Luftwaffe losses orientate on history?

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Barbos:

I do not make friends via net. What I want (wanted?) here is to learn more about the game and possibly about military history.

---

You're just here for the education, but your very first post is written to attack another and imply he is a liar? You're right, you aren't going to make any friends in this forum acting like that.

"You are completely wrong", "call someone a liar" - don't you find that my phrases are a bit more parliamentary?

---

You mean quotes like this:

Sounds pretty strong. Ed, you probably better rely on impartial stats rather than on suspicious articles.

---

"Suspicious" articles? That doesn't look parliamentary to me, it looks like a vague accusation of lying on my part.

Probably emotions of my opponent begin to prevail,

---

Hardly. Just another flame war, nothing worth getting worked up over.

so my interest for this topic is nearly over.

---

Well, that's at least one thing we can agree on.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Grisha:
Actually, to think that Soviet fighter formations could not handle the Luftwaffe in 1944 is incorrect.

---

I think we're both right. Given the Soviet emphasis on supporting ground troops as you point out, Soviet and German fighter formations would not frequently encounter one another. This would mean when they did encounter one another the Soviets would be at a disadvantage psychologically no matter what kind of plane they flew. This plus a lack of sufficient training for air-to-air combat left some Soviet pilots lacking a sufficient level of confidence. I'm not saying this happened all the time, and I'm not saying Soviet pilots couldn't be as good as the German fighters. Heck, the Soviets had at least one ace flying the I-16 of all things.

The pilot is just as important as the plane. So in some encounters some of the Soviet pilots, would try to avoid combat. As I've said this didn't happen all the time, so both our statements aren't contradictory.

[ November 06, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]</p>

[Grisha]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:



I think we're both right. Given the Soviet emphasis on supporting ground troops as you point out, Soviet and German fighter formations would not frequently encounter one another. This would mean when they did encounter one another the Soviets would be at a disadvantage psychologically no matter what kind of plane they flew. This plus a lack of sufficient training for air-to-air combat left some Soviet pilots lacking a sufficient level of confidence. I'm not saying this happened all the time, and I'm not saying Soviet pilots couldn't be as good as the German fighters. Heck, the Soviets had at least one ace flying the I-16 of all things.

The pilot is just as important as the plane. So in some encounters some of the Soviet pilots, would try to avoid combat. As I've said this didn't happen all the time, so both our statements aren't contradictory.

[ November 06, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

---

Your comment that you bring up a few times about the Soviet unwillingness to engage German fighters is only partially correct. This was more a characteristic of a percentage of VVS pilots during 1941-42. In May 1943 there was a famous air battle(famous in Russia at least) that transformed the VVS into an offensive force: Battle of the Kuban Bridgehead. In this air campaign, incidently, the P-39 as flown by 16 GvIAP was flown with great effect against the Luftwaffe. The battle was fought to a standstill with heavy losses on both sides, but it was the Luftwaffe that ceased operations, giving the field to the Soviets. During this campaign, many new tactics and operational concepts were developed by the VVS, and experienced aces like Pokryshkin and Glinka carried on this new sense of confidence and ability with them to other fledging pilots in the VVS. From this point on, the VVS was an offensive force. When you combine this 'coming of age' with the arrival of Soviet fighters like the La-5FN which was able to take on the 109 on equal terms, the days of gun-shy VVS pilots were few and far between. In 1944 there were numerous recorded incidents of VVS pilots in Yak-3 fighters engaging superior numbers of 109Gs and bringing handfuls of them down for the loss of a couple Yaks. The same happened with other fighters and units in the VVS. And its no secret that in 1944 there was an official Luftwaffe memo that went out to all Jagdgeschwaderen, ordering them to avoid engaging Soviet Yak fighters 'without the radiator below the nose'(Yak-3).

I'm not saying that no VVS pilots ever flinched from a German fighter, but from 1943 on, it was not any more than any other air force. At least not any more than the Jagdgeschwaderen.

[Mist]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

Why leave it uncommented?

if you are asking seriously Ed, I'll answer you.
This is a kind of etiquete to leave bullshit uncommented. I am not trying to insult you. I just want you to understand that your words could look very silly because they were based on nothing. I can also say that that I've read a book where couple of Luftwaffe acces were pounded to bits by one green Russian village boy pilot from VVS. This would be nothing more that bullshit. Yes, Russian view on WWII history is revised very much now. But it does not mean that WWII history writen in cooperation of German and other Western authors during the rage of cold war is pure white truth and old Russian view is all lies. You may saintly believe in Western way to interpretate history of WWII, but if you are objective man(I feel that you are), you should take into account other points of view.


You obviously think I made it up, otherwise you wouldn't be acting like a ...... well, I'll leave this uncommented for trivial reason.
[ November 02, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

---

very very funny. I do not recognise polite and correct Ed Cogburn.

[Mist]

Originally posted by Yogi Yohan:


ROFLOL! <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

---

oh yes, I believe Ed's words are worth to roll on the floor laughing. truly. He was so humorous, so funny. Let us all laugh again. rofl-rofl-rofl.

[Yogi Yohan]

Originally posted by Mist:

oh yes, I believe Ed's words are worth to roll on the floor laughing. truly. He was so humorous, so funny. Let us all laugh again. rofl-rofl-rofl.

---

Oh no! He's using sarcasm! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Seriously, Mist, I understand Ed's irritation. When did anyone demand that we present sources when giving an opinion on this newsgroup? It would have been far better to answer as you did. If Barbos thought Ed was misinformed he could simply have said so, instead of implying he was making things up. Given that the jibe was in response to such implications, I do indeed find it funny.

Please, do not hit me with more of your poignant sarcasm, I cannot stand it! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Mist:
if you are asking seriously Ed, I'll answer you.

---

Of course I wasn't asking seriously, I was responding sarcastically to his accusation that I was lying.

This is a kind of etiquete to leave bullshit uncommented.

---

Whose bullshit, Mist, his or mine? When someone calls me a liar at the very least I have the right to respond sarcastically by throwing his own words back at him. If you think I'm lying too, fine, we'll just drop this discussion as I have with Grisha. He's not calling me a liar thankfully but he clearly thinks that article I read is wrong too, and that's perfectly fine too. Since I don't remember where I saw that article and I can't back it up with something else (because I don't have any more time to spend looking for information on this subject) there isn't anything more I can say on the matter. I have to bow out of the debate.

At least I'm not resorting to name calling and foul language. I used his own words against him, that's not bullshit in my book, it made a point. As for etiquete, get real Mist. If you imply I am a liar, why would you expect me to be polite and correct in turn? Generally speaking, when you call someone a liar, etiquete is the last thing on their mind.

[ November 09, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]</p>

[Grisha]

Hi Ed,
Of course I would never call you a liar. You've always made interesting and mature posts on this forum. I have nothing at all against you personally, and in fact, I believe you read that from an article. I just assumed it was based from German source material.

I often think that though the Soviet Union defeated Germany in 1945, it was the Germans who really won that war, because of all the biased history that has come out since the late forties, early fifties. Though the Soviet military archives are finally being accessed for history's sake, it is far too late to turn back the general consensus of what that war was all about. And while the German point of view is most definitely not a mere pile of propaganda, it is, nonetheless, a purely German point of view.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Grisha:
Hi Ed,
Of course I would never call you a liar. You've always made interesting and mature posts on this forum. I have nothing at all against you personally, and in fact, I believe you read that from an article. I just assumed it was based from German source material.

I often think that though the Soviet Union defeated Germany in 1945, it was the Germans who really won that war, because of all the biased history that has come out since the late forties, early fifties. Though the Soviet military archives are finally being accessed for history's sake, it is far too late to turn back the general consensus of what that war was all about. And while the German point of view is most definitely not a mere pile of propaganda, it is, nonetheless, a purely German point of view.

---

Hey Grisha,

Yes, a lot of anti-Soviet bias in the West since the '60s. The Cold War is responsible for this mess. I'm not "anti-Soviet" in the sense of the bias in reporting the fighting in the East, nearly the opposite in fact. The Soviet Union, I strongly believe, won the war, on the ground, in the winter counter-offensive in '42-'43. From that point on, any rational person with the access to the honest numbers could see that Hitler had lost. As for what happened in the air, I just don't know for sure.

[ November 11, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]</p>

[Barbos]

Your bullshit, his bullshit... Nice way.

It is quite clear now that the initial offensive declaration about cowardly behavior of Soviet pilots "till the end of the war" is baseless. This is all I want here. Let it not sound pathetic: men who died fighting Nazism cannot defend their honor themselves. I tried to do it in the way that I find adequate.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Barbos:
Your bullshit, his bullshit... Nice way.

It is quite clear now that the initial offensive declaration about cowardly behavior of Soviet pilots "till the end of the war" is baseless.

---

Interesting, what is "quite clear"? The article existed, I read it, it was real. It never said "cowardly" and neither did I. I don't believe it was offensive, but I'm not a Russian, so I don't know for sure.

Now, how do you take that remark to imply all Soviet pilots ran from the enemy, when I made it clear that's not what I meant, and I didn't think the article said that either. Secondly, you yourself said such behavior, to some extent, could be found in most other air forces at the time (something I chose not to argue about because its true), and Grisha and both of us, I thought, agreed the article didn't apply to the entire VVS, but referring to a recurring problem among *some* of its pilots.

Every army has cowards, especially in drafted armies, but they are always a minority. In that, the Soviets were no worse than anybody else. So why are you so upset?