[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Part 2

The picture of Soviet successes against Luftwaffe off Sworbe on 18-23.Nov.44 is totally unclear.
Apart from 3 seaplanes (GA140 [BV138], Ar95, Ar96), all other claims (30) were FW190
Claims for FW190 were following:
----------Fighters------Air Gunners----Total
18.Nov.44-----3-----------1-------------4
19.Nov.44-----8 -----------1-------------9
23.Nov.44----16 -----------1------------17
-----------------------------------------------------
Total---------27-----------3------------30
Ships and AA artillery hadn’t claims.

BV138, Ar95 and Ar96 were maybe a sole Bordflugzeug from Adm.Scheer - Ar196 (Oblt Telle - Oberfeldw. Zeissler), really destroyed on 23.Nov.44. But situation with FW190s is totally unclear. In AOK.16 documents for 18-23.Nov.44 only two fighter losses/damages mentioned:
18.Nov one fighter made a force landing on Nord Kurland coast. It maybe result a dogfight off Sworbe or one of FW190F from III./SG3 – many of them made a force landing due to bad weather after interrupted group’s sortie against Soviet ships off Sworbe.
23.Nov one fighter crashed. Again, the cause unclear.

Anyway, 1-3 real losses against 33 claims seems too high overclaiming.

QUESTION. Maybe some losses of I./JG54, II./JG54, III./SG3, NAGr5 and other units of Luftflotte 1 are known from NVM and other sources? Also, some units of Luftflotte 6 from Eastern Prussia maybe took part, especially as escort of Kriegsmarine 2.Kampfgruppe.

As a contrast with the high overclaim ratio, mentioned above, the following story:
A day before final assault, on 17.Nov., the pair of Yak-9 (leader Lt Kuzmin) from 15.ORAP Baltic Fleet Air Forces made two recce sorties in south-east part of Baltic Sea. In the 1st sortie they claimed BV138, in the 2nd – “Ar95”. BV138 confirmed by Kriegsmarine documents, Arado (no doubt, Ar196) – by AOK16 observers. No other Soviet claims in that time and place, so both Kuzmin’s successes are real.

Best regards,
Andrey