55. IAP and 67. IAP on 22.06.1941 on the web

[mars]

Originally Posted by Dénes Bernád

Off topic (but must be said). Unfortunately, it's a returning pattern that Mirek Wawrzynski is attacking me personally on various forums, accusing me of numerous things, which are useless to be repeated here.
I am asking the moderators to keep a close eye on this thread, so it would not go off hand. Thank you.

It may be a little bit out of topic, but Mr Bernad, could you let just know when your book "Magyar Warriors" will be available?

[Dénes Bernád]

Off topic. Thank you for your interest in my long-running book project, 'Magyar Warriors'.
I can report that recently the Publisher has sent me the book layout for proofreading. In the meantime, the manuscript swelled to such an extent, due to the extra photos, that it will be divided in three parts, i.e. three volumes. Chances are that vol. 1 will be published by Christmas, but I will only believe it when I will see it...

[Mirek Wawrzynski]

The math does not need scientific stanarów. If in one place, someone writes about 40 and the other 17 is what we prove. 2 + 2 = 40 or 2 + 2 = 17?

You have to be able to read the text with understanding, this is a rare art, but instead it is easy to be indignant.

Someone prove scientifically that the number of aircraft in the squadron fighter can reach 40 pieces is pure nonsense. Of course you can specify the size and number of full-time aircraft based on the document, but what for?


The book is written by B. D. does not hold scientific Standards, so what's going on. He writes because he thinks so. I just write because I have more robust data

[Dénes Bernád]

Originally Posted by Mirek Wawrzynski

The book is written by B. D. does not hold scientific Standards, so what's going on. He writes because he thinks so. I just write because I have more robust data

Mirek, I assume you're referring to me as by B.D.
Let me ask you, in which archive(s) did you find your "more robust data"? The Russian, Rumanian, Hungarian, or perhaps German archives? Please explain.

[John Beaman]

Mirek, you continue to phrase your posts and comments in a manner not acceptable to this Board. If you continue, the thread will be closed and you may be banned for a period of time.

You are a good contributor and valued member, but you must be civil and stick to facts, not personal attacks.

[Mirek Wawrzynski]

If I write that one German's staffel had 40-45 fighters, so anyone can say, that Wawrzyński is an idiot, because he writes total nonsense. Staffel actually had 12-16 fighters.

If I see that D.B. writes, that the Soviet squadron (flight/escadrlia) had a 40-45 fighters, I would say, that I am dealing with a very prominent and reliable "researcher"! Very interesting what the archive he had obtained this data from?

Soviet fighet squadron nominaly had 15 fighters.

I do not understand, why fight when the facts are not fighting. Art admit to their errors is a big advantage.

The facts are rather different. Troubles arise because someone does not know how to do your job well, then it just tries to hide behind clever but empty rhetoric. Denes instead of giving specific facts embarks on a sterile rhetoric.

Page 20 From Barbarossa to Odessa is posted photograph Moscu that stands at He 112 "no 18". From the text of that aircraft was in combat on June 22 and then wore the number 18 (sic!). I'm 82,765% sure that this is the second photo "He 112 black 13", but not with the number 18 (a common mistake in writing by the author), which was damaged in combat in July. With the signature shows that the He 112 had to refer damage 22/06/1941. This means that despite the passage of 11 years since the release of "He 112" continues Denes think Moscu fought "in the black 13/18" 22 June 1941. This is an example of a large clumsiness of the author, the author himself does not know whether the aircraft had number 13 or it was number 18?

One squadron (escadrlia) can not have both 40 I-153 and I-17 and I-15bis 153 combat aircraft. Or Denes give one size or the other. A woman can not be both pregnant and remain a virgin, in his book Denes think so maybe it could be? Very interesting point of view.

Anyway, both of the numbers are wrong. 96 OIAE had 16 biplane fighter I-15bis and I-153. The exact composition of aircraft 96.OIAE (all / combat ready) are: 3/3 I-153. 13/12 I-15bis, 1/1 UT-1, 1/1, UT-2, 2/1 U-2.


On page 20 Denes commits similar errors with the number of aircraft in 87 OIAE (45 I-153) and 94 OIAE (45 I-152). Is this coincidence 94. OIAE (45 I-15bis) was not 93. OIAE 93 with 15 I-15bis and one I-16?


Independend fighter squadron had not the number of combat aircraft corresponding to the size of regiments (40-45 - about 3 fighters quadrons/eskadrilas). Quoting these figures it is not solid historical work, but the usual mumbo-jumbo (or very solid error).

Unfortunately, I can not help you Denes help with your personal embarrassment (or "perplexed') resulting from a lack of understanding of the word "solid errors". This is due to the Big Ego because to me you have the big problem with reading comprehension. It is an art that transcends you.

What's worse Denes you have huge problems with mathematics, which also transcends you. What is very strange for an engineer, as I am not mistaken?


Denes placed not add numbers. On page 12 "solid book" From Barbarossa to Odessa.
On 22 06.41 VVS BSF had 624 aircrafts ... 346 fighters ....
From the above table Aviation of VVS BSF had 254 (minus 5 TB-3) + 16 fighters (3 URAP) + 45 (87 OIAE) + 45 (94 OIAE) + 40 (96.OIAE).

346 never means 395, an ordinary addition is a very important ability of every educated man. Ona man can do it or not, it is a pattern of solid work too.

Your book is really "solid work", congratulations large mathematical competence/skills Denes. Realy Great, :-)

Regards,
Mirosław Wawrzyński

BTW

When one can read excellent text done by Michaił Timin so he/she can see much more big mumbo-jumo done by very "prominet and realiable" author, who does not like to admit to own errors (mumbo-jumbo) and this is the end.

[AGO Scheer]

Dear Mirek,
I suspect you did not understood Johns post:
It´s not the criticism, it´s the way you do.

Your text is full of sarcasm, malignity and mockery.
And even if you are right with the facts- you have not the right to write so.

Just my two cents...