|
Pre-WW2 Military and Naval Aviation Please use this forum to discuss Military and Naval Aviation before the Second World War. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Soviet victory claims before 22 VI 1941?
Yes this is it, in Spain the plane, which did not returned to own airfiled was credited as a victory, this plane could returned later in a few hours or days, after force landing.
I know, that some people are very strictly credite a victory only as a total written off/ destroyed enemy plane. OK, but what about damages planes and efforts to damage them too. It is nothing? mw
__________________
Mirek Wawrzyński |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Soviet victory claims before 22 VI 1941?
Quote:
It is often difficult enough to define and count 'destroyed' a/c (what '% damage' in the German system? do 'forced landings' at home base count, or 'crash landings', or how about if it's in a field somewhere). This gets more complicated still for damage. For example, Japanese Navy operational reports usually give damage in detail down to number of holes in the plane (does 1 hole in a Zero confirm the claim of an opposing Allied pilot to have shot down a Zero?). And accurate info about losses is often hard to find, damage much more difficult, especially for both sides. For example, it's taken decades to know 'real' Communist MiG-15 losses in Korea to F-86's in any detail, in sources open to Westerners. Soviet claims of F-86's were also at a high ratio to actual outright losses of F-86's, (absolute numbers and ratio was actually both fairly similar to Nomonhan, coincidentally). But it's also taken a long time to find comprehensive data on damaged F-86's (I think I have most of it, but a few random month's folder's were just lost it seems). And if we add those to Soviet 'victories' (the numbers are again coincidentally similar to Type 97's at Nomonhan), we still don't have the same info on Soviet, let alone Chinese or NK, *damaged* MiG's. And, air arms which tried more seriously to keep their claims in line with reality often credited their pilots with 'probable' and 'damaged'. Again using Korea example, if we could find comprehensive data on MiG-15 damage in Korea, the US overclaim rate, just counting 'destroyed' credits, would surely drop below 1, underlcaim...because many 100's of MiG's were only credited as 'damaged' (and the several 100 actually destroyed for all three MiG AF's were ~75%, perhaps, of what US credited as 'destroyed'). This would be a strange result. OTOH if we didn't count damaged MiG's as 'victories' because the USAF had only claimed them damaged, but did count damaged F-86's as verifying Soviet claims of F-86's destroyed (they didn't officially credit 'damaged'), that doesn't seem very evenhanded. AFAIK, Allies AF's in WWII often also kept track of 'damage' and 'probable' credits, but not always or uniformly. But more info is always better, and I'm very interested in the book you mentioned about Japanese losses in 1939. Did Kondratiev give his original Japanese source for those numbers? In summary, I absolutely agree that information about damaged a/c further *clarifies* the results of air combat. It gives a solid explanation why a pilot might have believed he'd destroyed an opposing plane: he had indeed hit it. But I don't know about a practice of counting damaged a/c in scores which were supposed to have represented destroyed a/c. Joe |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Soviet victory claims before 22 VI 1941?
Gentlemen,
I for one didn't mean to suggest that damaged a/c be given the same weight in score totals as a destroyed a/c. My point, poorly expressed, was that damaged a/c give a partial explanation for over claiming. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Soviet victory claims before 22 VI 1941?
Quote:
In the event of a loss of Japanese aviation Kondratieva uses data from the already known (the basis of Air Enthusiast, and an article from the 70s). Kondratieva did a very interesting analysis of Soviet losses and it is actually a novel approach. Slightly increased the total Soviet losses to those not yet known (249 totally destroyed). The description of the Soviet Union because of its publication is very interesting, it complements the loss of the Japanese, but it uses the well-known sources of publications issued in English. mw
__________________
Mirek Wawrzyński |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Soviet victory claims before 22 VI 1941?
Off the topic, but interesting, :-)
Just now, has beed edited in Russia a book about Soviet Aces of 1950-1953 over Korea, looks very interesting, only in Russia. http://aerospaceproject.ru/book/46.html Советские асы корейской войны 452 полноцветных полосы + 7 цветных большеразмерных вклеек, переплёт твёрдый, обложка – 7БЦ,бумага на блок – 115 гр., бумага на форзац – 125 гр., не запечатанный. Тираж 750 шт.
__________________
Mirek Wawrzyński |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Soviet victory claims before 22 VI 1941?
Quote:
If you've got the S. Abrossov's book, read it carefully. First, soviet homologation system changed several times throughout spanish war. Secund, soviet personnal victories published by Abrossov are mainly uncomplete and issued from personnal pilot's personnal files and not always directly from war diaries. There is clearly a missing link between them; and moreover victory lists could have been "arranged" for the Kremlin summer 1937 meeting with Alksnis. It's another source for soviet pilot's credits, but rather an optimistic one. Third, a certain overclaim is always natural in combat. I won't explain why, just try some aerobaics on a Yak, Zlin or Sukhoï in an aeroclub of yours and add to it, (rather imagine) the stess to be shooted down... In Spain overclaim was sometimes inflated by propaganda, then by multiple claims for the same damaged/destroyed plane between spaniards and russians, different Mosca/Chato squadrons, even between the same squadron/vic pilots ! On massive dogfights involving sometimes more than 50-100 planes from the both sides, nobody had really the time to follow falling planes. Fourth, in Spain fought the most nimble planes of the whole aviation history: Fiats CR-32 (13,5s ToT), Heinkel 51 (12s), Chatos (8,5), Moscas (14,5). No mean to keep them classical "3 secunds" on the gunsight. All were rugged but underarmed, moreover unstable gun platform for soviet ones, and all of them could absorb a lot of punishment due to structural particularities. (Welded steel tubes, monocoque fuselages...). A lot of planes were tremendously so called "salted" and "peppered" by bullets without conlusive results. Specially italian SM-79 that used to return the way back gliding on 1 or a one half of engine. Remember the 8th décember when full 28 Polikarpov fired 62 (!) thousand bullets at short distance (less than 50m in spain) on Ju-52's, shooting down only one plane, a secund one suffering extensive damage. At end without reliable and complete accounts for the franquist side difficult to estimate republican and moreover soviet overclaim. Except for soviet deliveries from Abrosov's book, the polemic about german, italian deliveries and franquist total losses is far from being dead and burried... I would have from mysleft that's about to be closed for french deliveries too, the discrepancy's touching about 4-5 combat planes, has no significant meaning. Regards Regards |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Soviet victory claims before 22 VI 1941?
Quote:
Quote:
So, if you remeber, that for example I-16 typ 5 had 2 x 7,62 or typ 6 3 X 7,62 for modern metal planes it was very low effecitve guns (similar "power" like fighters like in WW I but planes were much better and faster). Even I-16 typ 10 with 4 x 7,62, was not better due to jamming of 2 guns. Similar situation with I-15, I-15bis. Pilots did what they could, nothing more in these fighters. Regards, mw
__________________
Mirek Wawrzyński |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Soviet victory claims before 22 VI 1941?
Quote:
Joe |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Soviet victory claims before 22 VI 1941?
Hello,
In rthe same way as JoeB, I'm interested in how to obtain the book by S. Abrasov about the Russian claims in Spain. Anyone knows were to obtain this? Best wishes/Håkan
__________________
WWII Biplane Fighter Aces http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/ WWII Biplane Fighter Aces Blog http://ww2biplanefighteraces.blogspot.com/ |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Soviet victory claims before 22 VI 1941?
Quote:
http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/3759327/ |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Soviet claims on 22 March 1943 in Kharkov area | Laurent Rizzotti | Allied and Soviet Air Forces | 4 | 25th March 2010 14:23 |
Percentage of Verifiable Victories of Various Aces –Updates & Recommendations | Rob Romero | Luftwaffe and Axis Air Forces | 25 | 9th March 2010 02:39 |
Soviet claims on 22 June 1939 (Khalkhin Gol) | Håkan | Allied and Soviet Air Forces | 6 | 29th July 2009 09:35 |
Percentage of Verfiable Victories of Various Aces -INSTRUCTIONS. | Rob Romero | Luftwaffe and Axis Air Forces | 4 | 3rd October 2006 16:42 |
Percentage of Verifiable Victories of Various Aces –Updates & Recommendations | Rob Romero | Luftwaffe and Axis Air Forces | 0 | 30th September 2006 09:05 |