From whom the Luftwaffe pilots suffered the greatest losses: based on materials with documentary evidence

Today, more and more publications appear in which it is argued that without the help of the Western allies, when the second front was opened, the Red Army "had no chance of defeating Nazi Germany." This idea began to advance in the West at a time when the very fact of the key role of the USSR in the victory over Nazism still very few people thought to dispute. Over time, in the West, the Red Army was mentioned less and less. And today, historians of the so-called opportunistic stream have finally "convinced themselves" that the West, and only it, is the "main character" of the Second World War, allegedly it was the United States, Britain and France that defeated the Nazis. And the USSR? .. "Did something there" on the eastern front, and then "captured Eastern Europe."

In such a situation, when myths about war are multiplying like mushrooms after rain, it is very important to convey historical the truth about the events of the Second World War, the Great Patriotic War.

One of the directions of pseudo-historical falsifications - aviation confrontation. Western and individual Russian liberal historians in their "writings" argue that the largest number of their Luftwaffe aircraft were not lost on the Eastern Front. There are materials to the effect that German aviation suffered incomparably greater losses from the actions of American and British aviation than from Soviet aviation.

Vladimir Potapov discusses this topic in his video on the Sky Artist blog, citing documentary information about the losses of the Luftwaffe during the war:

Comments

[Uncle lee]

And the USSR? .. "Did something there" on the eastern front

But the West fought:

[Avior]

Funny.
The author decided to prove that his views are confirmed by professional historians.
First, the author prepares the viewer for a long time for the fact that a professional historian will come out and expose other professional historians.
And so he appears in the form of a voice-over and it turns out that the professional historian is someone anonymous "Andrei Nikolaevich". The author scoffs at the viewer, it seems.
In addition, behind the scenes, they again make statements, it is not clear who, in a changed voice.
But what about real historians in support of the author's position?
According to the very statement of the author of the video, not a single one was found to openly support him!
Not one, Karl !!!
Despite the fact that there is always competition in this environment, he could not find a single opponent!
His only achievement is through social networks he found the anonymous historian "Andrei Nikolaevich"
In general, the video looks more like a parody. Why this is needed on VO is unclear. :(

[Filxnumx]

the meaning of your doubts about the professionalism of a certain "Andrei Nikolaevich" is clear to me and even close to me. However, the root of the discussion raised by the author of the article is not so much in the discussion of the level of professionalism of the experts involved, but in the discussion of the methodology for calculating losses. If you do not like "Andrey Nikolaevich" personally or the author of the article, then give examples when the application of the "60%" method of counting from the archival revolutionaries to the losses of the Luftwaffe on the Western Front results in more than 70 aircraft.
So?

[Avior]

I can't help but like "Andrei Nikolaevich", so I don't know him. I don't even have proof that such a person really exists.

[KJIETyc]

"If you do not personally like" Andrey Nikolaevich "or the author of the article, then give examples when the application of the" 60% "method of counting from the archival revolutionaries to the losses of the Luftwaffe on the Western Front leads to the value of more than 70 aircraft.
So? "- and on this question? Or just throw at the fan and deliberately take away the readers from the essence of the topic?

[Avior]

So far, I see that you are trying to divert from the topic I have raised. If you started to write to my thread, write the essence of my post. Instead, you decided to change the subject without writing anything substantive.
Want to discuss another issue? Start a thread with such a discussion, and if someone is interested in your post, they will answer you.

[KJIETyc]

"If you do not personally like" Andrey Nikolaevich "or the author of the article, then give examples when the application of the" 60% "method of counting from the archival revolutionaries to the losses of the Luftwaffe on the Western Front leads to the value of more than 70 aircraft.
So? "I repeat, just give an example. Don't create information noise and spam.

[Avior]

What is not clear to you in my post? Read it again if you don't understand

[Avior]

And in my opinion, you just misunderstood the essence of the video.
The root of the discussion is that the author, in support of his vision of the issue, stated the opinion of a professional historian, but in fact - misled the readers.
Have you watched the video?
It is obvious from the video that the author himself believes that the opinion of a professional historian is required in this matter. I agree with him on this issue; it is another matter that he, recognizing this, is trying to deceive the viewer with a clever trick.
From your post it is clear that you either did not watch the video, or do not agree with its author and for some reason require me to answer a question that I did not raise.

[Undecim]

Funny.

Nothing funny. Another thrust on the fan. with the aim of arousing lemmings to shit.

[2112vda]

As already tired of these historians - "experts". With Timin there is a saying: "Looks at the book, sees a fig."
Timin, like our star artists, needs a scandal. So he creates it for the sake of his own popularity, which is then converted into banknotes, no matter which state. Anyway, the Internet has turned into a giant garbage dump where all sorts of inadequate, "blue eye", set out their crazy theories and ideas. Further it will be more fun and interesting. The generation of the Unified State Exam is on its way, followed by the "remote workers". What Timin thinks is the problem of his education. He likes his theory, but good health. We have both flat-earthers and sweaty Harry fans and other Tolkienists.

[certero]

Quote: 2112vda

Timin, like our star artists, needs a scandal.

with great pleasure I watch all the videos where Timin is the presenter and where he talks.
I never noticed that he needed a hyip or some kind of scandal.
always all his stories are based on our and the enemy's documents.
the Germans really had air superiority on the eastern front at the expense of better materiel and better pilot training. Well, what's so surprising about that? German industry was much more developed. than the Soviet Union. The Germans fired several times more heavy shells than the Red Army in artillery up to 44 years.
But only the war is not stuffing frags and personal accounts of pilots. War is the interaction of all parts of the armed forces.
But in this ours turned out to be better, therefore, the war in Berlin ended.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: certero

the Germans really had air superiority on the eastern front at the expense of better materiel and better pilot training.

Having said "A", you should also say "B"! (C)
Yes, the Germans had an advantage in the air for 2 years, especially at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War. But, On June 7, 1943, the air battle over the Kuban ended, marking a fundamental turning point in the air war. Kuban battles in the air were characterized by the fact that for the first time both opposing sides met here on equal terms. No one had a decisive superiority in the tactics of operations and the organization of aviation, as well as in the quality of aviation technology. New Yak-7b and La-5 fighters began to enter service with the Soviet Air Force in large numbers, and the flight data of the Yak-1 and LaGG-3 were significantly improved by further simplifying the design and installing a more powerful M-105PF forced engine.
However, effective tactics and numerical superiority allowed the Soviet pilots to seize operational air supremacy. In 12 days of fighting, they shot down 368 enemy aircraft at the cost of only 70 fighters.
According to Soviet data, the Luftwaffe lost 17 aircraft between April 7 and June 1100, of which over 800 were destroyed in the air. The fighter units of the German Air Force suffered significant losses. Only in one JG52, starting from April 17, a third of all pilots were out of action.
From that time on, strategic initiative and air supremacy passed to the Soviet Air Force.
So, you judge rashly, not relying on facts.

[Zaurbek]

... and the skill of the pilots and their number in the Red Army Air Force had grown by that time and continued to grow, but the Germans no longer have it. As well as the quantity and quality of its fighters and according to Lend Lease

[GAF]

/ / /The fighter units of the German Air Force suffered significant losses. Only in one JG52, starting from April 17, a third of all pilots were out of order.///.

You gave an illustrative example. The JG52 squadron consisted of three groups of 3 squadrons each (about 3 of our regiments). The history of this super-elite squadron is in Vika. Basically, we are talking about victories. And somehow in passing there is a mention that on the Kursk direction by July 25, the squadron lost 2/3 of its composition ... So there is evidence of the Germans themselves.
As an illustration of who beat whom and how: In the book of the Englishman Mike Speke "Asy of the Luftwaffe" there are two lists. In the first, 260 German aces, who had at least 60 "victories", in the second - 123 aces who died during the war. So, "bore" Speke indicates when and where they died: 72 - on the eastern front, the remaining 51 - on all other fronts. "

[Boa kaa]

Quote: GAF

Speke indicates when and where they died: 72 on the eastern front, the remaining 51 on all other fronts. "

Thanks for the valuable addition.
Otherwise, they will soon think that we didn’t shoot anyone down at all ...

[Avior]

Probably, this list should be supplemented by another list - how many of these 260 Germans fought on the eastern front, and how many on the rest

[Mikail]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

According to Soviet data, the Luftwaffe lost 17 aircraft between April 7 and June 1100, of which over 800 were destroyed in the air.

You be careful with this! Soviet data often shamelessly overestimated the losses of the Germans for all types of equipment. A practically useless source of information

[Vladimir Mashkov]

Quote: 2112vda

The generation of the Unified State Exam is on its way, followed by the "remote workers". What Timin thinks is the problem of his education. He likes his theory, but good health. We have both flat-earthers and sweaty Harry fans and other Tolkienists.

Totally agree with you! How long have I lived (and I have been living for seven and a half decades) I never cease to be amazed at the youth of the last 30 years. Another X-perd hatches, who has just learned to read (but DO NOT study the topic deeply, think and compare what was learned from many HONEST and QUALITATIVE sources), read 2-3 "honest" books of "real" memoirs of experts - "heroes", falsifiers and distortionists, who write in Russian - and let's squeeze their fake "discoveries"! I'm not talking about the poisonous creations of supporters of Western victories, who foul the heads of stupid youth ... But how many wonderful memoirs of Soviet pilots and these Russian researchers! No, they read and believe in various anti-Soviet and Russophobic dregs!

Again, they throw in the topic from whom the Luftwaffe pilots suffered the greatest losses ... This topic is for amateurs! Literate, knowledgeable people know this issue well! I will cite an excerpt from my article published here on VO:

"10. All German Expert Advisors (with rare exceptions) have repeatedly gone astray. Even the best experts have gone astray many times: No. 1, Hartman, - 14 times, No. 2, Barghorn, - 9 times, No. 7, Rudorffer, - 16 times, No. 8 , Baer, ​​- 18 times, No. 15, Lipfert, - 15 times, No. 34, Dupman, - 19. And the most vaunted and titled pilot of the Third Reich, dive bomber Rudel, - as many as 32 times, several times wounded, the right leg was amputated! At the same time, Kozhedub and most of the famous Soviet aces were never shot down!

11. More than half of the German aces died in general, and 2/3 of them died on the German-Soviet, Eastern Front.

12. The most famous and successful German fighter squadron, JG54 "Green Heart" ("Grunhertz"), began hostilities in the USSR with 112 pilots, and only 4 of the original 112 ended the war (only every 24th survived, 108 died) with losses 2135 aircraft (Soviet pilots destroyed more than 19 squadrons of the Gruhertz squadron!). And this is the best fighter squadron of the Luftwaffe! What can we say about the rest ... "

Do I need to explain that the most famous and "productive" experts fought and almost all are buried on the Eastern Front? Do I need to explain from whom the Luftwaffe pilots suffered the greatest losses?

[Glagol1]

Despite the surprise attack on June 22 and the loss of more than 1000 aircraft, mostly on the ground, on the first day of the war alone, ours shot down 300 German aircraft. Per day! So 14 thousand for the whole war, well, obviously nowhere. The information of the General Staff of 58 thousand is even rather a little underestimated, since only confirmed and proven victories were considered, you can safely add another 10%. But the Fritzes, on the contrary, overestimated theirs.

[sedoj]

In, damn it, losing in the air 1 to 10, we were able to reach Berlin. Probably heavy rains all the time and aviation did not participate in the battles.

[Force multiplier]

Attached to the video is a link to the work of Andrei Mikhailov (with his knowledge or not, as well as whether he is an "anonymous expert", I do not know)
A big plus is that someone has finally announced to a mass audience that it is necessary to count German losses from 10%. There are no damaged aircraft in the reports of the Quartermaster General, these are only losses, these reports are called that. This is precisely a non-return - whether the aircraft will be restored, dismantled for parts or scrapped, the connection / association constituting the report was not interested, therefore, the assessment "by eye". I saw a report where the damage to the aircraft was estimated at 60%, and the same episode and the aircraft are already on the lists of the Quartermaster General as 40%. I saw the report where the planes are listed as destroyed, and the main company has 30%
About who destroyed more German planes and the fate of the archives. These questions are actually closely related. For example, only the USAAF announced the destruction of 29916 aircraft of the Luftwaffe and allies. Peak, of course, 1944, Big Week, etc. Can we assess the credibility of these applications? What a coincidence, but it was in 1944 that the lists of losses of the Civil Code were "lost". It is clear that no one burned the Luftwaffe archives at the end of April 1945 by order of Goering, as the popular version says. Goering at this time was deprived of all posts and could not give such an order in any way. These documents are in the United States and England and will not be "acquired" soon. Larry deZeng said in one forum that the German archivists with whom he spoke are sure that the United States did not return most of the Luftwaffe documents to Germany.

[Andrey NM]

All the time I quote what my grandfather told me about the downed ones. Confirming those shot down in the regiment was a real problem. After the report on the shot down, a commission was sent to the crash site, which took confirmation from the local observation and communication posts and military units, and tried to tear off some plate with a number from the crashed plane, took pictures, and drew up an act. If the plane fell on enemy territory, then you could forget about it. And all because they paid for those who were shot down and not a single chief of finance would sign documents without proper justification. Nobody wanted to go to jail. And how can we attribute it? Maybe the other shelves were different? Anything can be.

[Avior]

Somehow came across a comparison of real losses and counted downed by the enemy across the Arctic - an isolated region of hostilities, a relatively small number of battles and aircraft, took relatively long periods of time.
Result - both sides overestimated the number of counted shot down at times. There are many reasons for this and it is far from being necessarily a matter of deliberate deception, it is too difficult to determine the number of shot down and especially who shot down specifically, while the shot down were counted for a reason, you are right.
Without serious professional research on this issue with counter-checks, this topic will continue to be a source of controversy among Facebook experts for a long time.

[stalkerwalker]

Quote: Avior

Without serious professional research on this issue with counter-checks, this topic will be a source of controversy for experts from Facebook for a long time.

Who will give them?
Mikhail Timin was thrown with rotten tomatoes. But serious people came to him in matters of aviation during the Second World War - Serov, Rastrenin ...
And as soon as we get to the comparative performance characteristics of fighters of both sides, a performance begins in the spirit of "Yes, we drove them so through the sky ...".
Even serious researchers speak cautiously and allegorically about losses, so as not to dodge the rotten eggs of critics: A. Isaev, describing the first days of the Battle of Kursk, made it clear with strokes and half hints that the ratio of losses of 16 VA with his counterpart in the first three days was it was 1:10. Neighbors were no better - 2 VA.
"There is no prophet either in the fatherland or at the forum ..."

[Avior]

Unfortunately, there are still quite a few taboo topics that professional historians do not want to tackle, since there is a risk of running into problems, at least with a career.
As a result, in the presence of a huge number of historians, many topics give rise to fierce disputes in the network and society, but professionals pretend that they do not exist and are studying purely academic secondary issues: ((

[certero]

Quote: sedoj

, damn it, losing in the air 1 to 10, we were able to reach Berlin.

Because the war is not the number of frags filled by one pilot.
Don't you like the fact that in most air battles our Germans were inferior? Well, this is an objective reality due to the fact that the Germans had better materiel and better training.
And he only speaks about how difficult it was to defeat such a skillful enemy

[Boa kaa]

Quote: certero

the Germans had better materiel and better training.

At the beginning of the war, yes. But then they were opposed by La-7 and Yak-3, which turned out to be better than Messerschmitt and Focke Wulf.

Yak-3. It was the lightest fighter at the time. French pilots of the Normandie-Niemen regiment, who fought on the Yak-3, spoke about its combat capabilities in the following way: “The Yak-3 gives you complete superiority over the Germans. On the Yak-3, you can fight together against four, and four against sixteen! "

And here is the opinion of the German combat pilot V. Wolfrum:
"The best fighters I have encountered in combat were the North American Mustang P-51 and the Russian Yak-9U. Both fighters had a clear performance advantage over the Me-109, regardless of modification, including the Me-109K-4." Comments are superfluous. It can only be explained that the Yak-9U had a speed close to the La-7, and the rate of climb at the nominal value was slightly lower than that of the Yak-3 and La-7.
La-7. On the La-7, the famous Soviet ace I.N.Kozhedub shot down 17 German aircraft (including the Me-262 jet fighter) out of 62 destroyed by him on the La fighters.
About pilots and their training. The best ace of the Luftwaffe, Mr. Hartman (Booby), was shot down twice, once he was captured, but fled, killing the guard. Our aces A.I. Pokryshkin and I.N. Kozhedub was not captured.
So, you shouldn't believe in "spreading western cranberries, abundantly spike on the slope in Siberia".
AHA.

[Andrey NM]

Major General Nikolai Gerasimovich Golodnikov remarkably answered many questions in his time, during the war he was a fighter pilot, fought in the Safonov regiment. He gave a detailed answer on tactics, and explained why the same Yak-3, not having the highest maximum speed, in battle, in any type of maneuver, overtook almost any enemy aircraft. And why is it often better to lose in the air all the aircraft covering the ground troops, but these ground troops will fulfill their task. And what is the difference in the use of aviation by the Germans and what it all ultimately led to. Arguably and with examples.
And the most interesting thing is that if we compare the total losses of aviation of the Allies (USSR, USA, England) and the Axis countries (Germany, Japan, Italy, etc.), then it suddenly turns out that they differ clearly not by several times, but by some then interest. And this is the data of the current "partners".

[Russia]

"Modern historical methods" for calculating losses:
- Calculations of the losses of the Nazis on the Eastern Front - 2 + 2 = 4.
- Calculations of the losses of the Nazis on the Western Front - 2 + 2 = 22.
_

[CommanderDIVA]

The bulk of German aviation acted on the eastern front in battles with the Red Army Air Force, you just need to compare the length of the line of contact between the Germans and us and with the Americans, British and French in Europe and Africa, in the skill of air combat our pilots were not inferior to either the Germans or our allies , and the quality of our aircraft did not yield to the Germans since 1943, read the memoirs of our aces Skomorokhov, Vorozheikin, Zimin, Pokryshkin

[Force multiplier]

An illustrative example of why it is correct to count losses from 10%. This is how the results of the 55th IAP raid on the Balti airfield on 21.07.1941 in the report of the German IV Air Corps look like:

Note the 2 Ju 87s listed as destroyed (vernichtet).
And here's how these two Ju 87s are listed in the GC summary:

From the first report we know that the planes were destroyed, from the second we see that this corresponds to 20% and 10%. There is no mention of the 3 damaged (beschaedigt) Ju 87s, which we know of from the 1st report, there is no mention of the Civil Code at all

[certero]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

the beginning of the war - yes. But then they were opposed by La-7 and Yak-3, which turned out to be better than Messerschmitt and Focke Wulf.

Can you list the modifications of messengers without Google? What are their characteristics?
And when la-7s began to arrive en masse, was it not at the end of 44, when a couple of regiments remained in the East of the Germans?
Truth is always better than hurray propaganda. As a child, I read a huge number of memoirs of our pilots and everywhere it was the same - the Germans did not forgive even the slightest mistakes. The Germans were a very dangerous and skillful enemy.

[certero]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

However, effective tactics and numerical superiority allowed the Soviet pilots to seize operational air supremacy. In 12 days of fighting, they shot down 368 enemy aircraft at the cost of only 70 fighters.
According to Soviet data, the Luftwaffe lost 17 aircraft between April 7 and June 1100, of which over 800 were destroyed in the air. The fighter units of the German Air Force suffered significant losses. Only in one JG52, starting from April 17, a third of all pilots were out of action.

Such agitation could have been posted in the 60s, but now, when documents from both sides are available, it is stupid to print.
What the fuck is a fracture in the air? “The enemy often fetters the actions of our sixes and tens by force of pairs, suddenly attacking and forcing our pilots to switch to defensive actions” - this is a quote from memory from documents.
Hurray patriotism is worse than betrayal.

[Widder]

Quote: certero

Hurray patriotism is worse than betrayal.

One thing is not clear to me, why are you trying so hard to prove that the Russians are much worse than the Germans?

[stalkerwalker]

Quote: Widser

One thing is not clear to me, why are you trying so hard to prove that the Russians are much worse than the Germans?

Against. To fight on fighters, the hulls of which were sheathed with plywood, and the wings were percale, against all-metal Me and PV, when the latter had more volley mass all the way - this is heroism!
If you look at this problem from the point of view of technology (the aviation industry of those times is high-tech, however, as it is now), it turns out that despite the fact that in 1940 40% of the military budget was spent on aviation, Yak series fighters throughout the war they used the M-105 engine with modifications. They could not launch the promised M-107 for many reasons, which forced to talk about the "culture of weight" with all that it implies. Even today, you cannot put Vesta and Jetta next to each other, although they are of the same class in fact ...

[kartalovkolya]

Well, all such experts on the losses of the Luftwaffe: where, how many and who shot them down, but there is not a single link to the statistics of the German aircraft industry! It looks like Western so-called. the allies knocked out more Luftwaffe aircraft than the industry of the 3rd Reich was able to produce !!!

[certero]

Quote: Widser

that the Russians are much worse than the Germans?

First, Soviet pilots fought.
Secondly, it's even interesting how such a thought arises in your head?

[Widder]

Quote: certero

Secondly, it's even interesting how such a thought arises in your head?

Well, of course, the man claims that the Soviet pilots were not whipping boys. You immediately called it Soviet propaganda.

[VLADIMIR MIRONOV]

I will say this, guys, ,, the amount of losses ,, is such a green dregs, that NO ONE AND NEVER WILL LEAVE THE FINISHED NUMBERS.
The fact is that the counting of those who have been knocked down is very subjective.
As an example, the red ones knocked out the plane of the blue ones, he sat down on an emergency. The pilot is intact, the plane cannot be repaired.
The count - the red ones wrote down 1 shot down for themselves, and the blue ones consider it to be downed, and then write it off.
Another problem is when 2,3 attack 1 enemy all hit. To whom will this shot down be assigned?
In fact, there are pitfalls in a wagon and a small cart.
However, this applies not only to the destruction of aircraft but also armored vehicles.

[certero]

Quote: Widser

Well, of course, the man claims that the Soviet pilots were not whipping boys.

I am at a loss to understand the logical chain of your reasoning.
From the fact that the Germans were better prepared and they had the best technique, how does it follow that ours were whipping boys? On the contrary, fighting in obviously worse conditions, ours continued to carry out combat missions.
Now there is a huge amount of materials for analysis.
For example, the simple fact that ours spent almost as much aviation fuel on aviation as the Germans on their own on the eastern front, what does it say? The fact that the average flight time of their pilots was higher. than ours. Since starting from 43, the Germans had fewer aircraft than the Red Army.
Well, or the German ability to transfer its aviation units from one sector of the front to another. Due to the availability of air transport aviation, they could literally take an aviation unit in a couple of days and transfer it to another airfield along with technicians and other material facilities. And the Red Army was simply not able to do this due to the lack of necessary transport workers.

[stalkerwalker]

Quote: certero

For example, the simple fact that ours spent almost as much aviation fuel on aviation as the Germans on their own on the eastern front, what does it say? The fact that the average flight time of their pilots was higher. than ours. Since starting from 43, the Germans had fewer aircraft than the Red Army

A good indirect sign. But throughout the war on the side of the Red Army there was a numerical superiority both in technology and in people ...
But on the whole, the main part of the site's visitors simply "did not mature enough" to recognize the objective losses of the Red Army Air Force. The belief is still great that "ours are stronger than all", forgetting that the tasks and goals pursued by researchers of air battles on the Soviet-German front are not at all to blame the heroic deeds of the Soviet people.
That is why they met with hostility the sad revelations of Timin and Gorbach. Although the studies of the latter, who spent 9 years in a meticulous comparison of data on losses in the battle over Kursk, Orel, and Belgorod on both sides, overlap with the studies of other authors who analyzed ground battles.
And here one should ask a question that many people forget about "Why did Hausser's tank corps pass the first line of defense, and crumple the second, in 17 hours, if the Red Army was preparing for defense for more than two months?"
And the casket opens simply - the dominance in the skies of the first three days of the battles was for the Luftwaffe. The same picture was observed on the northern face of the arc, despite the gallant memoirs of the commander of the 16th VA.
In retrospect, you begin to understand that everything in the Kuban sky was not so colorful. And just as sad.
PS
Ultimately, here, on the site, I resigned myself to the fact that in the same place, on the Kursk Bulge, the 5th GvTA suffered crushing losses, no matter how they tried to prove the opposite.
And I want to believe that over time they will take, at least to note, that there is a noticeable difference between propaganda and statistics of combat losses.

[chenia]

Quote: stalkerwalker

And here you have to ask a question that many people forget.

why the German troops flew to the Dnieper in 2 months from the beginning of our offensive on the Kursk Bulge. for almost 500 km.

if the Wehrmacht

Quote: stalkerwalker

cooked for more than two months

a strategic operation in a separate direction (this means that the forces and means were significantly more than necessary for defense).

Quote: stalkerwalker

Ultimately, here, on the site, I resigned myself to the fact that

Manstein at the approach of ours to the Dnieper. requested 15 divisions, gave three ..
! 5 divisions Karl !!! Where did the group that was created for 3 months go, where did it dissolve?
At one time, 4,5 German divisions drove the Britons across Africa for 2,5 years, and almost 15 divisions in Italy, held back the allies for 1,5 years. And on the eastern front, 15 divisions - to support the pants - the Dnieper is not able to hold.

Quote: stalkerwalker

But in general, before the recognition of objective losses

certain

Quote: stalkerwalker

some of the site visitors are simply not mature enough.

Quote: stalkerwalker

And I want to believe that over time they will take, at least to note, that there is a noticeable difference between propaganda and statistics of combat losses.

[stalkerwalker]

Achievements are measured not only by the kilometers of liberated territories left to the enemy before this, but by the price paid for this, expressed in human lives.
According to the results of both defensive and offensive operations on the Oryol-Kursk Bulge, from July to August, the ratio of losses in personnel and equipment exceeds 3: 1, if not more. Not in favor of the Red Army.
And ahead was the first, unsuccessful, offensive on the Mius Front.
In the light of the article under discussion, the losses of the Red Army Air Force in the skies over Kursk can be called catastrophic. That's why I repeat

Quote: stalkerwalker

that there is a noticeable difference between propaganda and combat loss statistics

[chenia]

Quote: stalkerwalker

Achievements are measured not only by kilometers of liberated territories,

You are an amateur and are not able to understand that the collapse of the German offensive was caused by terrible losses. With such losses, when the forces and means to restrain our troops, even on the most advantageous lines, they were not able to. I drew attention to the fact that the Germans were preparing an offensive operation in the strategic direction. And only this indicates the scale of activities to accomplish this task. To create the grouping, the most combat-ready formations of the Wehrmacht were assembled and in significant numbers. As it turned out, they were never able to pass two army lines (and then only on the southern front), and there were nine of them. And then their remnants were not enough to stop our offensive, with a pretty good pace. Well, it does not happen that, with huge losses after the Battle of Kursk, we had enough strength to attack, and with insignificant losses in the offensive phase, they did not have the strength and means to hold back the offensive. Well, an obvious discrepancy. And Manstein's screams demanding reserves.
So there is a reason.

[stalkerwalker]

Quote: chenia

You are an amateur and unable to understand

When did the General Staff Academy graduate?
Which regiment served?
Is there parabellum?

[chenia]

Quote: stalkerwalker

When did the General Staff Academy graduate?

No, not with a gold border.

Quote: stalkerwalker

Which regiment served?

In many, and in different formations, and mainly the Guard, for example, one of the 23 Guards SMEs (and in the second SMB)

Quote: stalkerwalker

Is there parabellum?

Had, however, PM (and even several, well, in each part)

What about your track record as Marshal?

[stalkerwalker]

Quote: chenia

Quote: stalkerwalker
When did the General Staff Academy graduate?


No, not with a gold border.

So maybe you are a historian like Isaev, Shirokorad, Zhukov, Mukhin, or Zemskov?

[chenia]

Quote: stalkerwalker

So can you

Ha!
You failed the test. Go to the officer, better older. Ask your question and my answer. He will explain to you.
And I don't have to be a historian.

[Bobrovsky]

Correctly written. The woman's logic is extremely stubborn; We have big losses, the Germans have small ones, and they began to retreat. They just took it and began to retreat, right up to Berlin.

[2112vda]

What makes you think that on the side of the USSR there was a numerical superiority. You will compare the population of Western Europe, excluding Serbia, Greece and England, with the population of the USSR. Our CPSU propaganda has planted a gigantic pig in the form of the "fraternal peoples" of Western Europe. All these "brothers" fought as part of the Wehrmacht, including several Polish "offended" SS divisions. The USSR did not have a superiority in numbers, there was only an advantage in the size of the territory and that's it.

[stalkerwalker]

I didn't take it. Both documents and historians speak about this ...

[alexey alexeyev_4]

VO sank below the plinth. The late Zadornov (rest in peace to him) as a historian is much more serious than these clowns.

[hostel]

The falsifiers of history must also be fought in court, because they decay the fragile minds of young people.

[wow]

Loss, loss .... OUR planes landed on Berlin airfields in the 45th, and not German ones on the Moscow ones in the 41st! That's all the calculations. As it is in Russian: "... chickens are counted in the fall ...".

[Vasyan from the bottom]

the population of Germany from 1939 to 1946 decreased by 5 million people, and the population of the USSR by 30 million ...

[chenia]

Quote: Vasyan from the bottom

the population of Germany from 1939 to 1946 decreased by 5 million people, and the population of the USSR by 30 million ...

First, the birth rate in Germany practically did not fall until mid-1944 (and it was, thanks to the appropriate demographic policy of the Nazis, high.
Secondly, significantly lower losses among the civilian population, the war swept much quickly across Germany itself.
Third, glass (or expelled) the entire German population of Europe from countries that were not directly included in Germany (even from Liechtenstein, although they seem to be the same Germans.) According to some sources, from 3 to 8 million.
Fourth, the cunning of statistics, the question is why the population of Germany is now only 10 million more than in 1939 (and then with the Turks, with other emigrants and our Germans)?

[Bobrovsky]

Not so long ago, according to declassified German data, their military losses were 15 million, and civilian losses were 6 million.

[Vasyan from the bottom]

A little off topic, but the population of Germany from 1939 to 1946 decreased by 5 million people, and the population of the USSR by 30 million ... I looked at the data on Wikipedia.
It is also interesting to compare the losses during the war with Finland in 1939. In the same Russian Wikipedia, the ratio is 1 to 5. Only one conclusion suggests itself - the Soviet generals did not know how to fight, but they are excellent at throwing the corpses of their soldiers over the enemy.

[andrey-ivanov]

Since when has wiki become synonymous with truth?

[Siberian54]

There was such a comrade in the USSR Volkogonov, his perestroika trampled down at one time and so he cited statistics-German aces shot down at a specific time and in a specific place more Soviet planes than they were in real life .. This is to the fact that nowhere so many lie as on the war, fishing and hunting. There were also numbers of release and the number of destroyed German aircraft on all fronts and there were more destroyed ones. The account of any downed plates from the engine (bomber plus the serial number of the hull) or a certificate of the commander of the regiment over which the battle was going on (if possible with a plate And keep in mind that the ground troops did not receive bonuses for the destroyed enemy aircraft, therefore these documents were kept and are kept in a huge mass of documents of divisions and individual units, and partisan ones are generally a separate story ...

[vovochkarzhevsky]

You cannot count the loss of aircraft in isolation from the crews. The pilot, the most valuable thing in the pilot-aircraft system. For the time of aircraft production and pilot training are incomparable.
Here is a simple example:
Take, again, for example, the duel air battle "one hundred and ninth" and the "shops", the fight itself is a draw, parted. At the same time, the German was wounded, and the "shop" could hardly stay in the air. Further, the "one hundred and ninth" safely land on the airfield, the aircraft was quickly restored by the technicians, but the pilot's arm was amputated in the hospital. "Shop" flopped on the runway, cannot be restored, but the pilot is intact.
And what's the bottom line? Yes, such a Soviet pilot with experience will sit in a new car. And the Germans will put a newcomer on a restored plane.
Yes, our losses are higher in terms of technology. For where the duralumin structure is successfully repaired, the wooden one is written off.
Actually, for which I respect the Soviet designers, it is for the fact that they created aircraft at a level from almost junk materials. Yes, at the same time they sacrificed maintainability and resource. And do not care, anyway, the plane does not live long in a war. And the repairs themselves do not benefit the LTH even for all-metal structures.
Pilots, that's the most important thing. And if we compare the loss of flight personnel, then Germany is far from the most successful. And these fantastic accounts of German experts appeared after the war.

[2112vda]

Totally agree with you. Any military equipment is a consumable material. As in ancient times, no one considered the "losses" of arrows, and now they treat this simply. All woe to "historians" and "iksperds" would be nice to see the ratio of flight personnel losses in 5 belligerent countries: Germany, Japan, USA, Great Britain and the USSR. Unfortunately, I do not have this data at hand. The Germans knocked our planes together with a "train and a small cart," but our pilots were, for some reason, at the very end of the list in terms of losses. Probably the Germans were humanists and helped our pilots to escape. True, two of my relatives-pilots who died at Stalingrad, one was shot in the air over the airfield in Tatsinskaya, the other was shot in the air in the area of ​​Svetly Yar. You can understand the "historian" Timin, there is no normal specialty, but you always want to eat, so he composes all sorts of crap. This is the only way to attract the attention of Western donors. Timin's problem is that his brains are not structured by exact sciences, in his head is the usual "humanitarian mess". An ordinary "greyhound writer". I think there is no need to advertise his pseudo-historical opuses.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Another important note. Repairing an aircraft after combat damage and restoring it are not the same thing. Even a factory-repaired car in most cases will be worse than a new one in terms of performance characteristics. There is no need to talk about field repairs. It is simply unprofitable to invest in full refurbishment, taking resources away from the production of new machines. It is easier to provide the repaired vehicle with a certain percentage of the previous combat capabilities and use it for secondary tasks.
But let's not go into the jungle of major overhauls, let's dwell on what is within the capabilities of the engineering staff of the USSR Air Force regiment, or the German air group.
For example, a La-5 returned from a combat mission, having received console damage there. It seems that it was not severely damaged, the spars are intact, but in some places they split a few ribs, and even the skin swelled up. In short, they scratched their turnips and came to the conclusion that the repair does not make sense, only the replacement of the console from the spare parts kit, or the donor aircraft.
At the same time he returned to his airfield Bf. 109 also with damage to the console. So they are for the duralumin structure, which is the grain of an elephant. Neat patches were riveted onto the holes, the punched stringers were reinforced nearby, they were covered with fresh paint and that's it, you can fly.
Only after such a repair, the car will already behave at least a little, but not as before. And the frontal resistance of the patch was added, and the geometry changed at least a little, and the weight was added. And this can already become fatal in battle.
In addition, such minor repairs are not the same. And from repair to repair, the flight characteristics of the aircraft will sag. Everything is in strict accordance with materialistic philosophy, when quantitative changes turn into qualitative ones.
But again, these are cases of minor repairs. They restore cars that have sat down on their belly and that have broken the chassis. Here duralumin can already show itself in all its glory. He is metal, and therefore plastic. Therefore, before getting involved in repairs, engineers will use a special device to check the presence of deformation with a special device according to control points. It's good when they don't exist at all. Worse when present but within tolerance. Such an aircraft will be restored, put into operation, but this will already be a real bogeyman in the unit, from which the flight crew will shy away from it like a leper.
Yes, I'm not trying to prove that a wooden structure is better than duralumin. The point is that the new car is superior to the one that has gone through more than one refurbishment. And the material consumption of all-metal machines is by no means conducive to using them, figuratively speaking, in a disposable version.

[KOJIXO3HuK]

strange. for many years (since 2009) I have not watched any video on hosting because of the "water" and poorly set voices, well, I have a fad! As soon as I hear a gagging or a smoky, hoarse treble, I feel sick and want to run away. So, I haven't watched for many years, and I have such a feeling that nothing has changed at all! The same "water", empty-overflow rollers, the same vomit voices, the same words are parasites. Why??? Why are you watching this, PEOPLE? And even with the sound turned on to the fullest ?!

[militarist63]

Yeah, oh! In terms of what

And today, historians of the so-called opportunistic stream have finally "convinced themselves" that the West, and only it, is the "main character" of World War II, allegedly it was the United States, Britain and France who defeated the Nazis

France leads the "victory march"

[Lionov]

Crap, they think fighters who are more. It is enough that the USSR thrashed 80% of the Wehrmacht that says it all; weapons and inexhaustible financial resources, and what helped them defeat the ragamuffins in tire sandals with Kalash? During the war, their "decisive" help was near Moscow, Stalingrad in 43, maybe near Kursk? Lend-Lease aid in the most difficult years of 42-41 was only 43% of the volume of all supplies, the bulk of them began in 7, when it was clear to the fools that Stalin would slam Hitler without their "decisive" help, therefore the second front they quickly figured out not in 44, but in the summer of 42, in order to be in time for the section of the pie, and before that they were waiting for someone to "help" Stalin or Hitler, depending on who would be stronger. Let them pray to the USSR-Russia, if not for her, then with Hitler it would turn out exactly the same as later in Vietnam, on which they dropped eight times more bombs than on the whole of Germany during the war, in Iraq or in Afghanistan now. Sit and keep quiet gentlemen.

[alexandr_vd]

Very interesting!
I advise you to try to reconcile your research with the books of Y. Mukhin - on account of the fake calculation of our losses, only on the basis of oral / subjective / fake data about our aircraft shot down by ASAM ...
And further. Thank you for your videos Katun, Altai! ...

[mrbaikal189gmail.com]

The author, it's a waste of time to argue with all these "lovers of real history."

[Dzafdet]

One German ace shot down 42 of our aircraft on the Eastern Front. He was transferred to the West. I only managed to shoot down one at a time. What is the conclusion from here? We divide their numbers by 6 or 7. Then the mythical 350 Hartman planes turn into 50 shot down, which is close to the truth...