[kalender1973]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

From the actual Luftwaffe's standpoint they were never massacred on the east, rather forced to remove unit by the unit due to increasing losses on the west. Nothing on the east can be compared to such a hectic period like Battle of Normandy (which was typical ground support battle).

It is not a point of our discussion, but e.g. the LW losses between 22.061941 and 04.07.1941 was over 800 planes: so many losses in such short time happened never before and never after.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

BTW Some researchers claim Kursk was nothing particular from the German point of view, losses being about average.

It is easy to discuss with you. Some researchers... Name? And these some resarchers must take at least german officially loss stastistic and count it, if they can.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Yes, Mustang was a wunderwaffe.

It is your personally opinion, without any hard facts

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

I would rather say, a general Soviet mentality, that disallows any serious discussion. I note Soviet and not Russian.

What is wrong with soviet mentality, explain please. Serious discussion need serious arguments. Unfortenatelly I can not acceppt argument "soviet propaganda" as serious.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Is that all? I would say it is not enough to discuss aircraft performance.

The speed and climbing rate are two key performance indicator for the figher, especially for the soviet-german front. If the german improved these both, they have automatically advantage, what cause higher soviet and lower german losses.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

If you have bothered to read my other posts, you would easily find that I am very critical on German loss data. Nonetheless it is not the point. Victories were achieved on such obsolete aircraft like Fiat CR.42, Gladiator or I-15, but nobody will consider this a proof of their technical superiority. Yaks were never state of the art, and more, had several limitations, to mention poor armament, short range or not very good altitude performance as most important ones. Some people claim that Yak-3 was a most promising and nice Soviet fighter, but nobody takes in mind it had performance comparable with Spitfire V trop. It was enough to get a Me 109G in infavourable position, but it would be interesting to compare this 1944 aircraft with such ones like Meteor, Mustang, Spitfire XIV or Tempest.

Well and Aerocobra was a fantastic planes without these shortcomings?LOL!
It is true, soviet planes was not technically perfect. But the soviet industry was able to provide the planes which were at least equal to the germans. And this is with unbelievable limited ressources and under unbelievable severe condition. And with these planes the VVS was able to protect the ground forces and protect own attack planes. And why we must compare our planes with Mustang or Tempest that appears 2-3 years later under quite peaceful condition?

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

It depends what you consider a copy. You can make direct one like Tu-4 but you can also copy aerodynamical or technological features, not to mention equipment or engines. Soviets copied for example BMWs, Jumos, RR Derwents and Nenes which allowed them to get into the jet age. There was a plan to copy a Me 262, but it was abandoned in favour of a very similar Su-9 fighter. I have had in my own hands several pieces of equipment that were direct copies of western one, eg. flight parameter recorder, which used (IIIRC) 1'3/4 inch film (not metric anyway).

You wrote in your previous post "Soviets copied western aircraft". It look for me, that beside case of Tu-4, you can not prove your word. QED