This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ivan Kozhedub article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is a full or partial translation of content from Кожедуб Иван Никитович by Andrey Simonov on the site warheroes.ru. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under both the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license and the GNU Free Documentation License. You may use either or both licenses. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by OTRS volunteers; the list of ticket numbers for the site can be found here in Russian Wikipedia. |
The story of shooting down 2 P51s strikes me as a load of crap. The range of the lavochkin La5 is 475 miles (remember, this is the ROUND TRIP) range. The range of P51 is, say, 1700 miles with drop tanks. Additionally, the aircraft operated at vastly different altitudes - the La5 was pretty useless at altitude. Basically, the P51 story sounds like complete myth and there are no sources given. Therefore, i have removed it.
86.6.11.56 20:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The source of his story is Kozhedub himself: Кожедуб И. Н. Верность Отчизне. Ищущий боя. — М.: Эксмо, 2006. ISBN 5-699-17415-X. "Additionally, the aircraft operated at vastly different altitudes - the La5 was pretty useless at altitude." Yes, also La5 must be useless against Me-262, but Kozhedub shot down two of them. It's simple if he was an ace, and his opponents were not. 83.220.239.49 ( talk) 07:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Our goal is not to put our own opinions here, but rather to compile known facts from published sources. Therefore I'm removing the original research that's been added in place of the Kozhedub vs P-51 story, and leaving only the story, since only the story exists in any credible sources. Kozhedub himself retold it in much detail in his memoirs, and I'm not aware of any serious research done into the subject. If you're going to question the story, please quote from reliable sources, with attribution.
On a bit of my own personal original research, there reasons that have been put in the article by somebody are complete BS, and show woeful lack of understanding of the subject at hand.
First of all, Kozhedub was well within range of USAAF aircraft at several points in the war; for instance in 1944 he was responsible for VVS side of fighter operations during 8th AF's shuttle missions to Soviet airfield at Poltava. By April of 1944 Soviet and US aircraft operated within virtually the same airspace, and encounters were almost daily. On the day in question, there were missions to Magdeburg, 80 km away from Berlin, around the Elbe river, and to various targets in Czechoslovakia and Eastern Germany, all well within range of Soviet fighters. Given the Soviet airbases in April of 1945, La-7's range of 635 km put it within range of Paris, for God's sakes. Airspaces were well defined by both sides strayed into each other's paths, with many documented cases of both Soviet pilots mistaking P-51s for 109s, and US pilots mistaking Lavochkins for FW-190s.
The question of altitudes is also a non-question, since Kozhedub and other Soviet fighters flew at whatever altitudes they were likely to find opposition, and over Western Europe in April of 1945 it was significantly higher than over steppes of Russia two years prior.
Regarding the tactics, Kozhedub states in his memoirs that he didn't see the white stars on the aircraft he shot down until after the fact, so he apparently mistook them for 109s, which is quite understandable as he attacked them after seeing tracers pass over his head. I don't think you'll find many RoEs that call for a target to be visually identified after being attacked by it. And Kozhedub was not of the type to "just dive away" as the anonymous author suggests.
On the matter of the drop tanks, there's three possibilities: wrong footage; mechanical malfunction; or a forgetful pilot. All are within the realm of possibility, and neither can be used to discount the overall fact. On the purported footage, only one of the aircraft has a drop tank showing, and only one drop tank is seen.
There is indeed a 'ZEISS IKON' printed on the bottom of one of the guncamera films, but that's not printed by the camera, honestly, use your head, that's printed on the film at the film factory. I'm not aware of any research on the subject, but it's certainly not impossible that Soviets used captured German film in their gun cameras.
Finally, I'm also not finding any direct confirmation of these P-51s shot down, but there were certainly P-51s lost that day, and much more research needs to be done into the matter. The date needs to be definitely confirmed as April 17th, and the area where the kills were scored needs to be determined, and that needs to be compared to USAAF records. I'm assuming somebody did this at some point in the past, which is why the phrase shows up in every source. Unless somebody can research this again and definitely prove that there are no associated loss records, we need to fall back on all the previously published sources, all uniformly stating such records exist.
Flyboy Will 16:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. You have not provided any acutal evidence that the event DID happen. Rather, you simply provide potential evidence as to why in some hypothetical universe, it *could have* happened. YOu seem to miss the point of 'burden of proof.' The burden of proof is on the one who says it did happen. Since Kozhedub's story requires numerous stretches of the imagination, and NO real proof of the event has been given, I will replace my edits, though I welcome your "counterarguments" or refinements. however, to simply assume that the event happened because Kozhedub said so, given that no actual evidence has materialized is perverse and absurd.
86.6.11.56 17:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
"A memoir of the highest-scoring Allied ace of WWII is, by any measure, a reliable source."
I'm sorry, this just isn't true and you should be embarassed for making such a ludicrous claim. First of all, your claim is circular. You basically state that he is a reliable source because he is the highest scoring allied ace. Then, you claim that his kills are real because he is a reliable source. Stop spouting wikipedia theory to me and concentrate on the reality of the situation. Nishizawa, Sakai, the Flying Tigers, every Soviet Ace that has had their numbers stacked against German loss tables, American Aces, Japanese aces, all overclaimed, and often badly, and the overall claims in some theaters overstate enemy losses *including operational (accident) losses* by 2 or 3 to 1 in some places.. clearly, just because "some ace said so" isn't proof.
Notice that I haven't attacked Kozhedub's overall total cited here (though many would, because it probably wouldn't stand a thorough analysis just like Nishizawa's certainly wouldn't. Rather, I have poked my ire at one of the most obviously suspect parts of the legend - this P51 story, which relies upon multiple high improbabilities to be true AND there is a compelling reason to understand why the myth started (postwar cold-waresque tension) and was promulgated. Whatever you think about aces or kozhedub, the simple fact is that the story of the P51s does not pass the most basic tests of "reasonable doubt." And heck, look at me.. I'm a Ukrainian. I'd love for it to be true to bring more glory to some Ukrainians.
Yes, we are in the classic "memoirs vs historian" argument, but, really.. from your previous messages I thought you were smarter than that. Or do you want me to start making list of WW2 personalities with suspect memoirs? I dont think that wikipedia has enough bits for that.. let's see.. Schilling, Speer, Fuchida, George Gay... If i remember, even "Vasiliy Zaitzev" published a book.
86.6.11.56 17:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I think on most points, i agree with you, which is why, as I said, i have not attacked Kozhedub's highly contentious kills total. However, as it relates to the *specific* episode of the P51s, I am in whole agreement with you. Anything from your list, including most notably locating USAAF records or any reasonable substantiating evidence, woule be sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes. The problem that we have now is that there is a more credible alternative theory (occam's razor) that explains that particular event, which is post-war cold-war one-upmanship. Given the leaps of improbability that you have to make for the event to be considered true, the notion that the story is apocryphal fits the bill most perfectly. I doubt very much that this is a "personal opinion" of mine that i am pushing - it is simply a matter of the facts, as we know them. There is NO credible corroborating evidence to the event (and of course it is not possible for me to prove a negative with 'non events'), and indeed there is a much more plausible scenario that the event did not happen. Therefore, it should be left out. Encyclopedias do not print "John Smith was abucted by aliens because he told his psychiatrist about this because aliens exist." rather, they stick with a plausibility hypothesis, which is that "While scientists hold open the possibility that aliens exist, the prevailing consensus is that reported cases of alien abductions can be traced to childhood trauma, including, often, sexual molestation."
You continue to be wrong wrong wrong about things being a 'personal opinion'. This is simply fitting the best evidence to the facts. Likewise, while you are correct that your opinion that the VVS might have been better without him as a leader does not belong in wikipedia, certainly a consideration that he was a bad leader, if this represents historical consensus, does.
86.6.11.56 08:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Flyboy Will 16:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I see that some of you, people, are taking this just personaly. If there was some battle, where Kozhedub was shot down two German aircrafts, why you wouldn't start debates here? Wat's so special about two P-51's? As this story should be treated carefuly I would remove from the article such "against statements" as "Lavochkin has shorter range", "He just need to dive" and so on.-- Oleg Str 11:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Apart from these 62 victories, Ivan Kozhedub also was forced to shoot down two U.S. P-51 Mustangs that mistakenly attacked his La-7 on one occasion. Both these P-51 losses have been verified by USAAF sources. http://www.flymig.com/pilots/ivan.nikitovich.kozhedub.htm Took me 10 seconds and google to find that these claims are apparently independently verified and its pretty clear by the tone of the person claiming this event didn't happen that they merely have a personal vendetta to get this stricken from the record without any serious reasons as to why. Just my 2cents ... if I had a source that was more credible then flymig.com I'd have put it in the article rather then discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.231.15 ( talk) 06:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Claiming that something has been "independently verified" is different than having actual verification of an event. If the memoir is the original (and only) source of the story, it's not a matter of the story not being "confirmed completely"; it isn't confirmed in the least. 209.244.31.35 ( talk) 05:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Ivan Kozhedub is the highest scoring allied ace of WWII. 86.6.11.56 feels very strongly about a certain well-known claim made by Kozhedub in his memoirs, and disputes it based on, basically, general principle. All his stated reasons are original research. There's no published source disputing Kozhedub's claims. See the P-51 section above for history of debate. I was unable to explain to 86.6.11.56 that POV original research does not belong in wikipedia. Flyboy Will 16:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Erich Hartmann, in the Blond Knight of Germany, said that there were at least a couple of instances of them diving through an Allied formation shooting down American P-51's and B-17's, then going through the a layer of Soviet aircraft and shooting some of them down. In the resulting confusion Hartmann's group would break off the attack and he would look back to see US and Soviet aircraft fighting each other, each thinking that the other had attacked them. Hartmann didn't know if Kozhedub was in any of these formations, but his observations lend credibility to Kozhedub's claims. XXVII ( talk) 16:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
No, but Raymond Toliver and Trevor James Constable has written the book with that name, a biography. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.54.244 ( talk) 12:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
References
Hey. I don't mind original research as long as it makes sense and cites where that information was found. (Against or not against the rules, that's up to you people who make the rules to decide). But one thing that absolutely doesn't make sense in this story are the droptanks and since it is held up as the main argument then the whole story faulters. So here's my question: If the drop tanks were normally removed but we see here that some aircraft is attacking the P-51, then what does it matter? How is it an argument that it can't e a Soviet Aircraft attacking the P-51s because they have droptanks but it is not an argument that it can't be a german (or any other) aircraft attacking them? Clearly an aircraft is attacking them and clearly at least one has droptanks. It's a moot point. 79.136.64.95 ( talk) 05:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
That bit is suspect but the bit about the Zeiss equipment - if the film in question can be found - is quite pertinent to veracity of the argument. The droptanks to me are utterly inconsequential but the rest is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:87:4080:372:84D7:679C:1DA0:C7F6 ( talk) 23:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Soviet Union (USSR) was created in 1922 two years after Ivan Kozhedub birth. Please check maps, years and [1]. -- Viggen ( talk) 16:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
According to the wiki rules we should use official name of the country. In 1920 official name of Ukraine was Ukrainian People's Republic and it was recognized by all major countries of the world. UkSSR was a self-proclaimed republic (to be precise - a muppet-state organised by Russian aggressors, exactly like today's "Donetsk People's Republic"), recognized only by Soviet Russia.-- Viggen ( talk) 16:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
( talk) 10:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Viggen, you've made a terrible WP:BATTLEGROUND start as a new editor, and this has been turned into a 'much ado about nothing' escalation into edit warring. Having checked around some Ukrainian tertiary sources, I have seen no mention of the UPR, and there is no significance for Kozhedub's bio as it was an accident of birth that he was born into a brief era of unrest. What he is known for is being an ace Soviet pilot of Ukrainian ethnicity. At best, it can be qualified WP:INLINE as being the UPR as a compromise. Outside of that, it's trivia.
What does concern me is that user HOBOPOCC has returned to editing Eastern European articles after only just escaping a TBAN a couple of years ago by disappearing. In fact, it seems to me that it is this edit that actually started the edit warring. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 00:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Dear Alex Bakharev and Iryna Harpy the infobox is not neutralized until now (like in the main text) - UkSSR is still there. I think we should take some actions.-- Viggen ( talk) 09:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to say this, but this article needs a lot of improvement. For starters, Polak's book is questionable to say the least, considering the number of confirmed factual errors in other biographies in the book. Also, while the exact number of kills by Kozhedub is disputed, estimates range from 60-64 solo and 0-4 shared - something the article should note.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 22:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Ушкуйник: @ KHMELNYTSKYIA: Both of you. Stop edit-waring this page. Neither of you are seeing the bigger picture - that this article (relatively) almost a stub compared to some other language Wikipedia versions.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 15:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ivan Kozhedub article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is a full or partial translation of content from Кожедуб Иван Никитович by Andrey Simonov on the site warheroes.ru. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under both the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license and the GNU Free Documentation License. You may use either or both licenses. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by OTRS volunteers; the list of ticket numbers for the site can be found here in Russian Wikipedia. |
The story of shooting down 2 P51s strikes me as a load of crap. The range of the lavochkin La5 is 475 miles (remember, this is the ROUND TRIP) range. The range of P51 is, say, 1700 miles with drop tanks. Additionally, the aircraft operated at vastly different altitudes - the La5 was pretty useless at altitude. Basically, the P51 story sounds like complete myth and there are no sources given. Therefore, i have removed it.
86.6.11.56 20:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The source of his story is Kozhedub himself: Кожедуб И. Н. Верность Отчизне. Ищущий боя. — М.: Эксмо, 2006. ISBN 5-699-17415-X. "Additionally, the aircraft operated at vastly different altitudes - the La5 was pretty useless at altitude." Yes, also La5 must be useless against Me-262, but Kozhedub shot down two of them. It's simple if he was an ace, and his opponents were not. 83.220.239.49 ( talk) 07:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Our goal is not to put our own opinions here, but rather to compile known facts from published sources. Therefore I'm removing the original research that's been added in place of the Kozhedub vs P-51 story, and leaving only the story, since only the story exists in any credible sources. Kozhedub himself retold it in much detail in his memoirs, and I'm not aware of any serious research done into the subject. If you're going to question the story, please quote from reliable sources, with attribution.
On a bit of my own personal original research, there reasons that have been put in the article by somebody are complete BS, and show woeful lack of understanding of the subject at hand.
First of all, Kozhedub was well within range of USAAF aircraft at several points in the war; for instance in 1944 he was responsible for VVS side of fighter operations during 8th AF's shuttle missions to Soviet airfield at Poltava. By April of 1944 Soviet and US aircraft operated within virtually the same airspace, and encounters were almost daily. On the day in question, there were missions to Magdeburg, 80 km away from Berlin, around the Elbe river, and to various targets in Czechoslovakia and Eastern Germany, all well within range of Soviet fighters. Given the Soviet airbases in April of 1945, La-7's range of 635 km put it within range of Paris, for God's sakes. Airspaces were well defined by both sides strayed into each other's paths, with many documented cases of both Soviet pilots mistaking P-51s for 109s, and US pilots mistaking Lavochkins for FW-190s.
The question of altitudes is also a non-question, since Kozhedub and other Soviet fighters flew at whatever altitudes they were likely to find opposition, and over Western Europe in April of 1945 it was significantly higher than over steppes of Russia two years prior.
Regarding the tactics, Kozhedub states in his memoirs that he didn't see the white stars on the aircraft he shot down until after the fact, so he apparently mistook them for 109s, which is quite understandable as he attacked them after seeing tracers pass over his head. I don't think you'll find many RoEs that call for a target to be visually identified after being attacked by it. And Kozhedub was not of the type to "just dive away" as the anonymous author suggests.
On the matter of the drop tanks, there's three possibilities: wrong footage; mechanical malfunction; or a forgetful pilot. All are within the realm of possibility, and neither can be used to discount the overall fact. On the purported footage, only one of the aircraft has a drop tank showing, and only one drop tank is seen.
There is indeed a 'ZEISS IKON' printed on the bottom of one of the guncamera films, but that's not printed by the camera, honestly, use your head, that's printed on the film at the film factory. I'm not aware of any research on the subject, but it's certainly not impossible that Soviets used captured German film in their gun cameras.
Finally, I'm also not finding any direct confirmation of these P-51s shot down, but there were certainly P-51s lost that day, and much more research needs to be done into the matter. The date needs to be definitely confirmed as April 17th, and the area where the kills were scored needs to be determined, and that needs to be compared to USAAF records. I'm assuming somebody did this at some point in the past, which is why the phrase shows up in every source. Unless somebody can research this again and definitely prove that there are no associated loss records, we need to fall back on all the previously published sources, all uniformly stating such records exist.
Flyboy Will 16:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. You have not provided any acutal evidence that the event DID happen. Rather, you simply provide potential evidence as to why in some hypothetical universe, it *could have* happened. YOu seem to miss the point of 'burden of proof.' The burden of proof is on the one who says it did happen. Since Kozhedub's story requires numerous stretches of the imagination, and NO real proof of the event has been given, I will replace my edits, though I welcome your "counterarguments" or refinements. however, to simply assume that the event happened because Kozhedub said so, given that no actual evidence has materialized is perverse and absurd.
86.6.11.56 17:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
"A memoir of the highest-scoring Allied ace of WWII is, by any measure, a reliable source."
I'm sorry, this just isn't true and you should be embarassed for making such a ludicrous claim. First of all, your claim is circular. You basically state that he is a reliable source because he is the highest scoring allied ace. Then, you claim that his kills are real because he is a reliable source. Stop spouting wikipedia theory to me and concentrate on the reality of the situation. Nishizawa, Sakai, the Flying Tigers, every Soviet Ace that has had their numbers stacked against German loss tables, American Aces, Japanese aces, all overclaimed, and often badly, and the overall claims in some theaters overstate enemy losses *including operational (accident) losses* by 2 or 3 to 1 in some places.. clearly, just because "some ace said so" isn't proof.
Notice that I haven't attacked Kozhedub's overall total cited here (though many would, because it probably wouldn't stand a thorough analysis just like Nishizawa's certainly wouldn't. Rather, I have poked my ire at one of the most obviously suspect parts of the legend - this P51 story, which relies upon multiple high improbabilities to be true AND there is a compelling reason to understand why the myth started (postwar cold-waresque tension) and was promulgated. Whatever you think about aces or kozhedub, the simple fact is that the story of the P51s does not pass the most basic tests of "reasonable doubt." And heck, look at me.. I'm a Ukrainian. I'd love for it to be true to bring more glory to some Ukrainians.
Yes, we are in the classic "memoirs vs historian" argument, but, really.. from your previous messages I thought you were smarter than that. Or do you want me to start making list of WW2 personalities with suspect memoirs? I dont think that wikipedia has enough bits for that.. let's see.. Schilling, Speer, Fuchida, George Gay... If i remember, even "Vasiliy Zaitzev" published a book.
86.6.11.56 17:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I think on most points, i agree with you, which is why, as I said, i have not attacked Kozhedub's highly contentious kills total. However, as it relates to the *specific* episode of the P51s, I am in whole agreement with you. Anything from your list, including most notably locating USAAF records or any reasonable substantiating evidence, woule be sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes. The problem that we have now is that there is a more credible alternative theory (occam's razor) that explains that particular event, which is post-war cold-war one-upmanship. Given the leaps of improbability that you have to make for the event to be considered true, the notion that the story is apocryphal fits the bill most perfectly. I doubt very much that this is a "personal opinion" of mine that i am pushing - it is simply a matter of the facts, as we know them. There is NO credible corroborating evidence to the event (and of course it is not possible for me to prove a negative with 'non events'), and indeed there is a much more plausible scenario that the event did not happen. Therefore, it should be left out. Encyclopedias do not print "John Smith was abucted by aliens because he told his psychiatrist about this because aliens exist." rather, they stick with a plausibility hypothesis, which is that "While scientists hold open the possibility that aliens exist, the prevailing consensus is that reported cases of alien abductions can be traced to childhood trauma, including, often, sexual molestation."
You continue to be wrong wrong wrong about things being a 'personal opinion'. This is simply fitting the best evidence to the facts. Likewise, while you are correct that your opinion that the VVS might have been better without him as a leader does not belong in wikipedia, certainly a consideration that he was a bad leader, if this represents historical consensus, does.
86.6.11.56 08:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Flyboy Will 16:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I see that some of you, people, are taking this just personaly. If there was some battle, where Kozhedub was shot down two German aircrafts, why you wouldn't start debates here? Wat's so special about two P-51's? As this story should be treated carefuly I would remove from the article such "against statements" as "Lavochkin has shorter range", "He just need to dive" and so on.-- Oleg Str 11:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Apart from these 62 victories, Ivan Kozhedub also was forced to shoot down two U.S. P-51 Mustangs that mistakenly attacked his La-7 on one occasion. Both these P-51 losses have been verified by USAAF sources. http://www.flymig.com/pilots/ivan.nikitovich.kozhedub.htm Took me 10 seconds and google to find that these claims are apparently independently verified and its pretty clear by the tone of the person claiming this event didn't happen that they merely have a personal vendetta to get this stricken from the record without any serious reasons as to why. Just my 2cents ... if I had a source that was more credible then flymig.com I'd have put it in the article rather then discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.231.15 ( talk) 06:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Claiming that something has been "independently verified" is different than having actual verification of an event. If the memoir is the original (and only) source of the story, it's not a matter of the story not being "confirmed completely"; it isn't confirmed in the least. 209.244.31.35 ( talk) 05:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Ivan Kozhedub is the highest scoring allied ace of WWII. 86.6.11.56 feels very strongly about a certain well-known claim made by Kozhedub in his memoirs, and disputes it based on, basically, general principle. All his stated reasons are original research. There's no published source disputing Kozhedub's claims. See the P-51 section above for history of debate. I was unable to explain to 86.6.11.56 that POV original research does not belong in wikipedia. Flyboy Will 16:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Erich Hartmann, in the Blond Knight of Germany, said that there were at least a couple of instances of them diving through an Allied formation shooting down American P-51's and B-17's, then going through the a layer of Soviet aircraft and shooting some of them down. In the resulting confusion Hartmann's group would break off the attack and he would look back to see US and Soviet aircraft fighting each other, each thinking that the other had attacked them. Hartmann didn't know if Kozhedub was in any of these formations, but his observations lend credibility to Kozhedub's claims. XXVII ( talk) 16:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
No, but Raymond Toliver and Trevor James Constable has written the book with that name, a biography. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.54.244 ( talk) 12:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
References
Hey. I don't mind original research as long as it makes sense and cites where that information was found. (Against or not against the rules, that's up to you people who make the rules to decide). But one thing that absolutely doesn't make sense in this story are the droptanks and since it is held up as the main argument then the whole story faulters. So here's my question: If the drop tanks were normally removed but we see here that some aircraft is attacking the P-51, then what does it matter? How is it an argument that it can't e a Soviet Aircraft attacking the P-51s because they have droptanks but it is not an argument that it can't be a german (or any other) aircraft attacking them? Clearly an aircraft is attacking them and clearly at least one has droptanks. It's a moot point. 79.136.64.95 ( talk) 05:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
That bit is suspect but the bit about the Zeiss equipment - if the film in question can be found - is quite pertinent to veracity of the argument. The droptanks to me are utterly inconsequential but the rest is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:87:4080:372:84D7:679C:1DA0:C7F6 ( talk) 23:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Soviet Union (USSR) was created in 1922 two years after Ivan Kozhedub birth. Please check maps, years and [1]. -- Viggen ( talk) 16:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
According to the wiki rules we should use official name of the country. In 1920 official name of Ukraine was Ukrainian People's Republic and it was recognized by all major countries of the world. UkSSR was a self-proclaimed republic (to be precise - a muppet-state organised by Russian aggressors, exactly like today's "Donetsk People's Republic"), recognized only by Soviet Russia.-- Viggen ( talk) 16:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
( talk) 10:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Viggen, you've made a terrible WP:BATTLEGROUND start as a new editor, and this has been turned into a 'much ado about nothing' escalation into edit warring. Having checked around some Ukrainian tertiary sources, I have seen no mention of the UPR, and there is no significance for Kozhedub's bio as it was an accident of birth that he was born into a brief era of unrest. What he is known for is being an ace Soviet pilot of Ukrainian ethnicity. At best, it can be qualified WP:INLINE as being the UPR as a compromise. Outside of that, it's trivia.
What does concern me is that user HOBOPOCC has returned to editing Eastern European articles after only just escaping a TBAN a couple of years ago by disappearing. In fact, it seems to me that it is this edit that actually started the edit warring. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 00:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Dear Alex Bakharev and Iryna Harpy the infobox is not neutralized until now (like in the main text) - UkSSR is still there. I think we should take some actions.-- Viggen ( talk) 09:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to say this, but this article needs a lot of improvement. For starters, Polak's book is questionable to say the least, considering the number of confirmed factual errors in other biographies in the book. Also, while the exact number of kills by Kozhedub is disputed, estimates range from 60-64 solo and 0-4 shared - something the article should note.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 22:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Ушкуйник: @ KHMELNYTSKYIA: Both of you. Stop edit-waring this page. Neither of you are seeing the bigger picture - that this article (relatively) almost a stub compared to some other language Wikipedia versions.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 15:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)