Rudel was shot down, how German aces from the beginning of 1944 learned to break the landing gear on takeoff , and why, according to statistics, with the overwhelming advantage of the British and Americans in the air, flying in the hundreds, the bulk of the German aces are Soviet planes? And another question. Given that the Germans had numerous well-armed anti-aircraft artillery, what did they do while the Hartmans replenished their accounts?
In terms of initiative losses in the air, these were temporary and brief moments during redeployment. After Stalingrad, this happened, but rarely steal. Neither over the Crimean, nor in the Kursk battle, nor in Operation Bagration, nor in the Battle of Balaton, nor in the Yassy-Kishinev battle , nor in the Korsun-Shevchenko battle, there was no loss of initiative in the air. Pokryshkin generally taught his division to land and take off from the freeway.

[Sergey Valov]

"You are so rooting for the Luftwaffe" - do not attribute to me what I do not have.
"The bulk of the German aces are Soviet planes?" you raised a very sad topic. Read about the training of flight personnel during the war in the USSR, England and the United States, compare, draw conclusions.
"There was no loss of initiative in the air." - it was, read the literature.
"Taught his division to land and take off from the freeway" - what's so hard about that? The main thing is to find the appropriate site.
"What she did while the Hartmans replenished their accounts" - she shot, and very effectively. Again, read the literature. By the way - German air defense artillery shot in 1943 -1945. about HALF of Germany's total ammunition consumption, while the production of ammunition in WWII accounted for about 50% of all industrial efforts of the belligerent countries.
"These were temporary and brief moments during the redeployment." - and the Germans, at the same time, did not they redeploy in the same direction?

[boris epstein]

Again jerking. If the German anti-aircraft artillery fired and very effectively, then where did the Hartmans get such accounts? For everyone, even the entire aviation of the USSR, together with Lend-Lease, would not be enough.
"" I taught my division to land and take off from the freeway "- what is so difficult about that? The main thing is to find the appropriate site."
So the FIRST in the world! But before that, you first need to think of it! And it is always difficult for the first one, and it was he, AI Pokryshkin, who landed first on the highway, already being the commander of a fighter air division.
"You raised a very sad topic. Read about the training of flight personnel during the war in the USSR, England and the USA, compare, draw conclusions."
You bite the sandwich on the wrong side. Britain and the United States had three times more combat aircraft than the USSR. And you didn't read the comment carefully. Soviet aviation did not fly hundreds of planes in one sortie. And the Anglo-American flew. And the Zapadyug aircraft in the accounts of the Germans were several times less. Isn't it a paradox? After all, it should have been the other way around. So is it clearer? Soviet pilots were trained not only in aviation schools, but also trained in units. By the way, the Germans did the same from the middle of 1943 and the class of German pilots fell. 80% of the German aces were shot down in the USSR.
During the Second World War, the aircraft of the warring countries lost:
1. German Air Force: 85.650 aircraft;
2. Japanese Air Force: 49.485 aircraft;
3. Soviet Air Force: 47.844 aircraft;
4. USAF: 41,575 aircraft;
5. British Air Force: 15.175 aircraft.
How's that? Who knocked off these 85 Nazi aircraft? For every aircraft lost to the Soviet Air Force, there are 650 Hitler aircraft, and this is taking into account the fact that the Soviet Air Force lost 1,8 aircraft on the airfields on the first day of the war.
The Nazis on the first day of the war IN THE AIR (not on airfields) lost about 300 aircraft. Who knocked them down?

[Sergey Valov]

"Soviet pilots were trained not only in aviation schools, but also completed their education in units. By the way, the Germans did the same from the middle of 1943 and the class of German pilots fell." - Do you understand what you wrote?
I know first-hand how Soviet pilots were trained - my father studied at the Bataysk school during the war. The level of training and the raid were appalling.
"For every aircraft lost to the Soviet Air Force, there are 1,8 Hitler's aircraft" - I repeat, did you understand what you wrote? Is it okay that Germany has been at war since 1939? Don't you take into account the fact that the Germans were shot down not only on the Eastern Front? With us, you count only combat losses, while the Germans have all the lost aircraft.
"The USSR Air Force lost 1800 aircraft on the airfields on the first day of the war" - much less.
Sorry, I think further dialogue is meaningless.

[boris epstein]

No, I count ALL losses. Didn't the Soviet pilots from the ferry divisions crash over Siberia? Or from Iran to the USSR? Or when ferrying Soviet planes from factories to the front? How did the aircraft designer Petlyakov die, not in the know? Or were there no non-combat losses in the USSR Air Force? Or did the Japanese not shoot down Soviet planes in 1945? Or BF Safonov, Twice Hero of the Soviet Union, did not die because of a jammed engine on an ENGLISH fighter? Or did the vaunted American Airacobra not go into a flat tailspin and ruin Soviet pilots?
And the German pilots are still those smart ass against Western aircraft. They flew out when the Allied planes went on the opposite course and the German anti-aircraft artillery stopped firing. They finished off the wounded and stragglers. Therefore, their losses in the West were significantly less than in the East.
And the Soviet pilots performed the task of NOT ALLOWING the bombing. The difference is fundamental.
In general, it is really pointless to argue with you.

[War in the air without myths]

Another lie. 1) The Germans boldly attacked arrays of bombers (B-17, B-24, shot down a lot of them, and they themselves were not weak. 2) Soviet pilots were even afraid to approach (not to mention attacks) German bombers. This is reflected even in Soviet official documents (for example, Orders of NCOs).

[boris epstein]

Whose clone? Rating minus 1 134.

[SomethingGreen]

> Yes, and the German pilots are still smart-ass against Western aircraft.

In 1944, these average flight losses for "smart-assholes" "against Western aircraft" were seven times higher than those for Vostochny.

[Andrey NM]

My grandfather graduated from the flying club in 1937, then flew around the edge, drove all kinds of specialists, doctors, etc. He flew the U-2 and UT-2. Then he decided to enter the river school, went to Krasnoyarsk. And to say why I went to the river, I really could not, just friends called, and then the Finnish began. Summoned. He did not reach the front, but he was sent to a unit where he was being retrained for other types of aircraft. We checked the piloting technique and retrained it on the I-16. They assigned a sergeant and sent him to the regiment. This is how he became a fighter without finishing military school for the next 20 plus years of his life. This was in 1940.

[Sergey Valov]

"Read the book I have proposed" - if I get it, I will, but this is unlikely because it came out a long time ago.

[boris epstein]

Who wants, he is looking for methods, who does not want excuses. Now there are electronic libraries.

[Sergey Valov]

“Now there are electronic libraries” - I don't use them, I prefer only normal books.

[boris epstein]

Me too, but if there is no way to get a normal one, you have to use an electronic library.

[Konnick]

aviation in the memoirs of commanders had an auxiliary effect. In fact, aviation played a significant role in many battles. The Germans skillfully deployed and concentrated their aviation. Remember the Vyazma catastrophe, General Lukin placed the people's militia divisions in the directions of the main attack, on the main roads, and hid the personnel units in the forests on the flanks, it seems he wanted to act in accordance with the prehistoric tactics of the Battle of the Ice and the Battle of Kulikovo. And the Germans concentrated the entire avivation of the Center group, even Guderian was indignant at the lack of air cover on the southern flank, where his tank group was advancing. And with continuous air strikes, they blocked any movement of Lukin's troops, leaving weak divisions of the people's militia alone with a tank armada on the Minsk highway. The two fronts ceased to exist within three days of the Luftwaffe's work.
The second significant example is the defeat of the Crimean Front by the use of aviation of the entire southern group on the narrow isthmus of the Kerch Peninsula. After destroying the headquarters, destroying the communication centers, allowing the landing behind Feodosia, the aviation, having done their dirty deed in three days, was deployed already on May 11, 42nd and began to stop the breakthrough near Kharkov, having successfully completed this, contributed to the defeat of the South-Western Front. Two more fronts in a week.
And our most successful operation is Bagration. Do you think the genius of our generals led to a significant victory? Before that, they tried to attack twice, but rolled back with heavy losses. But having created a 16-fold air superiority, suppressing artillery batteries by attack aircraft, destroying communications and supply routes, they did not allow the Germans to conduct a maneuverable defense, they practically repeated the 41st year on the contrary, destroying the Center group.
Also, the Americans were defeated in the Ardennes until the weather improved and aviation could be used, which smashed the tank wedges to pieces.

[voyaka uh]

"which smashed the tank wedges to pieces" ///
---
There was a flanking tank attack from the south, which cut off the attackers.
Hitler ordered to retreat so as not to fall into the cauldron.

[Konnick]

From the memoirs of Baghramyan:

After that, enemy infantry and tanks rushed into the attack with the support of 400 aircraft in two directions: from the Andreevka area to Barvenkovo ​​and from Slavyansk to Dolgenkaya ...

.
There was not just a flank tank attack, but an airstrike using the latest Henschel 129.
.....

The unceasing air raids throughout the day seriously disrupted the command and control of the troops.

Just like at Vyazma, as well as on the Crimean front.

Enemy aircraft dominating the air inflicted heavy losses on our units and disrupted troop control. During the day, literally everything was pressed to the ground, and only the onset of night allowed units without heavy weapons to filter through the encirclement beyond the Seversky Donets River and join up with the main forces.

Well, Baghramyan in the conclusions:

On the entire southern strategic wing of the Soviet-German front, including the Crimea, the Germans at the beginning of the summer campaign had a rather powerful 4th air fleet, which consisted of over 1200 combat aircraft (700-800 bombers, 250-300 fighters and 125 reconnaissance aircraft). Having a unified command, unified command and control bodies and airfield support, the Germans easily concentrated the main efforts of aviation for massive combat use in those areas where, according to their plans, the fate of the most important battles and operations in general was decided.
In the 1942 summer campaign that began, the German command consistently concentrated the combat power of the 4th Air Fleet, first against the troops of the Crimean Front and the defenders of Sevastopol, and then against the troops of the Southwestern direction that participated in the Kharkov operation.

Baghramyan talks a lot about the causes of the disaster near Kharkov, but the main thing is the loss of command and control of the troops, the lack of communications and the lack of operational data about the enemy. And this is also due to the actions of the German aviation. Our army commanders were killed by air strikes.

[voyaka uh]

"There was not just a flank tank attack, but an air strike using the latest" ///
----
I'm actually talking about an American flank attack that changed the course.
battles of the Ardennes.

[Konnick]

I'm actually talking about an American flank attack that changed the course.
battles of the Ardennes.

Again, this is the American commanders who praised themselves, if it were not for the aviation, then they could not do anything with the help of a flank attack.

British Tempests and Typhoons, as well as American Mustangs and Thunderbolts, became the main anti-tank weapons of the Allies ....

So, during the battles in the Ardennes, the pilots announced the destruction of 66 tanks, in fact, of the 101 destroyed German tanks found in this area, only 6 were the merit of the aviators, and this despite the fact that as soon as the weather in this area improved, air strikes followed continuously.

But this data is again from ground forces, jealous of aviation. In aviation, everything was recorded on film.

As the Germans themselves said, on the Western Front they developed a "German look" - even far from the front line, tankmen constantly looked anxiously at the sky in anticipation of an air raid. Subsequently, a survey of German prisoners of war confirmed the tremendous psychological effect of air attacks, especially rocket attacks, even tank crews consisting of veterans who had fought on the Eastern Front were exposed to it.

Compared to attempts to directly combat German tanks, attacks against unprotected armor targets such as trains, tractors, trucks and gasoline tank trucks have become much more effective. The fighter-bombers operating on German communications made the movement of German troops, the supply of ammunition, fuel, food and the evacuation of damaged equipment in the daytime during the flying weather absolutely impossible. This circumstance had the most negative effect on the combat capability of the German troops. The German tank crews, winning fire duels with the Shermans and Komet, but left without fuel, ammunition and spare parts, were forced to abandon their cars. Thus, the Allied aviation, which turned out to be not very effective with the direct fire damage of German tanks, was the most effective anti-tank weapon, depriving the Germans of supply. At the same time, the rule was once again confirmed: even with a high fighting spirit and the most advanced equipment, it is absolutely impossible to fight without ammunition, fuel and food.

Vitman was killed by the attack of the British Typhoon.

https://topwar.ru/96135-rol-boevoy-aviacii-soyuznikov-v-borbe-s-nemeckimi-tankami.html

[voyaka uh]

"in fact, out of 101 destroyed German tanks found in this area, only 6 were the merit of aviators," ////
----
Naturally.
Aviation learned to effectively hit moving tanks only
from the 80-90s of the 20th century. When the precise laser weapon appeared
target illumination.
We got to WW2 sometimes with a bang. Or carpet bombing.

[War in the air without myths]

Is Epstein completely lying? What fleets under Taman from Africa? Well, write down the specific parts here. We honor. Let's check the depth of your knowledge so to speak.

[boris epstein]

Whose clone? Rating minus 1 134. A was registered on April 6, 2021. When did you manage to collect minuses or who dumped theirs? Sergey Valov, having lost a dispute to me? The dispute itself was on April 15, and today is May 15. Is hindsight strong?

[Torins]

I think this question is definitely not for Kozhedub. Well, even if they sent a link on patrol, then in view of the absence of the enemy in the sky, there is still nothing to shoot down.

[Sergey Valov]

Totally agree with you

[ramzay21]

If Kozhedub had the same number of sorties as Hartman, then the number of those shot down would have been no less. Well, since the postscripts were everywhere, ours too.

If you believe the German figures, then only the first hundred German aces shot down 10% of all our downed aircraft. All this was described by Pokryshkin in his book.
It's all about the counting technique. Our plane was considered downed if one of the combatants confirmed in the air, an observer on the ground and the presence of a crashed plane on the ground. That is, if a downed plane falls behind the front line, it will not be counted. Therefore, many aircraft shot down by the same Pokryshkin were not counted.
The Germans had enough of one witness of the air battle that such and such a pilot hit the plane, and whether he fell or reached the airfield does not matter. In addition, if one plane was shot down by a group of pilots, then everyone wrote down one plane for themselves.

[voyaka uh]

"The Germans had only one witness to the air battle," ///
----
No witnesses were questioned.
In the evening, at a collective disassembly of tactics, in front of everyone,
scrolled the film of the machine guns from the returning pilots.
And, at the same time, they counted how much caught fire.

[Torins]

Did the Germans have machine guns on all 100% of the fighters? The article claims that not at all.

[voyaka uh]

All the aces who were sent on a "free hunt" and who shot down the maximum
the number of enemy aircraft - photo-machine guns were required.

[ramzay21]

Firstly, not everyone had photo-machine guns, and secondly, you can see that they hit the plane, but the planes, both of them and ours, flew to the airfield with holes much more often than they were shot down, so if you counted by photo-machine guns, then such an absurd number of their victories is understandable.

[IL-18]

Quote: Torins

If Kozhedub had the same number of sorties as Hartman, then the number of those shot down would have been no less. Well, since the postscripts were everywhere, ours too.

The difference is that Kozhedub and Hertman had the opportunity to fight the Mustangs. Hartman fled, leaving his wingman behind. Kozhedub shot down two.

[voyaka uh]

Soon, soon, wait:
"Exposing the myth of the retreat of the Red Army to the Volga".
In fact, as blogger Petrov has accurately proved on YouTube,
The Wehrmacht was defeated in border battles,
and the Battle of Stalingrad is the encirclement and destruction of the German airborne assault.

[Paragraph Epitafievich Y.]

Quote: voyaka uh

In fact, as blogger Petrov has accurately proved on YouTube,
The Wehrmacht was defeated in border battles,
and the Battle of Stalingrad is the encirclement and destruction of the German airborne assault.

I have not heard this before. A giant of thought, come on, this "blogger Petrov".

[IL-18]

Quote: voyaka uh

Soon, soon, wait:
"Exposing the myth of the retreat of the Red Army to the Volga".
In fact, as blogger Petrov has accurately proved on YouTube,
The Wehrmacht was defeated in border battles,
and the Battle of Stalingrad is the encirclement and destruction of the German airborne assault.

Alexei! You have found an INTERESTING blogger. He almost guessed right: the 3rd army of Kuznetsov, who ended up taking the Reichstag.
But, if you have such a point of view, then the Wehrmacht, together with the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine, were defeated on August 23, 1939.

[Vladimir Mashkov]

Another brick in debunking the myths about "the best aces of all times and peoples." It is surprising how many more thoughtless low-worshipers of German experts of the Luftwaffe are!

I would very much like to contact the editors of "Sky Artist" and offer them for study and filming my article "" Aces "of the Third Reich. The phenomenon of huge personal accounts." But I don’t know how, I can’t find their contacts.

[certero]

Not tired of chewing it? Now there are documents from both sides. And unfortunately, the air count is far from in favor of the Red Army. There are a lot of objective reasons for this, ranging from the worst technique to the worst pilot training. But the war ended in Berlin. And the Soviet Air Force drew serious conclusions from that war. At least in Korea, fighting with an equally skillful and dangerous enemy, our pilots showed themselves excellent

[ramzay21]

Not tired of chewing it? Now there are documents from both sides. And unfortunately, the air count is far from in favor of the Red Army. There are many objective reasons for this, ranging from the worst technique to the worst pilot training.

This is all from the memories of the German pilots, it was necessary to justify their defeat in the war. In fact, if you count all the victories according to a single method, then it is not known who knocked down more. In addition, the German aces preferred to shoot down inexperienced pilots and evaded combat with our aces, while our pilots performed missions, covering attack aircraft and bombers from the Nazis, and our aces tried to attack the most experienced pilots, leaving less experienced pilots to their wingmen. Thanks to these tactics, we won the upper hand in the conquest of air supremacy.
Our Pokryshkin was not shot down not once, but Hartman 14 times, and he was almost captured by us.
Our La-5 and Yak 3 were among the best aircraft of the Second World War, in many respects surpassing the Messers and even the Fockewulfs.

[War in the air without myths]

1) There is such a method. Counting by pilots is called. There are also methods for 100% destroyed on the battlefield.
2) German pilots preferred to shoot down the inexperienced, because the USSR was all inexperienced.
3) The Germans did not shy away from the battle with the Soviet aces, because for the Germans they were not aces, but mediocre pilots. And according to Soviet data, the Germans shot down Soviet aces regularly.
4) Attack aircraft and bombers were knocked down by the Germans no worse despite the cover. But the Soviet aviation experienced problems with the destruction of German attack aircraft. She was often even afraid to attack them. And even when they flew without cover.
5) Yak-3 and especially La-5-complete crap. In the latter, gases entered the pilot's cockpit, heating the air to 40 degrees, as a result of which the pilots either "burned out" or were forced to fly with the cockpit canopy slightly open, which greatly worsened the flight performance.

In general, enough to drive this Soviet nonsense, which normal aviation enthusiasts have been laughing at for 20 years.

[ramzay21]

Let's take a specific example. The fighter pilot shot down five planes in one sortie himself, but only one fell on its territory, hit three more, with an unknown ending, plus shot down two as part of the group.
Kozhedub will record one plane in this situation.
Hartman will write 10 and two more will be written by those who flew with him.

In your opinion, Hartman is a super ace, who shot down 10 planes in a flight, and Kozhedub is a mediocre pilot, who somehow defeated one plane. Awesome!

Goebbels' propaganda, I will leave without comment.

[War in the air without myths]

No, concrete examples are much simpler. The Soviet pilot declares that the enemy ".. fell .." ".. exploded .." etc. Those. 100% destruction at the battle site. And he does this 20 times. And on German docks only 1 (One) did not return from departure. The remaining 19 were invented by the Soviet pilot. True, 3 (Three) more were damaged, 1 (One) of which was restored and 2 (Two) were written off. But the Soviet pilot still has no right to them according to official accounts, because ... he invented everything. This is not "..fallen .." and not 100%. And the Soviet pilot said that it was. And so with all Soviet pilots. Especially the aces. And the Soviet pilot sometimes did not even announce that he shot down something there. But when he was awarded, they often drew a couple of shot down ones in the award documents. Backdating. These downed ones are not in the pilot's report, or in the railway, or in the reports of the division. Soviet pilots were extremely inept in their business (not their fault, they were trained that way), but with a very rich imagination.

[ramzay21]

Read how the victories of our pilots and of the Germans were counted. All this is in the memoirs of our pilots and in the manuals of those years. What you wrote has nothing to do with how it was.
Our pilots recorded a victory only after fulfilling three conditions. Our pilot must declare his victory, this victory must be confirmed by one of the participants in the battle and the downed plane will lie on the ground. If there is no downed plane lying on the ground, then it will not be counted. Therefore, Kozhedub and Pokryshkin shot down many more planes than they recorded.

But the fascist pilots acted exactly as you described, and the very "aces" of them frankly ascribed victories to themselves.

Inexperienced pilots could not defeat skilled pilots, this is contrary to common sense.
This is all the propaganda of Dr. Goebbels, who has become fashionable to quote for the last 30 years, but not everyone knows the author. And if he was trying to explain the defeat of fascist Europe by this, then ours are trying to simply slander the Soviet command.

[War in the air without myths]

Should I repeat it twice? For Soviet pilots, the planes were counted according to their partners. That was enough. Open the regimental and divisional documents (which are in the "Memory") and read it yourself. And what you write about the plane lying on the ground is utter nonsense. You do not know the topic at all, even the basics if you say this.

[ramzay21]

What sources did you get this nonsense from? These are Goebbels' speeches, you read them less, as well as the sources that print them.
All these rules have long been described by both Soviet aces and researchers of the "victories" of the fascist aces.
If you believe that 100 fascist aces shot down 10% of all Soviet aircraft, then what were tens of thousands of other pilots and anti-aircraft gunners doing?

[War in the air without myths]

Good question about sources, correct one. The sources are very Soviet. So Goebbels' visas are noticed in them. Although there is no difference between the Soviet sources (their content was shot down) and Goebbels' speeches. Both are nonsense. And these sources are freely available in the "Memory of the People", they are archival documents (previously secret), digitized and posted for review. These are "Logs of Combat Operations" of air regiments, and divisional "Reports on Combat Operations" (monthly), and similar documents of the air armies. And there it is perfectly clear who, what and how confirmed or did not confirm.

[War in the air without myths]

Firstly, the pilots are "German" (not "fascist") and "Soviet". Because "the Soviet people" (this is how people of different nationalities who had Soviet citizenship were previously designated) and the "German people". Therefore, the pilots are "Soviet" and "German". Secondly, the Germans do not need to ascribe anything, the numbers of losses speak for themselves. 1.300 fighter pilots were lost to the Germans on the eastern front, and 11.000-12.000 were lost to the Soviets. There is no need to attribute anything, here Soviet pilots are exterminated by German pilots. Everything is clear here even to a student.

[ramzay21]

Only the Germans fought against us? And who did the Finnish, Austrian, Italian, Hungarian and Romanian troops fight for? What school did you go to?

[War in the air without myths]

There were so few of them, and their combat effectiveness was so low (in comparison with the German, but not in comparison with the Soviet), that they did not have any serious influence on the course of the war in the air. And the economies are so weak that they cannot even be compared with the economies of not only the United States, but even Great Britain. They are dwarfs in the clash of the titans. Their role is zero.

[War in the air without myths]

Germany and its allies were defeated because there was a state in the world called the United States, and this state had the most powerful (already at that time) economy in the world. Without the economy, the United States and Britain would not have resisted, and the USSR would have collapsed.

[Kostadinov]

As I have written more than once about the fighter aces:
1. War is not an individual sport and either all play together or all capitulate (some of them are unconditional).
2. The merit of aviation for victory in World War II is secondary (from 5 to 10%).
3. The delivery of fighters only in the air war is also secondary (no more than 20-25% of all aircraft losses)
4. Finally, the aces of fighters in the war in the air, tertiary (no more than 4-5% of all aircraft losses).

[Vladimir Vyshetravsky]

Nuance. For those who understand. In aviation, a fighter-auxiliary worker. Clear the sky for bombers and attack aircraft. Cover the infantry from enemy bombers. A personal account does not guarantee the victory of your army. And "free hunting" is good only when you have air superiority and eggs of enemy soldiers do not hang out on the ground of the Reich. But Hartmann continued to "fill" his personal score just like that. Such an ace was not needed even by the Americans, who gave the runner to ours. And Hartmann did get his "ten". In the camps.

[War in the air without myths]

Have you tried to watch the losses of Soviet strike aircraft from the fighter aircraft of the Germans? Have you ever heard of the fact that Soviet pilots were extremely reluctant to attack German attack aircraft, avoiding attacks on them, which aroused the anger of Stalin and the smaller bosses? Haven't you heard?

[ramzay21]

Soviet pilots wrote about this in their memoirs, for example Pokryshkin, but during perestroika the country was flooded with retellings of Goebel's propaganda, telling about the brave German aces who shot down half a thousand of our planes

[Graduate student]

The Germans, as in the West in general, loved and still love to exaggerate their victories. It seems that their military lives by the principle: "a good show is more expensive than money" ...
Ponte is more expensive than money only for people suffering from inferiority complexes.

[zimzinov]

There is an objective infa. How many planes the USSR and Germany had on the eastern front and how many remained in May 1945. How many planes were killed in plane crashes and how many in battles. Well, we (the USSR) won against them in this dispute.

[Andrey Popov]

Hartmann and Kozhedub began to fight at about the same time, one had 600 sorties, the other 1500. If we divide by 700 days of war, take away the bad weather, the front-line lull, injuries, repairs, preparation of new machines, etc., then Hartmann is already Bethmann or Munchausen, flew 3-4 times a day and the Soviet aviation was deliberately substituted for him. People who believe in this in a minibus will get tired to death in 3-4 trips.

[Vladimir Vyshetravsky]

Ours had mistakes when they said a smoky messer had been shot down. And the smoky tail on the afterburner was normal for the "thin" one. And about the Germans: look at Hartmann's list. Approximately until the 150th, he has indicated the types of downed aircraft. But then the same cheating begins. He took off, shot, spoke on the radio, recorded 3-4 shot down. Immediately. The propaganda machine started working, making the photogenic Erik a blond Reich knight. But there is not a single bomber in the list. Is it strange? Or scary. It's one thing when you dive from a height on a lagging or wrecked plane. And it is quite another to attack the "flying fortress" with its dozen machine guns. Yes, and a jump from a serviceable plane in front of the BAO of its airfield characterizes well the "best ace" of the Luftwaffe. However, Eric was surpassed by the "storyteller" Rudel with his 519 "destroyed" tanks. And this was on a "Stuk" with "mandolins" with a caliber of 37 mm.

[spbdweller]

In the air, at one time they could not win, they now decided to deal with them on paper.

[Andycomm]

(reluctantly): at one time I read how many yaks were made during the War and how many combat-ready pilots were in combat units on August 1, 45.
IL-2 was made even more - did not look at the statistics

[SomethingGreen]

Quote: ramzay21

Read how the victories of our pilots and of the Germans were counted. All this is in the memoirs of our pilots and in the manuals of those years. What you wrote has nothing to do with how it was.
Our pilots recorded a victory only after fulfilling three conditions. Our pilot must declare his victory, this victory must be confirmed by one of the participants in the battle and the downed plane will lie on the ground. If there is no downed plane lying on the ground, then it will not be counted. Therefore, Kozhedub and Pokryshkin shot down many more planes than they recorded.

3 IAK sends greetings.