[Mirek Wawrzynski]

To Juha and Joe

I have a "big problem" with classification of victory (several times it was earlier discused). Giving only total loss, for German it is simple damage over 60%, means many victories are delated from many pilot's victory list.

There were many cases of shot down but later force landed and again returned plane into own unit.
There were also a very very few cases, where plane was hit, very slight damaged, but its pilot was wounded and soon or later he died of wounds on the ground.
Costs of pilot's training (general pilot value) are higher then costs of any plane. In this way plane had survived but its pilot had not.

For example in Chalchyn-Gol, where Soviet side lost total 209 in combat plus 49 non-combat loses, total 258 lost military planes, but next big losses were damaged planes. Sovite had lost additional next 385 damaged fighters plus 51 next bombers.
Only presenting amount of destroyed planes means that Japan pilots "did not do nothing" with these over 400 next damaged planes. It is very strange.

There were on Japan side also wilde exagaration - 1260 destroyed Soviet planes (1162 in air combats plus 98 on the ground) or other data more then 1000 destoryed Soviet planes. Of course it has nothing with real Soviet losses, which are 2-5 times less.

Soviet had shot down 588 in air combats (529 fighters, 42 bombers, 17 reccon) and the next 58 destroyed on the ground, plus 14 by A/A.

Of course JAAF had lost total almost 6 times less fighters (but similar number was damaged too: 96 Ki-27 total lost plus 124 damaged, returned into units, all 220; plus next 5 Ki-10).

The same case is with Winter War on the both side.
I think giving only total losses are not right way of presenting success on any side. Damaged, force landed plane also counts as a victory too.

Regards,
mw

BTW
Soviet and JAAF losses accoridng the last V. Kondratiev book "Bitva nad stepju", Moskwa 2008.