Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken
Hi, Jens
Sorry, but it is ignorant fools like yourself that make long standing errors like this available on the internet and in publications.
Luckily, your example nicely underline the fact that you must be totally illiterate when it comes to studying losses of the Luftwaffe.
In the original records by the Luftwaffe this loss is noted as a category 2:
durch Feindeinwirkung durch Flakbeschuss total
or in english as I guess you have to get this translated:
Destroyed due to anti-aircraft gunfire
The detailed loss record states that the aircraft was damaged 80%, and that Krupinski was wounded, and the loss reason is stated as 'Flakbeshuss'.
In fact I get a bit sad, if you are going to show examples to underline your position on this, at least TRY to find something that has not been translated or edited by an author, and please... try to find some losses that at least are a bit questionable when it comes to facts, in this case you have just shot yourself in the foot....
I have said this so many times to people now that I end up getting bored - you have to check contemporary references. If for some reason you can not do this, it would at least be wise not to state that the original documentation is erronous, while some large scale numbers published by one or more authors MUST be correct.
There are numerous clerical errors in the original documents also, not strange considering the amount of information... but it is the best references we have. So - if you want to do something useful, stop reading coffetable books and start reading original documentation.
Sorry, Jens if you think I am being to harsh on you, but this message of yours really irritated me a lot!
Regards, and do not be too offended!
Andreas
|
Yes it is too harsh, since i made three points and you counterattacked one, cause i overlooked the "F". For your surprise, i was already in the BAMA and checked loss stats even divided in (F/H), besides other documents. If you look at the global stats, it must be seen, that something isn't very relieable in the system of LW. Even more i know (from docus) complains from higher staffs about that fact.
One example: One unit in 1942 lost 6 Ju-88 totally in one sortie. The cause was reported due engine failures and fire (noncombat), even more the unit started complains about the unrelieability of Ju-88 and their engines. The GL started a commission to check these fact, indeed five of the six Ju-88 were shot down by AAA and the 6th also most probably.
So you can't just critizise Tolliver/Constable to make the look of stats better, you have also to ask why they wrote such an information. I believe such a detailed story in a book has a bit more relieability than others, besides this the story stated that Krupinski fought with the LaGG over the own airfield, claims lists give him a LaGG at 18.05 (last kill this day). Of course in their (T/C) books is written many senseless stuff and sometimes they changed history to their own attitude, but on the other hand they interviewed most pilots when they were quite near the events of WW2.
BTW: Where can i find a definition if H and F? F means IMHO Front not Feind?, H = Heimat. So if a loss is F, it is not necessary by enemy?