Aviation in World War II: a story without controversy. Part of 2

198


1943 year. Fracture during the war

In 1943, the survivability of the main strike force of the Red Army Air Force, the Il-2, reached 50 sorties. The number of combat aircraft in the army has passed for 12 thousands of cars. Scales have become gigantic. The number of Luftwaffe combat aircraft on all fronts was 5400 aircraft. This is another explanation for the large accounts of the German aces.

Aviation in World War II: a story without controversy. Part of 2


The fact is that combat losses can absolutely be avoided in only one way - not to fly at all. And the Soviet aviation flew. And flew a huge fleet on a huge front. And German aircraft flew a much smaller number of cars. Just because of the laws of mathematics, a single German fighter had a much higher chance of meeting a Soviet aircraft in a combat mission than his colleagues from the Red Army Air Force. The Germans worked with a small number of aircraft, constantly transferring them from one sector of the front to another.

This is confirmed by statistics. For example, the same Hartman, having made 1400 sorties, met with the enemy and led the battle in 60% of sorties. Rall - even more, in 78% of sorties had contact with enemy aircraft. And Kozhedub only in every third departure led the battle, Pokryshkin - in every fourth. The Germans achieved victory on average in every third departure. Ours - in every eighth. It may seem that this speaks in favor of the Germans - they more often ended the departure effectively. But it only if to pull out figures from a context. The Germans were really small. The attackers and the fighters covering them flew even when there was almost no German aircraft left on their front. Even from single German fighters, strike aircraft needed to be covered. That flew. Even without meeting the enemy in the sky - they flew, covering their attack aircraft and bombers. Soviet fighters simply did not have enough goals to achieve a comparable number of victories.



On the one hand, the tactics of the Germans make it possible to get by with a small number of aircraft, which is evident from them in reality. On the other hand, this is flight work without respite, an overstrain of forces. And no matter what the German pilot was, he could not break apart and be in several places at the same time. In compact France or Poland, this was unnoticed. And in the expanses of Russia on one experience and professionalism it was already impossible to win. All this is a consequence of the German strategy adopted at the beginning of the war: not to overstretch industry and quickly deal with the enemy with a small number and speed of actions. When the blitzkrieg failed, it turned out that for equal confrontation we need numerous air forces, which Germany did not have. The situation could not be fixed immediately: the USSR was preparing for a war of exhaustion in advance, and that was not fully ready. All that remained to do was to continue to fight as before, getting by with a small number of aircraft forced to work with doubled or tripled intensity. It was necessary to bare some sectors of the front in order to create superiority in other sectors, at least for a while.

The Soviet side, in turn, having a large fleet, had the opportunity to increase the concentration of forces, without exposing the minor front sectors and even keeping a significant fleet in the far rear with the aim of training pilots. In the 1943-1944 years, the Red Army regularly conducted many operations simultaneously on different sectors of the fronts, and almost everywhere the overall numerical superiority in aviation was behind us. Let the average level of the Soviet pilot be slightly lower, let the Soviet planes not be better than German ones, but there are many of them, and they are everywhere.

Statistics of aircraft production in Germany shows that the Germans partly realized their mistake. In 1943, and especially in 1944, there has been a sharp increase in aircraft production. However, it is not enough to release such a number of airplanes - one must also prepare an appropriate number of pilots. And the Germans didn’t have time for that - as it turned out, this numerous fleet was needed back in the 41 year. Pilots mass training 1943-1944 years were not at all asses. They did not have the opportunity to gain an excellent experience as the Luftwaffe pilots of the 1941 model of the year had. These pilots were no better than mass Soviet military pilots. And the performance characteristics of the aircraft on which they met in battles did not differ much. These belated actions could no longer turn the tide.

It can be said that, compared to 1941, the situation for the Germans turned exactly 180 degrees. Until now, the Germans won at the expense of the speed of their actions, managing to defeat the enemy before he managed to mobilize his army and industry. With small Poland and France, this was easily accomplished. Britain was saved by the strait and the stubbornness of the English sailors and pilots. And Russia was saved by open spaces, the resilience of the Red Army soldiers and the readiness of industry to work in a war of attrition. Now the Germans themselves had to launch the production of scarce aircraft and pilots with panic speed. However, such a rush inevitably began to affect the quality - as mentioned above, a qualified pilot must train more than one year. But time was sorely lacking.

Golodnikov Nikolai Gerasimovich: “In 1943, the majority of German pilots were inferior to us in a maneuverable battle, the Germans began to shoot worse, they began to lose in tactical training, although their aces were very“ tough nuts ”. The German pilots became even worse in the 1944 year ... I can say that these pilots did not know how to “look back”, often they openly neglected their duties to cover the troops and objects ”.

Front war expands

In 1943, the chances of meeting in the sky a German plane for Soviet pilots began to decline even more. The Germans were forced to strengthen the air defense of Germany. At the same time, many analysts have made a terrific conclusion that the Germans had everything in the East so well that it allowed them to withdraw some of the forces from the front and without any tension start a serious battle in the West. Basically, this version is based on the statistics of the loss of the Luftwaffe in foreign (English, American) literature.

About how well the Germans had everything on the Eastern Front, says the almost threefold increase in the number of combat missions of the Red Army air force on the impact tasks in 1943 year. The total number of sorties of Soviet aviation exceeded 885 000, and the number of departures of German aviation fell to 471 000 (from 530 000 to 1942). Why, under such unfavorable conditions, did the Germans begin to transfer aircraft to the West?

The fact is that in 1943, a new front of war opened - the air front. This year, heroic allies of the USSR - the United States and Great Britain - emerged from anabiosis. Apparently, realizing that the USSR had survived and a turning point was coming, the Allies decided to start fighting in full force. But the preparation for the landing in Normandy will take another whole year. In the meantime, the operation is being prepared, it is possible to increase air pressure through strategic bombardments. 1943 year is the year of sharp, spasmodic growth of the bombing of Germany, the year when these bombings became really massive.



Until 1943, the war for the Germans was somewhere far away. Speech is about the citizens of Germany. Yes, sometimes planes fly, sometimes they bomb. Somewhere fighting the Wehrmacht. But at home - peace and quiet. But in 1943, the trouble came almost in every German city. Civilians began to perish en masse, factories and infrastructure began to collapse.



When they demolish your house, you don’t think much about capturing a stranger. And then there are the factories that make military equipment for war in the East. The Allied offensive was airborne. And it was possible to fight with him only with the help of air defense and aviation. The Germans have no choice. Fighters are needed to protect Germany. And in this situation, the opinion of the Wehrmacht's infantrymen, who were seated under the Il-2 bombs in the trenches, is of little concern to anyone.

German aviation in the East was forced to operate with overvoltage. The norm was to make 4-5 sorties per day (and some German aces generally claim that they made up to 10 sorties, but we will leave this to their conscience), while the average Soviet pilot flew 2-3 times a day. All this was the result of underestimation by the German command of the spatial scope of the war in the east and the real forces of the Red Army. In 1941, on average, 1 German aircraft in the East accounted for 0,06 sorties per day, in 1942 - already 0,73 sorties. And in the Red Army aviation, a similar indicator in 1941 was 0,09, in 1942 - 0,05 sorties. In 1942, the average German pilot made 13 times more sorties. He worked for himself and for 3-4 non-existent pilots whom the Luftwaffe did not bother to prepare in advance, counting on a quick and easy victory over the USSR. And then the situation began to worsen. By 1944, the total gross number of sorties in the Luftwaffe had fallen - the Germans did not pull such a load. There were 1 flights per 0,3 plane. But in the Red Army Air Force the same indicator fell to 0,03 sorties. In the Red Army Air Force, the average pilot still made 10 times less sorties. And this despite the fact that Soviet aviation increased the total number of sorties, while the Germans, on the contrary, experienced a 2-fold fall from 1942 to 1944 - from 530 thousand sorties to 257 thousand sorties. All these are the consequences of the “blitzkrieg” - a strategy that does not provide for overall numerical superiority, but the ability to achieve such superiority in a narrow key sector of the front. In the Red Army Air Force, aviation was often assigned to the front or fleetThe maneuver between them was quite rare. And they rarely maneuvered along the front — pilots should know “their” locality and their troops. For the Germans, on the contrary, maneuvering took place constantly, and in the directions of the main attacks they usually achieved serious numerical superiority, even in the middle of the war. This worked perfectly in a cramped Europe, where the spatial scope simply did not provide for the possible existence of two or more “main directions” at once. And in the years 43-45 on the eastern front there could be several such main directions at the same time, and it was not possible to close all the gaps with one maneuver at once.

Golodnikov Nikolay Gerasimovich: “The Germans very well maneuvered aviation. They concentrated a large number of aviation on the directions of the main attack, while at the same time diversionary operations were carried out on secondary directions. The Germans tried to surpass us strategically, in the shortest possible time to crush us in mass, to break the resistance. We must pay tribute to them, they very boldly transferred units from the front to the front, they almost did not have aviation units "assigned" to the armies. "

1944 year. Its end

By and large, the war was lost by the Germans at the very beginning of 1944. They had no chance to change the situation. Several world leaders - the United States, Great Britain and the USSR - set to work at once. On the buildup of efforts against the Air Force of the Red Army was out of the question. Soviet pilots were less likely to meet Germans in the air. Which, of course, did not contribute to a sharp increase in their effectiveness, despite the clear superiority in the air. Frequently began flights on a free hunt. Mirrored 1941 year. Only the 1000 German aces in the 1941 had more than 10 000 targets in the face of numerous Soviet Air Forces. And in 1944, the 5 000 Soviet fighters had a total of 3-4 thousands of targets. As can be seen from this proportion, the probability of meeting with an enemy aircraft from a Soviet fighter pilot in 1944 was significantly lower than that of a Luftwaffe fighter in 41. The situation is not conducive to the appearance of aces with hundreds of victories in the Red Army Air Force, but the radical disruption of the entire system of armed struggle is obvious. And this scrapping is not in favor of the Luftwaffe.



The loss of IL-2 in 1944 year remained virtually unchanged, but the number of combat missions doubled. Survivability reached 85 plane flights. Only 0,5% of all sorties were intercepted by German fighters. A drop in the sea. It is not by chance that in the memoirs of the IL-2 pilots who fought in the second half of the war, the 20-mm anti-aircraft gun, not a fighter, is called the most terrible enemy. Although back in 1942, it was exactly the opposite. Only in the 45 year over Germany the danger of fighters will increase again, but this is primarily due to the collapse of the front to the size of a point on the map. At this point, almost all of the remaining German aircraft gathered around Berlin, which even with a shortage of pilots and fuel caused a certain effect.

And in the West, meanwhile, there was a massive destruction of the Luftwaffe, which surpassed, according to several Western sources, the total losses in the East. We will not dispute this fact (as well as the number of victories of the German aces). Many researchers conclude that this speaks of the high skill of British or American pilots. Is it so?

By a strange coincidence, the Allied pilots in the number of victories are inferior even to the Soviet aces. And German - all the more. How, then, did the Germans manage to lose such a significant part of their fleet in the West? Who beat them down?

The nature of the war in the air on the Western Front was completely different than in the East. It was not possible to make a "swing" with quick attacks on defenseless fighters from the rear hemisphere. Here it was necessary to climb into the tail of the bomber bristling with machine guns. Under the flying bullets in the face. One B-17 could launch a volley into the rear-upper hemisphere, like the six IL-2. Needless to say, what the attack of hundreds of American bombers in dense formation meant for German pilots was just a barrage of fire! It is not by chance that in the USAF the fourth most effective ace, who shot down the enemy's 17 fighters, is the B-17 side gunner. In total, the US Air Force side-gunners claim more than 6200 downed German fighters and about 5000 among the probable victories (damaged or shot down - not established). And it is only the Americans, and in fact there were also the British! If we add to this the victories of the Spitfires, Mustangs and other Allied fighters, the statement about the "unsurpassed" losses of the Luftwaffe in the west does not look so improbable.



The Allied fighter pilots did not excel in the training of German or Soviet colleagues. Just the nature of the air war over Germany was such that the Germans did not have such freedom of action as in the East. They had to either shoot down strategic bombers, inevitably exposing themselves to the fire of the air gunners, or simply shy away from the battlefield, flying just for the sake of sight. It is not surprising that many of them in their memoirs recall the eastern front as easier. Light, but not because Soviet aviation is a harmless and weak opponent. But because in the East it was possible to engage in winding up a personal account of victories and to engage in any nonsense, like free hunting, instead of real and dangerous combat work. And the German ace Hans Philip equalizes the Eastern Front with the Battle of Britain, where you could also have fun with the Spitfires.

Hans Philip: “Fighting with two dozen Russian fighters or the English Spitfires was a joy. And no one thought about the meaning of life. But when seventy huge Flying Fortresses fly on you, all your previous sins stand before your eyes. And even if the lead pilot was able to gather his courage, then how much pain and nerves were necessary to make each pilot in the squadron cope with him, right up to the newcomers.
You have no idea how hard it is to fight here. On the one hand, we live very comfortably, there are a lot of girls and everything that we could wish for, but on the other hand, it is a struggle in the air, and it is extremely difficult. It is difficult not because the enemies are so heavily armed or numerous, but because of such conditions and an easy chair you immediately find yourself on the battlefield, where you look death in the face. ”


Excellent words, Mr. Philip! In them all your essence! And your attitude to the war. And recognition of how you are afraid to do your main work, dodging it to the last possible opportunity in a roundabout with Russian and English fighters. And about the fact that you have lost the former strength and are throwing newcomers into battle. And about the fact that cheating personal accounts with Spitfires is no more difficult than with Russian fighters. That is, in fact, you also had a “freebie” in the West. Until the massacre began with strategic bombardments. But for some reason you don’t remember the Russians Pe-2 or Il-2, nor the English Lancaster, Halifax and Stirling. These guys, who instill fear in you by dozens of contrails in the sky, actually fly to kill your wives and children, and you think about girls. It is a pity that there will be no answer, but I would like to ask - were you really going to win this war of survival with this attitude?

In the East, no one forced the Germans to constantly climb under the Il-2 feed machine guns. Do not want - do not go. The command does not require to shoot down Il-2 or Pe-2. It requires simply to shoot down as many “something” as possible. Shoot down the lonely LaGG-3 on a dive! No threat. Not the fact that at all someone will shoot at you in a combat departure. The commanders motivated them for such actions, and how the task was set was the result. The main mode of action of the Germans is “Free Hunting”. The scores are high, and the Soviet attack aircraft are bombing Wehrmacht infantry more and more. And in the West there was no choice - only one goal. And any attack on this target guarantees a tight return fire.

Golodnikov Nikolai Gerasimovich: “In those places where the fate of the war is decided, the pilot doesn't want to fly. They send him there by order, because the pilot himself will not fly there, and you can understand him humanly - everyone wants to live. And “freedom” gives the fighter pilot a “legitimate” opportunity to avoid these places. "Loophole" in the "hole" turns. “Free hunting” is the most profitable way of warfare for a pilot and the most disadvantageous for his army. Why? Because almost always the interests of an ordinary fighter pilot are fundamentally at variance with the interests of his command, as well as the command of the troops that aviation provides. To give complete freedom of action to all fighter pilots is the same as giving full freedom to all ordinary infantrymen on the battlefield — wherever you want to dig in when you want to shoot. It is nonsense".

At the same time, the scrupulous Germans also reduced the overstatement of victories. As stated above, victories are always overpriced. The pilot can sincerely believe in victory, but he cannot be convinced of this. The war in the East created the conditions for the inevitable overstatements - he shot at a single-engine plane, he began to smoke. And somewhere fell. Or did not fall. Somewhere in the vast country. Who will look for him? And what will be left of him after the fall? Burnt engine block? Little did they roll in the front line. Write - shot down. And in the West? B-17 - not a small fighter, not a needle, you just can not lose it. And he will have to fall on the territory of the Reich - in densely populated Germany, and not in the desert steppes of Donetsk. There is not much overstating the number of victories - everything is in full view. Because the number of victories in the West, the Germans are not as large as in the East. And the duration of the hostilities is not so long.



In the middle of 1944, trouble for the Germans fell one after another. To the bristling machine guns of the "fortresses" were added escort fighters - "Thunderbolts" and "Mustangs", which now flew from continental airfields. Remarkable fighters, well-established in production and well-equipped. Opened a second front. The position of the Germans since 1943 was disastrous. At the end of 1944, due to a combination of factors, it could no longer be designated a catastrophe - it was the end. All the Germans could do in this situation was to capitulate than to save thousands of lives of German, Soviet and American people.

Conclusions

As we see, there is nothing surprising in the initially contradictory known facts. They all stand in a single slender chain stories.

The key mistake of the Germans is the decision to attack the USSR, without changing the spent strategy, tactics and not transferring industry to the military regime. Everything that worked effectively in Europe, comfortable, well-maintained, compact, stopped working in Russia. To guarantee their success, the Germans had to arrange in advance the production of thousands of aircraft and prepare thousands of pilots. But they didn’t have time for that - such preparation would take a couple of years, during which the USSR managed to finish re-equipping the army and air force with a new technique and level a significant part of the prerequisites for the German victory. And most importantly, the Germans had no desire to sacrifice their measured and prosperous life for the sake of a war of attrition. Belief in the success of the blitzkrieg and in the weakness of the USSR, complemented by a reluctance to change the full life of Germany, led the Germans to defeat.

The actions of German aviation, focused on deep quality training of pilots and excellent equipment, were not balanced enough. In sacrifice to quality was brought mass. But in a compact Europe, mass was not needed. However, one glance at the map is enough to understand that in Russia everything will be different. There is not enough quality, but small air fleet. Here we need mass. A mass - contrary to quality. In any case, the task of making massive and at the same time upscale air forces with excellent equipment and asami pilots requires incredible efforts and a long time, which history has not let go either of Germany or the USSR. In such initial conditions, the defeat of Germany was inevitable - it was only a matter of time.

Golodnikov Nikolai Gerasimovich: “... when Muller was shot down, he was brought to us. I remember him well, of medium height, athletic build, red. When he was asked about Hitler, he said that he didn’t give a damn about the “policy” to the Russians, he was a “sportsman”, the result was important for him - to shoot more. He has a “cover group” fighting, but he is an “athlete”, if he wants - he will strike, he wants - he will not. I got the impression that many German fighter pilots were such “athletes”.
- What was the war for our pilots?
- For me personally, the same as with all. Job. Heavy, bloody, dirty, scary and continuous work. It was possible to withstand it only because you are defending the Motherland. Sports here and does not smell.


In conclusion, I would like to add that the format of the article does not provide for the disclosure of many very interesting sides of the war in the air. The topic of the characteristics of the combat equipment, the industrial potential of the parties, the subject of Lend-Lease, etc. are not covered at all. All this requires more thorough work than the modest work of a history buff. The same can be said about the quoted quotes. It is necessary to limit the scope of the words given by the direct participants in the events, limited to only a few witnesses. All those interested in this topic should contact the original sources in order to obtain a truly complete amount of knowledge.

Used Sources and Literature:
1. Drabkin A. I fought a fighter.
2. Drabkin A. I fought on the IL-2.
3. Drabkin A. I fought in the SS and the Wehrmacht.
4. Isaev A.V. 10 myths about the Great Patriotic War.
5. Krivosheev G.F. Russia and the USSR in the wars of the XX century: the loss of the armed forces.
6. Combat operations of the Luftwaffe: the rise and fall of Nazi aircraft "(translated by P. Smirnov).
7. Schwabedissen V. The Stalin falcons: an analysis of the actions of Soviet aviation in 1941-1945.
8. Anokhin V.A., Bykov M.Yu. All Stalin's fighter regiments.
9. Stormtrooper IL-2 // Aviation and Cosmonautics. 2001. No. 5-6.
10. www.airwar.ru.
11. http://bdsa.ru.
198 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +52
    4 August 2016 06: 17
    1st picture in the article, the inscription on the fuselage of the IL-2 "Avenger"Aircraft IL-2 with tail number 25 "Avenger" was built at the expense of the chairman of the collective farm. Stalin, the village of Avdalar of the Kotayk district of the Armenian SSR, Grigor Ayrapetovich Tevosyan, whose two brothers died in the war. He contributed 100 000 rubles for the purchase of a combat aircraft.

    On this Il-2 the Hero of the Soviet Union flew, also Armenian Nelson Georgievich Stepanyan (1913 — 1944). N.S. Stepanyan during the war made 239 successful sorties, destroyed personally and in the 53 group of the enemy’s ship. He died in battle on December 14 of the 1944 of the year near the city of Liepaja of the Latvian SSR. Posthumously 6 March 1945 year re-awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union.
    1. +14
      4 August 2016 06: 37
      Nelson Georgievich Stepanyan. If anyone is interested:airaces.narod.ru/all7/stepn_ng.htm
      1. +35
        4 August 2016 10: 12
        Since then ...
      2. +4
        4 August 2016 14: 46
        always interesting. thank
    2. -30
      4 August 2016 10: 14
      I read it.
      Pictures are gorgeous.
      Text ... Well, if my grandmother had a trunk, then it would not be a grandmother, but an elephant. And Drabkin’s ears climb in most phrases.
      1. +21
        4 August 2016 15: 06
        Don't like Drabkin?
        Write yourself what problems? It is difficult to criticize what has been done, to do something your own.
        1. +8
          4 August 2016 18: 28
          AUTHOR: Many thanks for the Article, for the Work!
          interesting, new, not biased
          ... about the abbreviations, they usually make the material more accurate and clear, more memorable and understandable, you can not grasp the immense
          you turned out brilliantly, the golden mean!
          1. +1
            4 August 2016 21: 53
            Quote: Andrey Skokovsky
            interesting, new, not biased


            What's new? How does it differ from the generally accepted western version of their superiority over non-intermen? It would be better if the author analyzed the percentage of German nonsense about the victories of their pseudo-Aassians on the eastern front, as well as the percentage of those who died in the east and west. You will be surprised, but a third of German productive pilots are listed as dead in the west. All of Russia is dotted with fragments from the Volga to the Bug, but the German ridge was broken in the skies of Germany ... And Udet also destroyed the tank army and half of the Baltic Fleet. Amen!
            1. 0
              18 October 2023 17: 11
              Regarding the exaggerations of the aces, there is a good popular study “Aces and Propaganda” by Mukhin.
      2. +5
        4 August 2016 16: 30
        Drabkin only printed the memories of flyers ... and read for yourself --- instructive hi
      3. +15
        4 August 2016 21: 49
        Quote: qwert
        And Drabkin’s ears climb in most phrases.

        Who is hiding it? No one. Drabkin is a compiler and an interviewer, he himself does not write anything, for that, and thanks to him. The value of his books is live, uncensored interviews. I do not hide that I admire his publications. I consider my work an attempt to select from these interviews key, key, significant phrases on which the picture of that war is revealed. Well, statistics, etc. No more. I’m not Isaev, I’m so, by the little things ...
      4. +5
        6 August 2016 16: 36
        Quote: qwert
        I read it.
        Pictures are gorgeous.
        Text ... Well, if my grandmother had a trunk, then it would not be a grandmother, but an elephant. And Drabkin’s ears climb in most phrases.

        To the author - Bravo! First of all, for having a mental apparatus, I was able to develop imaginative thinking and the ability to compare facts and comprehend their totality objectively ... And you, excuse me, have nothing of the kind due to mental impairment determined by memorized disparate facts for the sake of learned ideological cliches .
      5. 0
        18 October 2023 17: 09
        What's wrong with the analysis? When there are no arguments, they get personal.
  2. +13
    4 August 2016 06: 22
    Exactly! The key mistake of the Germans is the decision to attack the USSR! NATO generals, do not repeat the mistakes made!
    1. +16
      4 August 2016 06: 59
      Quote: Hunter
      NATO generals, do not repeat the mistakes made!

      Oh come on, dancing on a Russian rake is Europeans' favorite pastime. At least once a century.
      1. +5
        4 August 2016 07: 33
        The article is very superficial.
        It is especially jarring that the principle of victory in aerial combat is not taken into account.
        I remember that ours had to bring down the German and prove it (the first up to the commission on the place of the downed enemy, which is often simply not realistic). The Germans had to inflict visual damage (it’s not even necessary to bring down), any one witness (you can be stupidly guided) and fill out a formal questionnaire from the 21 paragraph ...
        1. +5
          4 August 2016 09: 14
          Quote: Yuri from Volgograd
          I remember that ours had to bring down the German and prove it (the first up to the commission on the place of the downed enemy, which is often simply not realistic). The Germans had to inflict visual damage (it’s not even necessary to bring down), any one witness (you can be stupidly guided) and fill out a formal questionnaire from the 21 paragraph ...

          this is bullshit
          The Luftwaffe air victory counting system involved one downed aircraft, precisely identified by a photographic machine gun or one or two other witnesses.
          In this case, the aircraft was recorded on a personal account only if it was recorded destroyed in the air, engulfed in flames abandoned by its pilot in the air or recorded its fall to the ground and destruction.
          To register a victory, the Luftwaffe pilot filled out an application consisting of 21 points.
          It stated:
          1. Time (date, hour, minute) and the place the plane crashed.
          2. Names of crew members applying.
          3. Type of aircraft destroyed.
          4. Nationality of the adversary.
          5. The essence of the damage:
          a) flame and black smoke;
          b) whether the enemy plane fell apart (call them) or exploded;
          c) whether he made an emergency landing (indicate in which place of the front and whether it was a normal or emergency landing);
          e) if it landed behind the front line, did it catch fire on the ground.
          6. The nature of the fall (only if it could be observed):
          a) in which place of the front;
          b) whether it was vertical or it broke out;
          c) if not observed, for what reason.
          7. The fate of the enemy crew (killed, parachuted, etc.).
          8. A personal pilot report must be attached.
          9. Witnesses:
          a) in the air;
          b) on the ground.
          10. The number of attacks an enemy plane was subjected to.
          11. The direction from which each attack was carried out.
          12. The distance from which effective fire was fired.
          13. Tactical attack position.
          14. Were the enemy arrows disabled.
          15. Type of weapons used.
          16. Ammunition Consumption.
          17. The type and number of machine guns used to destroy an enemy aircraft.
          18. Type of own plane.
          19. Anything else that has tactical and technical value.
          20. Damage to your own car as a result of enemy actions.
          21. Other units involved in the battle (including anti-aircraft artillery).
          The squadron commander signed the questionnaire. The main points were 9 (witnesses) and 21 (other units).
          The application was accompanied by a personal report of the pilot, in which he first indicated the date and time of take-off, the threshold and the start of the battle, and then only announced victories and listed them from the time the attack began, including altitude and range.
          Then he indicated the essence of the destruction, the nature of the fall, his observation and the recorded time.
          A report on the battle, written by a witness or an eyewitness, was attached to the report on the downed aircraft. All this made it possible to double-check the pilot's messages about the victory. Commander of a group or squadron after receiving reports of other pilots, data from ground observation posts, decoding of film machine gun films, etc. He wrote on the form his conclusion, which, in turn, served as the basis for official confirmation or not confirmation of victory.
          As an official recognition of his victory, the Luftwaffe pilot received a special certificate, which indicated the date, time and place of the battle, as well as the type of aircraft he shot down.
          If you believe the sources of Germany, the Germans did not share victories. “One pilot - one victory,” their law read. For example, the Allied pilots divided the victories as follows: if two pilots fired at one aircraft and it was shot down, each of them wrote half. (// www.airpages.ru/dc/hist_4.shtml)
          1. +4
            4 August 2016 22: 02
            This is what your opponent wrote about 21 points. The main thing is that the ink does not run out. Probably the German pilots had calloused fingers. Okay, let’s say the German pilot saw all this and recorded it in memory (100500 witnesses will tell you something), but (in this place an abusive word) HOW did they manage to make 10 sorties per day ?! and managed to do all this ...
          2. +7
            4 August 2016 23: 10
            Was it really possible for a pilot, if he really participated in a serious battle with a serious opponent, when a carousel of several dozen aircraft circled at once, had time to remember all these moments to fill out such a lengthy questionnaire? Yes, this is complete nonsense, maybe they filled out such questionnaires (and when only the time was found, if according to the memoirs of the pilots themselves they had to fly 5-6 sorties per day), but it is easy to imagine how much imagination those who had it filled out.
            As an example of the "meticulously accurate" accounting of downed enemy aircraft, this is the number of Soviet aircraft shot down by German pilots during an air battle in the skies of the Kuban in the spring of 43, and this number exceeded almost one and a half times the entire number of Soviet aircraft that were available and took part in this battle taking into account the losses received for replenishment. A similar picture was observed on the Western Front, when in a specific case, the Americans in their report during the raid on Berlin indicate the loss of about 30 bombers, and the German air defense forces report the destruction of more than 50 over the past day.
          3. +5
            4 August 2016 23: 12
            AviaMaster magazine # 1 and # 2 for 2006. Articles by Alexander Mardanov. Using the example of the well-known ass of battles in the north of Müller, he proves the dashing German postscripts! His first victory was recorded on September 12, 1941 - I-16! But according to Soviet data, all fighters returned to their airfield and only one of them landed on it "on its belly"! "Ishachok" was thoroughly perforated, but it was quickly returned to service! Such is the confirmation !!!
            1. 0
              4 August 2016 23: 21
              Quote: hohol95
              Using the example of the well-known assa of battles in the north of Müller, he proves the dashingness of German posts! Pe

              for the hundredth time I say, everyone ascribes.

              Quote: hohol95
              "Ishachok" was thoroughly perforated, but it was quickly returned to service! Such is the confirmation !!!

              this is normal, worse if they didn’t fly out at all.
          4. 0
            18 October 2016 20: 42
            Quote: Stas57
            this is bullshit
            The Luftwaffe air victory counting system involved one downed aircraft, precisely identified by a photographic machine gun or one or two other witnesses.
            In this case, the aircraft was recorded on a personal account only if it was recorded destroyed in the air, engulfed in flames abandoned by its pilot in the air or recorded its fall to the ground and destruction.
            To register a victory, the Luftwaffe pilot filled out an application consisting of 21 points.
            It stated:
            1. Time (date, hour, minute) and the place the plane crashed.
            2. Names of crew members applying.
            3. Type of aircraft destroyed.
            4. Nationality of the adversary.
            5. The essence of the damage:
            a) flame and black smoke;
            b) whether the enemy plane fell apart (call them) or exploded;
            c) whether he made an emergency landing (indicate in which place of the front and whether it was a normal or emergency landing);
            e) if it landed behind the front line, did it catch fire on the ground.
            6. The nature of the fall (only if it could be observed):
            a) in which place of the front;
            b) whether it was vertical or it broke out;
            c) if not observed, for what reason.
            7. The fate of the enemy crew (killed, parachuted, etc.).
            8. A personal pilot report must be attached.
            9. Witnesses:
            a) in the air;
            b) on the ground.
            10. The number of attacks an enemy plane was subjected to.
            11. The direction from which each attack was carried out.
            12. The distance from which effective fire was fired.
            13. Tactical attack position.
            14. Were the enemy arrows disabled.
            15. Type of weapons used.
            16. Ammunition Consumption.
            17. The type and number of machine guns used to destroy an enemy aircraft.
            18. Type of own plane.
            19. Anything else that has tactical and technical value.
            20. Damage to your own car as a result of enemy actions.
            21. Other units involved in the battle (including anti-aircraft artillery).
            The squadron commander signed the questionnaire. The main points were 9 (witnesses) and 21 (other units).
            The application was accompanied by a personal report of the pilot, in which he first indicated the date and time of take-off, the threshold and the start of the battle, and then only announced victories and listed them from the time the attack began, including altitude and range.
            Then he indicated the essence of the destruction, the nature of the fall, his observation and the recorded time.
            A report on the battle, written by a witness or an eyewitness, was attached to the report on the downed aircraft. All this made it possible to double-check the pilot's messages about the victory. Commander of a group or squadron after receiving reports of other pilots, data from ground observation posts, decoding of film machine gun films, etc. He wrote on the form his conclusion, which, in turn, served as the basis for official confirmation or not confirmation of victory.
            As an official recognition of his victory, the Luftwaffe pilot received a special certificate, which indicated the date, time and place of the battle, as well as the type of aircraft he shot down.
            If you believe the sources of Germany, the Germans did not share victories. “One pilot - one victory,” their law read. For example, the Allied pilots divided the victories as follows: if two pilots fired at one aircraft and it was shot down, each of them wrote half. (// www.airpages.ru/dc/hist_4.shtml)

            Yeah - it was thanks to this "nonsense" that the German Luftwaffe "destroyed" the British Air Force as much as three and a half times)))
          5. 0
            18 October 2023 17: 16
            This is in theory. In fact, they wrote who wanted what. And how do you record “engulfed in flames” with a camera? The camera films simultaneously with the gun, so it only records hits, and even then not all of them. The plane should still catch fire.
        2. +3
          4 August 2016 09: 38
          but ours in the initial period.

          «
          ... On the second flight of July 22 to 2.40 in the Alabino - Naro-Fominsk area at an altitude of 2500 m, captain MG Trunov caught up with Ju88 and attacked from the back hemisphere. The enemy declined to shaving. Captain Trunov rushed forward and lost the enemy. You can assume the plane shot down. "

          “... At the second take-off of July 22 in 23.40 in the Vnukovo ml. Lieutenant A.G. Lukyanov was attacked by "Ju88" or "Do215". In the Borovsk region (in 10 – 15 km north of the airfield) three long lines were fired by a bomber. Hits were clearly visible from the ground. The enemy returned fire, and then fell sharply. You can assume the plane shot down. "

          “... Ml. lieutenant N.G. Shcherbina 22 July in 2.30 in the area of ​​Naro-Fominsk from a distance of 50 m fired two lines in a twin-engine bomber. At that time, anti-aircraft artillery opened fire on the MiG-3, and the enemy’s aircraft was lost. You can assume the plane shot down. "

          At the same time, reports of this kind were typical of the Soviet Air Force in the initial period of the war. And although in each case the air division commander notes that “there is no confirmation” (there is no information about the fall of enemy aircraft), in all these episodes the victories were recorded at the expense of the pilots and regiment. The result of this was a very significant mismatch in the number of reported Luftwaffe bombers claimed by Moscow air defense pilots with their real losses. In July 1941 of Moscow’s air defense, there were 89 battles during 9 raids by German bombers, in August - 81 battles during 16 raids. 59 downed vultures were announced in July and 30 in August. The enemy documents confirm 20 – 22 aircraft in July and 10 – 12 in August. The number of victories of air defense pilots was overestimated by about three times.
          1. +7
            4 August 2016 12: 07
            Hans had exactly the same postscripts. Well, why again twenty-five.
            1. +2
              4 August 2016 12: 28
              Quote: Petrik66
              Hans had exactly the same postscripts. Well, why again twenty-five.

              then, that no one wants to remember that everyone had registrations, this time, and two 300 aircraft from experts, this is not from the postscripts of motor accounts, but from the horse-chain of aviation, this is two-hit / fled
              1. +1
                4 August 2016 13: 59
                Quote: Stas57
                Quote: Petrik66
                Hans had exactly the same postscripts. Well, why again twenty-five.

                then, that no one wants to remember that everyone had registrations, this time, and two 300 aircraft from experts, this is not from the postscripts of motor accounts, but from the horse-chain of aviation, this is two-hit / fled

                About two true, hit and falls, and he fell there or flew further ...
              2. -3
                4 August 2016 22: 24
                Then he returned, a control shot against the sun, ran away again. He dived, scared the partisans off, again entering the attack ... Tactics, ... la!
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. 0
            18 October 2016 20: 48
            Quote: Stas57
            At the same time, reports of this kind were typical of the Soviet Air Force in the initial period of the war. And although in each case the air division commander notes that “there is no confirmation” (there is no information about the fall of enemy aircraft), in all these episodes the victories were recorded at the expense of the pilots and regiment. The result of this was a very significant mismatch in the number of reported Luftwaffe bombers claimed by Moscow air defense pilots with their real losses. In July 1941 of Moscow’s air defense, there were 89 battles during 9 raids by German bombers, in August - 81 battles during 16 raids. 59 downed vultures were announced in July and 30 in August. The enemy documents confirm 20 – 22 aircraft in July and 10 – 12 in August. The number of victories of air defense pilots was overestimated by about three times.

            This is why would victory be brought to the pilots - if there is no confirmation? Perhaps it is POSSIBLE - some were mistakenly attributed, but if there is no confirmation from the ground, the victory did not count - this is the order.
          4. 0
            18 October 2023 17: 18
            This is at first. Then, without confirmation of the fall by the ground, they did not write down those shot down.
        3. +5
          4 August 2016 21: 45
          Quote: Yuri from Volgograd
          The article is very superficial.
          It is especially jarring that the principle of victory in aerial combat is not taken into account.

          If you are talking about personal accounts, then the article is not just superficial, it is just awful. Since in this article "personal accounts" and "aerial victories" are just a background. This is not the main line of the story. The essence of the article is that the key to victory is a well-built military-economic system and strategy. The Germans were wrongly motivated, which is why their personal accounts were so valuable. Although these accounts are generally a question of tenth importance. And they were wrongly motivated because their command did not understand in 1941 where it was going. They tried to apply the war patterns of 39-40 to the USSR. The result is known.
          1. +3
            5 August 2016 13: 04
            Yes, dear Alexey, yes, you are right. I was convinced of this even when I was collecting material for the book "If Hitler took Moscow." There, all the numbers are not invented and according to them it turned out that he lost the war in 39-0. 200 tanks a month in its industry and 2000 in ours. Then, 168 thousand US tanks were added to our tanks. And the Germans ... 49 thousand. Having unleashed a purely European war, he did not expect that it would develop so quickly into a world war and assume a total character. Women there were called to machines only at the end of 44, and in the USSR, England and the USA from the very beginning of the war! In the United States, more people died from industrial injuries than at the front - and this is the result: tens of thousands of aircraft, hundreds of ships. Adventurism and the failure to take into account hundreds of variables of economic and social development - that's the result - you showed it very competently and skillfully!
        4. +4
          5 August 2016 18: 19
          Two points.
          The first. I already said that my grandfather flew the whole war. Well, not all, since February 1942. Almost everything, but on IL-2 ... He told about payment for the shot down, in order to confirm the shot down, it was necessary to present a piece with the number of any part from the shot down, otherwise no nachfin would take responsibility for paying down the shot down.
          Second. It would be possible to simply dilute the interview of Nikolai Gerasimovich Golodnikov with tablets for greater clarity and not suffer. Well, also add an interview with Fedor Fedorovich Archipenko, Semyon Zinovievich Bookchin and many others, from whom Drabkin and enthusiasts managed to interview and publish them. Take the time to read them. My 13-year-old son (5 years ago), leaving for a sports camp, asked to read something on the road. I gave him two books with the memoirs of front-line soldiers. Grimaced, but took ... I came with burning eyes and voraciously read the rest. Now he knows what "ten Stalin's victories" are, who are Zhukov, Gorbatov, Kozhedub, Matrosov and much more that a normal child should know about our history ...
  3. +8
    4 August 2016 06: 29
    Apparently, having realized that the USSR had survived and a turning point was coming, the Allies decided to start fighting at full strength.

    They were afraid that the Red Army would not reach the English Channel.
    1. +5
      4 August 2016 07: 04
      Quote: Dimy4
      They were afraid that the Red Army would not reach the English Channel.

      According to the plans of the arrogant Saxons, the last Russian who killed the last German was to die from wounds on the operating table. It did not grow together at the broomstick. I’m wondering: is 2017 on-the-nose and will the impudent materials on Hess be declassified or will the dates of classification be extended by another 25-50?
      1. 0
        4 August 2016 11: 41
        Well, declassify. And what do you want to learn from these materials about Hess?
        1. -2
          4 August 2016 22: 27
          Well, for example, did he jump with a parachute or without a parachute?
        2. +2
          4 August 2016 23: 29
          Yes, there may be a lot of interesting things, maybe there is an answer to the question of why Hitler, an ardent opponent of the war on two fronts, suddenly didn’t finish with the Anglo-Saxons and ran across Russia, maybe some kind of agreement was reached with the British, but which then they didn’t do it? Perhaps that is why they, the British, are still hiding these materials, waiting for Russia to fall apart, and after that it will be possible to publish them, then there will be no one to be ashamed of their past treachery?
      2. -2
        4 August 2016 22: 26
        There is no longer any material on Hess. Destroyed. They say the dog ate ...
        1. 0
          5 August 2016 10: 19
          Everything "that is not necessary", according to Hess and others, has long been destroyed, and if there were meetings "face to face", they were certainly not recorded.
          Well, they publish the inspection of the scene and the search protocol, that's all.
    2. -4
      4 August 2016 09: 04
      Maybe it will. And then what? Will a bright future be built everywhere or will partisanism begin? If you want to believe it or not. The people live well, in Europe, the European people and governments do not need war and no one here is going to war. Although Moscow, geographically, is also in Europe.
      1. +5
        4 August 2016 20: 20
        European people and governments do not need a war and no one here is going to war

        Don't be so naive. Do you still not understand how the world in which you live works? Nothing has ever depended on the people in any democratic country, does not depend and will never depend ... This is an axiom of the "democracy" that the whole world is trying to bring in. All the moneybags solve. And when they need to, they organize another crisis, drive the people into a hopeless situation, and then, along the path that has been rolled for centuries, a "great commander" is declared and leads the "great army" to pacify the wild tribes. Hikes to the Middle East for the European "greats" were almost always successful, but JUST TO THE EAST - so far never!
  4. +8
    4 August 2016 06: 40
    great article
  5. +8
    4 August 2016 07: 06
    A sober look at the obvious things. Plus again. Personally, I really like it when a person soberly, reasonably, expresses his point of view. Without pathos, flaws, in the subject.
    There is a reason - there is an effect. Even in historical science there is a logical explanation for many absurdities. In his material, the author clearly explained the reasons for "asowing" the Germans and "unassuming" for the Russians. Everything lies on the surface, you just need to see and accept winked
    I accept hi
  6. +7
    4 August 2016 07: 20
    In 1945, the Luftwaffe still remained a serious opponent, taking off from stationary aerodromes, while ours even had to use highways as a runway (260 km to Berlin in the Bunzlau / Boleslawiec area = Pokryshkin air division). And against them are three airfields: Kshiva, Sprotava and Zagan (lowland Silesia, now in Poland). Or, for example, a field airfield at the Przemkow Severny training ground. An unpaved runway with water from the nearby Slava Lake System. Fokke-Wolfe in caponiers under camouflage nets. After the end of the raid of our aviation / why bombardment, when only the lakes are visible from above, the locks closed and the water drained into the drainage system, covered with 2,4 x 0,8 m iron gratings. After an hour and a half, the runway dried up and the airfield was ready to work on the Reich. The enemy was very serious!
  7. +1
    4 August 2016 07: 25
    Thank. Almost all arguments in one bottle. More precisely in two (two parts of the article).
  8. 0
    4 August 2016 07: 25
    53 sunken ships? cool pilot and his il-2
  9. +5
    4 August 2016 07: 33
    In conclusion, I would like to add that the format of the article does not provide for the disclosure of many very interesting aspects of the air war. ... Nevertheless, thank you, the author is an excellent article .. And what was not included in this article can be stated in others .. Once again, thank you ..
    1. +1
      4 August 2016 14: 00
      I am joining. And I look forward to continuing, preferably with an analysis of technology and its reliability.
  10. +2
    4 August 2016 07: 34
    Honestly, I don’t understand why the author is trying to present the German pilots as some kind of "hired freeloaders" fighting not for the sake of fulfilling an order or the interests of the motherland, but for the sake of self-indulgence ... to amuse your vanity ... Perhaps there were such, but there were others, such as HW Rudel, a staunch Nazi who adored Hitler and worked hard to "contain the red hordes." And how can you say that "In the East, no one forced the Germans to constantly climb under the Il-2 stern machine guns. If you don't want to, don't go in. The command does not demand to shoot down the Il-2 or Pe-2." and immediately indicate the hard work in the form of 10 flights a day? For what? Like "well, you fly there, maybe you will hit someone"? Why try to pass off your opponent as an imbitil if he was not?
    1. +2
      4 August 2016 09: 12
      You see the commander where she is not, why then the author quoted the words:
      . when seventy huge “Flying Fortresses” fly at you, all your past sins come before your eyes. And even if the lead pilot was able to gather his courage, then how much pain and nerves were needed to make every pilot in the squadron cope with himself, down to the very beginners

      It turns out, if necessary, that the Germans fought conscientiously.
      It's just that everyone, including our pilots, understood that free hunting is good and almost safe.
      1. 0
        4 August 2016 14: 04
        Or we only let out top aggressive aces on the free, which made up EMNIP, 4% of the sorties of fighter aircraft (and the Il-2 sometimes had that fun), who, seeing the formation of "Junkers", would be able to attack and successfully dump.
    2. -2
      4 August 2016 14: 02
      Whatever the order, we fought, and in general, 10k damages are cool, even if the battle was lost by capture. And you can fly to intercept in different ways, for example, wait until the Il anti-aircraft guns damage.
    3. 0
      4 August 2016 21: 38
      Quote: Leto
      Honestly, I don’t understand why the author is trying to present the German pilots as some kind of "hired freeloaders" fighting not for the sake of fulfilling the order or the interests of the Fatherland, but for the sake of pampering ... to amuse his vanity ...

      I'm not trying to imagine anyone. I’m honestly not involved here. The article is based on a compilation of veteran memories and several statistics tables. Argue with them, not with me.
  11. +9
    4 August 2016 08: 59
    I agree with the article. But I want to add one more thing. The author missed the moment of the personnel of the aviation of the Red Army and the Luftwaffe.
    Since the time of World War I, nobles have come to aviation, fighter pilots were considered a kind of flying knights with their codes of honor. One-on-one combat. If you carefully read the memoirs, then the German pilots fought like this since the beginning of the Second World War at the theater in Europe, because in European countries, pilots are also mostly noblemen. Hence the love for free hunting, the principle of competition - "athletes". Not love for the protection of their bombers and other troubles of the nobility.
    And take the personnel of the Red Army, all the pilots for the most part are simple guys from the people. As a rule, they are disciplined, they said not to get involved in the battle but to guard the attack aircraft, they will guard. They didn’t give a damn about such knightly tricks, the main thing was to fulfill the order.
    1. +3
      4 August 2016 11: 19
      "... they said not to get involved in the battle, but to guard the attack aircraft ..."
      It was not just "said", but a combat order, which everyone was obliged to carry out.
      During the war began to create mixed air divisions. For example, two assault regiments and a fighter regiment. All pilots knew each other, knew the manner of piloting, could predict the subsequent actions of each other. Now the fighter was defended not by some sort of attack aircraft, but by its guys on the board.
      The success of a fighter flight was determined, in this case, by the losses of attack aircraft.
  12. -1
    4 August 2016 09: 10
    1. The Germans did not prepare for a protracted war alone. It was planned that Britain would enter the war. She entered, but on the other side.
    2. In the West, it was difficult for the Germans to wage an air war because their cars lacked altitude. In fact, all of their fighters, with rare exceptions, are designed to work at medium altitudes. And, if in the East, where the fighting took place mainly at small and medium heights, the situation was tolerable, but in the West - no.
    3. I wonder what the result is claimed by the arrows of the British bombers. Not only did they fly mainly at night, but defensive weapons stood at 7,62 mm.
  13. +11
    4 August 2016 09: 57
    "German aviation in the East was forced to operate with overstrain. The norm was to make 4-5 sorties a day (and some German aces generally claim that they made up to 10 sorties, but we will leave this on their conscience), while the average Soviet pilot flew 2-3 times a day. "

    In principle, in the summer, when daylight is long, they could do ten sorties.
    We got information about our ILs, which are flying to storm some train station, took off, one or two attacks on the backward, straying from the group, and home (and in no case get involved in a maneuvering battle with cover fighters!). For everything about everything, about an hour, or even less.

    From the book of A. Drabkin, interview with I. Kozhemyako:

    How many sorties did you do in a day?
    “Well, I have had four.” I remember there were strong battles near Zaporozhye. I then had a day when I made four sorties, and all four with air battles. Moreover, with real fights, in which he spun with the "Messers" for 15-20 minutes each. And almost without a break between flights. I’ll only land, and my comedian Sokolov is already shouting to me: “Ivan, get in the Willis!” Quickly to the neighboring squadron - there are a couple of fighters ready for the departure! The "silts" are already taking off. Catch up! ” We drove into a car, ran into the airplanes and caught up with “silts” already in the air.
    So, after the fourth flight, I didn’t even understand how it landed, some kind of dullness came. I remember remembering that I was still in the air, then like a failure, and I was already rolling along the strip. I didn’t remember how I sat down. After landing, I caught my breath, somehow crawled out of the cockpit, went to the komesku and said: “I will not fly anymore! No strength! I don’t see the earth! ” He looked: "Rest." And he immediately ordered that I be fed, and then allocated a car, so that they would take me to the village where we were located. I did not fly that day anymore.

    But German fighter pilots write in their memoirs that they did up to eight sorties a day, and all with aerial combat. One even wrote that he made thirteen flights a day. In your opinion, is this real?
    Question: what is considered an air battle? If this ordinary German "twisted - once attacked - ran away" was considered an air battle, then why not. So you can fly eight times a day. Enough is enough.

    What was the usual and maximum duration of aerial combat?
    - In 1943, usually 10-20 minutes, a maximum of half an hour. I must say that after the flight, with 30 minutes of air combat, most likely, you will not fly anywhere for the second time. You just don’t have enough strength. So if you are told in German memoirs that they fought eight battles a day, in each of which they fought with our fighters for at least 10 minutes, then you can safely consider this a model of 100% idle talk.
    1. +3
      4 August 2016 23: 44
      Quote: rkkasa 81
      So, after the fourth flight, I didn’t even understand how it landed, some kind of dullness came. I kind of remember, I'm still in the air, then like a failure

      Well, and STAC57 claims that after each such departure the German pilots even managed to fill out the questionnaire from the 21 point, and where they got so much health, probably the schnapps helped to keep in shape.
      1. -1
        5 August 2016 00: 27
        Quote: Svidetel 45
        Well, and STAC57 claims that after each such departure the German pilots even managed to fill out the questionnaire from the 21 point, and where they got so much health, probably the schnapps helped to keep in shape.

        yeah, do you know how the German fighter was controlled, how the propeller pitch was adjusted? gas? how much did you have to twist like in soviet?
        it is very relaxing and helps, yeah.
        it’s extremely difficult, almost impossible, to describe the battle, when the expert, falling out of the clouds against the sun, shoots his victim and leaves on the afterburner, reading the victory, yes, it’s impossible to remember such a battle — it's something unimaginable!

        but this is all the lyrics, you look at 1000 profiles from 4 geshwaders, and let them know that they were not filled out, but for now, this is not, alas, blbl
  14. -2
    4 August 2016 10: 24
    Dear author! Memoirs, journalistic, fiction and scientific literature on the Second World War and the Air War, in particular, abounds in a multitude of factual material presented on both sides by respected authors and even entire collectives, as well as frank talkers and amateurs who took up the pen in the hope of making money or become famous. The latter, referring to the alleged contradictions in history, seek to dispel the old "myths", but in reality, produce new ones. They are echoed by numerous commentators, for the most part not only not having any relation to aviation and not sitting at the helm, but not even serving in the army and not able to distinguish target No. 1 from target No. 2. That is why I am opposed to the publication of long epics on the VO website with many parts and, in this sense, I did not like your articles. Warfare has long become a craft, and in any craft there is a certain percentage of marriage. The basis of production defects, most often, is the incompetence of management, poor quality or lack of necessary materials and equipment, low level of education and training
    workers. “Try it on” for the past war or today and you will get an answer to the questions: “Why did it happen then?” Or “Why did it happen today and who is to blame?”
    1. +4
      4 August 2016 16: 24
      Dear Rubin 6286, you spoke quite specifically about the article, though it’s mentally, categorically. In this regard, I would like to know the opinion of the mentor regarding the content of the second part of the article (I assume that you have not read the first part).
      I allow myself to compose the author’s thoughts, clothed in a literary and journalistic form, which in your opinion does not correspond to the craft, which became military affairs, into several statements.
      1. The author claims that the Luftwaffe was not ready for a long war of attrition
      2. The author claims that the Luftwaffe fighter pilots were, let’s say, more free in the choice of tactics of their actions, without looking back at the tasks of supporting strike aircraft, if this was dangerous and did not lead to an increase in personal score.
      3. The author claims that the difference between the personal accounts of the pilots of the Red Army and the Luftwaffe was due to the different number of "targets" in the air due to the difference in the numerical strength of the Red Army and Luftwaffe aviation during the war.
      4. The author claims that the eastern front was not a Luftwaffe pilots rest zone from fighting in the West.
      5. The author claims that the war on the 2 fronts of the Luftwaffe was not ready to be waged.
      6. The author claims that the Luftwaffe ridge was not broken in the West.

      Which of these statements do you agree with, or disagree with?
      Let's put aside the rejection of artistic presentation and some particulars, for example falsification or honesty of pilots when declaring victories.
    2. +1
      4 August 2016 19: 16
      Excuse me, but what did you mean by that? well, except that you didn’t like the author’s creation.
    3. +3
      4 August 2016 21: 30
      Quote: rubin6286
      Warfare has long become a craft, and in any craft there is a certain percentage of marriage. The basis of production defects, most often, is the incompetence of management, poor quality or lack of necessary materials and equipment, low level of education and training
      workers. “Try it on” for the past war or today and you will get an answer to the questions: “Why did it happen then?” Or “Why did it happen today and who is to blame?”

      Sorry, but I didn’t understand anything. Let's write it to my low intellectual level.
  15. -7
    4 August 2016 10: 31
    The fact that ours flied less often is a banal explanation. Our planes were of very poor quality. Plants with a large percentage of unskilled personnel were evacuated and could not provide sufficient quality. Breakdowns of the casing, sagging rods, the destruction of engines were a daily occurrence. And knocking out oil, problems with the chassis and the electrics were not even considered serious. Aircraft even deducted for wear.
    1. +2
      4 August 2016 11: 31
      Quote: Kenneth
      Our planes were of very poor quality.

      what period of the war?
      after all, everything strongly depended on many factors, factories, time, but all the same, the planes were somehow "finished" already in parts.
      1. -1
        4 August 2016 13: 39
        In all periods. And this applies not only to aircraft. When the cast armor cracked without any adversaries, this caused certain questions. Of course, the technologies worked out grew experience but the principle is unchanged. To do something high-quality, you need good equipment and qualified personnel. The same yak can accelerate to a range of at least 700 km, but if it has badly glued shingles in the troops, it is badly skinned, the rear engine is locked in the released state, the hatches hang out, the engine knocks out oil and lacks power, then only the tactics described by the author save ten on one. It always works, and so we won.
    2. 0
      4 August 2016 19: 18
      you really decide for yourself. either aircraft of poor quality, or they are written off for wear. only your used equipment is written off for wear.
    3. +1
      5 August 2016 04: 05
      IL-2 demanded a bulkhead digester after about every 4 sorties.
      Usually, Ilya made one flight a day. That is, every 4 days, forced rest for 2-3 three days.
  16. -1
    4 August 2016 11: 13
    Quote: Alex_59
    the Germans won at the expense of the speed of their actions, managing to defeat the enemy before he managed to mobilize his army and industry. With small Poland and France this was easily succeeded. Great Britain saved the strait and stubbornness of English sailors and pilots. And Russia was saved by the vastness, the stamina of the Red Army fighters and the willingness of industry to work in the war of attrition.

    Better draw this nonsense from the article. You absolutely do not understand the processes that took place in Europe before and during WW2. More or less true about Poland. The rest is complete nonsense.
    Quote: Alex_59
    By and large, the Germans lost the war at the very beginning of 1944.

    By and large, the Germans lost the war in early September 1939. When France and Britain declared war on them. Further events only slightly lengthened or shortened the existence of the German Reich. But its end was a foregone conclusion even then, at the beginning of September 1939.
    Quote: ignoto
    The Germans did not prepare for a protracted war alone.

    They did not prepare for a protracted war at all. We did not count on such a reaction from France and Britain to their actions in Poland. And then, after France, they also did not count on the hard-to-explain and irrational stubbornness of the British. Otherwise, there would be no flight of "crazy Hess". After all, the British could not win in a protracted war by definition, and this was understandable back in 1940. But nevertheless, to the surprise of the Germans, they got involved in it. As a result, Britain lost from 2 MB quite naturally, although it won the war itself.
    Quote: ignoto
    It was planned that Britain would enter the war. She entered, but on the other side.

    How are you feeling?
    1. +6
      4 August 2016 14: 28
      Quote: oking
      After all, the British could not win in a protracted war, by definition, and this was clear back in 1940. Nevertheless, they got involved in it, to the surprise of the Germans. As a result, Britain from 2 MB quite naturally lost, although she won the war itself.

      Some people just didn't take into account that the United States is behind the Britons, for whom the war in Europe is manna from heaven. The weakening of the main competitors, the possible collapse of the colonial system with the opening of previously closed markets, the infusion of Europeans on American loans - for the sake of all this, it is worth supporting Britain, even if it does not give a damn about its laws and international law. For the United Europe under the Reich does not need the United States - they need weak and dependent "winners" in the war.
      As a result, the FDR invents a Lend-Lease and starts pumping up its war hamster with weapons and supplies - even at the expense of its own army. And here for the Germans everything becomes extremely sad - with such a rear, Britain is invincible.
      Actually, the tasks of the German to expand the living space are almost solved, he is ready to agree with the Englishman on the consolidation of the new status quo. But in response from the window one can only hear the proud: "f ** k you!", Singing "God save the King!" and stones are flying from a slingshot. The German tries to use siege tactics, not letting the Englishman out of his room. However, an American periodically visits the Englishman as a neutral, carrying provisions, booze and stones in his pockets. In retaliation, the Englishman, in turn, sets his dog against Frau German in the yard, preventing her from going to the store. As a result, the German is forced to exchange provisions (vodka and grandmother's jam) for instruments from the Russian. Angered, he decides to end the Englishman on his territory, but does not know how to neutralize the dog. As a palliative, he tries to throw stones at the Englishman. Both sides tear their wives' underpants and bras into elastic bands, and the bloody Battle of the Slingshots begins. After numerous casualties on both sides, it stops for a complete lack of results. Later, historians will find out that the German was closer to victory - he had more cowards left. But then he did not know about it.
    2. -1
      4 August 2016 19: 22
      Quote: oking
      After all, the British could not win in a protracted war, by definition, and this was clear back in 1940.

      I consider this a masterpiece. they couldn’t win at all. well, no matter how. but won.
      Quote: oking
      You absolutely do not understand those processes

      enlighten us orphans. if you understand, then share.
      Quote: oking
      As a result, Britain from 2 MB quite naturally lost, although she won the war itself.

      I want to answer with your own words
      Quote: oking
      How are you feeling?
    3. 0
      5 August 2016 10: 15
      Quote: oking
      After all, the British could not win in a protracted war by definition, and this was clear back in 1940. Nevertheless, they got involved in it, to the surprise of the Germans.

      This is debatable - Britain had a fleet of strategic bombers (and the Reich did not) and dominance in the oceans, relying on a US ally (and the Nazi Reich was not close).
      1. -3
        5 August 2016 13: 41
        Quote: Warrior2015
        This is debatable - Britain had a fleet of strategic bombers (and the Reich did not) and dominance in the oceans, relying on a US ally (and the Nazi Reich was not close).

        With the diversion of resources and efforts to wage war, Britain, the leading country in the world until WW2, unequivocally allowed itself to jump up behind a competing ally in the form of the United States. Those. she could not win from the debilitating 2MB with their active participation in any case. The only chance to maintain its leading position in the world, and this gives a lot of advantages, it remained in the absence of a major war in Europe. Or in the conduct of such a war with their minimal participation.
        The Germans were well aware of this too, so they behaved so impudently before the beginning of WW2. In poplit it is customary to interpret this phenomenon as "Hitler was incredibly lucky." In fact, luck has nothing to do with it, just the Germans had a sober calculation.
        Their calculation was also fully confirmed in the fact that the French would not want to become cannon fodder for the second time for the Britons. And they did not want to.
        But with the Britons there was a misfire. Even "crazy Hess" could not convince them that it is better to lose a little bit, and only in Europe than everything, and in the whole world. The British went for broke, and miscalculated, which is why they ended up losing from WW2.
        What did the British put on? To the USSR. For starters, they were well aware that Hitler and the whiskered Joe would not get along peacefully under any circumstances. Therefore, they planned that Germany and the USSR would exhaust themselves with a protracted war ON OWN RESOURCES. Then they will appear, on a white horse, and chop everyone into cabbage. Little blood and on foreign territory. Retaining leadership in the world.
        In the main, they were not mistaken, Germany attacked the USSR. But it could not even have crossed their minds that the incredibly large armada of military equipment, with the colossal mobility that the USSR had, could be defeated within a few weeks. And the USSR already in September 1941. will agree to a lot, if only to maintain the power of the mustachioed Joe. And not east of the Volga and the North. Dvina, and in the space of the entire pre-war USSR. And at the same time, the services of American industry will be needed, which will put the whole world in a subordinate position to the Yankees.
        As a result, the war assumed the most unfavorable character for the British. According to its results, they lost world leadership, which is why they lost a lot. Although they won the war. Such a victory is usually called pyrrhic.
        Quote: DrVintorez
        I think

        In the accounts. It is advisable for you to count mainly on accounts. It will be more appropriate.
        Quote: DrVintorez
        they couldn’t win at all. well, no matter how. but won

        Learn Russian, it will come in handy. As you learn, try to understand the difference between the terms "won" and "won". These are not synonyms, if that.
        Quote: DrVintorez
        you want to answer

        Sometimes it's better to chew than talk.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Just some people did not take into account that the United States stood behind the Britons, for whom the war in Europe is manna from heaven.

        Accepted. But he hoped that the British would make concessions. Actually, the British also understood everything perfectly. But in assessing the real power of Germany and the USSR in the summer of 1941. they miscalculated large. And so, according to the results of 2MB, despite the victory, they were punished.
        1. -1
          5 August 2016 16: 54
          "According to its results, they lost world leadership, which is why they lost a lot. Although they won the war. Such a victory is usually called Pyrrhic" /////

          Pyrrhic is still usually called a victory with large losses of personnel.
          This does not apply to the British in World War II. But in the first they lost a lot of people.
          The British colonial empire would break up anyway. Empires have exhausted themselves.
          And they lost industrial leadership to the United States long before World War II.
        2. 0
          8 August 2016 14: 03
          Quote: oking
          In the accounts. It is advisable for you to count mainly on accounts. It will be more appropriate.

          rude. in vain
          Quote: oking
          Learn Russian, it will come in handy. As you learn, try to understand the difference between the terms "won" and "won".

          your drain is counted.
          Quote: oking
          Sometimes it's better to chew than talk.

          the drain is counted in the third. time. do not lie accounts?
  17. +3
    4 August 2016 11: 17
    This is confirmed by statistics. For example, the same Hartman, having made 1400 sorties, met with the enemy and fought in 60% of sorties. Rally - even more, in 78% of flights had contact with enemy aircraft. And Kozhedub only fought in every third flight, Pokryshkin in every fourth. The Germans achieved victory on average in every third flight. Ours - in every eighth.
    Always happy when comparing meters to kilograms, and percentages to pieces. smile So you can get any convenient result. In fact, the statistics of victories and departures looked as follows:
    Hartmann 1400 sorties 825 battles 352 wins
    Kozhedub 330 sorties 120 fights 62 aircraft
    Pokryshkin 650 sorties (150 for reconnaissance) 156 battles 59 in person + 6 group
    Now let's see the ratio
    sorties to battles
    Hartman - 1,7 (in every second combat flight)
    Kozhedub 2,75 (in every 3 sorties a fight)
    Pokryshkin 4,17 (excluding intelligence 3,21)
    now crashes to downed
    Hartman - 3,98 (i.e. victory in every fourth departure)
    Kozhedub - 5,32
    Pokryshkin - 10 (without intelligence 7,69)
    battles to the downed
    Hartmann - 2,34
    Kozhedub 1,94 (i.e. Kozhedub shot down with more intensity than Hartmann)
    Pokryshkin -2,4
    That is, the indicators are the same. If Pokryshkin and Kozhedub would have fought as many fights as Hartmann, then:
    Pokryshkin 825 / 2,4 = 343,75
    Kozhedub 825 / 1,94 = 426,25
    In conclusion, I want to say - the indicators of the hunter Hartman do not differ from the indicators of Kozhedub and Pokryshkin
    In terms of fighting to the downed - Pokryshkin and Hartman are almost the same
    Kozhedub is better.
    However, this is a math calculation. Pokryshkin is an excellent scout and mainly covered his units (the period of free hunting brought him 7 aircraft in 7 sorties)
    Kozhedub - actually a free hunter since 44 years
    Hartmann s 43
    so, the comparison of the percentage and the number of departures proposed by the author is not too correct.
    Hans Philippe: “Fighting with two dozen Russian fighters or with the English Spitfires was a joy. And no one thought about the meaning of life. But when seventy huge “Flying Fortresses” fly at you, all your past sins come before your eyes.
    These words contain more psychology than facts. How many fighters were shot down by fighters, and how many - by bombers? And it seems that Herr Philip does not remember Il-2 and Pe-2, mainly because while these planes were fulfilling their mission, he had to fight with our cover fighters. And this German ace died, nevertheless, in a battle not with flying fortresses, but was shot down by a fighter.
    It is believed that Philip was shot down by an American pilot Robert S. Johnson. Hans managed to parachute, but he did not open.
    In general, the Grün Herz squadron, in which this pilot fought for the most part, did not intercept bombers very often. Free hunting was their task.
    1. +1
      4 August 2016 22: 38
      Quote: Verdun
      And this German ace died, nevertheless, in a battle not with flying fortresses, but was shot down by a fighter.

      Which was among the numerous escorts, and Phillip flew out to intercept the formation of "strategists".
      And he tried to replay in turns (like Thunderbolt was) - and they fell almost to low heights.
  18. 0
    4 August 2016 11: 19
    Quote: Verdun
    In general, Grün Herz Squadron, in which this pilot fought for the most part, did not intercept bombers very often. Free hunting was their task.

    Here Herr Philip was not bad.

    Hans Philip was a pilot with a hunter instinct. He led the hunt cunningly and deeply thoughtfully, foreseeing the thinking and actions of his opponents. For this reason, he preferred solitary hunting, rather than the so-called "dump". About fights with groups of bombers, he said that "this is the same as racking one's head at the door of a barn when no one knows what to do." His flight, dance, could be compared with a letter that was understood only by specialists. Therefore, he was very successful both in Lille and in Riga.
    - from the memoirs of Hannes Trautloft
    So, someone managed to shoot down bombers, such as Walter Dahl
    Among the 45 victories of Walter Dahl in the West, 30 four-engine bombers (23 “B-17” “Flying Fortress” and 7 “B-24” “Liberator”)
    , but someone doesn’t really ...
  19. 0
    4 August 2016 11: 35
    Reading the comments, not only here, but also to other articles, one is amazed at the assessment of German technology. Everything was better with them, but everything was bad with us! The seditious question creeps in, and then who won? Our equipment was improved and modernized throughout the war; it was more difficult for the Germans. As A.S. Yakovlev wrote, all modernizations of the Bf-109 led to a heavier aircraft and a deterioration in its flight qualities. Maybe this was the reason that after the 43rd, German pilots evaded air combat, and not because, according to the recollections of veterans, the aces were knocked out, but the youth did not know how?
    1. 0
      4 August 2016 14: 15
      Weighting, including due to additional reservations, which Yakovlev did not do in principle. That is, taking care of the pilot is not about Yakovlev.
      1. +1
        4 August 2016 19: 00
        Quote: Civilian62
        Weighting, including due to additional reservations, which Yakovlev did not do in principle. That is, taking care of the pilot is not about Yakovlev.

        A.S. Yakovlev was disliked by the liberals for the fact that he was deputy people's commissar for new technology during the war, while no one removed the duties of the Civil Code from him. As one famous writer wrote: "To get into the credibility of Stalin, he designed a high-speed fighter ...". This writer modestly did not respond to my comment. Maybe it's enough to listen to the liberals and return the good name to the great aircraft designer, who had to work on the crest of new scientific achievements, invent the helicopter, civilian ships, cruise missiles, carrier-based aircraft, aircraft with GDP.
    2. +3
      4 August 2016 14: 21
      Quote: Igor V
      Our equipment was improved and modernized throughout the war; it was more difficult for the Germans.

      the fact is that we were catching them and not they
    3. +1
      4 August 2016 14: 37
      Quote: Igor V
      Reading the comments, not only here, but also to other articles, one is amazed at the assessment of German technology. Everything was better with them, but everything was bad with us! The seditious question creeps in, and then who won? Our equipment was improved and modernized throughout the war; it was more difficult for the Germans. As A.S. Yakovlev wrote, all modernizations of the Bf-109 led to a heavier aircraft and a deterioration in its flight qualities. Maybe this was the reason that after the 43rd, German pilots evaded air combat, and not because, according to the recollections of veterans, the aces were knocked out, but the youth did not know how?


      Maybe you just read the relevant literature - you don’t have to ask children's questions ...
      1. +2
        4 August 2016 18: 47
        Relevant literature is Rezun?
        Then you answer the child's question. Why were the winners' technique worse than the defeated? How could this happen? Also, for example, point me to a German fighter similar to the Yak-9, with almost 29 different upgrades. Come on, do not hesitate, otherwise write profoundly "our technique was worse" and everyone can shut up, and prove right away into the bushes.
        I declare that our technique was better. There were specialized fighters for escort, for long-range escort, to work as a front-line bomber, attack aircraft, anti-tank, etc. This is so, from memory, and look at the books, then there is not enough space to list.
  20. +1
    4 August 2016 12: 42
    MIIT! That is, you acknowledge the stupidity of the German command and its generals, since they got involved in the war with the Soviet Union, without being injured at the same time as personnel and without riveting any equipment for their army. lol
  21. +4
    4 August 2016 12: 51
    And in addition to the above. We also heard that the "invincible German machine" was defeated by the "general frost" and the "barbarism" of the citizens of the Soviet Union, who fought against the rules (fought to the death). tongue
  22. +1
    4 August 2016 13: 11
    well, everything is quite convincing, for me, the moment of a noticeably smaller number of their bomber assault aircraft remained unclear, and, nevertheless, the validity of the choice of our main aircraft il-2 instead of ne-2?
  23. +5
    4 August 2016 14: 00
    Quote: oking
    Better draw this nonsense from the article. You absolutely do not understand the processes that took place in Europe before and during WW2. More or less true about Poland. The rest is complete nonsense.

    Wow! The folder has gone to the site. Shy baby under the benches - cabbage will reign over with intelligence.
    Quote: oking
    By and large, the Germans lost the war in early September 1939. When France and Britain declared war on them.

    Well, so what! Two great European superpowers. We Russians are clearly not a couple to them! Only France merged in a month with 5 million. army (in the mode of declared war on Germany !!!), and the Great Britons barely took their feet from the continent.

    Quote: oking
    But its end was a foregone conclusion even then, at the beginning of September 1939.

    Do you take into account that the USSR and the Reich were on very good terms in 1939? The non-belligerent Soviet Union received military equipment from the belligerent Third Reich for its goods. And name at least one reason why Stalin had to change the current situation? You make a very interesting conclusion. Germany's chances, especially after the defeat of France in 1940, and even with the raw material potential of the USSR behind their back, were very good. And the "light elves" did not hesitate to trade with the Nazis. In 1940. Britain's affairs were very poor.

    Quote: oking
    They did not count on such a reaction from France and Britain to their actions in Poland.

    What was the "reaction"? Blabber and announce anything. Where is the real fighting on the part of France at least?

    Quote: oking
    How are you feeling?

    It feels good, but it would be nice for you to read about plans for bombing forces of the oil producing regions of the USSR by RAF forces.
    1. 0
      5 August 2016 12: 21
      Quote: DesToeR
      Only France merged in a month with 5 million. the army

      As soon as the French realized that the 2nd series of WW1 was coming, they immediately merged quite naturally. Because they did not want to serve as cannon fodder for the Anglo-Saxon interests a second time. I do not understand the "immense surprise of the public" in this regard. Exactly the same as the French in 1940, in 1918. the Bolsheviks of Ulyanov did, however, their motivating reasons were different. But the rhetoric is exactly the same: "the war is imperialist, Anglo-German, and we do not need it."
      Quote: DesToeR
      and GreatBritish barely took their feet off the continent.

      So they were not going to seriously fight there; the Expeditionary Force had no strength. So, more for the moral support of the future cannon fodder, the French.
      Quote: DesToeR
      And you take into account that the USSR and the Reich were in very good relations in 1939.

      And what kind of force is this significant, the USSR in those years? Who in general took it into account and where? Yes, and why? A backward country, the whole advantage of which was that it possessed great mobility potential. Mustachioed Joe, if there weren’t a doo, he wouldn’t share it with the Germans. For a variety of reasons. Therefore, there was no threat to the Anglo-Saxons of the USSR under the leadership of the mustachioed Joe.
      Quote: DesToeR
      And name at least one reason why Stalin had to change the current situation?

      You only asked for one. I will name it. In 1941. indeed, there was a very favorable moment to take over the whole of Europe with one blow. At the same time he rendered a "service" to the Anglo-Saxons by defeating their enemy. Then, of course, much would have to be returned to the Anglo-Saxons. But in any case, the USSR would have received much more than in 1945. And with simply incomparable sacrifices.
      Mustachioed Joe, apparently, was planning to act closer to the end of 1941. But in reality, everything went completely wrong. As a result, losses increased order, so this is 2. The war 2 times skated rink through the territory of the USSR. And when sharing the booty, the Anglo-Saxons threw crumbs to the USSR. In the end, he also squeezed it during the division of Germany, taking away Finland, Austria and Greece. And traditionally showing cookies in relation to Turkey and the straits.
      Quote: DesToeR
      The chances of Germany, especially after the defeat of France in 1940, and even with the raw materials potential of the USSR behind them, were very good.

      Only in your imagination. Mustachioed Joe was not a suicide at all. And unlike you, I understood the essence of the situation in Europe and the world.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Yes, you can say anything. Where is the real fighting from France at least?

      See above. The French were planning something like a Cold War. They were not going to get involved in a hot and long-term slaughter.
      Quote: DesToeR
      but it would be nice for you to read about plans for the bombing by forces of the RAF in the oil-producing regions of the USSR.

      So what? The bombing of the oil supplier to Germany, with which they are at war, is this called "to enter the war on the side of Germany"? In 1941. and under a less weighty pretext, the USSR occupied northern Iran.
  24. 0
    4 August 2016 14: 19
    I'm picking up the cons now. But my opinion is unequivocal - an article with some far-fetched left-wing figures and quotes from "invincible" Nazi soldiers was written not to study historical truth, but to throw rotten conclusions into the mind. According to the article, only the following is clear, that in the east the Germans fought with small forces, for them it was an easy walk (hunt), the most terrible for German pilots were battles with American bombers. And of course, the monstrous difference in the losses of the aircraft of the parties. Where are we gray-faced before the Germans and Americans. Yes, and the rest is written in the same spirit. Only here is what to do with the confirmed figures - the loss of the German Air Force - 85.650 aircraft; the USSR Air Force - 47.844 aircraft. , plus about 1941 thousand captured aircraft. Apparently all the aircraft were destroyed by the allies. And somehow the presence of German aircraft on the eastern front over the years does not fit into these figures. All this fraud is reminiscent of the situation when the Viceroy of Italy, Eugene Beauharnepo, one of the commanders of Napoleon's troops, boasted in his memoirs that one soldier of Napoleon's troops killed 1944-8186 of our soldiers in battles. And the fact that out of 11408 thousand Napoleon's troops returned from Russia only about 19053 thousand, so apparently they self-destructed. Maybe it’s already enough on the bones of our ancestors, the great winners, to scribble all sorts of ideas of charlatans.


    Т
    1. 0
      4 August 2016 15: 55
      You pick up the minuses, since you need to compare carefully.
      85000 from the Germans are military and non-military losses, in addition, they lost about 20 thousand in schools. 47000 from the USSR is military, and the general - 106000. And as for the Americans - in 44 they alone in Europe lost more than the USSR. 11000 against 9500. And we must remember that the British in 44 lost 7000 aircraft.
      1. +1
        5 August 2016 00: 37
        The Germans had normal schools, if there were 4 times more, then on the Eastern Front the sky was clear of German aviation. All these tales, it has long been proven in many studies that they often inflated their non-combat losses in order to hide military ones. Now I don’t remember the exact numbers, but not the Germans’ combat losses, why were they more than twice as much as ours, and this despite their undeniably higher organization and discipline?
        1. +2
          5 August 2016 10: 10
          Just the opposite. The Germans out of about 100 thousand aircraft losses - more than 60 thousand combat, the rest non-military and in schools, our 106 thousand total and 46 thousand combat losses.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. +1
      4 August 2016 22: 33
      Quote: Just a human
      And the fact that from the 610 thousand of Napoleon’s troops only about 50 thousand returned from Russia, apparently they self-destructed.

      Well, actually a little more, and from 430 thousand.

      Well, at the same time, compare the losses of the Russian army - even when pursuing the retreating French. There was almost nothing to pursue on the Polish border - if you compare the armada that emerged from the Tarutino camp.
  25. +1
    4 August 2016 14: 19
    But for some reason you do not remember either the Russian Pe-2 or Il-2, or the English Lancaster, Halifax and Stirling. These guys, who scare you with dozens of inversion tracks in the sky, actually fly to kill your wives and children, and you think about girls. It is a pity that there will be no answer, but I want to ask - were you really going to win this survival war with this attitude?


    How much inexplicable pathos - the author seems to have just come from an air battle, what is taken to comment on the words - even an enemy, but who went into a real battle ...
    A lot of emotions, not interesting pathos and banter, but nothing new in the case - article minus
    1. +2
      4 August 2016 20: 58
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      A lot of emotions, not interesting pathos and banter, but nothing new in the case - article minus

      Paphos and banter only once in two parts of the article - I think pathos and banter in the case. However, thank you for the criticism. Personally, I think that moderate dilution with emotions animates the text. I do not want to write as in the memoirs of Soviet marshals - you can fall asleep.
  26. +2
    4 August 2016 14: 27
    A total of US Air Force gunners claim more than 6200 downed German fighters and about 5000 more in the number of likely victories (damaged or shot down - not installed). And these are only Americans, but there were also British ...

    The British on heavy bombers almost did not take part in daytime raids - they bombed at night on squares, a rare target for the English shooter could be a single night Luftwaffe fighter.

    Memoirs
    Tripp Miles
    Air war in the sky of Western Europe
    http://militera.lib.ru/memo/english/tripp_m01/index.html
  27. +1
    4 August 2016 15: 22
    This year, the heroic allies of the USSR - the USA and Great Britain - got out of suspended animation

    At least it’s not correct, it’s so derogatory to treat coalition allies.

    If the Anglo-Saxons were distinguished by night bombing in the center of cities (i.e. against the population), then the Americans launched a deliberate air attack, purposefully destroying the military-economic potential of the Third Reich.
    Starting from military factories (which were relatively quickly restored, and later more thoughtfully, destroying key industries like synthetic fuel plants, ball-bearing industries, etc.

    And this is a significant contribution of the Allies, which cannot be underestimated, and even less so contemptuously characterized - the author can be blamed for bias and cast doubt on his competence as a connoisseur of history.

    Caution is necessary to draw any hasty conclusions to those who know about the war from books and films.
    Therefore, as a source of information, this article is superficial. This is not even a factual study, but a "special", biased interpretation by the author of some generalized information from several books, which themselves are secondary sources.
    1. +3
      4 August 2016 20: 56
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      At least it’s not correct, it’s so derogatory to treat coalition allies.

      I treat the allies exactly as they deserve it. Lendlis? Fine! Thanks friends. Second front? Perfectly! Thanks friends! But only until the 43 year, there is nothing to thank for. The bombing of Germany became a real significant factor only after the 43 year. I even attached a table. And from 41 to 43 there was only fuss in Africa and war at sea - it is simply incomparable with our efforts.
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      This is not even a factual study, but a "special", biased interpretation by the author of some generalized information from several books, which themselves are secondary sources.

      I do not see your articles. Write better. I guarantee thanks!
    2. +2
      4 August 2016 21: 53
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      biased interpretation by the author of some generalized information from several books, which themselves are secondary sources.

      Although I'm sorry, is direct speech of veterans a secondary source? No, here let me disagree. Read the books of the compiler of these interviews Drabkin. What is the biased interpretation here? If dozens of veteran pilots who fought at different times, on different techniques, on different fronts, they say essentially one thing. I just squeezed their words into a compact text, slightly adding conclusions.
  28. +4
    4 August 2016 17: 59
    A little surprised at the low consumption of artillery ammunition in 39-40gg the Wehrmacht considered this one of the consequences and patterns of Blitzkrieg and greatly reduced the industry's application for the future, but it turned out to be very sad!
    1. 0
      4 August 2016 18: 30
      Quote: andrewkor
      A little surprised at the low consumption of artillery ammunition in 39-40gg the Wehrmacht considered this one of the consequences and patterns of Blitzkrieg and greatly reduced the industry's application for the future, but it turned out to be very sad!

      yeah, and at the same time for the whole war they shot much more than us, for some types at times
  29. +1
    4 August 2016 19: 29
    Quote: Stas57
    yeah, and at the same time for the whole war they shot much more than us, for some types at times

    Dear, this is the second time I read about this "shot" from you on this site. Than the Nazis shot at times more than the USSR? Are there numbers? Particularly interesting is the data on divisional and corps artillery, which, in principle, "extended" the war.
    1. +2
      4 August 2016 20: 09
      Quote: DesToeR
      Dear, this is the second time I read about this "shot" from you on this site. Than the Nazis shot at times more than the USSR? Are there numbers? Particularly interesting is the data on divisional and corps artillery, which, in principle, "extended" the war.

      all
      to all but mortars, Isaev laid out.


      1943
      Regimental artillery

      we
      6760,83 76 mm regimental 27 g.


      7796 leIG18
      1495 sIG33

      Division and corps artillery, medium caliber
      we
      20780,8 76 mm div. 02/30-36
      100,83 76 mm mountain 09 g.
      175,5 76 mm mountain 38 g.
      ---
      142,9 107 mm push. 10/30 g.
      701,3 122 mm push. 31
      5474,78 122 mm howitzer.


      240,9 7,5-cm leFK 16 and 18
      26034 10,5-cm light howitzers leFH18
      1907 10-cm guns K18
      758,7 7,5-cm GebG36
      133,4 GebK15
      68,9 GebH40

      Caliber 152 mm and above

      934,7 152 mm howitzer.
      2364 152 mm gun-howitzer 37
      216,47 203 mm howitzer. 31


      6470 15-cm sFH18
      117 17-cm K
      404,6 21-cm Moerser 18.


      Germans by Fritz Khan
      ours according to the GAU records on the consumption of ammunition by the Red Army in 1943
    2. +3
      4 August 2016 20: 15
      Ammunition consumption of spacecraft for 1942 in thousand pieces in comparison with the Germans

      Regimental artillery

      6760,83 76 mm regimental 27 g.


      7796 leIG18
      1495 sIG33

      Medium-caliber artillery of the corps and divisions:

      10024,2 76 mm divisional
      322 107 mm cannon
      599,1 122 mm cannon
      4306,2 122 mm howitzer.

      17751 10-cm leFH18
      1210 10-cm K18

      The Germans shot almost 18 million units of 105-mm howitzer rounds against the 10 million 76-mm divisional units in our country.

      Artillery 152 mm and above

      706,3 152 mm howitzer.
      1508,8 152 mm gun howitzer
      107,4 203 mm howitzer.

      4482 15 cm sFH18
      339 21-cm Moerser
      25,6 17-cm K in Mrs. Laf.
    3. +1
      4 August 2016 20: 19
      1944

      Regimental artillery

      76 mm regimental 27 g. 6233,1
      76 mm regimental 43 g. 714,3

      7,5-cm leIG 10817
      15-cm sIG 2288

      Medium-caliber artillery of the corps and divisions:

      76 mm div. 02/30-36 24825,3
      85 mm cannon 447
      100 mm cannon 5,94
      107 mm push. 10/30 99,8
      122 mm push. 31 768,4
      122 mm howitzer. 7610,1
      Oddly enough, the 107-mm is larger than the 100-mm BS-3. Quite a lot of shot at 85-mm cannon, apparently anti-aircraft guns arr. 1939 g. In the role of anti-tank.

      10-cm leFH18 and leFH18 / 40 31105
      10-cm K18 2148

      Artillery 152 mm and above


      152 mm howitzer. 996,1
      152 mm howub.-push. 2537,1
      203 mm howitzer. 31 g. 167,77

      15 cm sFH18 6775
      21-cm Moerser 508
      17-cm K in Mrs. Laf 270
    4. +3
      4 August 2016 22: 57
      Quote: DesToeR
      Dear, this is the second time I read about this "shot" from you on this site. Than the Nazis shot at times more than the USSR?

      The issue of ammunition in Nazi Germany was taken very seriously,
      For example, a separate factory was built for the captured (and put into service) F-22, which produced "non-standard" shells with a caliber of 76,2 mm.
      1. +1
        6 August 2016 19: 44
        Quote: stalkerwalker
        For example, a separate factory was built for the captured (and put into service) F-22, which produced "non-standard" shells with a caliber of 76,2 mm.

        Well, actually there is a slight clarification. The sleeve for the 75 mm Pak40 and Pak36 (r) (and FK 39) was the same - 6340 St. Even the dulce was not pinched, the shells were exactly the same.
        But for the "regiment" (7.62 cm I. Kan. Haub. 290 (r) - russ. 27), the Germans produced cartridge cases. ZIP Code 6390 St.
        They also produced shells for both series of artillery rounds. Moreover, 76-mm shells were developed before the war. For example, OFS and BPS shells were arr. 38-39gg. A sub-caliber, arr. 1940
        Cartridges with a sleeve index 6390 St could be fired both from regiments and from unmodified divisions.
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Pyrrhic is still usually called a victory with large losses of personnel.

        Specifically, the term "Pyrrhic victory" has no meaning whatsoever about "loss of manpower".
        Quote: voyaka uh
        The British colonial empire would break up anyway. Empires have exhausted themselves.

        And to this day has not broken up. It just transformed and exists in a different form. Well, and more modest, of course. Tea is not the first in the world.
        Quote: voyaka uh
        And they lost industrial leadership to the United States long before World War II.

        This statement is somewhat exaggerated.
        Quote: Igor V
        I declare that our technique was better.

        Correctly. And reptilians have long been among us.
        Quote: DesToeR
        And were these non-standard shells accidentally from a French cannon? Didn’t the Germans bore the camera under the captured F-22s under them?

        For Soviet 76-mm cartridges, the sleeve was 385 mm long. And the French sleeve index Мlle 97 St was 350 mm long. And the bottom was a little less. Therefore, no.
  30. +1
    4 August 2016 23: 21
    Quote: Stas57
    all
    to all but mortars, Isaev laid out.

    I’ll go on a campaign to be enlightened ... I still don’t believe it. It does not agree with the tactics, the number of trunks of the USSR and Germany and the memories of veterans, especially fascists.
    1. +4
      4 August 2016 23: 39
      Quote: DesToeR
      memories of veterans, especially fascists.

      any veteran will say that the enemy artillery and aviation wow, but ours and not to see, because the enemy hits him, and his own "somewhere there"
  31. 0
    4 August 2016 23: 25
    Quote: stalkerwalker
    For example, a separate factory was built for the captured (and put into service) F-22, which produced "non-standard" shells with a caliber of 76,2 mm.

    And were these non-standard shells accidentally from a French cannon? Didn’t the Germans bore the camera under the captured F-22s under them?
    1. +2
      5 August 2016 20: 56
      Quote: DesToeR
      And these non-standard shells were accidentally not from a French cannon.

      Name the gun ...
      1. +1
        5 August 2016 21: 02
        Quote: stalkerwalker
        Name the gun ...

        Big taakaaya fellowHuh? what laughing
  32. -1
    5 August 2016 10: 23
    Hard, bloody, dirty, scary and continuous work. It was possible to withstand only because you were defending your homeland. It doesn't smell like sports here


    Thank you, Grandfathers, for your work !!!

    The modern office Russian generation would not have forgotten WORK ... the enemy at sunset is as evil and cunning as then, but what are we?
  33. +1
    5 August 2016 12: 12
    Hans Philip wrote so as to please his western friends after the war.
    A fighter pilot can always evade a battle with heavy bombers and, after firing anti-aircraft artillery, do the score on damaged aircraft from artillery, which lagged behind. Many of these planes did not beat any sense of attack as they could not reach their bases.
    That anti-aircraft gunners could not evade the battle.
    1. +1
      5 August 2016 12: 27
      Quote: Kostadinov
      Hans Philip wrote so as to please his western friends after the war.

      Hans Philip was not going to please anyone after the war. He died in the year 43. Sit down, two.
      1. +1
        5 August 2016 14: 54
        Someone else conveyed the words of Philips to descendants after the war. This earned the other five.
  34. 0
    5 August 2016 23: 02
    Good article, the first unexpected aspect - the effectiveness always depends on the specific task, our fighters have the main task - to give attack aircraft and bombers to work on the ground. And they have "athletes". And the second aspect - about the strategic task - the blitzkrieg successfully worked in the European theater of operations - from 1939 to 1941. And then the story was repeated with Napoleon, whose army by the winter of 1812 ceased to be an army and turned into a herd of marauders due to the lack of logistical supplies.
  35. +1
    6 August 2016 10: 14
    Quote: stalkerwalker
    Name the gun ...

    If I knew this gun, then at the end of my sentences the question mark would not stand. If you do not understand, I asked you a question, in the form of a questionable sentence of a dubious nature.
  36. +2
    6 August 2016 10: 51
    Quote: oking
    But the rhetoric is exactly the same: "the war is imperialist, Anglo-German, and we do not need it."

    Blah blah blah. After the declaration of war on Germany, nothing on the "western front" changed for the Reich.
    Quote: oking
    So they were not going to seriously fight there; the Expeditionary Force had no strength.

    Britain had plenty of time since September 1939 to build up the forces of the so-called. "Expeditionary Force" on the continent. But ... they didn't do anything. Why?
    Quote: oking
    And what kind of force is this significant, the USSR in those years? Who in general took it into account and where? Yes, and why? A backward country, the whole advantage of which was that it possessed great mobility potential. Mustachioed Joe, if there weren’t a doo, he wouldn’t share it with the Germans. For a variety of reasons. Therefore, there was no threat to the Anglo-Saxons of the USSR under the leadership of the mustachioed Joe.

    Well, about the lag that you went too far. But I agree with the rest, especially about the threat, only for Hitler there was no threat, but there was an endless stream of strategic raw materials for money and technology, as now however ...
    Quote: oking
    You asked for only one. I will name it. In 1941 indeed there was a very favorable moment to capture all of Europe with one blow.

    Here you are all about some kind of "blow" in 1941. (or in 1942) write, today you are hysterical about "Russian aggression", you are filling in fables. But none of you ask the question: WHY DOES RUSSIA NEED IT? What would the USSR gain by capturing Western Europe? Absolutely NOTHING, except for a heap of hemorrhoids with a dozen other motley, warring countries without any useful nishtyak. Western Europe has no value for Russia in terms of occupation, but it is an interesting trading partner. Here is Stalin and TRADE with Europe. Why bring the Red Army there? At least one "expert" can give an answer to a simple question WHY RUSSIA TO INVOLVE EUROPE?
    Quote: oking
    Only in your imagination. Mustachioed Joe was not a suicide at all.

    You are not familiar with trade statistics between the USSR and Germany? Do not know how the USSR appeared cruiser "Petropavlovsk" in 1940? Yes Mustachioed Joe was clearly not a suicide, he was a genius of all time.
    Quote: oking
    See above. The French were planning something like a Cold War.

    What preconditions did the French have for the Cold War? An anti-tank ditch called the English Channel? Nuclear missiles "Satan" on alert? With the same success, they could have planned the total surrender of the Wehrmacht soldiers for the next anniversary of the capture of the Bastille.
    1. 0
      6 August 2016 18: 40
      Quote: DesToeR
      After the declaration of war on Germany, nothing on the "western front" changed for the Reich.

      Really? Frontier guards on the line of contact?
      But ... they did nothing. Why?

      Read my other comments. I will not repeat myself.
      Well, about the lag that you went too far.

      From what? You don't want to take a sober look at the "legendary weapon of victory"? From it it is quite possible to roughly understand the level of backwardness of the USSR.
      and for Hitler there was no threat

      Hitler did not agree with you. And its rear in the upcoming great war with Britain in June 1941. decided to secure.
      hysterical today about "Russian aggression"

      You do not slander me. I'm nothing like that NEVER did not write.
      WHY DOES IT NEED RUSSIA? What would the USSR get by capturing Western Europe?

      Try not to juggle the facts. Incl. not to confuse Russia and the USSR. Moreover, try not to confuse the times of "socialism" (ie the times of the mustachioed Joe) and "developed socialism" (the times of Brezhnev) in the USSR.
      Here you are all about some kind of "blow" in 1941. (or in 1942) write

      Here, for example, the film "Great Citizen" in 1938. In 1940. he received the 1st degree Stalin Prize. Those. the coolest award in the USSR.

      What kind of talk can there be after that?
      Western Europe has no value for Russia in terms of occupation

      I have never written a single word on the topic of the politics of modern Russia. No need to ascribe to me your fantasies.
      Here is Stalin and TRADE with Europe. Why bring the Red Army there? At least one "expert" can give an answer to a simple question WHY RUSSIA TO INVOLVE EUROPE?

      You already got it, fastening the mustachioed Joe to Russia. Mustachioed Joe is a figure from the USSR.
      You are not familiar with trade statistics between the USSR and Germany?

      Sign. Crumbs.
      he was a genius of all time.

      This was evil genius. Moreover, it is not obligatory at all; it might well not have been. A strange and inexplicable turn of history, which cost all the peoples of the USSR dearly.
      Quote: DesToeR
      What preconditions did the French have for the Cold War?

      Maginot Line.
  37. +3
    6 August 2016 20: 29
    Quote: oking
    Really? Frontier guards on the line of contact?

    Of course not, they ... played balls.
    Quote: oking
    Read my other comments. I will not repeat

    There is a chronology of historical events, and in your comments only your personal opinion, i.e. nothing
    Quote: oking
    From what? You don't want to take a sober look at the "legendary weapon of victory"? From it it is quite possible to roughly understand the level of backwardness of the USSR.

    At the level of the best examples of its time. Generally better.
    Quote: oking
    Hitler did not agree with you. And its rear in the upcoming great war with Britain in June 1941. decided to secure.

    A good solution, you won’t say anything. Throw active hostilities with a country that declared war on you in order to secure its "rear" from a non-belligerent and reliable trading partner in the face of the USSR. There is no logic in your conclusion at all.
    Quote: oking
    Try not to juggle the facts. Including do not confuse Russia and the USSR.

    But I am not confusing anything - the USSR and Russia are one and the same country for our geopolitical opponents. And there is no substitution of concepts, from the word at all.
    Quote: oking
    Moreover, try not to confuse the times of "socialism" (ie the times of the mustachioed Joe) and "developed socialism" (the times of Brezhnev) in the USSR.

    You know, this is not the first person who, instead of specific answers, gives me advice on the site. Although most likely the only one.
    Quote: oking
    What kind of talk can there be after that?

    These are arguments from the opera "apples in the snow ..." - a lot of emotions and no specifics. Where are the facts? Where are the plans for the attack, where is the strategic deployment, where is the general mobilization of industry and the army? You have an emptiness in your arguments and some snot about the evil ghostly Stalin and "aggressive Russia", just like today. But the declaration of war on the one hand and almost a year's engagement in masturbation on the other is a fact that has nothing to cover.
    Quote: oking
    You already got it, fastening the mustachioed Joe to Russia. Mustachioed Joe is a figure from the USSR.

    Do not smile at me with baby talk. The USSR and Russia are one and the same country.
    Quote: oking
    It was an evil genius.

    What are you saying ?! But W. Churchill was good? Especially in the British colonies he was remembered as an executioner and a butcher. And Truman was just a darling, that's just the only one who used nuclear weapons ... well, for the sake of democracy, of course.
    Quote: oking
    Maginot Line.

    Wow! Cool how! What happened? Why, then, with such a fortification, the "cold war" did not work for the French? Force Majeure? The action of "force majeure"? What "fairy tale" is in vogue about the "Maginot Line" today?
    1. 0
      6 August 2016 21: 28
      Quote: DesToeR
      they ... played balls.

      Yeah, the cards. On undressing.
      Quote: DesToeR
      At the level of the best examples of its time. Generally better.

      You are an amazing layman in almost all matters. Amazing simple.
      Quote: DesToeR
      in order to secure their "rear" from a non-belligerent and reliable trading partner in the face of the USSR.

      It turns out that the tired Joe was almost Hitler's dumb sidekick. How does this correlate with his "awful greatness"? After all, you know, tell me who your friend is and I will tell you who you are.
      You can’t even build the simplest logical chain. They themselves are already confused.
      Quote: DesToeR
      The USSR and Russia are one and the same country for our geopolitical opponents

      So, Mr. Belarusian geopolitics, Russia and the USSR, these are different states. Do not believe me, at least compare the Constitution of these states.
      Quote: DesToeR
      You have an emptiness in your arguments and some snot about the evil ghostly Stalin and "aggressive Russia", just like today.

      I'm already tired of you with your slander. Where have you read about "aggressive Russia"? That's ******. Constantly only does what he juggles.
      Quote: DesToeR
      and almost a year of masturbation

      Is this a mention by Freud?
      Quote: DesToeR
      The USSR and Russia are one and the same country.

      The head is not a bo-bo?
      Quote: DesToeR
      But W. Churchill was good?

      But why translate the arrows?
      Quote: DesToeR
      Well then, with such a fortification, the "cold war" did not work for the French

      Buy a book for yourself. And read everything there. Free educational program for you is over.
      Quote: DesToeR
      in your comments only your personal opinion, i.e. nothing

      You are bothering me. You do not like my opinion, I will relieve you of it. By bringing you to the emergency.
  38. -1
    7 August 2016 03: 39
    "... the war was lost by the Germans precisely at the beginning of 1944."

    And why then not in the 1945th?
  39. 0
    16 October 2016 13: 18
    Qualitative analysis. Nothing new, but considering that from time to time someone is "brought in" the publication, I consider it useful.
  40. 0
    9 December 2016 12: 37
    Germans took doping