>people actually still believe Hartmann shot down 300+ aircraft
And here in lies while a true historical understanding of WWII is still some decades off.
History is written by the victors, let's get to work.
>>28424661
>people still believe Rudel destroyed 520 tanks in a fucking stuka
The nazi story runs deep in modern history.
still trying to prove the history books wrong Khazanov?
>>28424661
>>28424810
> Body count Math: 3 guerrillas plus 1 probable plus 2 pigs equals 37 enemies killed in action.
Doubly easy to do when your system doesn't need gun cam footage to confirm a kill
>>28424666
Yes Sir Commander Shepard
>>28424661
Germany would have won had they stick to single enemies rather then many
And I bet he destroyed a bread factory, huh vatnik?
>>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From the time the Crimea was cut off in 1943 to the day the last fighters were withdrawn in mid April 1944, SG 2 and two Staffeln of JG 52 claimed over 2,000 enemy aircraft.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.
>>28424661
>people still believe that everyone collected 100% correct kill counts/victories during World War Two.
>>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).
>>28424661
>You are now aware that these things were shot down by the hundreds each day on the eastern front.
>>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.
Even the Russia admitted they loss 400,000 at the Battle of Berlin.
Even the Russia admitted 400,000 T-34 loss at Berlin.
>>28425587
Keep in mind this is the same Soviet airforce that reported downing over 150 Brewster Buffalos over Finland.
>>28424661
The thing I can't believe is that Hartmann stuck with the 190 for his entire career.
He never made the jump to the Me-262, which I though he would have been on top of the list to get one.
Hell, he never even touched the 190 either.
>>28432726
Don't fix what ain't broke. He had flying the Bf. 109 down to an art, switching aircraft would have just been a handicap.
>>28432852
There is also the fact that the later 109 models were just plain better than the 190
>>28434392
At high altitude, yes
>>28424661
>not believing the Soviets had the skies thick like gnats with Sturmoviks
>not thinking the Germans had Western allied tier levels of keeping proper records
Communist detected
>>28425530
I don't understand this meme.
Did Hartmann strafe a lot of bread factories?
>>28435005
Look up his or Rudel's wiki bio: it's one of the two, and it's likely a retarded post war Soviet estimate
For some reason I believe a bunch a Nazis more in that regard that communists.
>>28432726
Because the Bf190 was the perfect energy fighter.
Also don't forget he was that great that he won air battles against several P-51s with that thing.
>>28432726
see Gerhard Barkhorn who didn't archive anything in the Me-262 although he was on the way to be even more successful than Hartmann in the Bf190.
>People still believe that the USA really shot down 10 migs for every sabre lost in Korea
T O P
>>28426194
They still don't. You shoot a guy from a far and the fucker doesn't get up that's recorded as a kill. Later the the asshole gets up and thinks to himself what a good nap..
Yeah sure the records are now hell of a lot more accurate but they're still far from 100%
>>28429480
Shut your nigger ass. Military history will forever have a place on /k/.
>>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.
>>28432726
>he stuck with the 190
>he never even touched the 190
Aside from making no sense, early jet fighters were crap, they were fast in a straight line, that's about it.
>>28435330
>Bf-190
I must have missed that one.....
>>28435532
>plane shot down
>its recoverable
I'd say that that doesn't count either. Doubt it happened often.
>>28435537
Russia also invaded Poland and they didn't receive a declaration of war from the British.
>>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.
>>28428091
If I was german tanker I would be absolutely terrified of one of these 7 ton bricks crashing into me
>>28435650
Well, if you on the winning side you just count the number of wracks.
So the German kill numbers at the beginning of the operation were pretty accurate.
>>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.
>>28435547
He meant stuck with the Bf 109.
Hartmann was a Messerschmidt fanboy all through the war.
>>28435467
>792 MiG-15s shot down by Sabres, and 78 Sabres lost to enemy fire
Sources:
https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=EhtEM2Knh_cC&pg=PA48&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=EhtEM2Knh_cC&pg=PA48&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
>>28435663
Why?
The chances you shooting them down are much higher than them putting accurate fire on you.
http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/combat-aircraft-versus-armour-in-wwii/
>>28436142
Were there ever even 700+ Mig 15s in korea?
>>28436497
No. Russian sources put total losses of all types (as in not only mig 15's) at 566 planes.
>>28436514
Source?
>>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".
>>28436646
Seidov's "Red devils in Korean skies"
ISBN 978-5-699-19160-4
>>28436676
>Soviet "advisers"
Korea wasn't Vietnam.
The Russians were very open about the fact they had troops and pilots in Korea.
>>28426243
German here, Pre WW1 germany was pretty ok.
>>28436693
More than the soviets, I find it hilarious that no one in the West remembers that China basically declared war on the UN.
The norks didn't win the war, the chinks did.
>>28436693
They never admitted to having partaken in combat until the Glasnost. But it was an "open secret"
>>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.
>>28424886
Well? Get to it.
>>28435661
>>28436795
It's not entirely true.
While armor and weaponry wise T-34 and KV-1 were definitely superior, visibility and communication wise they were inferior. Add in reliability issues and combat order issues - and there you have it.
As for the ludicrous amount of pre-war tanks - treat it as a quirk of soviet pre-war tank counting. They counted even non-operable machines requiring total overhauls at a factory.
>>28436795
>not enough of them to make a difference
>had more T-34s than the Germans had tanks in total
>>28436809
Whom are you quoting?
>>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.
>>28436940
>Zaloga
>>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.
>>28436954
>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.
>only
>>28437089
Yes?
The claim was:
>had more T-34s than the Germans had tanks in total
Which is on all accounts wrong, specially at the start of Barbarossa.
>>28437117
Bringing in that majority of Soviet armor were BTs and T-26s, calls for pointing out that German army was just as rag-tagged.
>>28436954
No, at the start of Barbarosa they had more than 3000 T-34s and the Soviet motor pool had around 30000 tanks. The Germans thought they had closer to 10000.
>>28424661
>Implying any nation was counting airkills fair and square
