>>28425530 Different guy here. If you compare kill claims from German fighter units to Soviet records of losses and total aircraft committed to various theaters, you'll find a huge disparity, especially later in the war. Everyone overreports, but some of the campaigns where the top aces of the war (Hartmann, Barkhorn, and Rall) claimed many of their victories have a ridiculous amount of overreporting. For reference, in the Crimea 1944, the Soviets committed two Air Armies and the Black Sea Fleet Air Forces, totaling about 900 aircraft, and they admitted to the loss of 179 aircraft during the last month of the campaign (when the bulk of the fighting took place).
From the time the Crimea was cut off in 1943 to the day the last fighters were withdrawn in mid April 1944, SG 2 and two Staffeln of JG 52 claimed over 2,000 enemy aircraft. Barkhorn alone was credited with downing 50 enemy aircraft on the first day of the offensive across the Tartar Wall, and in the last month the fighters were there, 16 planes of III./JG 52 claimed over 1,000 enemy aircraft. It's absurd to think that the kills credited to German aces weren't inflated to some degree.
>>28425424 >Germany would have won if they hadn't declared war on everyone No shit. Should have stuck with everything they gained up until before the invasion of Poland then just sat back and got on with it. They had plenty of bloody room.
>>28425530 >questions score of a German Ace >must be a vatnik
>>28425587 They all made bogus claims; Germany's worsening situation and a desire to not be put against a wall for defeatism didn't help. Nor did the Luftwaffe policy of having wings support a single ace or very experienced pilot. A pilot could rack up a large score because his unit was basically dedicated to protecting him whilst he did so, to the detriment of the green pilot sin the unit (who'd usually get jack shit experience and suffer huge moral loss when their designated ace snuffs it).
>>28426243 >pacifism will win Hindsight makes it seem easy what not to do. You would have run germany into the ground if you'd been in the same position.
>bankrupted by rest of world in WW1 >surrounded by enemies in every direction that want your new nation to fail. (Germany had long been divided feuding states and the rest of the world had no desire to allow them to form up) >to west your #1 enemy of the World War. They have forced you to sign agreements so your army and navy and air force will be helpless if you stay back and pretend to be a pacifist with your current territory. Break those to be able to defend yourself = excuse to invade you at any time. Eventually when war breaks out against anyone, France marches in your west as russians march in your east.
>russians in east have huge population and land, but famously weak-as-piss and basically sub-human serfs. Weakened even further by civil wars. If you hide in germany doing nothing for 30 years, slavs modernize into a superpower that could roll right into germany at same time as a superpower france/britain roll into germany from the west.
>Britain ruled by a limpdick who didn't lift a finger when Hitler captured the whole foreign nation of Czechoslovakia. (Chamberlain said "peace in our time")
>United States are mostly isolationist, enhanced by the atlantic ocean separating them from Europe, back when combat planes could not fly close to that distance and enormous carrier fleet strategies haven't been invented yet. Any general would laugh his ass off thinking airplanes on boats would beat a real airforce with a country of runways to use for take off, landing, repair.
Had Germany camped out instead of attacked, they were at mercy of rest of world powers just the same. But if britain or russia had gone 25% worse or U.S. hadn't okayed infinite spending, germany could've gotten the same peace but with twice the resources at hand.
>>28425587 Also notewrothy, If a Soviet fighter was shot down but was recoverable in any way, they didn't consider it a loss at all. And often fighters shot down by enemy were counted as "crashed" if it didn't fall like a rock.
>>28429477 >bankrupted That's what happens when you prolong an industrial killing machine type war for so long. They were recovering in the 30's before they started invading countries anyway.
>surrounded by enemies Surround by people suspicious of you after last time. FTFY
>to the west your #1 enemy of World War They were.
>Russia would modernise Not without the catalyst of German invasion, they were 'piss weak' (debatable) and they only got off their arses when they did because it was that or utter anhilation.
>Britain ruled by a limpdick.....didn't lift a finger when Hitler captured the whole foreign nation of Czechoslovakia That's not quite how it happened. Anyway, i though you liked it when the Nazis captured countries?
>aircraft carriers not taken seriously What time period are you talking about??!
They weren't going to be attacked. Russia wasn't going to do shit (They got too much out of their friendship with Germany), France wasn't going to do shit (another war would have been and was political suicide), Britain wasn't going to do shit (We liked Germany), America didn't care and Poland wasn't able to do shit.
Germany was fine, they could have annexed the areas taken after the war peacefully (which they did) then be done with it. Once they attacked Poland though, the jig was up, they were fucked, finished, kaput, done. It was the first of many stupid decisions made by Hitler.
>>28435532 How did the Germans and Soviets count their ground kills btw? Did they ad up air-to-air kills with planes strafed on the ground, of was that a whole different record? I know that the strafing-numbers were insane during the start of Barbarossa, but they didn't count them as kills, right?
>>28435537 They were also bankrupted by Versailles before Hitler rose to power. Hitler then expanded the military and ran up huge debt he had to pay back, and was only able to do so by invading Poland and France. If he hadn't, his economy would have collapsed.
Also the Russians at the outset of Barbarossa had advantages in numbers of tanks, aircraft, and artillery. The t34 and kv1 they had at this time were superior to the German pz2, 3, and 4. Their air force had older style planes but they were not that much worse than the 109's used by the Germans. Really the biggest differences were in training and especially experience of officers. Only a few years earlier Stalin had killed over 30,000 officers in a great purge, and all branches were still struggling to recover. Furthermore, Stalin ignored clear intelligence that Hitler was planning this operation and prevented preparation so as not to antagonize the situation. The result was massive losses in the first week of combat that the USSR would take many months and many miles to recover from.
>>28435664 Yeah, i get that, but if you say "Pilot X has 300+ kills", does that include planes strafed on the ground? Or did the germans only count air-to-air as their kills? I know British and US pilots separated those numbers, and sometimes shared kills.
>>28436142 >>28436497 >>28436514 >>28436646 I think i read somewhere at while the wartime count was that high, later records showed that it was much closer, but stil in the US's favor. And it shifted greatly between times when the Mig's were flown by either Norks, the Chings or their Soviet "advisers".
>>28435661 >Also the Russians at the outset of Barbarossa had advantages in numbers of tanks, aircraft, and artillery. The t34 and kv1 they had at this time were superior to the German pz2, 3, and 4. They also did not have nearly enough of them to make any difference at the time. Most of the Soviet armor were still old T-26 and BT series light tanks.
>>28436693 Not in combat roles, only admitted to training and support. >The USSR never acknowledged that its pilots ever flew over Korea during the Cold War. Americans who intercepted radio traffic during combat confirmed hearing Russian-speaking voices, but only the Communist Chinese and North Korean combatants took responsibility for the flying. Until the publishing of recent books by Chinese, Russian and ex-Soviet authors, such as Zhang Xiaoming, Leonid Krylov, Yuriy Tepsurkaev and Igor Seydov, little was known of the actual pilots.
>>28436927 Wikipedia :p Yeah I know, wiki is shit and all that, but the citation leads to a book from Zaloga apparently, and from my experience he knows his stuff, at least when it comes to tanks and the Eastern Front.
>>28436844 At the start of Barbarossa the Soviets had around 900 T-34s. Not all of those were at the frontlines the Germans were attacking. Besides even with T-34s and KVs the Germans still killed 7 tanks for each of their own losses. If the Soviets had enough T-34s to equip their frontline groups this would not have been the case.
The Germans had slightly over 3000 tanks going into Barbarossa. The Soviets had about 10000, 900 or so of them T-34s. (And about 500 KV-1s)
In total the Soviets lost over 20000 tanks in 1941, but only around 2000 of them were T-34s.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.