Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kursk logistics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by amvas
    And I've heard the opposite discussion that German air forces had much more losses from AA defences....
    The gunners aren't going to say otherwise.

    http://www.luftboard.ndo.co.uk/einz_mld.htm

    Take 1 week from the VIII LuftKorps, the % is the chance of loss per sortie:

    5/7/43 2.387 sorties; Losses: 4 He 111, 1 Ju 88, 1 FW 190, 1 Hs 126, 12 BF 109; 0.79% losses per sortie.

    6/7/43: 1.868 sorties: Losses: 6 Ju 87 (of it 5 by Flak), 1 Ju 88; 0.37% losses/sortie

    7/7/43: 1.829 sorties: Losses: 1 He 111, 1 Ju 88, 4 FW 190, 4 BF 109; 0.54% loss/sortie

    8/7/43: 1.686 sorties: Losses: 1 FW 190, 2 Hs 129, 2 Ju 87 (1 by Flak); 0.30% loss/sortie

    9/7/43: 1.921 sorties: Losses: 1 Hs 129, 2 Ju 87, 7 BF 109, 1 He 111; 0.57% loss/sortie

    10/7/43: 682 sorties (bad weather) No losses.

    11/7/43: 1.039 sorties: Losses: 4 Ju 87, 4 BF 109, 2 FW 190, 1 Ju 88, 3 He 111. 1.35% loss/sortie

    Out of 11.412 sorties, only 6 losses by Flak.

    www.tdg.nu

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Txemapamundi
      .............
      [/B]
      Besides direct losses there could be damaged planes.
      And also existed "defensive fire" which made aviation life less safe
      The main aim of AA defence was not only to destroy enemie's planes, but to prevent them fulfilling their missions! :sleep:
      If you fire a rifle at the past, the future will fire a cannon at you.....

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by amvas
        The main aim of AA defence was not only to destroy enemie's planes, but to prevent them fulfilling their missions! :sleep:
        You got a point there.
        www.tdg.nu

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Txemapamundi
          You got a point there.
          And besides I heard about some German tricks with statistics (of course, such ones weren't only in German's use). When some planes had returned to its airfields were wrote off later.........

          Again, this doesn't mean that those figures are unbelievable. But this trick also need to be mentioned sometimes...
          Unfortunately to fix this one need to consult with a raw documents
          If you fire a rifle at the past, the future will fire a cannon at you.....

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by amvas
            And besides I heard about some German tricks with statistics (of course, such ones weren't only in German's use). When some planes had returned to its airfields were wrote off later.........

            Again, this doesn't mean that those figures are unbelievable. But this trick also need to be mentioned sometimes...
            Unfortunately to fix this one need to consult with a raw documents
            I don't think the Germans, being Germans, are going to alter official documents, but it is likely that a different definition of shot down applies. In the Korean War, an American plane that was damaged in combat but managed to get to an airfield but was later declared non-salvageable wouldn't be recorded as a combat loss, so the same may be happening here.
            www.tdg.nu

            Comment


            • #21
              I would really advise against using German sources to determine the breakdown by loss type. Most losses are reported as "not returned", and not whether it was shot down by ground fire or enemy fighters.

              What's needed is to use the combo of sources from both sides to figure out how each individual plane was lost.
              Kak nyne sbiraetsia veschii Oleg otmstit' nerazumnym ... well, you know who you are :)

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by amvas
                Where it was published? In Tekhnika-Molodezhi?
                I'm not sure about the publisher. It's not in stores yet. People on VIF2 bought themselves advance copies. It's supposed to be the ULTIMATE source on the air battle over Kursk.

                http://vif2ne.ru:80/nvk/forum/0/archive/668/668783.htm
                Kak nyne sbiraetsia veschii Oleg otmstit' nerazumnym ... well, you know who you are :)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Oleg
                  I'm not sure about the publisher. It's not in stores yet. People on VIF2 bought themselves advance copies. It's supposed to be the ULTIMATE source on the air battle over Kursk.

                  http://vif2ne.ru:80/nvk/forum/0/archive/668/668783.htm
                  500 roubles (17$) for 200 pages book!!!

                  It is robbery!!!

                  Average price of well printed book (500 pages) is 150-200 roubles in shop.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Andrey
                    500 roubles (17$) for 200 pages book!!!

                    It is robbery!!!

                    Average price of well printed book (500 pages) is 150-200 roubles in shop.
                    It's actually cheap by Western standards.

                    Plus, the price is tentative. Once it goes on sale, it will probably be a little less expensive.
                    Kak nyne sbiraetsia veschii Oleg otmstit' nerazumnym ... well, you know who you are :)

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Oleg
                      It's actually cheap by Western standards.

                      I live in Russia and it is very expensive for Russia.

                      Do you agree to buy PC games for 30-50$ for one game like in West? No, Russian price is 3$ for game.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Oleg
                        I would really advise against using German sources to determine the breakdown by loss type. Most losses are reported as "not returned", and not whether it was shot down by ground fire or enemy fighters.

                        What's needed is to use the combo of sources from both sides to figure out how each individual plane was lost.
                        Agree. I heard that Luftwaffe made actions for hiding of high casualties. For example, planes which were damaged in combat and broke during landing were not counted as combat losses. Or if unit had too large casualties for one day these too high casualties were counted as casualties for some days, in this case averagecasualties were not so high.

                        And Luftwaffe didn't ask acknowledge of land troops for confirming of Air Victories of pilots (like in Soviet Air Forces), Luftwaffe didn't check data about victories of famous pilots.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Andrey
                          Agree. I heard that Luftwaffe made actions for hiding of high casualties. For example, planes which were damaged in combat and broke during landing were not counted as combat losses. Or if unit had too large casualties for one day these too high casualties were counted as casualties for some days, in this case averagecasualties were not so high.

                          And Luftwaffe didn't ask acknowledge of land troops for confirming of Air Victories of pilots (like in Soviet Air Forces), Luftwaffe didn't check data about victories of famous pilots.
                          You got the first part right, damaged planes written off later wouldn't be counted as combat losses, but this begs the question of why was the plane written off: because you need it for spares? because it couldn't be repaired? and after all it brought its pilot back, didn't it? It's a question of criteria not of liying.

                          On the second part, you are wrong. Enemy planes brought down behind German lines required confirmation of the wreckage, planes brought down behind enemy lines required at least 1 other pilot to testify that the planes went down in flames, exploded, or was left in an unflyable condition. Post war research indicates that German claims and actual losses were quite close, and certainly were more accurate than those of the Western allies.
                          www.tdg.nu

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Txemapamundi
                            I don't think the Germans, being Germans, are going to alter official documents, but it is likely that a different definition of shot down applies. ...
                            I learnt this from the man who professionally is occupied with this subject and directly works with raw documents
                            If you fire a rifle at the past, the future will fire a cannon at you.....

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Oleg
                              I'm not sure about the publisher. It's not in stores yet. People on VIF2 bought themselves advance copies. It's supposed to be the ULTIMATE source on the air battle over Kursk.

                              http://vif2ne.ru:80/nvk/forum/0/archive/668/668783.htm
                              500R isn't much price if the book is really good.
                              If I see it I'd like to buy.
                              I bought the 1st volume of Tank Encyclopedy for 600R+
                              If you fire a rifle at the past, the future will fire a cannon at you.....

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Txemapamundi
                                You got the first part right, damaged planes written off later wouldn't be counted as combat losses, but this begs the question of why was the plane written off: because you need it for spares? because it couldn't be repaired? and after all it brought its pilot back, didn't it? It's a question of criteria not of liying.

                                On the second part, you are wrong. Enemy planes brought down behind German lines required confirmation of the wreckage, planes brought down behind enemy lines required at least 1 other pilot to testify that the planes went down in flames, exploded, or was left in an unflyable condition. Post war research indicates that German claims and actual losses were quite close, and certainly were more accurate than those of the Western allies.
                                In my first words I spoke about German losses and German planes which crashed during landing.

                                I read in many sources (inc. West) that Germans were not-correct in counting of destroyed enemy planes. For example, during battle of Britain German pilots counted 2 or 3 times more than real amount of destroyed British planes.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X