Denes,
Quote:
|
Based on my research and experience, one of the main errors done by many aviation historians - from all sides! - who try to match a certain airman's victory lists with losses from the opposing side, is to look only for crashed or force landed (thus destroyed or severely damaged) aircraft. This is incomplete research. Aircraft damaged in air combat, but returned to friendly territory should also be considered.
|
Plane with minor battle damage can not be considered an air victory for the opposite side. As regards to Soviet documents it is much easier to recognise such cases, because complete records on losses give concrete definitions for the combat and non combat losses. Such as totally destoryed (failed to return, shot down in combat or by Flak), to this also sorted planes damaged in combat or by flak and made belly landing, that resulted in plane being wrecked and written off as result of this, other gradation is plane being send to factory overhaul, to repair facilities, that resulted in temporary excluding it from unit strength. The last gradation is that plane is to be put under regimental repair, meaning that plane will be repaired in matter of hours, few days.
This last gradation can not surely be an air victory of any German pilot that claim it.
Quote:
Another frequently done error is to discount the ground fire (flak, small arms fire, etc.), which caused a similar number of losses than by fighters and board gunners. However, the feats of the anti-aircraft artillery is usually poorly covered.
All these often overviewed factors should also be counted, for the overall picture to be clearer (it will never be 100% clear anyhow).
|
[/quote]
The comparison between losses to flak and to fighters for Soviet side, shows that the latter prevails, at least with regards to fighter planes losses.