QUOTE #1:
"Such wild general statements are one of the reasons that contribute to the belief that Soviet aircraft were inferior to the Luftwaffe. For example the Yak 9T was a totally different aircraft to the Yak 3. In it's debut over Kurst Yak 9's claimed the destruction of 54 enemy aircraft for the loss of just 12 to all causes. And according to pilot reports the Yak 9 - in all variants (15 in total) was rated as the best in survivability next to the La 5FN."
Really?
You call my words "such general wild statements". Frankly speaking is that i say to you i have no problem with that at all. Still, and as you might comprehend, i have certain things to type down here.
Now, let me illustrate it a bit further for you:
Try to read things before discharging your words: although not thoroughly detailed, i did state the Yak-9T is a different machine, note where i said "a heavier version", after having described the Yak-3 as a “light weight”.
I do know what the differences between the Yak-3 and the Yak-9T were. Sorry mister but i do not believe you can come along and tell me what the differences between both models were.
I will put your "Kursk" reference in the dustbin -fast track-. Do you know how many planes the jagdwaffe destroyed in combat on July 5th only, mister -not including those lost to Flak and accidents-? Does not sound like you do.
Please note you suggest my comments of the late Focke Wulfs beating the Yaks “are silly”, while filing a funny claim of some sort of “superb” record of a Yak model during a battle where the VVS did very little besides losing thousands of pilots in just a few days. You need professional help and ought to inform someone.
Again, itīs funny you called my words "general" and "wild" while failing to see your own vagueness:
So the Yak-9T "claimed" the destruction of "54 planes" in "its debut battle"?
A claim counted as effectively destroyed?
54 planes? During Kursk? Shadowy data.
Are you acquainted with the soviet method to confirm victories to their pilots?
More of your stuff:
QUOTE # 2:
"Again several misconceptions.
i) The machines were not hastily built from late 1942 onwards, when all had been moved east out of Luftwaffe bomber range. Yes quality was always a problem with Soviet aircraft, but the quality emproved enormously from late 1943 onwards - although never reaching German nor Allied levels."
QUOTE # 3:
"ii) All aircraft off the production lines were fitted with radio's from December 1942 onwards (mostly just able to receive commands), only the flight leaders having the ability to transmit."
Really? You ought to stop for you are clueless.
QUOTE # 4:
"iii) Whilst the hasty training programme left much to be desired from June 1941 to early 1943, it improved dramatically from mid 1943 onwards. For example the average number of hours solo a pupil had in late 1941 was 16 hours. In 1942 it rose to 31 hours. In March 1943 it was 120 hours and by November 1943 it had risen to 190 hours. The standard from January 1944 onwards was 330 hours."
Laughable -and pointless-. It gives me a pretty accurate picture of your knowledge about soviet losses during 1943 , say, at Kursk and during the battle over the Kuban bridgehead which are battles highly boasted by the soviet propaganda. Same for the year of 1944.
My "misconceptions"? I appreciate your kindness and warm gesture; it tells me you are a noble man who tries to help people when you see their failures. Keep up the good work, there will come the day when planet earth is free of ignorant people such as myself.
We have the same situation here mr. wisdom. Here are the questions to challenge your self-reliance:
(1) Have you talked to veterans of the VVS? If so, how many have you had the chance of meeting?
(2) Have you had the chance of meeting people who worked in airplane production facilities of the soviet union during the great patriotic war? If so, how many have you had the chance of meeting and where were such facilities located?
More from you:
QUOTE # 5:
"What a silly claim. The numbers of these aircraft were so insignificant as to be utterly ignored."
Not a claim mister; rather itīs a fact. In the scarce numbers it saw service the Ta-152s raided the soviet fighters losing zero of their own; the Fw 190 D-9 was produced in certainly higher numbers and just like its younger cousin, it owned the Yaks in combat.
You have problems in distinguishing between claims and facts.
This gentleman is really something. A "silly claim". Once more, read your vague assertion regarding the Kursk debut of the Yak-9. I already ignored it.
QUOTE # 6:
"They managed to produced in huge numbers because of the development of a highly skilled workforce, a multitude of aircraft plants in safe locations and excellent management practices. It wasn't a miracle, but the outcome of a well planned and implemented programme. And they put produced the Germans in raw numbers."
Really? This interesting. Did not know about this remarkable fact. Do not change my life in such a rude manner.
Finally, to have a golden ending:
QUOTE # 7:
"Well for an aircraft that is supposedly over-inflated in importance it did well to lose just 115 aircraft to all causes in 8 months of combat. Perhaps you haven't read the many pilots reports who claim that the La 7 was the best of that family of aircraft, and proved the equal to anything in the Luftwaffe armoury.
It's all well and good to focus on numbers and stastics for aircraft performance, but in the final analysis it's the pilots reports that count most.[/quote]"
The first paragraph of this quote is a jewel, iīm keeping it for future debating; i promise iīll practice intellectual honesty and will give credit to the man who coined the marvelous phrase.
In fact Priller i devoted too much time in responding to your silly, blanket and void posting. I promise i will ignore any future response you might deliver to my comments.
cheers
Linear Mode
