One of the Cold War's anti-Soviet myths says of a total superiority of the German military over Soviets. They say that the Soviets has won only because they had an inexhaustible man resource, and any links wich show that there was never decisive Soviet superiority in manpower do not help. A myth of a total superiority of German Air Force is a part of that great myth. Really,Major Erich Hartmann claimed, and was credited with, shooting down 352 Allied aircraft, including 348 Soviet and four American. His colleagues in Luftwaffe 52th Fighter Squadron, Gerhard Barkhorn and Gunther Rall , claimed about 301 and 275 victories. These figures contrast sharply with the results of the best Soviet fighter pilots: I.N. Kozhedub had 62 victories and A.I. Pokryshkin had 59. Another 13 fighter pilots of the Luftwaffe scored from 200 to 275 wins, 92 pilots scored between 100 and 200,and 360 pilots scored between 40 and 100. One would think that this undoubtly prove that Soviet pilots were really bad. But gentlemen here forget results of the best Western pilots : the best British pilot Johnnie Johnson - 38 victories;the best US pilot Richard Bong - 40 victories;the best French pilot Marcel Albert - 23 victories. So the Blond Beast really exists ? Let's analyze the problem in detail. The top German ace Erich Hartmann had 1425 missions, Gerhard Barkhorna had 1104 missions, Walter Krupinski (197 victories) had 1100 missions. I.N. Kozhedub had only 330 missions. If you divide the number of missions by the number of downed, then the German top aces and best Soviet fighter pilot had roughly 4-5 missions per victory. It is not difficult to guess that, if Kozhedub had 1425 missions, he could have easily downed three hundred planes. Comparing three best German pilots with three best Soviet: Erich Hartmann,352 victories in 825 battles, efficiency ratio 0,394; Günther Rall,275 victories in 621 battles, efficiency ratio 0,413; Otto Kittel,263 victories in 583 battles, efficiency ratio 0,451; ( I miss Barkhorn because I don't know how many battles he had ) Ivan Kozhedub,62 victories in 120 battles,efficiency ratio 0,516; Alexandr Pokryshkin, 59 victories in 165 battles ,efficiency ratio 0,378; Nikolay Gulayev,57 victories in 69 battles ,efficiency ratio 0,826. Thus, the six of most effective Soviet and German pilots is following : 1.Nikolay Gulayev, 0,826 2.Ivan Kozhedub, 0,516; 3.Otto Kittel, 0,451; 4.Günther Rall, 0,413; 5.Erich Hartmann, 0,394; 6.Alexandr Pokryshkin, 0,378. So the Soviet occupy the first two places in the list of the most effective pilots,and Gulayev is significantly ahead of all.As we see.there is no superiority of the Germans. Let's look from the other point of view. Erich Hartmann in 825 battles was shot down 5 times.ie his "reliability" is 165 ;Günther Rall was shot down 8 times in 621 battles, the "reliability" is much lower - 77,6;Kittel was shot down 2 times in 583 battles and he is the most "reliable" German pilot - 291,5. Both Kozhedub and Pokryshkin was shot down only 1 time and have a ratio of 120 and 165 respectively,while Gulayev was never shot down and must be considered as not only the most effective but also as the most reliable pilot. So we see that the total superiority of German Air Force is a myth,the large number of victories of German pilots is explained by the large number of battles, thus Hartmann had 5 time more battles than Pokryshkin, 6,8 times more than Kozhedub and 14,5 time more than Gulayev.
This seems like a strawman thread. I don't think anyone's made the argument of the superiority of the German Air Force. I think you are confusing that with the Wehrmacht.
The math is rather absurd. Comparing the 'Number One Ace' with the 'highest ratio' with the lowest German ace ratio, we find 69 missions versus 583 missions, I'm pretty sure most commanders would want the German ace in their units, hands down. 263 victories versus 57? It's a no brainer, really, even if the Soviet 'Air Force' was largely a joke early in the war, and not much to brag about later, when they had almost no resistance over most of the front for years.
So was the Heer and the Kriegsmarine. When President Truman went German and created the American version of the Wehrmacht with the National Security Act of 1947, one has to wonder why hasn't America won a war since ?
Hans Rudel, a Ju-87 Stuka pilot had an amazing number of tank kills on the Eastern Front. Towards the latter part of the war the Germans mounted two 37mm cannons on wing pylons making the Ju-87G variant. Slow and difficult to maneuver, in the proper hands they were still very deadly against Soviet armor and ships. Rudel knocked out about 519 tanks. Rudel was probably the greatest attack pilot in WW2. Between Rudel and the Finnish sniper Simo Haya, these guys were literally one man armies out there. Rudel dispatched three Soviet tank corps' worth of men and machines.
Feel free to correct or edit, not saying this list is definitive. Korea (1950 - 1953) - stalemate Dominican Republic (1965) - victory Vietnam (1961 - 1973) - political defeat Lebanon (1982–1984) - withdrawal Grenada (1983) - victory Panama (1989) - victory Gulf War (1991) - victory Somalia (1993) - withdrawal Bosnia (1994–1995) - victory Kosovo (1999) - victory Afghanistan (2002 - 2014) - ? (time will tell) Iraq (2003 - 2010) - ? (time will tell) ISIS (2015 - Present) To be determined
Russia got lucky in WWII. If Hitler had focused on Russia instead of multiple fronts, the world would be a different place.
I'd call that accurate but you are missing Haiti. The withdrawal from Somalia and Lebanon after the fact ended up being successes because our goals in those conflicts were achieved, just not by our deployments. - - - Updated - - - Hitler did focus on Russia.
Difficult to judge the GWOT wars Afghanistan and Iraq, these governments are very fragile, I'm hesitant to call these military defeats. They weren't, certainly not Iraq, after all Hussein and the Baathists were routed, the region itself remains highly unstable however. Kind of why I left the question mark. Are these true defeats? No, but they aren't victories either. The NVA routed the ARVN after the U.S. pulled up stakes and Saigon fell, that's the only clear cut political defeat post-WW2. We lost the objective to keep a democratic South Vietnam separate from communist North Vietnam.
What a ignorant and erroneous observation. It was Hitler that got Lucky and caught Russia in an off balance position. Otherwise the war would have been over in 1943.
Later versions of the Soviet Yak-9 could out turn German fighters at lower altitudes. They were lighter weight with lower wing loading. German planes would stall trying to follow them and at lower altitudes this meant an unrecoverable stall. Crash n' Burn. Statistically the Russian pilot wouldn't get credit for a kill, but nevertheless the German fighter was out of the fight. As long as the dogfighting was kept close to the deck, the Soviets had the advantage with the Yak-9 and the Yak-3. It's all about energy in terms of controlling and maneuvering an aircraft. Kinetic energy = mass and speed Potential energy = mass, gravity and altitude. KE + PE = TE (total energy) The fighter that is able to maintain a higher energy package will have the advantage...so this is what German engineers focused on. Problem. A higher energy package alone does not improve maneuverability. You see, the important factor in maneuverability is specific energy...total energy per unit of weight. A lighter fighter, less mass in other words, is typically more maneuverable than a heavier fighter, more mass in other words. If the total energy is the same, this is still true. Why is this true you ask? The lighter aircraft has more specific energy. So at lower altitudes, physics gives the Yak-9 the advantage. Given two equally competent pilots controlling their respective birds of prey, the lighter more maneuverable aircraft is better when both opponents strive for an offensive position, and when disengaging and facilitating an escape.
Allow to add All Yak versions can outturn all Me109 and Fw190 of their time in horizontal. But only later Yak versions Yak9 and Yak3 have reached combat and absolute speeds that matched Me and Fw. Though a Yak1 can put up a fight in 1945, there is nothing much you can do if the enemy simply disengages. Late Yak is a very interesting plane. Its total characteristics are nothing special, but its vital characteristics are good or excellent. You are overlooking thrust/weight ratio which was excellent in Yak3/Yak9. Combat is usually waged at 2/3 of max speed. Due to low weight and good aerodynamics, in this range Yak gains speed easily, it follows the throttle stick. Acceleration rate is excellent. Maneuverability very good. Energy retention excellent. Climb speed normal. Vertical maneuver excellent. Cost low gun power of one 20mm(120rounds) and one 12mm. Although versions with 37mm and 45mm or 3x20 are available, they are heavier. Another aspect that is usually overlooked, Yak was a fantastic learning plane. There is not much substitute to real combat in terms of training. To a young inexperienced pilot, Yak provided much more safety in combat than Me or Fw or La or Spitfire or Mustang. Due to light weight and excellent maneuverability it is easy to dodge an attack or escape a difficult situation. Easy to disengage to return and fight another day. - Ideal for an inexperienced pilot. - Less interesting for a moderate pilot. Weak guns (you have to be very close to the target). Relatively poor dive (Yak has difficulties following Me or FW into a dive were they can run away). Excellent below 4km but poor high altitude performance compared to Me. - A killing machine for an ace that has already perfected his gunnery skills. Normandie-Neemen, a French Regiment that fought the entire war together with Soviets, preferred Yak above all, and considered it to be superior to Lavochkin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandie-Niemen
