JG 52 versus Soviet VVC May 20,44
 

On May 20, 1944 during the famous battle of Targul Frumos
various assets of Tolbukin's 3rd Ukrainian Front were retreating back
towards East of Dubosari pressured by German armours ,
Panzer Grenadier Div.Grossdeutschland and 3rd SS Totenkopf
Division along with ground troops.

Covering the German offensive involved assets of JG52, II,/SG2
III./SG2 . Covering the Soviet retreat involved assets from 267 IAP
178 GvIAP, 113 GvIAP, 117 GvIAP 5 GvIAP, 438 GvIAP, 897 GvIAP
866 GvIAP and 153 GvIAP acting at various times during the day.

During the air clashes between the Soviets and Luftwaffe , the
JG52 claimed 16 Soviet fighters and 2 Boston bombers, the Soviets
claimed 3 ME-109 , 5 FW-190 and 3 JU-87.

According JG52 documents not even one fighter was lost
and according SG 2 only 1 JU-87 but due AA activity .

The Soviets reported the loss of 9 fighters only and no Boston
bombers at all .

Questions : Was there too a Romanian air asset
involved and if yes what losses they published ,were there
other Luftwaffe losses elsewhere published which I may not
be aware of ?

Re: JG 52 versus Soviet VVC May 20,44
 

You have a chaotic mess of regiments. 438 IAP, 897 IAP and 866 IAP were not guard units. 113 GIAP was far away that time. Forgot to add 611 IAP, 659 IAP, 31 IAP, 116 IAP, 164 IAP.

Soviet fighters confirmed claims were 9 Ju-87s, 17 Me-109s, 18 Fw-190s. Losses recorded as 16 fighters.

Re: JG 52 versus Soviet VVC May 20,44
 

Yes , definitely true I wrote by heart, though I didn't seek corrections as into
IAP, Guard IAP, Independent IAP terminologies etc, in fact the whole 4 Ukrainian fronts organization
was nothing but a total mess not even Historians from your country fully understand it nowadays.
Therefore making such remark to a non Russian is not appropriate.

113 GIAP was at Cernauti not as far as you indicate and some assets were sent
to back up in Moldova. I didn't forget the other IAP's . May I ask you where did
you get the 9 JU-87's, 17 ME-109 and 18 FW-190s losses from ? I am curious
to know which Opersvodky or source you used as ref ...coze those I red don't indicate such .

In reality those claims were a bunch of baloney pure fantasies, JG52 didn't lose any aircraft on that
day, the SG2 just a JU-87 other confimed losses don't exist and possibly the Romanians
may have not been there, but if they were that would address my initial questions , other
than that AAR didn't operate FW-190 but only to a very limited extent.

Thanks for your remarks though they don't address any of my questions

Re: JG 52 versus Soviet VVC May 20,44
 

I assume that you have found missing GQ returns for 1944? Congratulations! Otherwise, it would be a little bit precipitate to call something "a bunch of ...fantasies".

My sources are operational reports of 236 IAD, 11 GIAD, 295 IAD, 288 IAD.

Re: JG 52 versus Soviet VVC May 20,44
 

Re: JG 52 versus Soviet VVC May 20,44
 

Hi,

I. Fliegerkorps operations on 20 May 1944 were to the Grigoriopol area (Pl.Qu. 987). Involved on that day were:

- I./J.G. 52, at least three missions
- III./J.G. 52, at least four missions
- IV./J.G. 54, at least five missions, four victories
- I./S.G. 2, at least seven missions
- III./S.G. 2, at least five missions
- I./S.G. 10, at least four missions
- II./S.G. 10, at least one mission, one victory

II./J.G. 52 and II./S.G. 2 were resting and recovering.

III./S.G. 10 reported two aircraft lost and two damaged on non-combat flights, so perhaps it was transferring between airfields.

The German Summarische Verluste data (kindly transcribed by Andreas Brekken) shows only one Ju 87 downed by enemy fighters, and no German fighters or fighter-bombers damaged or lost. So to answer one question, no, there don't seem to have been any additional Luftwaffe losses. Perhaps the Axis victims on this day were all Rumanian? On 18 May 1944 Rumanian fighters were flying sweeps to Grigoriopol, so it's quite possible they were active there again on 20 May.

The above probably isn't much help, but might be of interest.

Cheers,
Andrew A.
Air War Publications - www.airwarpublications.com/earticles

Re: JG 52 versus Soviet VVC May 20,44
 

Andrew

Thanks for the info, indeed this is more or less in line with my material
and addressing closer my questions . Few remarks , the JU-87 pilot KIA
was with II./SG-2 eventhough the group was resting .As into JG-54 I am
puzzled regarding the records , because according my stuff only IV./JG54
was in Romania unit which arrived in April with only few operational
aircrafts and was stationed at Mamaia at the Black Sea .

Alone JG 52 claimed 18 victories out of which a Boston and a IL-2
though not listed by the Russians neither I can locate them.

5./SG 10 claimed a IL-2 and Stab III./SG 2 claimed a P-39
I could not locate them either .

Most of the Rumanian fighters were dispatched to defend Romania
against 15th AF though I suspect that some of their assets may
have been as well in the area. I can't find any of thier losses on that
day.

The Russian operational records also show 4 German HE-111's shot down
out of which one rammed by a Soviet fighter, which again was as
misleading as rest of their fighter claims. The Soviets also lost two
HSU recepients , a woman pilot , in total 12 pilots against one
Luftwaffe JU-87 loss .

The area of operation was Grigoriopol though not far from there at
Cosnita, Dubosari ,Pererita and Serpeni intensive fights were recorded.

Cheers ,

Re: JG 52 versus Soviet VVC May 20,44
 

Let us stick to the facts:

1. Your list of regiments in the first post was a mess including units with twisted designation and units not involved in the air battles unfolded on May 20, 1944. I highlighted that.
2. Number of claims that I listed is victories officially confirmed by Soviet side. It has nothing in common with real destroyed planes or actual German losses.
3. It is far from being excluded that all Soviet claims were fantasy. However, the final confirmation of it is burried in German papers. Before loss papers, apart from "Summarische verluste", found, researchers (I hope including the leading specialist on the air war on the East - researcher111) would use such adverbs as "perhaps", "probably", "conceivably" etc. in describing ratio of claims/losses if the picture is not 100% clear.
4. "Spokoynoy Notchy Moskweh
budy zdarov yh budy bagaz tovarish Nikita ." Sure. Thanks, tovarish researcher111.

PS. Thank you for the offer. I will be waiting for
related opersvodki of 267 IAP
178 GvIAP, 113 GvIAP, 117 GvIAP 5 GvIAP, 438 IAP, 897 IAP
866 IAP and 153 GvIAP to my e-mail address: nicknn@rambler.ru

Re: JG 52 versus Soviet VVC May 20,44
 

Hi,

Have done some more digging and posted a mini-article about 20 May 1944 here: http://luftwaffe-research-group.org/...may-1944.3280/

It provides more details on IV./J.G. 54 and S.G. 10.

Cheers,
Andrew A.
Air War Publications - www.airwarpublications.com/earticles

Re: JG 52 versus Soviet VVC May 20,44
 

Unfortunatly its a empty link subject to registration and admin approval

Re: JG 52 versus Soviet VVC May 20,44
 

According to Flugzeugbestand- und Bewegungsmeldungen in May 1944 JG 52 lost 78 planes totally destroyed and 20 heavily damaged (required extensive repair on a factory).

What Summarische Verlustmeldungen say about that figures?

Re: JG 52 versus Soviet VVC May 20,44
 

Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen http://www.ww2.dk/air/jagd/jg52.htm

In May 1944:

I./JG52: 13 and 7 (enemy action/non enemy action), 15 in overhaul, 14.4.44 - 1.6.44 Mamaia, Leipzig/Rumania
II./JG52: 21 and 3, 1 in overhaul, 16.4.44 - 6.6.44 Zilistea
III./JG52: 15 and 14, 3 in overhaul, 10.4.44 - 27.6.44 Sevastopol-Chersonnes, Zarnesti, Roman

Count total losses as 73, not 78.

Re: JG 52 versus Soviet VVC May 20,44
 

And I suggest that you stop trying to be clever and start trying to be polite. If you react this way when people try to help you, why would anyone bother helping you in future?

Re: JG 52 versus Soviet VVC May 20,44
 

Claims of IV./JG 54:

10., Uffz. Händel, Jak-9, 12.25, Koschmisga in 2.000 mtr (F)
11., Lt. von Ohlen, Jak-9, 14.02, Pl.Q. 98752 in 1.000 mtr (F)
10., Oblt. Haala, Jak-9, 18.08, Koschmisga in 4.500 mtr (F)
Stab, Hptm. Koall, Il-2, 19.35, Pl.Q. 98724 in 500 mtr (F)

Cheers,

John

Re: JG 52 versus Soviet VVC May 20,44
 

Nick

I didn't try to be clever or set a point, nor at all was my intention to be
unpulite with some 1 now or the future, having said that if someone responds
my new thread " you have a mess " how is this form called ? Finally if some 1
makes claims, in my view is appropriate to post facts to back up the claims
to prove that the mess is not at his end instead just automatically disapprove
my post and later on not even post any of his claimed evidences which were
nothing but fictious. I therefore doubt any genuine help intentions at all.

Re: JG 52 versus Soviet VVC May 20,44
 

Thanks John, mind telling me on which book or publication are these
figures available ? thanks in advance

Re: JG 52 versus Soviet VVC May 20,44
 

II./JG52: 21 and 8, just clean up your display :)

Re: JG 52 versus Soviet VVC May 20,44
 

Thanks, will do.

Re: JG 52 versus Soviet VVC May 20,44
 

Hi,

'Researcher111': the available German aerial victory claims were all transcribed from the microfilms by Tony Wood in the early 2000s, including those for the Eastern Front on 20 May 1944. Tony used to have a website where you could download all of them in Microsoft Word or .pdf format, but it seems to have disappeared. I was curious about your remark: "the JU-87 pilot KIA was with II./SG-2". II./S.G. 2 was, and always had been, an FW 190/Hs 123 unit, so I was wondering what your source is for the Ju 87 pilot being from II./S.G. 2? Regarding my mini-articule you can't access, my IV./J.G. 54 entry for 20 May 1944 reads:

"In 1944 the IV. Gruppe of JG 54 saw service almost everywhere, starting the year on the northern sector of the Eastern Front, then to the central and southern sectors, back to Germany, rushed to the Eastern Front in the wake of the Soviet summer offensive in late-June, and then back to the Western Front again in September 1944.

On 20 May 1944 IV./JG 54 was based alongside the Geschwaderstab and I./JG 52 at Leipzig, and flew combined missions with elements of JG 52 during the day. At least eight IV./JG 54 missions are known, beginning with a sweep at 06:15. The second IV./JG 54 operation was a sweep to Grigoriopol between 08:40 and 09:55, but despite combat with Il-2s and La-5s, no claims were submitted.

The unit was back to the day's hotspot soon after midday, and Uffz. Julius Händel of 10./JG 54 was able to claim the first aerial victory of his career, a Yak-9. A sweep flown from 13:30 to 14:45 resulted in contact with La-5s, LaGG-3s, and Yak-9s, and Lt. Karl von Ohlen from the 11. Staffel downed one of the latter. A few hours later, the Austrian Staffelkapitän of 10./JG 54, Oblt. Sigurd Haala, tangled with La-5s over the bridgehead at an altitude of 4,500 metres, and claimed one of his opponents shot down at 18:08. The final IV./JG 54 victory claim for the day, and indeed for I. Fliegerkorps, fell to the Kommandeur, Hptm. Gerhard Koall. The Il-2 was his 38th aerial victory of the war.

In total, the Gruppe reported four aerial victories and reported none of its Bf 109s lost or damaged."

Maksim: I was aware of the discrepencies between the SV-F and F & B, but thanks for mentioning it. I believe that they were two different reporting systems, with the F & B always sent on the final evening of the month (even in desperate situations like Tunisia in November 1942), making it more accurate than the individual loss reports, which were sent rather sporadically, sometimes weeks or months after the loss occurred. I feel you may have misinterpreted the Überholung column, which, to the best of my knowledge, usually doesn't indicate heavily damaged aircaft, but war-weary aircraft. In any case, here's a comparison between the reports for May 1944:

F & B – May 1944
Stab J.G. 52 – 0 & 0
I.//J.G. 52 – 13 & 7
II./J.G. 52 – 21 & 8
III./J.G. 52 – 15 & 14
15./J.G. 52 – 0 & 0
Total – 49 & 29 = 78

SV-F – May 1944
Stab J.G. 52 – 0 & 0 (matches)
I./J.G. 52 – 7 & 4 (6 & 3 missing)
II./J.G. 52 – 5 & 0 (16 & 8 missing)
III./J.G. 52 – 8 & 2 (7 & 12 missing)
15./J.G. 52 – 0 & 0 (matches)
Total – 20 & 6 (29 & 23 missing)

No great surprise that most of the 'missing' J.G. 52 losses come from the Crimean units, the II. and III. Gruppen. I believe that the loss reporting system for individual aircraft broke down during the final stages of the Crimean campaign (just as it did for Sch.G. 2 in the final stages of the Tunisian campaign a year earlier).

The example of II./J.G. 52 seems to support this theory, and in particular the dates on which loss reports were submitted for individual losses: a single II./J.G. 52 loss report was received by the Luftwaffe Quartermaster between 16 April and 23 May (on 8 May, covering a non-combat loss on 8 April 1944). There was then a real 'catch-up' in reports on 23 and 24 May: on those days the Gruppe submitted reports for 25 individual losses from the period 10 to 26 April. Obviously the unit would have suffered a lot of losses in the period 16 April-23 May which were not reported up the chain.

The situation is the same for III./J.G. 52, with no loss reports received by the Quartermaster between 7 April and 15 May, and then its post-Crimea catch-up day for reporting was 17 May 1944, with twelve reports submitted on that day covering the period 14-28 April.

Thus details on individual II. and III./J.G. 52 losses in the period 8 April-12 May 1944, and especially those without personnel injured or killed, have slipped through the cracks. The same can be said of II./S.G. 2.

Back to 20 May 1944, the individual aircraft loss reporting system seems to have been back in place again from mid-May onwards, so there is much less likelihood of 'missing' losses for I. and III./J.G. 52 for that day. IV./J.G. 54 submitted several loss reports on 24 May, as did I./S.G. 2 and III./S.G. 2 on 25 May (including I./S.G. 2's 20 May loss), so they seem unlikely to have missed any 20 May 1944 combat losses.

Have not analysed the other I. Fliegerkorps units, so perhaps there were unreported losses for them, and I don't have the Rumanian figures either. I'm certainly not trying to argue in favour of the Soviets inventing victory claims on 20 May 1944. Just wanted to examine the evidence a little more thoroughly.

By way of comparison, in June the two types of reports match up much better (although II./J.G. 52 seems to have been less thorough in its paperwork):

F & B – June 1944
Stab J.G. 52 – 1 & 0
I./J.G. 52 – 3 & 7
II./J.G. 52 – 10 & 2
III./J.G. 52 – 2 & 1
15./J.G. 52 – 0 & 0
Total – 16 & 10

SV-F – June 1944
Stab J.G. 52 – 1 & 0 (matches)
I./J.G. 52 – 4 & 1 (1 extra & 6 missing)
II./J.G. 52 – 5 & 1 (5 & 1 missing)
III./J.G. 52 – 3 & 2 (1 & 1 extra!)
15./J.G. 52 – 0 & 0 (matches)
Total – 13 & 4 (3 & 6 missing)

Perhaps some of the experts out there, especially those knowledgeable about Luftwaffe loss reporting (Andreas?), might be able to add their comments and corrections.

Cheers,
Andrew A.
Air War Publications – www.airwarpublications.com/earticles

Re: JG 52 versus Soviet VVC May 20,44
 

Re: JG 52 versus Soviet VVC May 20,44
 

Hi, Andrew

There were some serious debates on this subject about seven years ago. I believe 'Überholung' means 'repair on a factory' because it generally matches with the figures in the 'Reparatur' column. For example, according to all survived F.- und B.-meldungen 578 Do-217 were sent to 'Überholung' and 525 brought back to units as 'Reparatur';

Fw-189 - 412 and 412 respectively;
Fw-190 - 3491 and 4212;
Bf-109 - 5358 and 6764;
Ju-87 - 1113 and 1034;
Ju-88 - 3334 and 3501;
Hs-129 - 236 and 223;
He-111 - 1482 and 1630;
Ju-52 - 1373 and 1260;
Me-110 - 1407 and 1690 etc.

War-weary aircraft must be in the 'ohne Feindeinwirkung' column.

Re: JG 52 versus Soviet VVC May 20,44
 

The word is a direct equivalent of the English "overhaul" which certainly implies something thorough, probably involving taking major assemblies apart. It's way beyond a bit of patching up or rectifying immediate defects.

Re: JG 52 versus Soviet VVC May 20,44
 

Andrew

After further clarifications the Royal Romanian Air Force didn't report any
losses on that day,neither any of my Russian collegues researching the
subject could locate the claimed IL-2's and the P-39's. The Russian claims
were absolutely fictious ,interesting to note that the most of the Russian
claims were by at least 8 HSU recepients and with great probability keen
for further promotions and more fame part of a structured communist system
dictating politics and selective promotion rather airmanship & quality.

Generally speaking despite such ridiculos figures , this won't question
fine pilots such as Retchkalov, Evstigneev ,Guleaev, Klubov, Koshedub ,
Egorov, Arhipenko ,Pokrishkin etc who were acting on my research area.

Maybe you have the possibility to check the losses of 2./NAGr.14 which at
time was located at Comrat not that far from Griogoriopol and those of
KG 55 located at Focsani airfield. One Russian pilot claimed a Taran on one
of those out of 4 HE-111 claimed , but was killed during an attempted landing.

Thanks in advance

Re: JG 52 versus Soviet VVC May 20,44
 

Hi Maksim,

Thanks for the reply. I've now done a bit of digging, and I was only partially correct when I wrote that the Überholung column: “usually doesn't indicate heavily damaged aircraft, but war-weary aircraft”. Some aircraft in the Überholung column were indeed heavily damaged in combat or accidents and sent to be repaired, but some had suffered only minor damage, others were just war-weary, and others were older variants sent to be overhauled before going to a training unit or similar.

Here are some examples of aircraft from France, where there are records for incoming aircraft to the AGO repair unit at Villacoublay. These were all aircraft entering front-line service in late 1941 and early 1942:

FW 190 A-2 WNr. 0203, 25% damaged 28.03.42, to AGO 30.04.42
FW 190 A-2 WNr. 0207, built 1941, no loss reports, to AGO 02.02.43 [presumably war-weary]
FW 190 A-2 WNr. 0211, built 1941, no loss reports, to AGO 02.04.43 [presumably war-weary]
FW 190 A-2 WNr. 0213, 10% 31.05.42, to AGO 06.04.43 [presumably war-weary]
FW 190 A-2 WNr. 0216, 70% 10.11.42, to AGO 01.12.42
FW 190 A-2 WNr. 0218, 30% 23.05.42, to AGO 14.12.42 [presumably war-weary]
FW 190 A-2 WNr. 0220, 20% 05.08.42, to AGO 18.08.42
FW 190 A-2 WNr. 0221, built 1941, no loss reports, to AGO 17.09.42 [presumably war-weary]
FW 190 A-2 WNr. 0224, 25% 30.07.42, to AGO 11.08.42
FW 190 A-2 WNr. 0228, 20% 29.05.43, to AGO 13.06.43
FW 190 A-2 WNr. 0233, built 1941, no loss reports, to AGO 29.05.43 [presumably war-weary]
FW 190 A-2 WNr. 0235, built 1941, no loss reports, to AGO 23.09.43 [presumably war-weary]
FW 190 A-3 WNr. 0244, built 25.02.42, no loss reports, to AGO 20.01.44 [presumably war-weary]
FW 190 A-2 WNr. 0249, built 1941, no loss reports, to AGO 08.06.43 [presumably war-weary]
FW 190 A-2 WNr. 0251, built 1941, 60% 06.09.42, to AGO 20.09.42
FW 190 A-2 WNr. 0252, built 1941, no loss reports, to AGO 02.04.43 [presumably war-weary]
FW 190 A-3 WNr. 0256, built 1942, no loss reports, to AGO 05.01.43 [presumably war-weary]
FW 190 A-2 WNr. 0261, built 1941, no loss reports, to AGO 19.04.43 [presumably war-weary]
FW 190 A-2 WNr. 0263, built 1942, no loss reports, to AGO 12.10.42 [presumably war-weary]
FW 190 A-2 WNr. 0272,built 1941, 30% 19.08.42, to AGO 07.06.43 [presumably war-weary]
FW 190 A-2 WNr. 0275, built 1941, 70% 31.10.42, to AGO 09.11.42

Some of the above were damaged and sent to AGO within a couple of weeks. Others were clearly just considered war-weary and sent for overhauling. As you can see, the FW 190 A-2s without loss reports were generally sent for repair/overhaul when the variant was superseded by the FW 190 A-4, in late-1942 and the first half of 1943. Thus I'm not sure all the figures in the Überholung column should be considered as aircraft damaged by enemy action or in accidents. For J.G. 52 in May 1944, you can't really say that there were “20 heavily damaged (required extensive repair on a factory)”. Some of the twenty might have been damaged and sent for repair, but certainly not all of them.

Interesting figures you've got there for the overhauled versus received from repair columns. Thanks for sharing them.

As I said in my previous post, I don't know much about this topic. Hopefully the likes of Andreas or Gerhard can step in and provide their thoughts.

Cheers,
Andrew A.
Air War Publications – www.airwarpublications.com/earticles

Re: JG 52 versus Soviet VVC May 20,44
 

Hi researcher 111,

There were no 2./N.A.Gr. 14 losses on 20 May 1944. The Stab and 1./N.A.Gr. 14 each reported a loss, both without enemy involvement.

I think that K.G. 55 might have been back at Deblin on the 20th. That night III./K.G. 55 flew a mission from Deblin-Irena, target Sdolbunow. I./K.G. 4 was at Focsani, and flew a mission on 20 May 1944 between 19:44 and 23:10, reporting no enemy contact. At least four aircraft of K.G. 27 were operational over the southern sector of the Eastern Front on the night of 20/21 May 1944, but I have no further details. Other units operating in the area were 3.(F)/121, 2.(F)/22 and Westa 76 (the latter having three aircraft at Focsani).

No doubt others would know more.

Cheers,
Andrew A.
Air War Publications - www.airwarpublications.com/earticles

Re: JG 52 versus Soviet VVC May 20,44
 

Andrew

Thanks very much and rather very useful info. Looking through Geschichte aus
Kriegstagebuechern der KG 4 Wever ,3.(F)/121 it can only confirm your statement
as into Wekusta 76 and 2.(F) 22 I have no books or any records at all. Opening
der Chronik der KG 27 Band I page 74, I found HE-111 1G + EY hit somewhere
near Krossno which rather very far from the location described by the Soviets
at 23;10 hrs injuring the crew of Hauptmann Barakling.

Further details on the other two units will be useful

Re: JG 52 versus Soviet VVC May 20,44
 

Wow, what a strong statement. As mentioned before, during one month JG 52 wrotes off 98 planes which is 138% of its strength on 01.05.1944. Not a really good month for the "best fighter unit in history", eh? Sure, Russians with their faked claims have absolutely no relation to the German losses.

As for overclaiming, it is always interesting subject. Let's see, on 28.06., 04.07., 17.07., 17.08 and 23.08.1944 JG 5 pilots claimed more than 130 victories against 13-16 actual Soviet losses. And most of those victories were attributed only to a few claimants, including Walter Schuck, Jakob Norz, Franz Doerr, Rudolf Gloeckner and Heinrich Ehrler.

How about selective promotion rather than airmanship & quality in a structured Nazi system?

Re: JG 52 versus Soviet VVC May 20,44
 

A Rumanian Bf 109G was shot down at Grigoriopol on 20 May 1944.

Re: JG 52 versus Soviet VVC May 20,44
 

By now we count a JU-87 of Otte and a Romanian AAR ME-109 . Both Germans , Axis and Allies overclaimed sometimes too and came up with exagerated victories, no doubt about it . However Germans by nature have a tendency for order and precision, theirs sound lots closer to reality than those produced by Soviet propaganda when most of the German claims can be verified . I can't speak for JG 5 nor forthe maintainace issues of JG 52 writting off fighters due to non combat issues is not my research area .

PS : talking about same propaganda and politics , no other nation arrested
revoked medals, HSU titles , demoted ranks and sent their pilot and
airmen heros on the post WWII era to NKVD camps such as the Vorkuta's type
convicting them of treason, espionage, crimes against USSR etc as the
Stalinist Soviet Union did , all this just because these airmen runned out
of luck landing in German prison camps some of whom barely survived
Auschwitz, Mauthausen ,Buchenwald,etc . Rehab took years sometimes and
those who were executed could not be brought back to life later on . On one
occasion Beria himself forced a HSU pilot's wife to sleep with him and
his puppets at Lubjanka ,as cover up for the actions demoted the pilot,
sent them to a flying club in Far East thus provoking numerous shows
in order to stage an arrest ,demote and revoke him the HSU title .

Beside his HSU title this pilot personally received from Tito the highest
Yugslavian award for bravery while escorting him back from Bari.

This very brave pilot died at 41 in a mental clinic in Odessa .

I am certain you don't hear all this for the first time .

Re: JG 52 versus Soviet VVC May 20,44
 

Dachau prison camps etc . I am certain you dont hear it the
first time.

Dachau and Mathausen were KZ lager for civilian from Serbia in WWI. A couple of thousands of prisoner then were died and their grave still exist in that places. For that crime nobody were accused and history tragically repeated in WWII in more tragical volume.

Many concentration camps (KZ lager) in WWII have a different parts so it is not strange for me.

kind regards

Newcomer

Re: JG 52 versus Soviet VVC May 20,44
 

Newcomer I hear you loud and clear, dark chapter of humanitay
while the history repeats.