Quote:
Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski
And here we come to the point. You are trying to prove your points based on fragmentary or untrue publications, often not based on any primary sources. The fact is, that I am not awared of any recommendable English-language studies on the subject. Perhaps I have missed something, being not forced to read in the language only, but indeed the situation may be called dramatic, especially having in mind several pro Soviet and derogatory comments.
Certainly Soviets had some bright men or some good ideas, quite often they were able to work in simplier and effective method, but considering a more general view and longer experience in modern warfare, they were simply ineffective, human losses being most important.
Several of their designs were obsolete, ineffective or even dangerous, and get their reputation only because of years of propaganda. Il-2 is the most typical example of what propaganda could make with an average, to say the least, aircraft, but the same situation was elsewhere. More, Soviets perfectly knew of those problems and demanded more Lend-Lease.
Now you ridicule Soviet dependancy on Lend-Lease, but in the previous post you have claimed Soviets were better equipped. How it was possible if Soviets claimed they got second rate stuff?
Last but not least, I have always understood Harris was butchering the foes, but Zhukov butchered their own.
|
1. Then I can't argue with you. Until someone produces new evidence I'm stuck with the old. I have tried to read Glanz, but he just recites lists without any insight. Then there's Beevor on Stalingrad and Berlin. Who else?
2. I have a big problem accepting your claim that I have swallowed soviet propaganda about the IL-2. I have quoted Schwabedissen - who is a primary source - about German awe of the IL-2; "All German commanders describe the IL-2 as a highly useful aerplane for ground attack. Owing to its good armour plating, the plane could only be brought down by very well directed ground fire". There is another primary source - Gifford Martel. He was one of the creators of the tank, and was Military Attache in Moscow during the battle of Kursk. The Russians uniquely gave him access. He even met Stalin. This is what he wrote about the IL-2 in 'The Russian Outlook'; "The discussion (in 1943) on armoured forces ended this series of conferences with the Russians. Certain points stood out. First of all, it was clear the Russians set great store by the Sturmovik (sic) aeroplane. No other nation had developed an aircraft which was armoured in this way. Were they all wrong and the Russians right? We made further enquiries as regards casualties in these aircraft from flak. This was not very easy to assess. The troops on the Russian front were not nearly so well equipped for producing flak. This question of using armoured aircraft was clearly very important, and we decided that we must take every opportunity of studying the matter and obtaining further information".
Martel was uninformed about the Hs129B so wrong that no other nation had produced an armoured aircraft (let alone the Junkers J-1 and Sopwith Salamander which he should have known about), and his argument was incoherent because if flak was more intense in the west (which I question), then the argument for an armoured aircraft in the west would have been GREATER and not less. When Martel was called home his successor was frozen out by the Russians, so the question about the IL-2 was never pursued. It is time someone did it. Franek? You look qualified.
3. You are plain wrong about Harris. Everybody called him "Bomber Harris", except his aircrew who called him "Butcher Harris" because he butchered them. It's exactly the same with Zhukov.