quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



That's why I don't disband the Luftwaffe bombers. If you use them in quieter areas of the front you can sometimes get away with only losing a few of them. Even in more heavily defended areas, I was trading half the Luftwaffe bombers for good vps.

Before the rockets got fixed I was also killing an awful lot of guns and afvs. But the dive bombers are pretty good too.

quote:


Pelton, I bet close to 100% of the four-digit losses were due to bombing a hex with an HQ. This is not a problem of the air system, it's a problem with the vulnerability of HQs that dates back to WitE. Especially Allied HQs are susceptible to gigantic losses due to how packed they are.



So unless you post the detailed breakdown of those four-digit kills I can't see those numbers as evidence that the air system is flawed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KWG

Then how does one account for:




"The Kursk salient became a storm of combat, but on 13 July Hitler, confronted with the Anglo-American invasion of Sicily, called off CITADEL. The Battle of Kursk was a significant Soviet victory, and would soon lead to pressing back the Germans all along the Eastern Front. The Shturmovik had made a major contribution to the success of Red arms. Il-2s destroyed 70 tanks of the 9th Panzer Division in a mere 20 minutes, inflicted losses of 2,000 men and 270 tanks in two hours of attack on the 3rd Panzer Division, and effectively destroyed the 17th Panzer Division in four hours of strikes, smashing 240 vehicles out of their total of almost 300. "



A 2 hour attack. Or is the above a QUOTE and not DATA?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

Given a working administration and reporting system the own loss reports is more or less accurate, especially if they have control over the battlefield which was the case for the Germans at Kursk. Meanwhile opposing loss reports is nearly always too high and there are a multitude of reasons for it. Tendency to look at it positively, tough to gauge destroyed vs. damaged, chaos of the battlefield etc.

The Germans grew suspicious of their own reports regarding destroyed Soviet tanks that OKH decided in December 1942 to cut 50% off the reported losses for a better estimate of the Russian losses. Turns out 50% was a bit too much with overreporting numbering about 40%.

German losses at Kursk have been checked from multiple angles by German and foreign historians and they can be seen as more or less accurate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KWG

If you read all my posts my main argument has bee that it COULD be done, not so much what it does.


Then how does one account for:




"The Kursk salient became a storm of combat, but on 13 July Hitler, confronted with the Anglo-American invasion of Sicily, called off CITADEL. The Battle of Kursk was a significant Soviet victory, and would soon lead to pressing back the Germans all along the Eastern Front. The Shturmovik had made a major contribution to the success of Red arms. Il-2s destroyed 70 tanks of the 9th Panzer Division in a mere 20 minutes, inflicted losses of 2,000 men and 270 tanks in two hours of attack on the 3rd Panzer Division, and effectively destroyed the 17th Panzer Division in four hours of strikes, smashing 240 vehicles out of their total of almost 300. "



A 2 hour attack. Or is the above a QUOTE and not DATA?



And when one considers the Luftwaffe and what causalities it caused at the 2nd battle of Kharkov.

Stalingrad what is the data for causalities caused by Luftwaffe?

Am I correct in that not all looses are KIA and there will be troops returning?

quote:

Totenkopf - 12

quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

Good article on the subject which actually deals with one of the direct quotes being used in this thread.

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/combat-aircraft-versus-armour-in-wwii/

Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: KWG

Really? only 12 for the unit that was in the thickest fighting from start to end?

As most reports have the Totenkopf losing over half all AVF and vehicles.