Reinhard Heydrich air victories?

[Franek Grabowski]

Andreas
The list of 'improper research' is long and obviously critical approach is logical. Nonetheless I think that we have the right to condemn any sloppy job.
In regard of Russians, generally yes, because nothing in kind of joint claim/credited victories list was ever published. The new research contains such information, but it is usually limited to particular units or pilots. There were some discussions regarding a complete list, but I think the best would be to ask Russians themselves. Some of them are visiting the site.

Jan
The Bykov's book is the only one based on archival sources. It is not flawless (corrections are available online), but Pokryshkin case was checked extremely carefully. Highest scores are usually based on Pokryshkin memoirs and other propaganda stuff, and as far as I know, nobody was able to contradict Bykov's data.
That said any work based on propaganda sources must be flawed, and that was my exact point. I hope it is clear. And the author does not speak Russian, as he admitted himself when send to Russian sources.
Finally, I think questions to Bernad or Karlenko should be aimed directly to them.

[Boris Ciglic]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

...corrections are available online...

Franek,

could you point me to these corrections?
Cheers,
Boris

[Dénes Bernád]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Andreas
Finally, I think questions to Bernad or Karlenko should be aimed directly to them.

My co-author, Jean-Louis Roba, is responsible for that particular piece of info.

By the way, Jochen Prien et co., in their Jagdwaffe series (No. 6/II.) also mention that Heydrich's mount was hit by flak fire in the cooling system compelling him to force land in enemy territory.

[kalender1973]

Again Mr. Grabowski supply the community with not fully correct data.

First, quite all soviet pilots from the Bykov's book have inconsistences in their accounts. Especially it is very often for the aces, who started in Juny 1941. Sometimes the documents show only 1/3 from public known kills. If we know, that all documents from 55 iap were destroyed during their retreat in 1941, it is not unthinkable that some of Pokryshkin kills were "burnt" too. And may be the higher command instance (division) was not informed about these.

Second, in case of Pokryshkin, Bykov&Co violete their own methodology: if they stand to their own rules( see page 13), the account of Pokryshkin looks at least as 53 personal kills as noted in the award record for the 3rd gold star of HSU.

[Jan Gazda]

Hi,

this one is probably what Franek had in mind

http://www.avia-hobby.ru/publ/sovaces/errata1.html

Jan

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi, all

Well... after seeing a new documentary on Chernobyl I have a slight sceptical approach with regards to ex-Soviet reports... but I really would like to be proven wrong and able to compare objectively reports from all sides of the conflict. Also, it seems that access to most of the archives in Russia have been effectively cut off lately... letting only 'approved' parties see original records which is a definite warning sign with regards to objective research

One of the more scary moments in the Chernobyl film was in my opinion when the personnel in the control room were assessing the situation, and discussing the radiation level they were going to report to Moscow.

The conversation went something like this:

- What does the radiation meter say?

- It says 3.6, but ....

- But what?

- The scale only goes to 3.6 R/hr

- But we cannot say for sure that it is above 3.6 R/hr?

- No

- Well, then 3.6 R/hr it is, and that is what we are going to report to Moscow.

In reality the radiation level was later estimated by the armed forces to be approximately 15000 R/hr in some of the areas

(To be honest the most horryfying part is when the local political authorities want to keep the entire accident a secret, and not even inform the power plant workers and their families, even disallowing the workers to use protective clothing as not to cause panic.... not until the real possibility of more or less wiping out Ukraine was an imminent danger they reluctantly decided to act...)

Well, a bit off topic... but makes you wonder how reports written in a system like that relate to what really happened.

Hypothetical discussion:

- How many aircraft have we lost?

- Well, I saw two crashing, but 17 has not returned to their base.

- Can you say for certain that the missing 17 were shot down?

- No

- Well then 2 aircraft lost it is!! Type up your report!

Regards,
Andreas B

[kalender1973]

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

Hi, all

Well... after seeing a new documentary on Chernobyl

Documentary is not necessarily really based on document, the conversation could be imaginary. I assume the Moscow know very good the real situation

[Brian Bines]

While authors should make every effort to be accurate let us not forget that official records are not always right. For example while looking at the Luft.QM's lists for Do215 losses these show the loss of Oblt. Plotzius' crew on 23-7-41 in LW+AS wn. 0048, a later report has exactly the same crew on the same day in L2+AB wn 0011 as far as I could see no correction note. In the Steinbock attack the RAF report gives the w.n. of a crashed-landed at He177 Hindhead Surrey but a luftwaffe report shows the same w.n. as crashing in France following technical problems. When 'K' reports were released in the USA several authors, in good faith, stated aircraft of EinsatzSt/JG104 flew on Bodenplatte which later documents shows to be mis-information by the JG54 pilot taken POW. A recent television programe about the shooting down of an RAF ace implies the whole truth may not have been put down in the reports following his return to the UK, possible friendly fire incident ? The other things with official reports is that some are written in a protective manner to avoid the writer spending some time in the Con.Camp or Gulag, and others are written for propaganda.
One wonders what future historians will make of the Official Reports stating Iraq had weapons of mass destuction and the post invasion reports saying apparantly they did'nt, which ones will surface first.

[Dénes Bernád]

OT: Andreas, having lived under Communism for long enough to get a good grip on how it really worked (thanks God I can put this verb in the past tense!), the scenario you suggested seems to me perfectly plausible.

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi, all

Brian: With regards to errors - definitely! They were made then and will be made also in the future. The term human error wouldn't have been as widespread if humans were flawless (or systems created by humans were). When dealing with times of conflict (a state our world sadly seems to be in at all times....), the concept of propaganda must be taken into account.

kalender73: The quote was according to the memoirs of the person in charge of the subsequent investigation.

My point here is only that we can not take anything as 100% certain, but there are also times when the probability of something being correct is simply to low.

Regards,
Andreas B