Talk:Ilyushin Il-2/Archive 1

message: I seem to recall reading that the decisions 1) Not to provide armour protection for the rearmost cockpit and 2) use political prisoners as rear gunners were related and comprised a deliberate policy.  (To "incentivise" the protective enthusiasm of the crewmembers from the penal battalions).  I also recall reading that although no protection was provided - a mechanism was developed to keep the guns level after the gunner was killed/injured.  So as to fool luftwaffe pilots into thinking the aircraft was still defended.  This just anti-soviet propaganda or is there any truth to this?
--Sf 15:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties among rear gunners 

message: Externals links should be a 2nd level wiki section, not stuck under Related Content. Christopher Mahan 03:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. The Aircontent template is inconsistent with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content. I'll change the template and that should fix this page. My apologies and thank you for being vigilant! - Emt147 Burninate! 05:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hm, nevermind. The way the template is implemented, there is no easy way to do this (which is why I stopped using these layout templates). I'll convert the page into a non-template form. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On External Links 

message: quote; "The devastating abilities of Il-2 were best demonstrated during the Battle of Kursk. On 7 July 1943, marauding aircraft destroyed 70 tanks from the German 9th Panzer Division in just 20 minutes. On another occasion, 3rd Panzer Division lost 270 tanks and suffered 2,000 casualties during a non-stop two-hour barrage. The 17th Panzer Division lost 240 of its 300 tanks during another four-hour raid." There needs to be a verification link for these figures, from a quick look at relevent sites indicate German tank losses were a lot less than these figures Harryurz 16:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My reference was "Profile 88" as cited. We may be looking at a discrepancy between Soviet and German figures. If you can cite German figures, please do so alongside the above numbers. - Emt147 Burninate! 19:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The kill claims here are the usual fantasy of combat pilots. What type of book is the reference? I get the impression it is a model guide or something similar?Michael Dorosh 21:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A look at actual German losses proves the figures given on the page are fantasy. Can we please see direct quotes from the book? I've removed some of the "facts" from the article as they are little more than gossip. Also removed some POV language - the article read like a love letter to the Sturmovik.Michael Dorosh 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tanks losses for Kursk?

message: The Russian designation, as far as I can tell, is that the aircraft is named with the first two letters of the (lead) designer, then secondary designers first initial of their surname, followed by a hyphen and then number. Example Ilyushin is Il-x, Mikoyan is Mi, but because there's a second designer, Gurevich, it's MiG-x, the Lavochkin Gorbunov Goudkov is LaGG-3. So the Il-2 should always capitalise the 'I' but leave the 'l' lowercase, no? All the titles of sections seem to be IL-2, can someone explain this for me? Biscuit Knight 14:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, it's uppercase I lowercase l. The sections should be renamed. - Emt147 Burninate! 03:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, absolutely, it is Il-2. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 07:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation of the 'L' in Il-2 

message: The Il-2 aircraft played a crucial role on the Eastern Front, and in Soviet opinion it was the most decisive aircraft in the history of modern land warfare. Flying day and night, they could defeat the thick armour of the Panther and Tiger I tanks, and occasionally shot down Bf 109s when the German pilots got careless while attacking them. Josef Stalin paid the Il-2 a great tribute in his own inimitable manner: when a factory building them fell behind on its deliveries, Stalin sent the following cable to the factory manager: "The Red Army needs the Il-2 as it needs air or bread. I demand more. This is my last warning." 
I changed and deleted a lot of this.  My reasons are these
*there is no proof the Il-2 played a "crucial" or "decisive" role. Present facts, not guesses. A source would be necessary for this. Air-to-ground tank kills were hugely inflated by all the armies of WW II. I changed this to "widely used" instead, as that is verifiable at least.
*They did not attack tanks at night, so I changed the sentence to read it flew in low light conditions; the sentence makes it sound like they flew tank busting missions in the dark.
*Stalin threatening someone is not a tribute. His motivation was to get more airplanes built, not praise the plane itself. Anyway, it is unsourced. More gossip.Michael Dorosh 21:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it was pretty POV, thanks for copyediting that. - Emt147 Burninate! 23:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the editors so far have definitely got this off to a very good start, so hopefully this doesn't seem harsh. I strongly recommend finding some verifiable sources. Tough to do in English, I realize, but would add a lot of credibility.Michael Dorosh 01:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening para edits 

message: From another poster at that forum (not my words):
(Checking) THE BATTLE OF KURSK by Glantz and House in an effort to confirm or deny the damage claim against 9 PD for 7 July 1943, and was unable to find (pp.115-116) even a mention of an air attack, let alone one that destroyed most of the unit's beginning 83 tank strength. The date, the unit, and/or the statement itself may all be wrong, but something's clearly way off here. Nor is there any evidence to support this claim in Biryukov and Melnikov's important work ANTITANK WARFARE on page 115, even though the authors are at pains to present examples of effective airstrikes against tanks. The closest I can find are these: (Fair use)
"For example, on July 7, 1943, the enemy tank attack in the area of Kashara was frustrated by our attack aircraft. Acting in groups of 20-30 planes each(,) our attack aircraft destroyed 34 enemy tanks and forced the enemy to discontinue the attack. On July 8, 1943, six Il-2 planes attacked a group of enemy tanks in the area of Yakovleyvo and destroyed 15 tanks with antitank bombs dropped from an altitude of 600-800m, as well as with cannon fire and rockets launched during low-level flight.
Glantz and House mention Kashara on pp. 120-121, but there is no discussion whatsoever of what would've been such a devastating air attack that it would surely have rated a comment, but there is a mention (p.135) of the precedent setting impact of four misnamed (listed as Hs-109) Hs-129 squadrons had on Burdeiny's 2nd Guards Tank Corps, whose attack "suffered an unmerciful beating from German aircraft and Totenkopf's Panzer Regiment, losing fifty tanks in the process."
Apparently, the tanks didn't do much, for we read (Fair use)
"This unprecedented action, in which a tank attack was halted by air power alone, set a dangerous precedent. Indeed, throughout this battle, Soviet movements had to be conducted at night to minimize such losses. This in turn delayed the arrival of reserves to block the German penetration."
Summing up, I have found zero evidence to support the devastation of the 9 PD claim and nothing to indicate any effective air attack at Kashara. Could the latter have happened? Maybe against bunched up tanks, but it seems to me that losing 15 tanks, practically a quarter of a PD, would rate some remark, and I find none. From what I can tell, the aerial tide did not run the Russians' way until 11 July, which makes it that much harder to believe the various claims for 7 and 8 July.Michael Dorosh 05:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cited my references. If you feel the material is controversial, the appropriate way to address this is by saying "However, another source (reference) claimed only x number of victories." It is wholly inappropriate to simply delete referenced material because your sources happen to not address the matter. - Emt147 Burninate! 07:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly, Harryurz, which is why anyone who HAS researched military aviation (rather than just looking up impressive statistics in books written in the 1960s when military scholarship was not really at its peak) can tell a bogus source almost immediately. There is no way in the world any panzer division ever lost nearly 300 tanks to Sturmoviks. The page as it stands merely looks amateurish and really quite embarrassing.Michael Dorosh 15:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle of Kursk

message: :Ok I am going to do this everytime you ignore something that I said I am going to dubble the posts of it.
:But first this part "when the German pilots got careless while attacking them. Josef Stalin paid the Il-2 a great tribute in his own inimitable manner: when a factory building them fell behind on its deliveries, Stalin sent the following cable to the factory manager: "The Red Army needs the Il-2 as it needs air or bread. I demand more. This is my last warning."" which you deleted in your deleting frenzy comes from this page http://break-left.org/air/il-2.html which can be found at the bottom of the article and which in turn comes from here http://www.vectorsite.net/avil2.html . (Unsigned comment by DayNight1a)
::Here is the actual quote from the website
During Operation Barbarossa in the summer of 1941, the aircraft factories located around Moscow and other major towns in western Russia were moved east of the Ural mountains. Ilyushin and his band of engineers took the opportunity to rethink their production methods. Two months after the relocation, Shturmoviks were again starting to come off the production lines, albeit in a slow tempo. Stalin was not very pleased and sent the following telegram to Ilyushin:
YOU HAVE LET DOWN OUR COUNTRY AND OUR RED ARMY.
YOU HAVE NOT MANUFACTURED IL-2S UNTIL NOW.
THE IL-2 AIRCRAFT ARE NECESSARY FOR OUR RED ARMY NOW, LIKE AIR, LIKE BREAD.
SHENKMAN PRODUCES ONE IL-2 A DAY AND TRETIAKOV BUILDS ONE OR TWO MIG-3S DAILY. 
IT IS A MOCKERY OF OUR COUNTRY AND THE RED ARMY.
I ASK YOU NOT TO TRY THE GOVERNMENT'S PATIENCE, AND DEMAND THAT YOU
MANUFACTURE MORE ILS. I WARN YOU FOR THE LAST TIME. 
STALIN.
Needless to say, the production of Shturmoviks rapidly gained speed. Stalin's notion of the Il-2 being "like bread" to the Red Army took hold in Ilyushin's aircraft plants and the army soon had their Shturmoviks available in quantity.
::My reaction to this is that it is not a "tribute" though it implies - without providing a source - that workers in aircraft plants presumed it was. The point here is that the article implied Stalin intended it to be a compliment - there is nothing in the source website to suggest that was his intent.Michael Dorosh 16:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stalin Pays Tribute

message: :::Let's try this then - leave your figures and source in, but reword so it is clear all three figures come from the same (dubious) source.  I've edited it to read
::::The true abilities of Il-2 are difficult to determine from existing documentary evidence. One source identifies overwhelming successes against tanks during the Battle of Kursk, including an engagement on 7 July 1943, in which 70 tanks from the German 9th Panzer Division were destroyed by Il-2 in just 20 minutes. Other claims include the 17th Panzer Division losing 240 of its 300 tanks during a four-hour raid, and a third occasion in which 3rd Panzer Division lost 270 tanks and suffered 2,000 casualties during a non-stop two-hour attack.[1] Soviet staff publications indicate that the figure given for the 17th Panzer Division is not possible, stating that even the Red Army calculated 300 combat losses (to all circumstances, not just aircraft) for four entire divisions (including the 17th Panzer) over five days of fighting. It is possible Liss' book refers to "vehicle" claims rather than tank claims, though the source does not cite specific primary references for any of the three statements referenced above.[2] 
::::I think it necessary to indicate the type of research that went into the claims, if they are to be included, and let the reader judge for themselves how much weigh to give them, pending the publication of better documentary material.Michael Dorosh 18:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Russian translations - there is a discussion on the translation of Russian history here at Battlefront.com It seems different translators vary on whether certain words mean "tank", "AFV" or "vehicle". I obviously have no knowledge of Russian so can't comment either way but I think the distinctions are obviously important to make. I note again also the number of "tanks" in a standard division as being problematic in regards to the kill claims.Michael Dorosh 20:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New edits to abilities para

message: Substituted at 15:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: *First link to recently archived talk on this subject and  second link into the archive on this subject
17th Panzer Divison to my knowledge was not present at Kursk as a full division. It was with 1st Panzer army in reserve on the Donets, according to this. Andreas 12:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 17th Panzer Division losses at Kursk

message: The intro states that in combination with its successor, the Il-10, a total of 36,163 were built. It is possibly the single most produced military aircraft design in all of aviation history.
In addition to needing a source for this, it should also be expanded on in the article itself. I've started a section on production using the Stalin quote previously on the page, but any info on number of factories, rate of production, or statistics would be useful in completing the article.Michael Dorosh 15:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does the intro mean?  If you add in the Il-10 production figures, the 36,163 is wrong. If you don't, it's still wrong. GrahamBould (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation, 1989 gives "approximately 36,000" Il-2s and 42,330 including the Il-10.  That is a good source and at least two of us disagree with the introduction, but I am not changing it because a reference newer than the above is given for 36,183.David R. Ingham (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I am changing my mind a second time now.  36,183 agrees with approximately 36,000 for just the Il-2, so Jane's is the best source, so far, for the total.  I have read elsewhere that it holds the production record.David R. Ingham (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production 

message: I've resectioned the Famous Pilots and Rear Gunners sections as subsections of Aircrew - a brief intro on pilot and gunner training would be appropriate I think as a lead in to what are essentially "trivia" sections. Stuff like issues specific to the Il-2 (hard to fly? hard to find volunteers for this specific type of aircraft? mortality rates compared to other aircraft.)Michael Dorosh 15:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh for Pete's sakes not this again. WP:VERIFY The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Suvorov made a claim that is controversial but widely known. It is presented as such in the article. If you can present evidence stating with absolute certainty that Suvorov's assertion is false, please do. As it stands now, the discussion contributes to the completeness of the article. - Emt147 Burninate! 21:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well in that case the pieces of info from Suvorov should be deleted; after all they cannot be verifed by another source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.18.31 (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

text:  Considering "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[4] Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations." and most importantly regarding Suvorov "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.18.31 (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircrew 

message: Germany's most successful air ace Erich Hartmann in the biography The Blond Knight of Germany often referred to the Il-2 as 'the concrete bomber', and in the book there is a diagram of the Il-2 and the armor specifications. Jana Deenax - 28 Jun 100 620:34 UTC
:: Hartmann had a tactic for shooting down IL2s. Since the 20mm shells from a 109g had a tough time penetrating its thick armor, he would aim for the "Soft underbelly" of the Il2s.
--Ashmole 16:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Concrete Aircraft' 

message: The map and list of operators do not agree, which is correct? Alastairward 13:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: List was updated later and is more correct, as usually. Piotr Mikołajski 07:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operators 

message: How many missions did Anna Yegorova fly? Under the "Famous IL-2 Pilots" heading, it says 243. Under her picture on the same page it says 260. On the wikipedia page dedicated to her it says "over 270". Some consensus would be nice.
:The difference might be explained by the fact that Yegorova also flew some missions on Po-2. 50.46.154.47 (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anna Yegorova 

message: The article says, "aircraft factories near Moscow and other major cities in western Russia being relocated east of the Ural mountains after the German invasion." This is the popular myth; I understand (Cockburn's The Threat?) Sov factories had already begun moving well before the invasion, & most of them were beyond the Urals already. Can somebody confirm & correct?  Trekphiler (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movin' on 

message: This may be the ultimate variant of the Sturmovik (judging by it's appearance at least), the Il-102:
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/models_pages/modl_il-102.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-102
163.189.217.40 (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Variant"? It's not related at all! Did you bother reading the wiki article? 24.21.10.30 (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ultimate Il-2 variant ? 

message: My objection to this piece is the requirement "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources." 
I think it is an exceptional claim for two reasons: firstly defensive guns in this kind of mounting (se the Ju 87, Dauntless and other aircaft) always point upwards, there is no need for a mechanism for this. 
Also, a dead gunner would fall over his gun and hold it down, making it point upwards.
Second and more serious is that Golovanov was a commander of Long Range Bomber units from February 1941, and eventually become  commander of all Long Range Aviation in 1942. He was removed from that post in 1948. This makes it not very likely he would have anything with the Il-2 to do.
Lastly the source does not appear to be generally regarded as high-quality. Controversial seems the closest description.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.18.31 (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should piece on Golovanovs invention be deleted? 

message: Currently the Design and development section states that the first prototype won a government competion against the Sukhoi Su-6 - this seems extremely unlikely - the Su-6 was a much later aircraft which at the earliest didn't fly until March 41, by which time the single seat Il-2 was completing acceptance tests and entering production.  There could be some confusion with the ShB, an armoured derivative of the ANT-51 which was a stepping stone between that and the definitive Sukhoi Su-2, while there was also an unbuilt MiG Sturmovik project at about that time.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competion with Su-6? 

message: I will soon remove most of this section on the grounds that it is an exceptional claim by a controversial source. Under the rules for wiki the claim need be verified by other sources, but non seems to have appeared here.
Eventually I may integrate the remining bit into another section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.234.217 (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The book IL-2 Shturmovik Guards units of World War 2 from Osprey by Oleg Rastrenin mention an incident where the political commissar of 622 ShAP (attack squadron) flew as gunner. This alone should indicate that gunners were not "expendable", at least not as a rule. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penal rear gunners 

message: The text notes that the IL-2 was known to the Finns as "maatalouskone" (agricultural machine) and supposes that this derived from its low flight resembling crop dusting. This is rather unlikely, as crop dusting from airplanes was nearly unknown in Finland at the time. The word "maatalouskone" does NOT carry the connotation "crop duster"; it refers to equipment such as tractors, combines, etc.. Much more likely the nickname is a word play on the official Finnish definition of the type as a "maataistelukone" (ground attack aircraft, literally "ground-battle-machine").--Death Bredon (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Crop-dusting by plane is almost exclusively an US phenomenon. Finish terrain is not suite to it, and mass dusting of crop (aerial or otherwise) was not common in pre-war Scandinavia anyway. If the IL-2 was likened to an "agricultural machine" (tractor?) it would have been from the sound or something similar. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Crop duster" 

message: This is quite a long nickname, and not an easy one to pronounce. Also, before adding something like this, please reference the claim, otherwise, it will be getting deleted. A valid reference is required when adding something like this (especially something as silly).--99.231.50.118 (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  annihilator of Sturmoviks? 

message: Is there a reason this small section containing a link to the PC-game of the same name (IL-2 Sturmovik (video game)) was deleted? Petter Bøckman (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it notable? does it connect to the popular culture or is it WP:Cruft? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The general guideline we use is found at WP:MILPOP. I briefly played the computer game IL-2 Sturmovik when it first came out and it's a kick. I don't think a simple mention is worthy of this article. What would be a good mention is an encyclopedic description of how Oleg Maddox and Igor Egorov (and their team of programmers) researched the capabilities of the aircraft to make the game more realistic, and what, if any, contradictions they found in the historiography of the aircraft. Binksternet (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If somebody wrote that history of the the game's development, it should also go in the game article itself, which is woefully lacking in a good history section. Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it can be considered WP:Cruft. However, just being cruft isn't really a reason to delete something, as long as it is reasonable written and do not contain any original research. As far as I know, IL2 the game is the largest WWII military aviation game in the market, and as such I think it merit mention. What I do miss is appearances in films and other popular culture from the old USSR. I have been told the IL-2 has (or perhaps had) a tremendous status in the USSR (comparable to the Mustangs status in the US or the Spitfire in UK), and I can't find that reflected in the article.Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is cruft, it is not appropriate. Find some sources to take the submission beyond just a "bare-bones" mention, as indicated above, why the game is important, why is its impact connected to the Il-2? and so on...FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see what I can find. (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Oleg Maddox's sim was greatly influential in generating interest and re-evaluation of the Great Patriotic War in Western Europe and North America. I'm not sure if it is appropriate for this article, but the simulation based on this plane has had a significant impact on improving historical understanding in "the West".--Hrimpurstala (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just came across a mention of the game-plane connection in FlyPast, April 2011, p. 61. In an article on the IL2, it has a small section devoted to the game, which rounds off with (quote): "There is no doubt that the popularity of the flight sim has helpet the Shturmovik legend live on." In my opinion, this quote does make mentioning the PC-game relevant. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Il-2 in popular culture

message: I'm dropping this down to start-class for MILHIST for too many unsourced statements. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality rating 

message: Shturmovik in Russian is generic name of all ground attack aircrafts. Su-25 is Shturmovik. So, you can't name by this way only Il-2. Ходок (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are they named this because of the precedent set by the Ilyushin? Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they named because of their function - ground attack, in russian 'shturm' (ru:штурм (атака)). See also russian 'shturmovik' (штурмовик) - ground attack aircraft. Il-2 set another precedent - name 'flying tank', which given to ground attack aircrafts and combat helicopters, like Mi-28, but it is mostly expressive word, for newspapers and propaganda materials.Ходок (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If "Shturmovik" is not allowed as the aircraft's name because it is not its "given name", then "Flying tank" is even less likely. - BilCat (talk) 09:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Il-2 hasn't any official "given name", only unofficial and propaganda nicknames ("Flying tank", "Black Death", "Humpback" and other), but never "Shturmovik". --KVK2005 (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: I've met opinion in Russian aviation magazine (Aviation and Cosmonautics, I can't name particular issue), that this famous Stalin's telegram lead to great number of productioned aircrafts, what caused inbalance between fighter and ground attack aviation, so Il-2 often operated without necessary fighter's support and big losses were caused because of it.Ходок (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Quantity and losses