Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Christer Bergström
1. One reason why the Soviets used the category "MIA" is because the exact cause of the loss could not be established. The Eastern Front was different than the US air operations over Germany,
2. The truth can't always be easily found in a single column of figures.
3. "Do you doubt the German figure because Soviet claims were much higher" 
Well. . .  please re-read what I wrote: |
1. That's a suprisingly high % for such a category though, in the KW even the Soviets didn't end up with a large "unk" category. Either they didn't have that category in lower level reports, or the usually quoted totals simply assume (reasonably, and easier to conclude for that war) that "failed to return" meant air combat loss. Anyway you presented the fact for WWII and educated me, thanks. On drawing own conclusion, I guess I'd assume "failed to return" were air combat losses at a minimum of the ratio of known air combat/AAA losses, since air combat losses are more likely to occur in reduced situational awareness within a unit or formation.
2. I agree of course, perhaps seldom found in a column of numbers.
Thanks for the references.
3. I think I understood your point, but again trying to draw a parallel, the main reason to closely re-examine USAF loss records for Korea (at least what piqued my curiosity) is the existence of a list of a specifc claims (besides a total) a high multiple of the official losses. Intrinsic apparent inconsistencies in the numbers (% of total losses to air combat v other causes for air combat types, and so forth) might contribute to the curiosity, but the high number of opposing claims is the main reason. I just wondered if this was similar for East air war, whether Soviet claims far in excess of 972 was a reason and to what degree besides the possible intrinsic disrepancies in the German figures you mentioned.
Joe