# Erich Hartmann - how did his comrades regard him?



## paradoxguy (Aug 13, 2011)

I recently read some comments on other websites, notably _12 O'Clock High!_, that suggested Erich Hartmann was not highly regarded by his comrades and subordinates and that at one point, members of his Staffel threatened to revolt against him. My knowledge of Hartmann is limited and admittedly based in part on the suspect biography _The Blond Knight of Germany_. For those who know, how was Hartmann viewed by his comrades? How did he perform as a Staffelkapitan and Gruppenkommandeur? I am not trying to "dig up dirt", I am only trying to factually augment my knowledge of Hartmann.

Thanks for reading and any information.

PG


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 13, 2011)

That was all ones guys opinion, with no proof to back it up. He also made a big hooplah about Hartmanns claims also, based on Khazanov's research. ' _It has already been demonstrated that Khazanov's findings in regards of Hartmann's claims in East can be forgotten, as they are sloppy and motivated by politics. So any references to his 'study' should be discarded outright _'. A brutal Russian inprisonment for 10 years alone should lend some creedence to Erich's claims.

According to the book " The Blonde Knight of Germany", Hartmann was _' tough as nails as a C/o '_. Furthermore there is zero proof that his Staffel was planning a revolt against Hartmann. No reassignments, no punishments, no 'talking too's', no stripping of rank. Boss's are like anyother.. some like their boss, some do not.

I think Hermann Graf others was a bit peeved when Hartmann was appointed Commador. Maybe thats where it began.


----------



## Altea (Aug 13, 2011)

What is demonstrated is that Khazanov findings are uncomplete, but reliable from soviet sources. The main error factor is the doubtfull _The Blond Knight of Germany_ biography.

Hazanov did made some job, but not to much* and proved nothing except that there were hudge overclaim over the eastern front from both sides. (3 to 5 for Luft in 43-44, even more for the VVS). But it was well known well before him.

*The Hartman claims were taken from Oliver and Constable book, but then it occured that there were not correspunding to unit docs, not even to his logbook, something like that...


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 13, 2011)

one should also point out that Khazanov gives no indication of how or why he arrives at a victory total of '70 to 80' claims.. ' _his article is simply not detailed enough and he presents evidence from Soviet archives for only a handful of dates.. Khazanov bases the 'factual' content of the Toliver/Constable book which automatically discredits him in the eyes of the serious historians_ '.


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 13, 2011)

paradoxguy,

Today I read an article for the second time in over 35 years. It was published in WINGS Vol.5 No.5 October, 1975. Defending the Reich was the title. It was an interview with Erich. The last paragraph states: 
Although Hartmann tried to dissuade (Major Guenther) Capito from flying combat, telling him the war would be over soon, the older (32yrs.) pilot kept urging his commander to allow him to fly his wing. After admonishing Capito to stay close and to forego slow standard bomber turns (Capito was an ex bomber pilot), Hartmann relented. In an air battle with Russian Airacobras, Capito neglected to follow his leader's instructions and was promptly shot down. He bailed out, but was picked up safely, Hartmann shooting down his attacker. Together they went over to the down Russian's plane. The Soviet pilot was an ace. Capito had been his 26th victim. In 1,400 missions he was the only wingman Hartmann ever lost.

I don't think I would have minded being Erich's wing man. I'll have to look the article over more thoroughly to see if it states anything about how others felt about him. It sounds like he was a great leader to me.


----------



## Maximowitz (Aug 14, 2011)

Well, he wasn't particularly highly regarded in his twenty minute tenure with JG53....


----------



## stona (Aug 14, 2011)

The claims thing has been beaten to death.
What others thought of him is a matter of their opinion and varies as widely as you'd expect. Love him or hate him he was a good combat pilot.
Take "The Blond Knight Of Germany" the same way as you would several other war time biographies (Clostermann,Bader and many more). The authors are writing up good stories which should not to be taken as historical documents. This doesn't make them a bad read but a bucket of salt is needed. 
Steve


----------



## Altea (Aug 14, 2011)

stona said:


> The claims thing has been beaten to death.
> What others thought of him is a matter of their opinion and varies as widely as you'd expect. *Love him or hate him he was a good combat pilot.*
> Steve



Rather unsustainted assesment. 
A pilot with high results could be 
1) an excepional pilot, really
2) an exceptional overclaimer, no more...

This is not a love/taste problem, but logic/maths. 

About Hartman, nothing is proven anyway...


----------



## Njaco (Aug 14, 2011)

Altea said:


> Rather unsustainted assesment.
> A pilot with high results could be
> 1) an excepional pilot, really
> 2) an exceptional overclaimer, no more...
> ...



I hve to disagree with that. The purpose of the thread is solely opinion and nothing mathematical about it...



> ...suggested Erich Hartmann was not highly regarded by his comrades and subordinates....



its all very open to debate and opinion.


----------



## stona (Aug 14, 2011)

Altea said:


> Rather unsustainted assesment.
> A pilot with high results could be
> 1) an excepional pilot, really
> 2) an exceptional overclaimer, no more...
> ...




My position on Hartmann (and everyone else) is entirely neutral but his most vociferous detractors are forced to credit him with around eighty victories. That may be way short of three hundred and fifty two but it still makes him a good combat pilot. He'd still be a good combat pilot if he only had a quarter of that number of victories.He also managed to survive the war which many of his talented contemporaries on all sides did not. That is a fact. 
Luftwaffe overclaiming seems to have been seperated from everybody else's in recent years with the implication that the Luftwaffe pilots were making deliberately falsified claims whereas everyone else was doing it innocently. There is evidence in only a few cases for this. The Luftwaffe,like every other air force,endeavoured to verify claims stringently as acting on false intelligence,or assessments of enemy strength, can have unfortunate results. It wasn't a game it was a war.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 14, 2011)

how are they forced to credit Erich Hartmann with 80 claims? Günther Rall gave a very good explanation on how such high claims were achieved. And I don't see anybody disputing General Rall's claims. or Barkhorns for that matter. I think Erich Hartmanns revised claims are either 307 or 324. I'll have to recheck.


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 14, 2011)

Anyone who would suggest that his staffel was about to revolt against Hartmann is totally out touch with how things are in the military. Revolt or mutiny is taken very serious in any military unit, it's not tolerated in any form. The German armed forces executed over 11,000 of it's own troops for deriliction of duty, combat avoidance, desertion, etc, during WW2, and i've seen some figures to suggest the numbers may have been even triple that. These executions were not done in secret, everyone knew the consequences .


----------



## stona (Aug 14, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> how are they forced to credit Erich Hartmann with 80 claims? Günther Rall gave a very good explanation on how such high claims were achieved. And I don't see anybody disputing General Rall's claims. or Barkhorns for that matter. I think Erich Hartmanns revised claims are either 307 or 324. I'll have to recheck.



I said his most vociferous critics,that's not my opinion. There are researchers in the East who have tallied at least eighty (ish) ,I don't have the figures to hand, of his claims with Soviet losses. They are effectively undeniable even by those who would like to deny them. I suspect he had many more than that. His number of revised claims simply depends on who does the revision,we'll never know for sure,they didn't know then.It's pointless and as I said earlier,has been done to death.
My point was that whatever number you pick Hartmann was a good combat pilot.
Claims for all pilots of all nationalities are debatable. They all overclaimed. The questions are by how much and with what intent.
Some,a few,are dishonest and it can be shown to be so.There is the famous case of pilots from JG 27 strafing sand dunes and claiming victories. There are cases of claims being witnessed by colleagues who either weren't flying or in one famous case were no longer serving in the same unit. I'm not naming names,it sets off a mindless opinionated debate and serves no purpose,they are easy enough to find if you look.
Many honest men overclaimed,not fraudulently. I'd be surprised if the two you mentioned didn't.It's a reflection of the confusion of air to air combat.
The RAF,like other airforces did there best to check claims and get a true figure for enemy losses but look how far off they were in the BoB. The same applies to every airforce throughout the war.
Steve


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 14, 2011)

It is well known fact that the victory claims made by fighter pilots of all airforces generally were exaggerated. However, there is no evidence that there was any official German policy of exaggerating the fighter pilots claims; on the contrary, each claim had to go through a thorough procedure, including research, before it was officially accepted. 

According to Gemeinschaft der Jagdflieger, pilots claimed a total of 70,000 aerial victories during WWII- 25,000 against the west and 45,000 on the osten front. According to the same source, 16,400 German day fighters were lost ( aerial and ground, total loss ie: more then 59% damage) as the result of hostile action during the war years. 8,500 pilots were killed, 2,700 MIA/taken prisoners, and 9,100 wounded.

Different total loss figures for the RAF and USAAF are published frequently. According to the russian archives, the combat losses of the VVS between 1941 and 1945 amounted to 46,100 aircraft. Due to the fact that several VVS records were lost during the first few months of Operation Barbarossa, the actual combat VVS losses probably were higher, totaling approx. 50,000 aircraft.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 14, 2011)

Rall, Steinhoff and Galland thought highly of Hartmann and by all acounts he was an excellent Post War Luftwaffe General also serving with Steinhoff and Rall. Pretty good character references from pretty good warriors - no matter what nationality.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 14, 2011)

yep. Rall seen the potential in Hartmann. That would be one reason Rall appointed him Staffelkapitän of 9./JG 52. for the most part Hartmann was well liked. Another little tibit about Erich Hartmann is that sometimes he would swap mounts with his wingman when going on patrol. I think the VVS refered to Erich Hartmann as 'Black Death' for a reason.


----------



## paradoxguy (Aug 14, 2011)

Thanks much for the responses and discussion. Many have commented on Hartmann's victory claims. Although helpful to know, I wanted to know more about how his comrades regarded him as comrade and CO. I apologize, I should have been more specific--I am interested in Hartmann's character and performance as officer, such as his time in JG53, and "comrade to others". At the time I initiated the thread, I did not know how to phrase my post more accurately. The veracity of Hartmann's victory claims is a separate topic that is equally, if not more, interesting than this one.

PG


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 14, 2011)

Not much drama to his JG 53 stay. Help them reorganize, then He relinquished the role to Hauptmann Helmut Lipfert, and went back to JG 52.


----------



## Altea (Aug 15, 2011)

Hello



Ratsel said:


> According to Gemeinschaft der Jagdflieger, pilots claimed a total of 70,000 aerial victories during WWII- 25,000 against the west and 45,000 on the osten front. According to the same source, 16,400 German day fighters were lost ( aerial and ground, total loss ie: more then 59% damage) as the result of hostile action during the war years. 8,500 pilots were killed, 2,700 MIA/taken prisoners, and 9,100 wounded.


This is a little of-top, but only 2250 german first aces had already about more than 80 000 confirmed claims. Count other pilots, bomber, stuka crews...


> the combat losses of the VVS between 1941 and 1945 amounted to 46,100 aircraft. Due to the fact that several VVS records were lost during the first few months of Operation Barbarossa, the actual combat VVS losses probably were higher, totaling approx. 50,000 aircraft.


You seem do not understand the numbers you use. 46 100 is in the complete account, with full exhaustive data. 

So on 22.06.41 VVS had 32 100 planes, in 09.08.45 ; 64 200. They recieved (accepted) 138 500 planes from allies and industry. So account losses were 106 400, of them 46 100 for combat reasons.

Where would you place your others 4000 planes lost in combat records? 
There were about 5 000 planes and 2 000 lost without established reasons in 41 and 42 in *some ** intermediate and *uncomplete* accounts, not in the GHQ numbers you use. 

* For instance 14 300 planes lost (from WD) for VVS from 22/06 to 12/41, 2200 for ADD, PVO and marine aviation for all kind of reasons and some "unaccounted" losses , later added on corrected losses lists. 


Regards


----------



## Maximowitz (Aug 15, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Not much drama to his JG 53 stay. Help them reorganize, then He relinquished the role to Hauptmann Helmut Lipfert, and went back to JG 52.



He was with them so briefly it hardly mattered according to various sources, including Prien in his history of JG53. He didn't want the job and neither did Lipfert.


----------



## Jerry W. Loper (Aug 15, 2011)

I believe that in Trevor and Costable's book _Horrido!_, they do a statistical anaysis of the claims of an American fighter pilot, Robert S. Johnson, who shot down 28 planes and a German pilot (forget the name) who shot down about 100 planes, and found that if Johnson had been allowed to continue flying, statistically he should have scored as many victories as the German pilot. IOW, German aces were not necessarily "better" than Allied aces, they simply flew more sorties and had a more "target rich" environment.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 15, 2011)

Jerry - at the end of the day there is no way Johnson statistically, while remaining with 56th, that he could have gotten more than say another 20+. All the LW aces were in a target rich environment. Johnson was not, and further the war in the air moved mostly out of his reach as Mustangs took over the Battle of Germany. Nobody in USAAF but J.C. Meyers and Preddy got 20 after March 1944 in the ETO, and just barely, while flying 51's.


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 15, 2011)

Except the pilot with 100 victories has been in a lot more combat situations, each one different, and has no doubt, learned a little from each.
The same as a 3000 hr pilot is a little wiser, more savy, than a 1000 hr pilot.
Of course some of the German, and Japanese pilots, had been at the sharp end so long that combat fatigue must have been a problem.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 15, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> It is well known fact that the victory claims made by fighter pilots of all airforces generally were exaggerated. However, there is no evidence that there was any official German policy of exaggerating the fighter pilots claims; on the contrary, each claim had to go through a thorough procedure, including research, before it was officially accepted.
> 
> According to Gemeinschaft der Jagdflieger, pilots claimed a total of 70,000 aerial victories during WWII- 25,000 against the west and 45,000 on the osten front. According to the same source, 16,400 German day fighters were lost ( aerial and ground, total loss ie: more then 59% damage) as the result of hostile action during the war years. 8,500 pilots were killed, 2,700 MIA/taken prisoners, and 9,100 wounded.
> 
> Different total loss figures for the RAF and USAAF are published frequently. According to the russian archives, the combat losses of the VVS between 1941 and 1945 amounted to 46,100 aircraft. Due to the fact that several VVS records were lost during the first few months of Operation Barbarossa, the actual combat VVS losses probably were higher, totaling approx. 50,000 aircraft.



There are obvious and glaring innaccuracies here. 45000 Allied combat losses represent the total Allied losses to combat causes, and includes losses to the minor airforces, and losses on the ground. Does not appear to include non-combat related attirional losses. More than half of allied losses were attributable to flak, so a more realistic loss sheet to LW fighters is about 10-15000. To give some perspective to this in 1944 the USAAC lost in total about 3500 a/c in combat related causes. RAF losses to combat related causes, in the air were about 14500 for the entire war.

By comparison, the figures being quoted here appear to relate only to losses in the air (for the LW), and only to air action. It appears for all the world to me to be one of those propaganda pieces, designed to deliberately mask the truth. Total LW losses for the entire war, from all causes were nudging 70000 aircraft, so it appears that whereas the Allied (and presumably the Soviet) are including all combat losses from all causes, it seems by the numbers given that the LW are only listing aircraft lost to enemy aircraft.

We went through a similar excecise in a thread recentl;y concerning the Me 109. Looking at just one JG, for 1943, we found losses for that 50 strong outfit were something like 250 aircraft lost in just one year. Thats a loss rate of 5 times the force establishment. 

Murray and others have shown that to December 1941, the LW had lost the equivalent of two airforces , or roughly 10000 a/c....and thats just to the end 1941, during the salad days for the LW. By 1944, total LW losses on all fronts were approaching 1500-2000 a/c per month. Thats about 15000 a/c in just one year. And probably around 80% of these were fighters by that time

It is also worth noting that pilot losses do not represent total aircrew losses. The losses for pilots just dont gel either.....Germany trained about 60000 pilots during the war, and did not have 45000 plus their prewar supply at the wars end. Germany was short of two things insofar as its air force was concerned at the end of the war....pilots and fuel....and on those figures they would not have had any problems with pilot availability. There is clearly something very wrong with the arithematic here........


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 15, 2011)

You'd have to talk to Claes Sundin. those figures are in his book _'Luftwaffe Fighter Aircraft in Profile 2'_. This man knows his stuff so I'm sure he could give a very good explanation on how he arrived at those figures. Perhaps its just for Bf109/Fw190 days fighters(?).


----------



## parsifal (Aug 15, 2011)

I dont dispute that losses to air action would be about 16000 (well, actually I do, but not to a significant extent) , but the misrepresentation occurs in that the losses for their opponents, represent total losses. so we end up comparing apples to oranges. Total losses (except attritional losses) for the allies, to losses to air action only, for the LW. Its basically cutting LW losses in half, without being so crass as telling porkies, but just by not revealing the full truth


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 15, 2011)

In his book it says:

' _The following figures are based on many years of thorough going studies of the aerial warfare between 1939 and 1945. _' he further writes ' _Note: the German loss figures given are total combat loss figures, i.e: losses to ground fire, and in aerial combat_. '


----------



## parsifal (Aug 15, 2011)

well, he is out of step with every other account I have ever seen for LW losses, and is suggesting in these figures that the LW were never short of pilots at any time in the war. Means that the 8AF strategy was a failure and we are speaking in german at the moment.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 15, 2011)

perhaps... Gruss und Horrido!


----------



## parsifal (Aug 15, 2011)

These are figures according to wiki (a great source I admit, but they are usually at least somewhere near right)

China: Total losses of the Nationalist Air Force were 2,468 (According to Chinese and Taiwanese Sources). 

Finland: Reported losses during the Winter War totaled 67, of which 42 were operational, while 536 aircraft were lost during the Continuation War, of which 209 were operational losses. (Overall 603).

France: From the beginning of the war until the capitulation of France in 1940, 892 aircraft were lost, of which 413 were in action and 234 were on the ground. Losses included 508 fighters and 218 bombers.(Overall 892) 

Germany: total number of destroyed and damaged for the war totaled 116,875 aircraft, of which (it is estimated) 70,000 were total losses and the remainder significantly damaged. By type, losses totaled 41,452 fighters, 22,037 bombers, 15,428 trainers, 10,221 twin-engine fighters, 5,548 ground attack, 6,733 reconnaissance, and 6,141 transports. 

Italy: Total losses were 5,272 aircraft, of which 3,269 were lost in combat. 

Japan: Estimates vary from 35,000 to 50,000 total losses, with about 20,000 lost operationally. 

Netherlands: Total losses were 81 aircraft during the May, 1940 campaign. 

Poland: Total losses were 398 destroyed, including 116 fighters, 112 dive bombers, 81 reconnaissance aircraft, 36 bombers, 21 sea planes, and 9 transports. 

Soviet Union: Total losses were over 106,400 including 88,300 combat types. 

United Kingdom: Total losses in Europe were 22,010, including 10,045 fighters and 11,965 bombers. (This figure does not include aircraft lost in Asia or the Pacific.) 

United States: Total losses were nearly 45,000, including 22,951 operational losses (18,418 in Europe and 4,533 in the Pacific).


----------



## parsifal (Aug 15, 2011)

One way this might be relevant to the thread would be to get a number of the claims by the LW, and then compare to actual losses. That way we can achieve a baseline error rate between claims vs actual losses and from their determine if Hartmann was statistically overclaiming and by how much. If he was overclaiming and his collegues were aware of it, they might be resentful of his publicity. personally I doubt that, but surely worth a look at.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 15, 2011)

the awkward moment when somebodies opinion appears on wikipedia. 116,875 lost/damaged? hmmmm... didn't Germany produce 94,622 of all types?


----------



## razor1uk (Aug 15, 2011)

Some of the LW numbers of aircraft also IIRC doesn't necessarily exclude reworked A/C either upgraded from earlier to later marks/models or the construction of A/C from salvaged parts from multiple wrecks, along with missing data aircraft caught in the logistical/supply/transport system to due bombing raids late war document destruction, makes things on actual LW numbers murky.
Personaly, to me, my logical or illogical thinking, and how they managed to keep going fairly well mid 44' I'd guess that the lower propossed figures of LW A/C form less understanding/biased sources are quite wrong, and more conjectural about their proponants/supporters opinions upon the multiplicity of available propagandic viewpoints or post-war nationalistic or ideological 'historical' mis-information. I may well too be mis-informed, but as Gunther Rall said in a documentary 'Defenders of the Reiche' (IIRC)
"..You see, we were fighting for 6 years, longer than anyone else, and unlike the USAAF or RAF, we didn't only have to survive 50 missions before returning home, we used to say 'you get two crosses, an iron one or a wooden one.'...."

As to Hartmann, I think that he certainly downed more than 300 A/C even taking into account the largely political reasons for his 10 years inprisonment as a nautural Soviet reaction to counter his 'official LW combat record' (and/or/aka - LW info to Signal propaganda) verses postwar Stalinistic propaganda/Coldwar Soviet media public opinion feeding/control.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 15, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> the awkward moment when somebodies opinion appears on wikipedia. 116,875 lost/damaged? hmmmm... didn't Germany produce 94,622 of all types?



To a degree yes, an awkward moment, but far less so than claiming 16000 losses (even for fighters). And 94000 does not include aircraft constructed for the Luftwaffe or expropriated by the luftwaffe from other countries, produced prewar, or produced as non-combat types like primary trainers. 

The problem with claiming just 16000 fighters lost in the whole war basically goes to this. You might be able to add 40-45% to this figure due to non-combat related causes, say another 7500 airframes. You might be able to add around 10000 additional airframes for strike and bomber aircraft. You might just accept that 15000 trainers were lost in their entirety. That means, on that rough accounting, that the LW might have lost 47000 aircraft both combat and noncombat, but excluding losses to fighters on the ground. That means, on the basis that the Luftwaffe ended the war with 5000 airframes, and using your source as the basis for fighter losses that either a whopping 50-700000 german fighters were lost on the ground (more than they actually produced!!!!!!) or, this source that claims only 16000 fighters lost in air combat is just not koche. Personally, I would go for the latter.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 15, 2011)

wellll he didn't list all combat related losses. just a2a and a2g losses. also, even if the total a/c in Germany was 100000+ units doubt very much they were all lost due to combat/combat related. most likey they were destroyed after May 8, 1945, or destroyed by pilots right before the Luftwaffe surrendered. then listed. thanks for the most interesting conversation btw =)


----------



## parsifal (Aug 15, 2011)

No, thank you, has ben most intersting, but we do need to somehow relate this back to the topic. 

I personally dont believe that hartmann only shot down 70-80 aircraft (only 70-80...my god, thats more than any allied pilot ever achieved.....), I think , at a guess probably 300-320. He was an exceptional pilot, and should not be denigrated when he is not in a position to defend himself.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 15, 2011)

yes, 70-80 claims only is pure hogwash. 300+ is a very realistic number for Hartmann. I've seen some site that say that was accomplished in 800 or so missions, others say 1400+ missions. I'll have to check whats what and get back to yah.

Aces of the Luftwaffe - Erich Hartmann says 825 missions.


----------



## Juha (Aug 16, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> the awkward moment when somebodies opinion appears on wikipedia. 116,875 lost/damaged? hmmmm... didn't Germany produce 94,622 of all types?



Firstly, Parsifal's figure was destroyed and damaged, which isn't very helpfull without info on the degree of damage included.
Secondly, LW used widely war-booty planes, especially trainers but also for ex Italian transport planes, so when LW lost for ex S.81 transport it was still LW loss even if the plane was made in Italy, or a night harasment flight lost a Fokker C.V.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Aug 16, 2011)

Hello Razor
even if many LW pilots thought that a tour lenght of RAF and USAAF fighter pilot was 50 combat sortie, that wasn't true. The limiting factor was operational flight time, 200 hours, for P-51 and P-38 pilots that was more or less like 50 combat sorties, but for Spitfire, P-47 or P-40 pilots clearly more, for Spitfire /Hurricane pilots close to 200 sorties. So some USAAF and RAF pilots in ETO flew appr. 500 combat sorties during the WWII. And in SEA RAF day fighter tour was 300 hours or one year, whichever was completed earlier.

Juha


----------



## razor1uk (Aug 16, 2011)

Kitti ja terve Juha, mita kuluu? 
I was quoting from memory what GR said, and I think, by the mission limit (possibly obtained 'off the top of his head') he suggested, was for USAAF Bomber crews - I think even if he got it wrong as a generalisation in trying to highlight the fact, that in the LW back then, you only were relieved of active flight status/duties when you were mentally /or physically unable to fly, dead or restricted by promotion to a high enough rank with its associated command duties.

Not completely unlike the western allies, but, there was a usually a defined tour limit or goal as a US/GB/CW pilot/crew, even if this limit itself was changed or differed between different services allied nations. 
If you reached them, you could be given the option of going home or doing another tour should you survive in body and mind pass medical mental evaluations.

The only other airforce that flew for longer in war/combat around the ww2 era, was Japan - if you include the Invasion of China, it was atleast 8 or 9 years - but thats going off topic


----------



## drgondog (Aug 16, 2011)

Juha said:


> Hello Razor
> even if many LW pilots thought that a tour lenght of RAF and USAAF fighter pilot was 50 combat sortie, that wasn't true. The limiting factor was operational flight time, 200 hours, for P-51 and P-38 pilots that was more or less like 50 combat sorties, but for Spitfire, P-47 or P-40 pilots clearly more, for Spitfire /Hurricane pilots close to 200 sorties. So some USAAF and RAF pilots in ETO flew appr. 500 combat sorties during the WWII. And in SEA RAF day fighter tour was 300 hours or one year, whichever was completed earlier.
> 
> Juha



The first ETO tour was 270 hours then extended to 300 hours ~ august 1944. Many volunteered for second tour. P-47 pilots obviously flew more sorties to get to 300 hours than Mustang/Lightning pilots in the 8th AF. For TAC/9th it didn't much make a difference as missions were relatively short range/heavy load.

For my father the first tour (all P-51) was 300 hours and 60 missions. He shot down all seven of his air to air scores in his first 35 missions then never fired a shot after that except at ground targets. He only got in 12 more missions on his second tour which was March/April 1945.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 16, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> yes, 70-80 claims only is pure hogwash. 300+ is a very realistic number for Hartmann. I've seen some site that say that was accomplished in 800 or so missions, others say 1400+ missions. I'll have to check whats what and get back to yah.
> 
> Aces of the Luftwaffe - Erich Hartmann says 825 missions.



I think the 825 is when there was contact with the enemy. The 1400 was the total missions.

That would give Hartmann a claim every 2 or 3 missions (for the 825) and a claim for every 4 or 5 missions (for the 1400).


----------



## Juha (Aug 16, 2011)

Hello Razor
Hyvää kiitos and how are You?
At least Grislawski also said the same, (50 sorties tour) and after all that was not badly off for P-51 and P-38 drivers. IIRC it was sometimes in 41 when RAF developed the tour system after several Medical Officers had pushed for it because of growing number of battle fatigue cases. 
IMHO also in LW there was some rotations, I’d not check for Hartmann or Rall’s cases but for ex Lipfert (203 kills) spent some time to train Rumanian pilots and Bär did a couple periods in fighter training jobs but in Bär case that might have been because of fatigue.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Aug 16, 2011)

Hello Drgondog
thanks for the correction.
And yes, all the Allied fighter jockeys with appr 500 combat sorties had done several tours.

Juha


----------



## razor1uk (Aug 16, 2011)

Mina olen ok aikian(spelliing/grammar/syntax?), ja 'rioting' Birminghamissa on loppu vai tosi pieni nyt. Paljon kittoksia Juha.
I have ok time, and rioting in Birmingham is stopped or really small/tiny now. very much thanks Juha

the LW did have R&R (Rest Relaxation) rotational breaks and temporary compasionate leave should the superior officers with regards the schwarm's/staffel's/RLM etc orders tactical situation allow it, and also I do not mean to ignore or mis-inform upon the RAF/CW/USAAF tour lengths.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 16, 2011)

Juha said:


> At least Grislawski also said the same, (50 sorties tour) and after all that was not badly off for P-51 and P-38 drivers. IIRC it was sometimes in 41 when RAF developed the tour system after several Medical Officers had pushed for it because of growing number of battle fatigue cases.
> IMHO also in LW there was some rotations, I’d not check for Hartmann or Rall’s cases but for ex Lipfert (203 kills) spent some time to train Rumanian pilots and Bär did a couple periods in fighter training jobs but in Bär case that might have been because of fatigue.
> 
> Juha


most Luftwaffe pilots had time off after a certain amount of sorties/hours.


----------



## Njaco (Aug 16, 2011)

parsifal said:


> One way this might be relevant to the thread would be to get a number of the claims by the LW, and then compare to actual losses. That way we can achieve a baseline error rate between claims vs actual losses and from their determine if Hartmann was statistically overclaiming and by how much. If he was overclaiming and his collegues were aware of it, they might be resentful of his publicity. personally I doubt that, but surely worth a look at.



from "WWII Data Book" by John Ellis...

Total Aircraft Production by Axis (1939-45)
Germany.................189,307
Italy.......................11,122
Hungary.................1,046
Rumania................ about 1,000

Losses
*Germany *(1939-45 - all losses down to 10 per cent damaged)
Total loss..........62,512 (includes 40,613 combat loss)
Damaged..........45,594 (includes 20, 492 combat damage)
TOTAL..............108,106

*Italy*
Combat............3,269
Accident...........1,771
Scrapped..........292
TOTAL..............5,272

*USSR* (by period - includes losses by all causes)
Jun 41 - Nov 41..............12,652
Dec 41 - Apr 42..............7,099
May 42 - Oct 42.............14,601
Nov 42 - Jun 43.............17,690
Jul 43 - Dec 43..............20,741
Jan 44 - May 44.............13,386
Jun 44 - Dec 44.............20,283
Jan 45 - May 45............. ?
TOTAL..........................106,652


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 16, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> most Luftwaffe pilots had time off after a certain amount of sorties/hours.


Not really hard to do its not like they have to cross oceans to get home like the majority of Allied aircrew.


----------



## Juha (Aug 16, 2011)

Milosh said:


> I think the 825 is when there was contact with the enemy. The 1400 was the total missions.
> 
> That would give Hartmann a claim every 2 or 3 missions (for the 825) and a claim for every 4 or 5 missions (for the 1400).



IMHO the right figure is 825 sorties, after all his combat career was appr 2½ years, even if there were days with multiple sorties there were also days without sortie (leaves, bad weather etc) and after all he got his 150th kill on his 391st sortie 13 Dec 43, one year 2 months after he began his combat career.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Aug 16, 2011)

razor1uk said:


> Mina olen ok aikian(spelliing/grammar/syntax?), ja 'rioting' Birminghamissa on loppu vai tosi pieni nyt. Paljon kittoksia Juha.
> I have ok time, and rioting in Birmingham is stopped or really small/tiny now. very much thanks Juha...



Erinomaista / very impressive, some small mistakes but Finnish is quite different from the indo-european languages, lot of vocals etc, so kiitoksia.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Aug 16, 2011)

Hi Nj. There were also aircraft produced in France and Netherlands that were used extensively by the germans. HS129s used French engines.....Germany ordered over 1000 D520s from French factories, of which about 500 were delivered. Most of these were used to bargain oil and other commodities out of "friendly" nations. I believe the Dutch built a limited number of DXXIs which were used as bargaining chips with the Finns. I recall reading somewhere that the Dutch also built quite a few flying boats for Dornier.

Remember also that part of the former czechoslovakia was technically a separate country to Germany, and I believe supplied numbers of aircraft to the germans.

Then we have all the aircraft that the Germans captured and put to use. These were seldom used in the front line, but some thousands were used for various second line duties. Who knows how many


----------



## Juha (Aug 16, 2011)

parsifal said:


> ...I believe the Dutch built a limited number of DXXIs which were used as bargaining chips with the Finns. I recall reading somewhere that the Dutch also built quite a few flying boats for Dornier.
> 
> Remember also that part of the former czechoslovakia was technically a separate country to Germany, and I believe supplied numbers of aircraft to the germans.
> 
> Then we have all the aircraft that the Germans captured and put to use. These were seldom used in the front line, but some thousands were used for various second line duties. Who knows how many



Finns didn't get any D.XXIs from Germans, yes most of LWs Do 24s were built in Holland but numbers were not very big. IMHO Czech production was incl in German figures, at least AFVs were.

Juha


----------



## razor1uk (Aug 16, 2011)

Anteeksi/ensuredegung/sorry, I went through my documentary collection - I mis-quoted what Guenther Rall said, (I said it in a shorter 'edited' manner) and from the wrong doc' too 
From 45 min 31 sec of 'Warbirds - The Aces' (I believe its called, as I renamed it P-51 Mustang when I copied it onto my PC) is largely about the P-51, US Mustang Aces the latter battles war situation with the Luftwaffe's Reichsluftverteidigung or Reich Home Defence Kommando's. 
The bracketed itallics are mine.



> "We had to cover an airspace form North Cape to El Alamain throughout North Africa, you know.., with about 700 fighters _[along the entire frontlines]_, it was too less.
> So.. we didn't have the same philosophy _[then]_ as you. _[..the Allied enemy of then]_
> You know.. you'd pull a pilot after 50 missions. We let them fly and I always say _[refering to bomber pilots I think, shortley after he talks about loosing two of his children, one to bombings his wife nearly dying on a train escaping Vienna the Russians, when it was straffed by Mossies, the attack putting her into labour, delivering stillbirth at 6 months]_
> 
> ...



Apologise of course this is slightly off topic, and Guenther Rall's opinion _[and my own opinion/contextual interperations/additions from within that documentary, posted in the spirit of the 'opinion' aspect of the thread.]_


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 16, 2011)

yep. makes me wonder how many Allied 'aces' got their claims against pilots without even ' _basic navigation training _' or remembering the basics like jettisoning the drop tank. and like Rall said in that interview ' _we were always outnumbered, always _'.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 16, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> yep. makes me wonder how many Allied 'aces' got their claims against pilots without even ' _basic navigation training _' or remembering the basics like jettisoning the drop tank. and like Rall said in that interview ' _we were always outnumbered, always _'.


and I wonder how many allied tyros were knocked down by these LW aces . Please remember the LW rarely showed up to fight unless they had the agvantage over France and Belgium 41-44


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 16, 2011)

what about in the east?? zero advantage there. in the west in 44.. advantage or not they had no choise but to go. I doubt that the Luftwaffe had the advantage even 1% of the time. in N.Africa there was no clear advantage. BoB I think they did.. not 100% sure on that one though.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 17, 2011)

Oh gosh ratsel, I see another difference of opinion raising its head. My view is that from 41-44 the LW was generally never at a numerical disadvantage. Thats because it chose its attacks, and only chose to fight where it held a local advantage. Over france in 41, they nearly always would decline engagement, unless they could see a local advantage. Over Germany in '44, DG has conclusively shown time and again that despite a numerical advantage for the allies frontwise, in terms of total aircraft, in terms of fighters protecting bombers over the target, the LW nearly always massively outnumbered the allied escort forces.

In the east, as a generalization, and excepting the first summer campaign of 1941, VVS was nearly always outnumbered in a local sense. Germany was on the offensive, and was adept at concentrating its forces over the Schwerpunkt. VVS were pretty much incapable of doing this in a cordinated way until Kuban. Even after Kuban, VVS strategic concepts always emphasised broad front strategy in the air, so that even after mid '43 LW would hold the advantage locally in the battles it chose to fight (in terms of fighters), but overall, suffered an increasing numbers imbalance on a frontwise basis. 

North Africa, which I assume you would include Malta, the LW rarely fought at any local disadvantage. They would choose their fights, and in those fights would achieve significant local superiorities. This continued right up until Alamein. Its about the strategic priorities of the opponents. allies and Soviets knew they were at a disadvantage individually against a technically superior foe, so they "decentralised", to maximise their numeric advantages. They would be fighting and inflicting losses on the Germans on a wide scale, whereas the germans took a much more restricted approach to the usage of their airpower. Both allies were fighting for a long term strategic vioctory....german theory was about quick and opportunistic uses of air power. one gave short term, battle specific advantages, the other was a long term invesment in winning an overwhelming strategic advatage....the longer this battle went on, the more pronounced the victory became. 

German approach and application of air assets worked well until they lost the initiative in that theatre. once on the defensive, they would lose the initiative, and be forced to disperse their effort. once that that happened, the numerical imbalances at a theatre level rapidly showed the weakness of the german strategy....qulaity without numbers in an unconcentrated environment, is going to lead to an inneffective force, unable to hit targets with sufficient weight to make a difference.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 17, 2011)

Juha said:


> IMHO the right figure is 825 sorties, after all his combat career was appr 2½ years, even if there were days with multiple sorties there were also days without sortie (leaves, bad weather etc) and after all he got his 150th kill on his 391st sortie 13 Dec 43, one year 2 months after he began his combat career.
> 
> Juha



From 'Messerschmitt Aces' by Walter A Musciano

_Flying over 1425 missions over the Caucasus, southern Russia, Romania, Hungary and Czechoslovakia Hartmann engaged in over 800 dogfights and suffered 13 accidents or equipment failures._

further extract:

Sept 18 1943 - 300 missions, 95 victories

Hartmann's claim list: Aces of the Luftwaffe - Erich Hartmann


----------



## Juha (Aug 17, 2011)

Hello Milosh
So? Your link also says that Hartmann flew 825 sorties and his 150th victory was achieved on 13 Dec 43. If you look other LW top aces biographies, they also give credibility to 825 sorties, for ex Lipfert arrived 2 months later to JG 52 and flew over 700 sorties.

Juha


----------



## Milosh (Aug 17, 2011)

The reference also says 'over 800' combats.

Gerhard Barkhorn was credited with 301 victories gained in 1104 missions.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 17, 2011)

actually it says ' _He flew 825 * missions *in recording 352 victories_ ' exclude the victories with no time, location, and its 323 victories.


----------



## Juha (Aug 17, 2011)

Hello Milosh
read again, it says "He flew 825 missions in recording 352 victories"

Barkhorn was pre-war trained pilot he had some 100 combat sorties at the beginning of the Oper Barbarossa on 22 Jun 41, one year four months before Hartmann arrived to front.

Juha


----------



## jim (Aug 17, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Oh gosh ratsel, I see another difference of opinion raising its head. My view is that from 41-44 the LW was generally never at a numerical disadvantage. Thats because it chose its attacks, and only chose to fight where it held a local advantage. Over france in 41, they nearly always would decline engagement, unless they could see a local advantage. Over Germany in '44, DG has conclusively shown time and again that despite a numerical advantage for the allies frontwise, in terms of total aircraft, in terms of fighters protecting bombers over the target, the LW nearly always massively outnumbered the allied escort forces.
> 
> In the east, as a generalization, and excepting the first summer campaign of 1941, VVS was nearly always outnumbered in a local sense. Germany was on the offensive, and was adept at concentrating its forces over the Schwerpunkt. VVS were pretty much incapable of doing this in a cordinated way until Kuban. Even after Kuban, VVS strategic concepts always emphasised broad front strategy in the air, so that even after mid '43 LW would hold the advantage locally in the battles it chose to fight (in terms of fighters), but overall, suffered an increasing numbers imbalance on a frontwise basis.
> 
> ...


 
Excellent post.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 17, 2011)

yes, except for ' _the LW nearly always massively outnumbered the allied escort forces_. ' thats not entirely true. combine allied escorts in 44' with the bomber streams and the LW is now at a disadvantage. what continueally amazes me is that nobody takes into the consideration about the LW pilots who were there, and knew day after day they were outnumbered. seems like to me that if its not on a USAAF document, its ( the luftwaffe being outnumbered) not true.


----------



## kettbo (Aug 17, 2011)

Let's just do some math....short duration, OstFront sorties. 
Even flying 200 days per year (weather, leave, down time) at 3 sorties per day is 600 sorties in a year x even only 2 years in combat is 1200 sorties. 
Throw in 4,5, or 6 sorties for "crunch time" and I can easily see 1400, 1500 sorties if one is lucky enough to survive accidents, mechanical fialure, enemy fighters, defensive fire, AAA, scads of Soviet soldiers pointing their weapons skyward hoping for that Golden BB, accidental "friendly fire"
Being on the defense allows most of your flying on you side of the line of contact greatly reducing some of the risks mentioned.


----------



## Juha (Aug 17, 2011)

Hello George
why theorize, look at Luftwaffe Aces of the Eastern Front 
of those who got more than 130 kills in the East and whose biographies there are only 4 flew 1000 or more combat sorties (Barkhorn, Krupinsky Rudorffer and Hackl) but several flew under 500. And that is not surprising if you have read several biographies on, memories of those high ranking aces.

Juha


----------



## Tante Ju (Aug 17, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Oh gosh ratsel, I see another difference of opinion raising its head. My view is that from 41-44 the LW was generally never at a numerical disadvantage.



This is interesting view, because German memoire all say disadvantage in numbers was very important in Africa, Eastern Front, Western Front. Perhaps they all know wrong. Also we know from strenght numbers this to be true.

Can you show some "general" example when LW actually outnumbered foe in these ttheatres you mention, oppose to common perception?


----------



## kettbo (Aug 17, 2011)

Juha,

I've seen the site. Thought that number was low compared to what my memory was telling me.
Was thinking in the neighborhood of 1100 combat sorties.
Perhaps I was thinking for H U Rudel and 1400 or 1500 sorties
Based upon your research, do you consider these numbers ironclad?


----------



## parsifal (Aug 17, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> This is interesting view, because German memoire all say disadvantage in numbers was very important in Africa, Eastern Front, Western Front. Perhaps they all know wrong. Also we know from strenght numbers this to be true.
> 
> Can you show some "general" example when LW actually outnumbered foe in these ttheatres you mention, oppose to common perception?



Yes I can, but then we both know where you are wanting to take this. Best not to go there in the first place dont you think


----------



## Tante Ju (Aug 17, 2011)

We can agree to disagree


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 17, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> We can agree to disagree


then whats the point? but I think I see what your saying. one can ask 1000 luftwaffe pilots what the situation was.. but 1, 2, 10 USAAF docs say about the 365th reporting they engaged 287 Me 109's with there 10 P-51's automatically means the entire ETO/MTO was like that. most likely they were counting the same plane 3 times. the number of COMBAT ready luftwaffe a/c just wasn't there.

but yes... agree to disagree.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 17, 2011)

This definately goes against my instinct not to engage, however I am hoping against logic and experience that things might be different this time around....

I cannot understand how it can be seriously argued that the Germans were not masters of warfare in their own right, and that all they had was guts , glory and the individual skills of their aircrew to rely on. These were factors to consider, but in reality the strength of the germans was in their use of their forces, and this meant achieving local superiorities where it mattered. This applied equally to ground forces and their air forces.

The theories behind the application of german military strength, whether that be land forces or airpower, are closely linked to the idea of the decisive battle, specifically kesselshlacht and blitzkrieg concepts relating to encirclement and isolation (and dislocation) of enemy forces. These theories revolved around a maximum concentration of effort at decisive point(s) of the enemy lineto achieve decisive breakthroughs, and from there create a war of rapid movement and encirclement. The application of airpower was a critical element of that theory, and aimed to achieve local superiority rather than front wide superiority. Consequently German air operations were invariably in support of ground operations, and invariably because the germans concentrated their MLA at a narrow point , those air operations were also concentrated. Thus, for example, during operation Typhoon the German 2pz army delivered its main blow from about the 15 November 1941, was supported by 579 LW serviceable aircraft (give or take). in that general TO, they were opposed by more than 1300 VVS aircraft, however, whereas the LW concentrated all its strength at one point (specifically, supporting 2pz Army in its attacks on 49A and 50A, the Soviet aircraft were spread out over a much wider section of the front....supporting in fact two complete Fronts, such that when the German hit on the 15th, they outnumbered the VVS locally by more than 5:1 (according to Nagorski). Moreover, even though this offensive eventually was defeated, for a while it rolled along, and whilst the germans could maintain momentum, they were able to keep both the red army and the supporting VVS off balance and unable to concentrate for an effective counterstroke. Only after the Germans ground to a halt and the flanking attacks by the 43A and 51A (???) started to take effect, was the VVS able to register effective counterattacks. 

Forces on the strategic defence found it difficult to react to German breakthrough battles. a defender did not usually have good information on the dispositions and intentions, in a tactical sense, of the attacking germans. inevitably this meant they were reduced to decentralised deployments, and this meant that in most battles the LW enjoyed marked superiorities of numbers. The more fluid, the better, since the germans were adept at relocating their forces to follow the offensive, and their opponents were not so good at that. Thus, for most german offensives 1939-42, of which their air forces played a central and key rolethe germans were able to achieve marked and sustained superiority of numbers over the actual battlegrounds that they committed their forces.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 17, 2011)

nobody's arguing that the Germans were not masters of warfare. but to counter your points, the LW launched 986 a/c on 1.1.45 to attack allied airfields. does that mean they had superior #'s in 1945? I don't think so. what about local superiority? well almost 1/2 of the aircraft shot down were hit by flak/AAA on 1.1.45. still think they had local superiority? you seem to underestimate the allied strengths my friend. I'll say again, Rall expressed time and time again, along with may other LW pilots, along with unit diaries that they were outnumbered. 

the LW were locally superior on the Ost front becouse of superior #'s? again, I don't think so.. russians kept sending waves after waves of a/c. and the same LW pilots were shooting them down wave after wave. JG 52 for example.

don't get me wrong, I understand what your saying. some local areas were very well covered by the LW. but as a whole, not by a long shot.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 18, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> nobody's arguing that the Germans were not masters of warfare. but to counter your points, the LW launched 986 a/c on 1.1.45 to attack allied airfields. does that mean they had superior #'s in 1945? I don't think so. what about local superiority? well almost 1/2 of the aircraft shot down were hit by flak/AAA on 1.1.45. still think they had local superiority? you seem to underestimate the allied strengths my friend. I'll say again, Rall expressed time and time again, along with may other LW pilots, along with unit diaries that they were outnumbered.
> 
> the LW were locally superior on the Ost front becouse of superior #'s? again, I don't think so.. russians kept sending waves after waves of a/c. and the same LW pilots were shooting them down wave after wave. JG 52 for example.
> 
> don't get me wrong, I understand what your saying. some local areas were very well covered by the LW. but as a whole, not by a long shot.



This is mixing strategic superiority with local superiority. The Germans on the eastern front were technically outnumbered, and therefore should have lost air superiority from the first day of the war. There were far more Russian aircraft in the VVS inventory than there were Axis aircraft. yet no-one can seriously argue that on the 22 June 1941, the Russians held air superiority.

So if the germans didnt have the numbers, how is it that in every offensive engagement up to and including Kursk they managed to dominate the airspaces over their battlefields (in the east, but we will examine allied situations a bit later I expect). The answer is by being able concentrate their forces at the critical point, whereas their opponents frequently could not. This does not make Rall or any of the other sources wrong (necessarily) it just acknowledges that the germans achieved their victories by more than just good luck, or good equipment, or well trained personnel. The majority of their success was due to the leadership and technique that they brought to the battle. The Germans understood very well the concept of concentration of effort, which is particulalry true in air operations for the purpose of supporting ground offensives. The problem with it is that it can never be independantly decisive....only a portion of the defenders will ever be destroyed, and unless the land campaign to which the air op is being flown is 100% successful and forces the surrender of the opposing force, the friendly efforts are bound to fail. This is precisely what happened to the bodenplatte operation. At the moment and the point that the remaining German airpower was released, it possessed air supeiority, but it was bound to fail, because the land operations that the force was designed to support had long since been decimated. It was only a matter of time before the front wide allied forces, so obviously superior would grind such a pathetic effort paste....


----------



## Tante Ju (Aug 18, 2011)

There was no big concentration on Eastern Front - typical was many smaller flights because of vast airspace. Both VVS and Luftwaffe, many times these flights did their job, did not meet even, operate independent of other.. Think of Kursk "battle" - area equal of Western Europe.. how its possible to "concentrate"? And, in the smaller size engagements, German could often dominate because of their tecnical and tactical superiority. VVS had generally more fighters, so they could, in general, send up more fighter and other plane in each flight.. German reaction was as in Western desert, look for opportunities in bounce, they did not stay to fight, but used existing performance superiority to inflict sensitive losses. But many times flights went not harassed, Stukas, Fokkers did their job, Shturmoviks did their job, and did not meet any opposition in air... Russia is just too vast. No side could muster enough plane to reach even near concentration of warplane in area as in narrow North Africa seastrip or in West..


----------



## drgondog (Aug 18, 2011)

There were very few 8th AF aces that started Ops after August 1944. Having said that the big battles in November/December 1944 killed a lot of inexperienced German pilots in the west- This buildup during October brought in a lot of low time new fighter pilots as well as a lot of transport and bomber pilots into LuftReich Flotte.


----------



## razor1uk (Aug 18, 2011)

mmm I see another thread duel brewiing/fermenting  .. both Parsifal Ratsel are thrusting and parrying with near identical logics, true enough points, and minor heartfelt differences of opinion.


----------



## Readie (Aug 18, 2011)

razor1uk said:


> mmm I see another thread duel brewiing/fermenting  .. both Parsifal Ratsel are thrusting and parrying with near identical logics, true enough points, and minor heartfelt differences of opinion.




I'll get my banjo out then...


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 18, 2011)

parsifal said:


> This is mixing strategic superiority with local superiority. The Germans on the eastern front were technically outnumbered, and therefore should have lost air superiority from the first day of the war. There were far more Russian aircraft in the VVS inventory than there were Axis aircraft. yet no-one can seriously argue that on the 22 June 1941, the Russians held air superiority.
> 
> So if the germans didnt have the numbers, how is it that in every offensive engagement up to and including Kursk they managed to dominate the airspaces over their battlefields (in the east, but we will examine allied situations a bit later I expect).


The same way Leonidas defended the pass against numerically superior Persians. The VVS flew predicatably, always to the same locations, with a single mindset. The German were in a perfect position to take advantage of that tactic.


parsifal said:


> The problem with it is that it can never be independantly decisive....only a portion of the defenders will ever be destroyed, and unless the land campaign to which the air op is being flown is 100% successful and forces the surrender of the opposing force, the friendly efforts are bound to fail. This is precisely what happened to the bodenplatte operation. At the moment and the point that the remaining German airpower was released, it possessed air supeiority, but it was bound to fail, because the land operations that the force was designed to support had long since been decimated. It was only a matter of time before the front wide allied forces, so obviously superior would grind such a pathetic effort paste....


clearly the Allied AAA had been the real menace for the German attack force. Almost half of the total losses can be directly attributed to Allied AAA. The other major factor was Allied fighter aircraft, which in several cases were already in the air or in the process of taking off.Fixing the time of attack at 09.20 hrs. for all units simultaneously resulted in the fact that several Allied fighter units were already airborne. Furthermore, when these Allied units were able to engage the attackers, they were in better position than the German attackers flying low on the deck. Added to this should be the general poor training standard of the young inexperienced German fighter pilots, which gave them literally no chance. This resulted in particularly heavy losses among JG 1,JG 3,JG 6,JG 11 andJG 53. In some cases Allied units had taken off at 08.00 hrs. This was approximately 20 minutes earlier than their German attackers, although their airfields were further east so daybreak would have been earlier. It is believed that several Jagdgeschwader were in position to take off 45 to 60 minutes earlier than they actually did.

The tactical value of the mission on 1.1.45 should be seen in a broader picture.The attack was planned to coincide with the offensive in the Ardennes. On January 1st 1945 this offensive had clearly come to a halt and, within the commands of Heeresgruppe Band OberfehlshaberWest a more defensive roll in the Ardennes was already foreseen. An attack on the enemy tactical air forces with the objective of supporting the ground offensive came too late and should have been cancelled.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 18, 2011)

How come no one takes the condition of Allied aircrew into consideration on Bodenplatte , from what I know about aircrew I'll wager that more then a few were under the weather following a night of new years revellry


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 18, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> How come no one takes the condition of Allied aircrew into consideration on Bodenplatte , from what I know about aircrew I'll wager that more then a few were under the weather following a night of new years revellry


so what... Gregory 'Pappy' Boyington use to fly drunk sometimes during WWII.


----------



## marshall (Aug 18, 2011)

Anybody remember which german ace claimed that slats on 109 are especially useful when drunk-flying?


----------



## Juha (Aug 18, 2011)

kettbo said:


> Juha,
> 
> I've seen the site. Thought that number was low compared to what my memory was telling me.
> Was thinking in the neighborhood of 1100 combat sorties.
> ...


 
Hello George
first of all Rudel was one of kind. On the quality of Kacha's pages, IMHO it is very good for a site which is, I think, based on secondary sources.
IMHO what is clear than all those fighter pilots with 1000 or moore sorties had began operational flying earlier than Hartmann. Barkhorn and Krupinski (1104 and 1100 combat sorties) had flew combat sorties even before the beginning of Oper Barbarossa, but of course Barkhorn was rather inactive in 45. Hackl (about 1000 combat sorties) was pre-war regular who fought throughout the war but was badly wounded twice, Rudorffer (1000 + combat sorties) also flew practically through the whole war.

If we look those high Eastern Front claimers who had fairly short careers, Batz (237 victories) amassed 445 combat sorties in 2⅟4 years, Beerenbrock (117 victories) amassed appr. 400 sorties in 1⅔ years in front-line unit and Birker (117 victories) 284 sorties in 1⅟4 years, it seems that appr 300 sorties per year was more or less max for fighter pilots in the Eastern Front. IIRC ground attack and Stuka pilots could amass sorties faster rate.

Juha


----------



## Milosh (Aug 18, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> clearly the Allied AAA had been the real menace for the German attack force. Almost half of the total losses can be directly attributed to Allied AAA..



I suggest your read 'Bodenplatte' by Manrho and Putz. It list all the reasons for the Lw losses. Only seven (7) Lw a/c were destroyed by ground fire. There was a further twenty-two (22) damaged by ground fire. There was 271 a/c 60-100% (destroyed) and 65 0-59% (damaged).

(29/271) x 100 = 10.7%


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 18, 2011)

Milosh said:


> I suggest your read 'Bodenplatte' by Manrho and Putz. It list all the reasons for the Lw losses. Only seven (7) Lw a/c were destroyed by ground fire. There was a further twenty-two (22) damaged by ground fire. There was 271 a/c 60-100% (destroyed) and 65 0-59% (damaged).
> 
> (29/271) x 100 = 10.7%


more like 123/280 = 44%. all were either KIA,WIA, or bailed/OK with only a handfull making it back to base. where are you getting your info from? cause Manrho and Putz researched from all sides and their numbers are imo the most accurate.

in JG 53 for example: 14 hit by flak/aaa with only 2 returning to base. rest were eithe KIA, or WIA-bailed/POW-bailed.


----------



## kettbo (Aug 18, 2011)

Juha said:


> Hello George
> first of all Rudel was one of kind. On the quality of Kacha's pages, IMHO it is very good for a site which is, I think, based on secondary sources.
> IMHO what is clear than all those fighter pilots with 1000 or moore sorties had began operational flying earlier than Hartmann. Barkhorn and Krupinski (1104 and 1100 combat sorties) had flew combat sorties even before the beginning of Oper Barbarossa, but of course Barkhorn was rather inactive in 45. Hackl (about 1000 combat sorties) was pre-war regular who fought throughout the war but was badly wounded twice, Rudorffer (1000 + combat sorties) also flew practically through the whole war.
> 
> ...



hyvä päivää Juha,

Thank you for the extra information. Lots of good info on this site.

Regards,
George


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 18, 2011)

marshall said:


> Anybody remember which german ace claimed that slats on 109 are especially useful when drunk-flying?


thats a new one. I'm thinking Knoke..

I remember reading that after landing, _'they found him slumped over and thought he was wounded. but after opening the canopy and see no evidence of bullets.. they found he was fast asleep!'_


----------



## marshall (Aug 18, 2011)

Found it



> Me 109 F/G:
> "- Did pilots like the slats on the wings of the 109?
> Yes, pilots did like them, since it allowed them better positions in dogfights along with using the flaps. These slats would also deploy slightly when the a/c was reaching stall at higher altitudes showing the pilot how close they were to stalling.....this was also useful when you were drunk "
> - Franz Stigler, German fighter ace. 28 victories. Interview of Franz Stigler.



Source: virtualpilots.fi: 109myths


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 18, 2011)

Franz Stigler was the -109 pilot that escorted a crippled B-17 to safety...


----------



## stona (Aug 18, 2011)

Franz Stigler..... also a strafer of sand dunes. There's a man who we can say definitely made fraudulent claims. He was lucky to avoid a court martial. Strange how the deference of post war "researchers" meant that he was never really challenged or cornered about it, at least not to my knowledge. Karl-Heinz Bendert,one of his accomplices,even went on to be awarded a RK. Bendert survived the war too but was also never really pressed on the JG 27 overclaiming.
Steve


----------



## Readie (Aug 18, 2011)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpDXsX1mze0_

Fame on youtube too...


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 18, 2011)

stona said:


> Franz Stigler..... also a strafer of sand dunes. There's a man who we can say definitely made fraudulent claims. He was lucky to avoid a court martial. Strange how the deference of post war "researchers" meant that he was never really challenged or cornered about it, at least not to my knowledge. Karl-Heinz Bendert,one of his accomplices,even went on to be awarded a RK. Bendert survived the war too but was also never really pressed on the JG 27 overclaiming.
> Steve


at least he wasn't as bad as Caldwell... I believe 'Killer' had a coutmartial for various things and stripped of rank.


----------



## Readie (Aug 18, 2011)

On 4 July 1941 *Caldwell saw a German pilot shoot and kill a close friend, Pilot Officer Donald Munro, who was descending to the ground in a parachute. This was a controversial practice, but was nevertheless common among some German and Allied pilots.* One biographer, Kristin Alexander, suggests that it may have caused Caldwell's attitude to harden significantly. Months later, press officers and journalists popularised Caldwell's nickname of "Killer", which he disliked. One reason for the nickname was that he too shot enemy airmen after they parachuted out of aircraft. Caldwell commented many years later: "...there was no blood lust or anything about it like that. It was just a matter of not wanting them back to have another go at us. I never shot any who landed where they could be taken prisoner." (In later life, Caldwell said that his thoughts often turned to one Japanese airman or passenger, who survived Caldwell's last aerial victory but could not be rescued. A more commonly-cited reason for the nickname was his habit of using up ammunition left over at the end of sorties, to shoot up enemy troops and vehicles. During his war service, Caldwell wrote in a notebook: "it's your life or theirs. This is war."

Lifted from Wiki, an interesting remark made about 'war'

John


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Aug 18, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> at least he wasn't as bad as Caldwell... I believe 'Killer' had a coutmartial for various things and stripped of rank.


Caldwell's court martial was a fit-up, with the authorities getting revenge for him and seven other senior officers resigning their commissions, due to (in their view) lives being wasted on strafing operations. The CM took place in January 1946, with him falsely accused of trafficking in liquor; he'd actually been bartering with the Americans, who were restricted by McArthur in their access to drink. Caldwell maintained that it was the only way to get certain American materials and that he made no personal gain from it, but was found guilty and reduced one rank, losing one day's pay as a result. He left the RAAF in March 1946, having risen from Pilot Officer, in the desert, in 1941, to Group Captain; he is believed to be the only serving, operational, pilot whose logbook was endorsed by an AOC-in-C (Air Chief Marshal Tedder,) who said,"A fine commander, an excellent leader and a first class shot." 
Edgar


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 18, 2011)

Readie said:


> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpDXsX1mze0_
> 
> Fame on youtube too...



Flight Journal Magazine February 2006 Issue features a wonderful story about the 368th FG and Tote Talbott. This was wrote by Historian Tim Grace with Lt. General Tote Talbott.

"When Chivalry Was Not Dead"
Thunderbolt pilot earns the ultimate praise

_Drifting down in his parachute, his Thunderbolt a spiraling pyre of smoke and 
flame below, “Tote” Talbott saw the four Messerschmitts coming toward him 
and knew it was the end. He had just shot down two of their comrades, but as 
the airplanes circled him, each pilot gave him a salute._
*True warriors respect other warriors*


----------



## TheMustangRider (Aug 18, 2011)

If memory serves me correctly, Hartmann had a similar experience while fighting in the west; when he went against 8th AF bomber and escort fighters his Messerschmitt ran out of fuel and he ended up floating down in a ‘chute while P-51s circled around him.
It was on that mission I believe when he bounced and scored three or four P-51s of the total he would achieve during the war.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 18, 2011)

who Hartmann? He never had any claims in the West with JG 53.

Edit:

he had one P-51 in June 1944 and one P-51 in March 1945. my appologies for assuming the west.


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 18, 2011)

I think that was over Romania, very late in the war.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Aug 19, 2011)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Hartmann#Fighting_the_United_States_Army_Air_Forces

Here it is in Wiki and yes, he downed 15th, not 8th AF Mustangs.
As skillful as he was, he was lucky too as his legend did not end that day on the hands on any of those P-51 pilots.


----------



## Juha (Aug 19, 2011)

Hello MustangRider
Wiki is Wiki, here is more reliable list of Hartmann's claims Aces of the Luftwaffe - Erich Hartmann
only one P-51 during 44 plus one in early 45
Best way apart going to German archives is to check Wood's LW Eastern Front claim-lists-

Juha


----------



## DonL (Aug 19, 2011)

I have other informations.

He downed 4 Mustungs(15th) in 10 minutes over Romania (1.6.1944).
That was confirmed to my informations from USAAF, LW, his wingman and Krupinsky.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 19, 2011)

why was Hartmann according to wiki, " _hanging from his parachute _"? after the dogfights with those P-51s.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 19, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> why was Hartmann according to wiki, " _hanging from his parachute _"? after the dogfights with those P-51s.



Out of fuel???

I gave the source in my post and can be found in Appendix 5: Luftwaffe material/personnel losses on 1st January 1945


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 19, 2011)

Milosh said:


> Out of fuel???
> 
> I gave the source in my post and can be found in Appendix 5: Luftwaffe material/personnel losses on 1st January 1945


didn't he fly the same Bf 109G-6 WNr.166221 from begining of June - October 1944. Then switched out to a Bf109G-14/AM?


----------



## TheMustangRider (Aug 19, 2011)

Juha said:


> Hello MustangRider
> Wiki is Wiki, here is more reliable list of Hartmann's claims Aces of the Luftwaffe - Erich Hartmann
> only one P-51 during 44 plus one in early 45
> Best way apart going to German archives is to check Wood's LW Eastern Front claim-lists-
> ...



Thank you Juha. 
There seems to be conflicting information about his total victories on USAAF fighters. Your source appears to be quite reliable while I'm aware on the other hand, that Wiki is to be taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## DonL (Aug 19, 2011)

The fight with the four Mustangs came from 3 different sources. 
And to all I know the USAAF confirmed this 4 Kills in 10 minutes!

Source: Kaplan, Toliver and Constable, Tillman!
Also E. Sims confirmed the 4 Kills in his book The Fighter Pilots.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 19, 2011)

DonL said:


> I have other informations.
> 
> He downed 4 Mustungs(15th) in 10 minutes over Romania (1.6.1944).
> That was confirmed to my informations from USAAF, LW, his wingman and Krupinsky.


Walter "Graf Punski" Krupinski was with JG 11 on 6.44. It wasn't Hartmann who shot down four P-51s.


----------



## Juha (Aug 19, 2011)

Hello
Tony Wood’s Eastern Front claim list showed only one confirmed Mustang for Hartmann on 24 June 44, plus one for Birkner also from 9./JG 52 and one for Voight fromStab II./SG 2

On 1 Jun 44 Hartmann claimed 5 LaGGs and one Airacobra, from the same source

Juha


----------



## stona (Aug 19, 2011)

Claims,claims,claims.
Here's a quote from someone who understood what they were.

"The experience of two wars shows that in large-scale offensive operations the claims to the destruction of enemy aircraft made by pilots, however honestly made and carefully scrutinized, are a most inaccurate guide to the true situation. Moreover, the results achieved by an offensive can rarely be judged by a mere statistical comparison of casualties suffered and inflicted. Except when an operation has been launched purely for the purpose of procuring the attrition of the opposing force, a broader view than this must be taken of the strategic purpose and the extent to which it has been achieved."

From a report submitted on 29th February,1948,by Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Sholto Douglas, G.C.B., M.C., D.F.C. the former Commander-in-Chief of Fighter Command, Royal Air Force.


----------



## Juha (Aug 19, 2011)

Hello Stona
that claims are only claims are well understood here, as we say here aeriel victories have certain percentage of air and certain percentage of victory. How much which depends on multiple factors in each case.

Hello Don
Wood's claim lists are mainly based on O.K.L. Fighter Claims Chef für Ausz. und Dizsiplin
Luftwaffen-Personalamt L.P. [A] V Films at BA-MA, so on a primary source, so I prefer it over secondary sources.

Juha


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 19, 2011)

edited to keep this thread rolling along


----------



## DonL (Aug 19, 2011)

> Claims,claims,claims.



You can believe what you want, I believe what I want!

The four kills were officialy confirmed from the USAAF after Toliver and Constable!
Also Edward Sims had done a lot of work and research in his book and came to the conclusion, that the LW system was very accurate (better then RAF and USAAF) and to his estimate there are 10-15% more claims then shot downs.

He has done mostly research for BOB, the African Theatre and Dieppe.
He had personally researched with original RAF Dokuments of Squadrons and RAF lost lists.

He also confirmed after his personaly research the 17 shotdowns from Marseille.

You can all cry claims claims claims, I have no proof that the list from Toliver and Constable are not accurate.
They have done the most reasearch on Hartmann and they knew him personaly.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 19, 2011)

Ratsel, why say that, its obviously a post designed to inflame the debate and adds nothing to the exchange of knowledge and makes us all look like fools. 

Saying things like that is a great way to start a brawl


----------



## Juha (Aug 19, 2011)

Hello Don
now serious researchers' opinion is that T's C's book is out of date, the main argument against Khazanovs claim that Hartmann shot down only 80 planes is just that K used T C as his source of H's claims. The fact is that Hartmann didn't claim Mustangs on 1 Jun 44 according to LW docus.

Juha


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 19, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Ratsel, why say that, its obviously a post designed to inflame the debate and adds nothing to the exchange of knowledge and makes us all look like fools.
> 
> Saying things like that is a great way to start a brawl


wow dude.. your reading way way way way way to much into post #111. take it with a grain of salt.



Juha said:


> Hello Don
> The fact is that Hartmann didn't claim Mustangs on 1 Jun 44 according to LW docus.
> 
> Juha


exactly. not to mention that Krupinski was with JG 11 at the time.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 19, 2011)

double post. sorry.


----------



## Maximowitz (Aug 19, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Ratsel, why say that, its obviously a post designed to inflame the debate and adds nothing to the exchange of knowledge and makes us all look like fools.
> 
> Saying things like that is a great way to start a brawl



I've seen similar topics on Hartmann on a few other forums - they always end up the same.


----------



## razor1uk (Aug 19, 2011)

Maximowitz said:


> I've seen similar topics on Hartmann on a few other forums - they always end up the same.


True words there Maxim


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 19, 2011)

edited to keep this thread rolling along


----------



## stona (Aug 19, 2011)

Maximowitz said:


> I've seen similar topics on Hartmann on a few other forums - they always end up the same.



Yes,because noone can prove the unprovable. As much original documentation as we are ever likely to see has now been seen. The true numbers weren't known in 1945 and we're not about to discover them now. It's a waste of time. The discussion always degenerates into opinions and these haven't changed in the last twenty years or so. I probably had the same face to face debates about Hartmann (and others) in 1985 that are repeated endlessly in the virtual world of the internet today.
Sholto Douglas was right in 1948!
Steve


----------



## Maximowitz (Aug 19, 2011)

stona said:


> Yes,because noone can prove the unprovable. As much original documentation as we are ever likely to see has now been seen. The true numbers weren't known in 1945 and we're not about to discover them now. It's a waste of time. The discussion always degenerates into opinions and these haven't changed in the last twenty years or so. I probably had the same face to face debates about Hartmann (and others) in 1985 that are repeated endlessly in the virtual world of the internet today.
> Sholto Douglas was right in 1948!
> Steve



Absolutely right Steve. Wasted motion. Same old arguments, same old counter arguments.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 19, 2011)

I don't think so. with new docs. available and most importantly unit diaries found.to call 20-30 year old opinions gosspil is just crazy. lists can be checked and crossed referenced. its safe to say without a word of doubt that Hartmann had anywhere between 323 to 352 claims. even the russians put him on trial for destroying 345 'expensive aircraft'.


----------



## DonL (Aug 19, 2011)

> Yes,because noone can prove the unprovable. As much original documentation as we are ever likely to see has now been seen. The true numbers weren't known in 1945 and we're not about to discover them now. It's a waste of time. The discussion always degenerates into opinions and these haven't changed in the last twenty years or so. I probably had the same face to face debates about Hartmann (and others) in 1985 that are repeated endlessly in the virtual world of the internet today.
> Sholto Douglas was right in 1948!
> Steve



Then you should explain why Marseille's 17 claims were massively contested by the RAF till 1970! After some serious authors done the research, the claims were confirmed!

You can't negate all to claim claim claim!

It is a fact that the LW had less a/c's then the allied's (RAF, US, USSR) and had flawn much less bombing raides to airfields the whole war compare to the other three nations. So someone must have destroyed some allied a/c's! 

You should explain that!


----------



## Maximowitz (Aug 19, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> I don't think so. with new docs. available and most importantly unit diaries found.to call 20-30 year old opinions gosspil is just crazy. lists can be checked and crossed referenced. its safe to say without a word of doubt that Hartmann had anywhere between 323 to 352 claims. even the russians put him on trial for destroying 345 'expensive aircraft'.



There might be some new evidence in the Russian archives, in fact a friend of mine is doing some research with this material at the moment, but nothing Hartmann related.

As for him being put on trial, he had a certain propaganda value without doubt - to the Nazis while the war was on, and the Soviets after they'd won.

Curious that everyone gets excited about Hartmann while Barkhorn is largely ignored. But hey, not my area of interest.


----------



## stona (Aug 19, 2011)

DonL said:


> You should explain that!



I'm not trying to deny losses. My point is that trying to equate EVERY claim with an equivalent loss is not possible. It wasn't possible at the time and certainly isn't now.
Hartmann did not shoot down 352 enemy aircraft. How many? I don't know and nor does anybody else. We can argue about it until we are blue in the face but we still won't know.


Steve


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 19, 2011)

Maximowitz said:


> As for him being put on trial, he had a certain propaganda value without doubt -
> .


then why was he singled out? lots of pilots in the Ost front had high claims.. they must have had a reason.. apparently 345 expensive a/c's was the reason.



stona said:


> I'm not trying to deny losses. My point is that trying to equate EVERY claim with an equivalent loss is not possible. It wasn't possible at the time and certainly isn't now.
> Hartmann did not shoot down 352 enemy aircraft. How many? I don't know and nor does anybody else. We can argue about it until we are blue in the face but we still won't know.
> 
> 
> Steve


your right. but in todays day and age one can get a very good approximate. a bejillion amount of new info is available as say to 20/30/50 years ago.


----------



## razor1uk (Aug 19, 2011)

Its partially all to do with the propaganda and its residual effects amongst us; Hartmann was blond, young and poster quality looks, poor Barkhorn was dark haired and not as young. 
As the years roll by and various state/natoinal archives release certain classified info, more can found out and compared/argued/discussed over, but I think the next major batch of info will be released in 2029 - 2037 or 2039 - 2047 after the 90/100 post-event/achive internment years restriction.

I wonder how much of the Nurmeburg Trials (or Soviet trial) video's are availble online pertaining to Hartmanns case?


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 19, 2011)

razor1uk said:


> *Its partially all to do with the propaganda and its residual effects amongst us; Hartmann was blond, young and poster quality looks, poor Barkhorn was dark haired and not as young.*


oh lordy lordy.. really? Barkhorn was one of the few noted Luftwaffe Experten who escaped being imprisoned by the russians. thats the reason why. you won't find any video on russian trial of Hartmann.. they were to busy trying to convert him to communism and he was to busy telling them where to go and how to get there.


----------



## Maximowitz (Aug 19, 2011)

razor1uk said:


> I wonder how much of the Nuremburg Trials (or Soviet trial) video's are available online pertaining to Hartmanns case?



He was put on trial by the Soviets - I suppose it served a purpose for Stalin from a point of view of propaganda, blonde poster boy nazi gets the salt mine treatment - plus the fact he ended up in captivity while everybody else was falling over themselves to surrender to the Western Allies.


----------



## stona (Aug 19, 2011)

Here you all go again. Some new information and a lot of opinions did emerge from the East particularly after the Antifaschistischer Schutzwall (Berlin wall) came down in 1989. A bejillion amount of new information is not available now compared to 20 years ago.More has however been published.
I was in the Army Museum in Leningrad at the height of "glasnost" but pre Soviet collapse and had a lot of difficulty convincing a group Soviet naval cadets that the United Kingdom hadn't fought with nazi Germany in the Great Patriotic War. I'm getting a familiar feeling in this thread!
That's me out of here.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## razor1uk (Aug 19, 2011)

Thanks for that Maxim Steve - nice point their too about the Cadets - WW2 didn't exist in basic 'Soviet' history.


----------



## Juha (Aug 19, 2011)

I agree with Ratsel, that much new info has been recovered during past 30 years and for ex Wood's claim lists showed what and when LW pilots had claimed and on most cases was the claim accepted, put under closer scrutinity or rejected.

On Hartmann's trial, IIRC the claim that he had been charged for destruction of xxx planes seems to be a myth.

On Marseille, IIRC he was a fairly reliable claimer even if his claim accuracy dimished somewhat later on. If the claim that his 17 kills on one day is confirmed in a book which claimed that Krupinski confirmed H's 1 Jun 44 Mustang kills, I could care less. But yes, the claim made for ex by Johnnie Johnsson, that RAF lost only was that 5 fighters on that day was shown to be nonrelevant because SAAF also suffered heavy fighter losses on that day. Was that so that RAF and SAAF lost altogether some 14 fighters but Marseille wasn't the only LW claimant, so also the claim that all M's 17 claims can be proved from CW docus is bogus but M got maybe some 10-11 plus a couple badly damaged or something like that, so after all fairly accurate claim.

Juha


----------



## razor1uk (Aug 19, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> oh lordy lordy.. really? Barkhorn was one of the few noted Luftwaffe Experten who escaped being imprisoned by the russians. thats the reason why. you won't find any video on russian trial of Hartmann.. they were to busy trying to convert him to communism and he was to busy telling them where to go and how to get there.



I do not dispute that, so why the sarcasm; I haven't attacked you (to my knowledge). Bear in mind other people, members, non members/guests potential members read posts here too you know.


----------



## Readie (Aug 19, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Ratsel, why say that, its obviously a post designed to inflame the debate and adds nothing to the exchange of knowledge and makes us all look like fools.
> 
> Saying things like that is a great way to start a brawl




Ummm...shades of a former forum member methinks


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 19, 2011)

razor1uk said:


> I do not dispute that, so why the sarcasm; I haven't attacked you (to my knowledge). Bear in mind other people, members, non members/guests potential members read posts here too you know.



what sarcasm? as far as I know, any information I posted is relevant. unlike somebody elses blond hair/young sterotype post. If you feel however that I was, then I sincerely appologise to you.


----------



## razor1uk (Aug 19, 2011)

I'll keep it short and sweet (its easier I can't be bothered) Ratsel apology accepted.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 19, 2011)

This thread seems to be on the verge of getting out of control. It was very wise that some posts were edited.

Keep it under control and civil. Enough warnings were given out in other threads, there will be none given here...


----------



## Tante Ju (Aug 19, 2011)

I like more term victory than 'kill'. Claims were made in good hope - and in opinion of mine fighter pilot who got into fire position and report hits in enemy aircraft, makes back to base too is victor of air combat. No regard to if said enemy aircraft hits terra firma or no, ie. really destroyed..


----------



## Tante Ju (Aug 19, 2011)

On sideways noted - there are many many threads on forums concentrating on Hartmann. Is his claims valid? Always the arguement.. understandable, he was most successfull... but what is case with other "top" aces - Johnson, Koshedub, Sakai etc? How many of their claims verified after war?


----------



## jim (Aug 19, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> This thread seems to be on the verge of getting out of control. It was very wise that some posts were edited.
> 
> Keep it under control and civil. Enough warnings were given out in other threads, there will be none given here...


 
Mr DerAdlerIstGelandet I believe that sometimes you are oversensitive. During discussions the temperature may increase sometimes but i believe no hard feelings remain . Some sarcasm or irony should not in my opinion stop the discussion. Otherwise we should all of us have the same opinions. 
P51 is super duper and untouchable
LW outnumbered (!!!!!) alleis till 1944
Hartmann has less than 70 kills and no pilot scored 200
etc
Allow some of us to disgree and try to support of our thesis. And i say that because as a rule the german supportes get banned (Mr Soren, Mr Crupp,P-40K-5) while their speech is not worse than the other members.
Also if some older members have already discussed some subjects in the past its no reason for the younger member not to discuss it again. 

A comment for the original post. In ursulas Hartmanns photographic life story of Hartmann , in pages 154,155 there are 2 photos of Hartmann as Gruppekommandeur visiting 2nd and 3rd staffeln. No poor morale can be detected in these photos. In page 229 ther is a photo from June 1959 ,the day after Hartmann officialy activated Jg71 .The picture shows Hartmann with 23 of its pilots in front of a F86 in an unofficial pose. The morale appears to be excellent. Also there are many photos from american trips, aero clubs, NATO officers mmetings, WW2 international pilot reunions. It appears he was popular everywere.
I posses 3 books about Hartmann . It s true that by today standarts are not perfect. But its clear he was a very reliable person
a) He returned to combat even after Hitler retired him from combat b)He Stayed with his unit even when ORDERED to fly west and captured
c)He resisted during captivity and as a result was released 1n 1955(many prisoners co operated) d) He failed to keep his mouth closed in post war service with bad results for his career e) took great care for his wingmen
If that man claimed 352 kills i believe him and probaply had several more unconfirmed like most eastern front pilots. His rate of kills was great but noway unique .Batz,Nowotny,Graf,Rall, scored in similar or even better way. Many other pilots outscored him in short periods ( days,weeks)For example from 1/9/44-8/5/45 Hartmannn scored 51 kills. Helmut lipfert 58 kills.
Hartmanns secret was duration . He was lucky to avoid major injuries, escaped from captivity and fought for very long .Too young to become a wing commandeyr he kept flying multiple missions. I have 1400 missions ,825 contacts with enemy.Even if 825 are the total missions still its a massive number. Actually no one would call him the best german fighter pilot of ww2


----------



## parsifal (Aug 19, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> On sideways noted - there are many many threads on forums concentrating on Hartmann. Is his claims valid? Always the arguement.. understandable, he was most successfull... but what is case with other "top" aces - Johnson, Koshedub, Sakai etc? How many of their claims verified after war?



My undestanding is that for german flyers the records are incomplete, whereas for other nationaities the records are more complete. Perhaps unfairly, this will always push German claims into an area of doubt and close examination.....


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 19, 2011)

*A case of giving away Victories*


Walter "Graf Punski" Krupinski (Hartmann was his wingman) final score of 197 could have been much higher, but he never claimed a probable victory or argued about a kill, *always giving the victory to the other man*. His chivalrous attitude and Prussian birth earned him the nickname "Graf (Count) Punski", a name that still lingers in the reunion halls and among his friends.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 20, 2011)

I dont understand all this talk about chivalry. Chivalry was a luxury that did not exist or shou7ld not exist during the war. Whilst an opponent remained unsurrendered, he was a target regardless of his ability to resist.

None of the protagnonists of the war could afford their service people the luxury of chivalry. The war was a war without mercy, brought about by Nazi aggression 

As far as any german servicemen claiming to be chivalrous in some special way, I will never accept that. The only ones that deserve that title are the ones that rebelled against hitler, and they were mostly killed by the Nazis. The others, whilst they remained true to the oath of allegiance to hitler, are denied all rights of respect and honour, until they surrendered, at which time they were absolved of that stain against their name and could recommence to rebuild their shattered reputations as well as tyhe shattered reputation of their country.

No honour, no respect for the nazis or their supporters. Ever. Under any circumstance, and no matter what they did

Edit

Note that I am not denying their bravery or their skill, or their sense of comraderie. Germans possessed all of these things. Honour is something different, something far more ethereal. And the german armed forces lost all honour with those few words of allegiance made to hitler. it was unredeeemable until that oath was absolved


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 20, 2011)

German armed forces weren’t allowed to affiliate with a political party, therefor German soldiers were non-Nazi German soldiers in WWII. The Nazi political party, however, had its own armed soldiers in the Waffen-SS and these soldiers therefore were Nazi German soldiers.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 20, 2011)

Sory ratsel but you are wrong. All members of the german armed forces were made to swear an oath that made them extensions of the Nazi Party. They were required to swear allegiance to Hitler personally and unconditionally, which meant they were a willing party to all the acts and orders issued in the name of the Nazis. this robbed them of all honour in the war that followed and destroyed the good name of germany until after the surrender

For the record, all nations have oaths of allegiance, but never to a single individual and Germany is unique in demanding unconditional obedience. Here are the structures of the oaths, before 1934, and after 1934. The oath before 1934 is still lawful, if a little extreme, the oath after is clearly unlawful, and most that took it knew that. 


Oath of Allegiance before August 2, 1934 "I swear by almighty God this sacred oath: 
I will at all times loyally and honestly 
serve my people and country 
and, as a brave soldier, 
I will be ready at any time 
to stake my life for this oath." 

The Fuehrer Oath (effective August 2, 1934) 

"I swear by almighty God this sacred oath: 
I will render unconditional obedience 
to the Fuehrer of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, 
Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht, 
and, as a brave soldier, 
I will be ready at any time 
to stake my life for this oath."

Moreover, mandatory mandatory loyalty oaths were introduced throughout the Reich, rendering everyone who took them an active conspirator in Nazi attrocities.

Oath of loyalty for Public Officials:
"I swear: I shall be loyal and obedient to Adolf Hitler, the Führer of the German Reich and people, respect the laws, and fulfill my official duties conscientiously, so help me God."

These oaths were pledged to Hitler personally, not the German state or constitution. And they were taken very seriously by members of the German Officers' Corps with their traditional minded codes of honor, which now elevated obedience to Hitler as a sacred duty and effectively placed the German armed forces in the position of being the personal instrument of Hitler. 

(Years later, following the German defeat in World War Two, many German officers unsuccessfully attempted to use the oath as a defense against charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.)

In September, 1934, at the annual Nuremberg Nazi Party rallies, a euphoric Hitler proclaimed, "The German form of life is definitely determined for the next thousand years. The Age of Nerves of the nineteenth century has found its close with us. There will be no revolution in Germany for the next thousand years."

Ive yet to find the part where if your relatives are embarassed about your Nazi loyalty they can just claim that they were the part of Germany that resisted Hitler


And here is a you tube video of a group of Hitlers soldiers entusiastically taking that unlawful and monstrous oath of allegiance, just in case you still want to argue that the german armed forces were not politicised 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Azslfc2HPxU_


----------



## Juha (Aug 20, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> On sideways noted - there are many many threads on forums concentrating on Hartmann. Is his claims valid? Always the arguement.. understandable, he was most successfull... but what is case with other "top" aces - Johnson, Koshedub, Sakai etc? How many of their claims verified after war?



Now it is well known that Sakai's 64 is clearly too high, the problem is that we are not sure was it Sakai's claim or if Martin Caidin, not the most reliable writerand the co-author of Samurai!, inflated the number for whatever reason. In fact IIRC it's a bit hazy how much Samurai was Caidin's product.

Many modern Russian researcher admitted freely that many Russians overclaimed badly but I have no knowledge on reliability of Kozhedub's claims.

On Johnnie, all I can say, that most of his claims were made when RAF had a more strict confirmation system in force. IIRC Pattle's (highest claiming CW ace) claims were checked and some 30 of his claims can be verified from LW records. It isn't entirely clear how many claims Pattle made because of the chaos during the retreat from Greece, but usually the number is said to be 50.

Juha

LATER ADDUM: Checked a bit on Pattle, many of his claims were made during big scraps with Italians during which RAF clearly overclaimed, so IMHO it’s difficult to say anything sure on Pattle’s claim accuracy other than it wasn't appr 100%.


----------



## Readie (Aug 20, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Sory ratsel but you are wrong. All members of the german armed forces were made to swear an oath that made them extensions of the Nazi Party. They were required to swear allegiance to Hitler personally and unconditionally, which meant they were a willing party to all the acts and orders issued in the name of the Nazis. this robbed them of all honour in the war that followed and destroyed the good name of germany until after the surrender
> 
> For the record, all nations have oaths of allegiance, but never to a single individual and Germany is unique in demanding unconditional obedience. Here are the structures of the oaths, before 1934, and after 1934. The oath before 1934 is still lawful, if a little extreme, the oath after is clearly unlawful, and most that took it knew that.
> 
> ...





Spot on Parsifal. You beat me to it with your post.
You have said everything that I would.
Cheers
John


----------



## jim (Aug 20, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Sory ratsel but you are wrong. All members of the german armed forces were made to swear an oath that made them extensions of the Nazi Party. They were required to swear allegiance to Hitler personally and unconditionally, which meant they were a willing party to all the acts and orders issued in the name of the Nazis. this robbed them of all honour in the war that followed and destroyed the good name of germany until after the surrender
> 
> For the record, all nations have oaths of allegiance, but never to a single individual and Germany is unique in demanding unconditional obedience. Here are the structures of the oaths, before 1934, and after 1934. The oath before 1934 is still lawful, if a little extreme, the oath after is clearly unlawful, and most that took it knew that.
> 
> ...




In wich dictatoships can soldiers choose their oaths? In Soviet union? In Argentina? In Chile? In Greece? In Turkey? In egypt? And they are co responsible for their leaders crimes?(Some of them certainly are) While the british officers that commited crimes in Cyprus,India and many other places are innoncent because they had taken proper oaths?
Do not judge people with the knowledge we have today. In Immediate pre war years Hitler was not the monster we know today he was. For german people was the man that took Germany out of the extreme poverty that the alleis had put germany (US less responsible) Even for prime minister of England he was "Mr Hitler" and a reliable leader. 
finally when Hitler seized the goverment(1933) german democracy was very very young. German people were not used to defy authority.
And after 1939 war was a national motive. 
About the honours and chivalry the german prisoners found after their surrender. They found Forced labour( all sides), clear minefields with bear hands(french), starvation to death (Americans,Soviets,French) ,execution (ss units), death due war wounds as no help was provided,years of impisoment. In short the behavior that Hitler showed to Russian prisoners the same honors were provided to german prisoners.
In America,France or enland no one would have taken such oaths beacause of the long tradition of democracy but still their armies commited attrocities in their colonies in the post war years and no military personell was ever convicted. Even for common crimes like rape and looting.


----------



## Readie (Aug 20, 2011)

jim said:


> In wich dictatoships can soldiers choose their oaths? In Soviet union? In Argentina? In Chile? In Greece? In Turkey? In egypt? And they are co responsible for their leaders crimes?(Some of them certainly are) While the british officers that commited crimes in Cyprus,India and many other places are innoncent because they had taken proper oaths?
> Do not judge people with the knowledge we have today. In Immediate pre war years Hitler was not the monster we know today he was. For german people was the man that took Germany out of the extreme poverty that the alleis had put germany (US less responsible) Even for prime minister of England he was "Mr Hitler" and a reliable leader.
> finally when Hitler seized the goverment(1933) german democracy was very very young. German people were not used to defy authority.
> And after 1939 war was a national motive.
> ...




Maybe a bit off topic but, I would say that no one had to remain in any country. The 1930's emigration to the new world amply demonstrates that.
One can only conclude that those who remained in any country accepted the situation there and embraced the future with enthusiasm.
Some people make excuses for the past, some don't.
Cheers
John


----------



## Juha (Aug 20, 2011)

Hello
I don’t usually agree with Jim, but now I’m in complete agreement. LW pilots had no share in what kind of oath they had to swear. One can blame Blomberg because he accepted the change of the oath but the normal soldiers had to swear the oath then in force. And that goes to the democracies too. When I swear my military oath, my CO didn’t ask me “Hello recruit, what kind of oath you would like to swear?”

There were decent men even in Waffen-SS and cruel men even in Welsh Guard even if I agree that 3rd Reich was an “evil Empire”. So if someone wants to discuss the criminality of 3rd Reich, I’d prefer that they open a new thread on that subject and we continue to discuss on Hartmann and on fighter jockeys in this thread.

Respectfully
Juha


----------



## Juha (Aug 20, 2011)

Hello John
Hartmann was 18 years old when WWII began, quite hard to demand for a man at that age to leave his country if he didn't like the system. I wrote that without info on the H's attitude towards Nazis at that age.

Juha


----------



## Readie (Aug 20, 2011)

Juha said:


> Hello John
> Hartmann was 18 years old when WWII began, quite hard to demand for a man at that age to leave his country if he didn't like the system. I wrote that without info on the H's attitude towards Nazis at that age.
> 
> Juha



Hello Juha,
The choice to remain in any country is an adult decision. 18 is old enough to choose.
If one accepts the political situation in your country then stay, if not you must leave or, seek to change it.
Any clear thinking person would accept, maybe even welcome, this choice.
There is grave danger of steering into murky waters on this subject and sensitivities are high.
Regards
John


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 20, 2011)

Juha said:


> Hello
> I don’t usually agree with Jim, but now I’m in complete agreement. LW pilots had no share in what kind of oath they had to swear. One can blame Blomberg because he accepted the change of the oath but the normal soldiers had to swear the oath then in force. And that goes to the democracies too. When I swear my military oath, my CO didn’t ask me “Hello recruit, what kind of oath you would like to swear?”
> 
> There were decent men even in Waffen-SS and cruel men even in Welsh Guard even if I agree that 3rd Reich was an “evil Empire”. So if someone wants to discuss the criminality of 3rd Reich, I’d prefer that they open a new thread on that subject and we continue to discuss on Hartmann and on fighter jockeys in this thread.
> ...


Exactly. but yes back to Hartmann. Little story about him before he recieved an award personally from Hitler:

_Erich Hartmann and I had partied heavily the night before and were drunk as heck, despite the fact that we were to receive our awards from der Fuhrer. Hartmann knew him from before, because as you know he was decorated three times by Hitler with the Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds. I was getting the Oak Leaves along with Hartmann on March 4, 1944. Hartmann was making some funny comments about him, mimicking him, and he tried to stand still without falling over. I was in not much better shape. We only started to sober up as Hitler, after handing us the awards, began describing his plan for "Panzerfest", which was a way to immunize the army divisions against enemy tank attacks. He asked us about Lemberg, where we had come from and were our brave soldiers were fighting those Russian tanks and were dying terribly. He told us about the war in Russia, *and you had the feeling that you were listening to a complete madman*. *I thought he was a raving lunatic, and by the time the meeting was over, Hartmann and I needed another drink, and Hartmann kept saying, "I told you so." *_

theres at least two gentlemen who didn't subscribe to Hitlers Ideologies. Oath or no Oath.. they only had a deep love for Germany.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 20, 2011)

I want to say one more response to this detour that we have made, and then ask that we move back on topic. I am not saying that the average German had much choice in this matter. If they refused to take that wretched oath they probably would not live long. I have often wondered if I would have refused the oath....truth is I doubt that I would have. Just the same there are consequences arising from the actions and decisions that we make. Just like the driver that has a few drinks before heading home.....though he is drunk at the accident and not in control of his destiny, he is still held responsible at the time of the accident, because at the time he got drunk, he had choices, however unpleasant that may have been. when he decided to get drunk and then drive, he lost his honour, if he was lucky enough to make it home alive thats all he loses.

Unlike the drunk driver the choice not to takle the oath was much harder to say no to. But once through the journey, unlike the Drunk Driver, the German servicemen had the opportunity in post war Germany to redeem their honour. Most did.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 20, 2011)

Juha said:


> Hello
> I don’t usually agree with Jim, but now I’m in complete agreement. LW pilots had no share in what kind of oath they had to swear. One can blame Blomberg because he accepted the change of the oath but the normal soldiers had to swear the oath then in force. And that goes to the democracies too. When I swear my military oath, my CO didn’t ask me “Hello recruit, what kind of oath you would like to swear?”
> 
> There were decent men even in Waffen-SS and cruel men even in Welsh Guard even if I agree that 3rd Reich was an “evil Empire”. So if someone wants to discuss the criminality of 3rd Reich, I’d prefer that they open a new thread on that subject and we continue to discuss on Hartmann and on fighter jockeys in this thread.
> ...




The difference between the oaths that we swear, and those that the germans willingly swore was in the unconditionality of the oath. And once through that barrier, it had a number of knock on effects. Because they swore to unbconditionally support hitler, they became implicated in all actions that he sanctioned....they had given their word to do anything he wanted them to do. And thats the critical difference between what was going on in Germany, and why all German servicemen lost their honour when they gave that oath. 

I have no doubt that there were cruel men in the Welsh Guards, and not cruel men in the SS. But that only serves to prove to me that you have no real clue of what honour, and legality actually is. 

The difference is that under the British system, a man had the right to refuse an illegal order with some hope of being exonerated. British and American oaths are about upholding their constitutions (and yes the british have a constitution even though it is not written down). Any order issued that is contrary to that basic rule of law is illegal, and can be refused legally by personnel receiving it. Put another way, British service personnel, retained their right to honour, German personnel gave theirs up....mostly willingly. There were instances where British personnel chose to give up their honour, and commit some pretty heinous crimes, but these were crimes of choice. British personnel retained their right to refuse such orders, or choices, and thereby could retain their honour if they so chose. There are no instances in British justice where a servicemen could argue that his oath to serve queen and country made him commit a crime. Not so for the germans. They were often forced by their oath to hitler do carry out the most horrofic crimes. They had sold their honour for 30 pieces of silver......, Under the german system, there was no such thing as an illegal order, unless that order was to disobey Hitler. Hitler could, and did, order his men to do anything. And because these men had lost their honour, they often were enthusiastic supporters of those orders.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 20, 2011)

wow your still on this? I think your lumping all Germans into the ' _SS_ ' catagory. thats simply not the case and its sterotyping. Your also comparing a Dictatorship to Democratic goverments. thats like comparing John Kennedy to Nikita Khrushchev. Its been proven time and time again that not all Germans agreed with the goverment at the time. civilian or military. Some decided to fight for Germany for the love of Germany Her people. right or wrong. some for other reasons. just like in every other country in the world in any time frame.

can we please get back to fighter pilots now.


----------



## Njaco (Aug 20, 2011)

Jim, don't dictate how a Moderator should do his job, especially Adler.

We're asking things to be civil and not turn into sarcastic name-calling, which happens too frequently in threads such as this. 



> Some sarcasm or irony should not in my opinion stop the discussion.



and unfortunately, it does, hence the warning to be civil.



> ...as a rule the german supportes get banned...



And for the record, people are banned here based upon not following the rules or acting un-civil towards anyone. We will not tolerate it. Getting kicked out because you support Germans is nonsense.

Now back on topic.....

While the German claims are incomplete the process for claiming was stricter. The Allies may have better records but awarding a claim may not be so strict. Its all subjective.

and somebody please explain why its so important...at this late stage?


----------



## parsifal (Aug 20, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> wow your still on this? I think your lumping all Germans into the ' _SS_ ' catagory. thats simply not the case and its sterotyping. Your also comparing a Dictatorship to Democratic goverments. thats like comparing John Kennedy to Nikita Khrushchev. Its been proven time and time again that not all Germans agreed with the goverment at the time. civilian or military. Some decided to fight for Germany for the love of Germany Her people. right or wrong. some for other reasons. just like in every other country in the world in any time frame.
> 
> can we please get back to fighter pilots now.



Im not lumping all germans into the one category, but this whole detour arose because of your repeated references to German honour and chivalry. My beef is that no German soldier , by definition could possess honour, or attract honour, whilst serving hitler, and fulfilling the terms of their oath to him. Does not mean Germans were not heroic, or effective. Does not mean that they were cruel or without principal. does not mean that the allies were not, as individualos, capable of dishonourable acts. It just means the German armed forces were men without honour, because of the circumstances they found themselves in. The very raison detre for your attempted rebuttal...that we were fighting for democracy whilst Germany fought for a dictatorship, is a demonstrable symptom of this lack of honour. you dont need democracy to have honour, but its harder to achieve withoin a dictatorship. I am not even trying to argue that I am any better than the average German, but i will argue that the system my fathers fought for were honourable, whilst those of the germans were not honourable.

I am happy to move on and back to topic, but if people will continue to try and slip through the net and argue in this place that the germans were fighting for honour and mention chivalry and the german Army of WWII in the same sentence, they are going to get the same response from me

To finish, consider these words from William Wordsworth on honour


SAY, what is Honour?--'Tis the finest sense
Of 'justice' which the human mind can frame,
Intent each lurking frailty to disclaim,
And guard the way of life from all offence
Suffered or done. When lawless violence
Invades a Realm, so pressed that in the scale
Of perilous war her weightiest armies fail,
Honour is hopeful elevation,--whence
Glory, and triumph. Yet with politic skill
Endangered States may yield to terms unjust; 
Stoop their proud heads, but not unto the dust--
A Foe's most favourite purpose to fulfil:
Happy occasions oft by self-mistrust
Are forfeited; but infamy doth kill.


----------



## Readie (Aug 20, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Im not lumping all germans into the one category, but this whole detour arose because of your repeated references to German honour and chivalry. My beef is that no German soldier , by definition could possess honour, or attract honour, whilst serving hitler, and fulfilling the terms of their oath to him. Does not mean Germans were not heroic, or effective. Does not mean that they were cruel or without principal. does not mean that the allies were not, as individualos, capable of dishonourable acts. It just means the German armed forces were men without honour, because of the circumstances they found themselves in. The very raison detre for your attempted rebuttal...that we were fighting for democracy whilst Germany fought for a dictatorship, is a demonstrable symptom of this lack of honour. you dont need democracy to have honour, but its harder to achieve withoin a dictatorship. I am not even trying to argue that I am any better than the average German, but i will argue that the system my fathers fought for were honourable, whilst those of the germans were not honourable.
> 
> I am happy to move on and back to topic, but if people will continue to try and slip through the net and argue in this place that the germans were fighting for honour and mention chivalry and the german Army of WWII in the same sentence, they are going to get the same response from me
> 
> ...





Well said Parsifal. I completely agree with you. 
My thought about the German honour and chivalry and the repeated attempts on this forum to change historical views is that its all smoke and mirrors.
We always end up saying virtually the same thing.

To finish, consider the definition of chivalry.

kindness and courteousness especially towards women or the weak.

John


----------



## Juha (Aug 20, 2011)

Hello Njaco
IMHO the German claim verification process wasn’t necessarily stricter that those of RAF and USAAF late in the war, simply more byrocratic. Early in the war it had been stricter than that of RAF but after war turned against Germany and Germans were on retreat sending papers to Berlin from Air Fleets for final confirmation didn’t produce much more accuracy to claim confirmation process. 

Why its so important? IMHO it isn’t that important but because some people give much importance to the number of kills it’d be fairer, especially to those careful claimers if we could rank the pilots according to their real results not according to what was thought during the war on the base of rather uncertain wartime info

Juha


----------



## Maximowitz (Aug 20, 2011)

If you took away his alleged score, would Hartmann be a subject of such interest? If he was just "Flieger Average" in JG52 with a couple of claims to his name? Doubtful, there were far more colourful characters than him in the Luftwaffe. The score makes the myth and the myth makes the man.


----------



## Njaco (Aug 20, 2011)

Thanks Juha.

Max, I understand that but my point is if you even half the claims by 50% you still have those top scorers. And back to the topic of the thread, this score isn't from someone who I percieve as arrogant, conceited or prone to making inflated claims. So much work seems to be put to Hartmann "overclaiming" yet, to me even if that were true, he still is a remarkable flyer and pilot and, in my opinion, doesn't deserve this revision on his career.


----------



## Juha (Aug 20, 2011)

Hello Njaco
IMHO Hartmann was a remarkable fighterpilot even if current info seems to indicate that he wasn’t the most careful claimer, but that isn’t the final verdict. Barkhorn seemed to have been usually very careful claimer even if there seems to be some decrease in his claim accuracy when he approached the magic 300th. 

Juha


----------



## jim (Aug 20, 2011)

Maximowitz said:


> If you took away his alleged score, would Hartmann be a subject of such interest? If he was just "Flieger Average" in JG52 with a couple of claims to his name? Doubtful, there were far more colourful characters than him in the Luftwaffe. The score makes the myth and the myth makes the man.


 
Its not a myth that he spent 10 1/2 years in Russia because he resisted the soviets unlike others personalities. He suffered more pressures than most but remained himself.
Eric Hartmann is not just a pilot of legend, like Marseille whose death immortalised him.Hartmann deid in1993 .Countless leaving persons knew him and all (inclunding anglosaxons) speak of a great man and character. In order to dispute the ace you insult the man .Its very unfair for him to say the least.


----------



## Maximowitz (Aug 20, 2011)

I'm not insulting him. I'm saying does it matter? His worth as a man may be more than his deeds.


----------



## stona (Aug 20, 2011)

Just checked in again to see that the utterly pointless claims debate continues!
Good luck fellas.
Steve


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 20, 2011)

If you take Hartmanns score of 352 divide it by the first number you think of carry the 1 add the number of days in a thousand year Reich and multiply by minus 1 I still couldnt care less how many planes he shot down or whether he was a card carrying Nazi bastard who beat fluffy kittens to death with a hammer. 

He was obviously a good enough pilot who was lucky enough to survive a lot of combat. Numbers mean nothing if the battle is lost.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 20, 2011)

I believe 1307 spitfires fell to just 50 Luftwaffe pilots.


----------



## claidemore (Aug 20, 2011)

1802 Luftwaffe planes shot down by 50 Soviet fighter pilots (or 1976 shot down by 54), not counting shared kills which would add another 241. Approx 70% fighters would mean about 1430 109s and 190s shot down by 50 Soviet pilots.

links for those who wish to check my math: 
Soviet / Russian Aces of WWII 
Soviet air aces World War Two

Would love to see some supporting evidence Ratsel for your 1307 spitfire shootdown figure.  I wouldn't be surprised by 1307 RAF fighters by the top 50 Luftwaffe pilots, but I'd be surprised if there weren't some Hurricanes, P40s etc in the mix.


----------



## Njaco (Aug 21, 2011)

"Spitfire vs Bf 109" by Tony Holmes
pg 71

"Overall during the four months of the Battle of Britain.....the Jagdwaffe lost 610 Bf 109s which compares favourably to Fighter Command's 1,023 Spitfires and Hurricanes. Of course the only targets presented to the Jagdflieger during this period were fighters, and it appears that they claimed around 770 of the aircraft lost by Fighter Command. This gave the Bf 109E pilots a favorable kill ratio of 1.2:1...."


----------



## parsifal (Aug 21, 2011)

Hi NJ


If recent research has taught me anything, its that things are seldom as they seem. I think that is true particulalry for quoting losses and strengths

There is a thread concerning the Air battle at Kursk, where we examine losses in some detail. Firstly there was a great deal of debate about actual loss comparisons for the Russians and the Axis. We found lots of discrepancies that can easily skew the numbers. Looking at Bergstrom, for example, he only relates losses to a portion of the formations committed. Many sources only list immediate reported losses.....aircraft either lost outright, or written off on the spot immediately after landing. No accounts included airframes getting home, sent to the factories for rebuilds andf then written off. In 1942, on the Eastern Front, for example their quoted "immediate" losses of about 4000 aircraft, increased by a further 1900 aircraft to this pohenomenon, to which must be added a further 549 or so crates arroiving home safely, not included in the initial OKL loss returns, and then written of by the Flyvo (admin command) before shipment back to the rear. then there is an annual pretty much constant loss rate due to non-combat related causes. In the East this could rise above 10% per month in Winter, and hovered around 8% per month during clear weather. annually it was a shade under 150% of the total force structure per annum. And Luftwaffe attrition rates always come up two or three times heavier than Allied losses, although during the BoB they seem quite similar (an exception to the rule). Over France in April-July 1941, the Germans lost far less than the FC, until you factor in these "hidden" losses.

So to get a true picture of losses by type, we would need to look even further than the daily loss returns of each side. These only record the immediate losses. We would need to look also at post action write offs to get a better picture....for the LW this tended to happen on a quarterly basis, so usually there is some delay in these figures surfacing .

This is not a particulalry anti-German snipe, its just that I have been studdying German losses and trying to reconcile those reported losses to aircraft availability and serviceability rates for some time now. I am sure that similar conclusions can be drawn for the allies. For the US, for example, they lost a total of 18000 aircraft to non-combat related causes in the ETO/MTO, and a further 22000 in actual combat 1942-5. 


Its muchj harder to accurately report losses than people realize. Because of that, I would be surprised if the loss figures you have quoted are complete...... 

Cheers


----------



## Njaco (Aug 21, 2011)

Oh, I agree and even Tony Holmes mentions that in his book. He even goes on to make reference that the losses suffered by JG 51 during BoB, about 65% of pilots lost by JG 51 hadn't scored a single victory, about 25% had scored at least one and the rest multiple times. Those percentages are mine and in no way scientific - just quickly from reading the text. Does support the claim that 50 LW pilots claimed those previously posted high numbers.

But that brings up back to stona's last post - which I completely agree with!


----------



## jim (Aug 21, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Hi NJ
> 
> 
> If recent research has taught me anything, its that things are seldom as they seem. I think that is true particulalry for quoting losses and strengths
> ...


 
According to Jg26 war diary what you are saying about France 41 is simply untrue. According to Jg 53, Jg77 histories what you are saying is also untrue. JG2, Jg54 histories ( but less good books) also do not support your opinion. In fact i find no book at all to even be close to your clames.
If i understand correct you include in the casualties aircrafts that came back to base ,then transfered to factory and then decided that were written off? And recycled?If yes in category"damaged" which cases you include? What kind of creative logistic is this? Have you any idea how many B17s,lancasters came home beyond repair? And in american case even mediocre damaged aircraft could not be sent to the factry?
You seriously suggest that LW suffered 3 times more attrition due to non combat than red air force whose aircraft lacked even basic instrumentation? And was forced to retire large numbers of fighters soon after the war because of bad quality of airframes(but were flown normally during the hostillities)? Are you aware that an entire squadron of richly built corsairs was lost in the pacific due wheather? Or 5 109 hitting together the ground in deceber 41 in france? Even anlosaxons that come in touch with russian planes of the era are amazed by their lack of basic construction quality and equipment. 
And i suppose you ,and Mr Bergstrom and all "modern " resaerchers use the soviets archives. Which were written by the political comisars of the units. And have the reliability of the Stalin era. 
In rough numbers allies lost 170000 to all causes. According to the new calculations whats the nimber for the LW ?


----------



## Njaco (Aug 21, 2011)

Jim, cool down and check post #47. Losses I listed are from Ellis.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 21, 2011)

yep. out of Obst. Josef "Pips" Priller (Jg 51) 101 claims 68 were spitfires. Josef "Sepp" Wurmheller (JG 53) 56+spitfires claims out of 102 total claims, Galland (JG 27) had 50 claims for spitfires etc., etc. 

2467 russian planes fell to just 10 Luftwaffe pilots in the East. 

for claidemore: if you can post a site with a more complete breakdown of russian claims, it would be most appreciated. otherwise those two links (and associated links at the bottom) mean nothing.... just some aledged total numbers on a website. well to me anyways. thanks.

anyways heres some ' _supporting evidence _' for my numbers. Kacha`s Luftwaffe Page the breakdowns are_ fairly _complete accurate.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 21, 2011)

jim said:


> Mr DerAdlerIstGelandet I believe that sometimes you are oversensitive. During discussions the temperature may increase sometimes but i believe no hard feelings remain . Some sarcasm or irony should not in my opinion stop the discussion. Otherwise we should all of us have the same opinions.



Everyone is entitled to an opinion, as long as it remains civil. 

Oversensitive? Absolutely not...

I have been a moderator on this forum for many years now and I can say that we moderators know when threads are starting get out of hand. *WE* will always allow a little bit of play as long as it is relevant to the thread. As soon as it is only insulting and bears no relevance to the thread we stop it. Therefore before it gets out of hand *WE* stop it from happening to keep the thread on track.

Now while I respect your opinion on the matter of my moderation, may I continue to do it how I see fit?



Njaco said:


> Jim, don't dictate how a Moderator should do his job, especially Adler.
> 
> We're asking things to be civil and not turn into sarcastic name-calling, which happens too frequently in threads such as this.
> 
> ...



Well said, lets move on...


----------



## parsifal (Aug 21, 2011)

So we are looking at claimed victories i assume rather than actual victories

Some figures for consideration

18 December 1939 Luftwaffe and Royal Air Force During the Battle of the Heligoland Bight German fighters claimed 38 Vickers Wellington bombers shot down. Actual British losses were 12. The bombers gunners claimed 12 German fighters. Just three were recorded as shot down. 

10 July 1940 Luftwaffe III./ZG 76 claimed 12 Hawker Hurricanes. The RAF lost just one Hurricane that day, in a collision with a Dornier Do 17 

13 July 1940 Royal Air Force No. 56 Squadron RAF claimed seven Ju 87s from Sturzkampfgeschwader 1 destroyed over Portland. StG 1 recorded the loss of only two Ju 87s shot down. However 5 others were subsequently scrapped 

12 August 1940 Luftwaffe The Germans claimed 22 British aircraft destroyed, actual British losses were 3. In one engagement Bf 109s from JG 2 claimed six RAF fighters, while bombers from KG 54 claimed 14. Only one fighter was shot down and six damaged (3 later scrapped). 

18 August 1940 Luftwaffe The Germans claimed 147 British aircraft destroyed, actual recorded British losses were 68. 

15 September 1940 Royal Air Force On the day termed as "the Battle of Britain Day", the RAF claimed 185 German aircraft shot down. German recorded losses were 60. 

1940 Luftwaffe Overall, German claims for British fighters destroyed during the Battle of Britain was 3,058 against recorded losses of 915 - 334% overclaiming, compared with RAF overclaiming of about 155%[. This, coupled with underestimation of British production, had severe intelligence repercussions. 

June 1941 - December 1941 Red Air Force In this time the Voenno-Vozdushnye Sily of the South Western Front claimed 85 Bf 109s. A further 53 were claimed by anti-aircraft units in October and another 54 in November. Only 31 Bf 109s were recorded as lost by the Luftwaffe in this period 9though a further 30 were subsequently scrapped) . VVS claims on the Eastern Front amount to 3,879. Anti-aircraft units claimed a further 752. A further 3,257 were claimed on the ground. The Luftwaffe reported the loss of 3,827 aircraft to all causes on the Eastern Front in 1941, making VVS overclaiming more than 100%. 

June 1941 - December 1941 Royal Air Force During this period RAF Fighter Command launched a sustained 'fighter offensive' over Northern Europe, designed to tie down Luftwaffe fighter units, and hence indirectly take pressure off the Eastern Front, and to hopefully draw those Luftwaffe units encountered into a war of attrition. Fighting exclusively over enemy territory, and thus usually unable to accurately verify their pilot's combat reports, Fighter Command claimed 711 Luftwaffe fighters shot down, while losing 411 of its own fighters. The loss to JG 2 and JG 26, the principal opponents, were reportedly just 103 fighters (but there were additional losses sustained due to more detailed damage assessments, ie taken out group control and sent to the rear for repair, but not actually repaired) 

8 June 1942 Red Air Force: 6 GIAP/VVS ChF This unit claimed nine German aircraft shot down in a single action. Not a single German aircraft of any type recorded as lost.


20 July 1942 - 10 August 1942 Luftwaffe During this period Fliegerkorps VIII claimed to shot down 606 Soviet aircraft while destroying another 107 on the ground. In fact the actual losses of VVS were 230 aircraft - 114 fighters, 70 Shturmoviks, 29 Pe-2s, four Su-2s and 13 night bombers. This includes all losses that are known

26 July 1942 Red Air Force: 434 IAP and 512 IAP These units claimed 18 and 12 kills against Macchi C.200s of the Italian 21 Gruppo Autonomo C.T. during the Fall Blau operation. The Italian unit lost three Macchi in total. 

15 September 1942 Luftwaffe
Desert Air Force Jagdgeschwader 27 claimed 19-20 aerial victories while Royal Australian Air Force and RAF records report the loss of 3 aircraft (a further Allied fighter was lost due to friendly ground fire and one additional a/c was scrapped due to damage). The Allies claimed two destroyed, two probables and three damaged in the same engagement. The Germans lost Lt. Hoffmann of I. Gruppe and Uffz. Prien to a midair collision, killing Prien. No further losses had been reported.

15 December 1942 IJAAF Burma: 50th Sentai pilots submitted claims for six Hawker Hurricanes shot down over Chittagong. Not one Hurricane was even damaged. 

25 December 1942 United States Army Air Force Burma: 16th Fighter Squadron, 23rd Fighter Group pilots submitted claims for ten enemy aircraft shot down, five probables and one damaged. The 64th Sentai lost one Ki-43 and three Ki-48 from 8th Sentai were damaged. 

17 April 1943 United States Army Air Force: 91st, 306th Bomb Groups During a mission against the Focke Wulf plant near Bremen, The Americans claimed 63 German fighters destroyed in aerial combat, plus 15 probable and 17 damaged. Only two were destroyed by enemy action, with nine damaged (5 subsequently scrapped). 

2 March 1943 No. 54 Squadron RAF No. 457 Squadron RAAF; 202nd Kokutai, Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service Each side claimed three enemy aircraft destroyed. Neither side suffered any losses. 

5 July 1943 - 8 July 1943 Red Air Force: 2.VA, and 16.VA During the Battle of Kursk, the Soviet unit 2.VA claimed 487 aircraft from Fliegerkorps VIII shot down. German records show the Luftwaffe lost only 41. According to the Generalquartiemeister der Luftwaffe 58 were lost to all causes. The 16 VA unit claimed 391 against Luftflotte 6. Actual losses were 39. The Soviets claimed a total of 878 German aircraft destroyed. Losses were 97. However these are immediate combat losses. LW losses were basically doubled due to susbsequent scrappings due damage 

17 August 1943 United States Army Air Force, Luftwaffe After the Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission Gunners on the bombers claimed 288 fighters shot down. Spitfire pilots claimed another 7 German fighters shot down and P-47 pilots claimed 14. Luftwaffe records show 40 aircraft lost. The Luftwaffe claimed 101 bombers and five fighters shot down, however only 60 B-17s and no fighters were reported lost. however, there were a large number of bombers so badly damaged they never flew again 

14 October 1943 United States Army Air Force, Luftwaffe After the Second Raid on Schweinfurt Gunners aboard the B-17 bombers claimed to have shot down 138 German fighters. German records state only 38 were lost. German fighters claimed 121 bombers, the actual figure was 60. Again many additional aircraft were scrapped due to damage, on both sides

6 January 1944 United States Army Air Force On this date bomber crews claimed 210 German fighters and their escorts claiming 31, for a total of 241 claims. German losses amounted to 39 in total. 

3 March 1944 United States Army Air Force, Luftwaffe On a bombing mission to Berlin the Eighth Air Force dispatched the 1st and 2nd Air Divisions, comprising 95th, 100th and 390th Bomb Groups. The B-17 gunners claimed 97 German fighters on this mission. American fighters claimed a further 82 destroyed. German losses amounted to 66. German claims amounted to 108 bombers and 20 fighters. USAAF losses were 69 bombers and 11 fighters.

14 June 1944 United States Army Air Force During the Oil Campaign of World War II fifteen P-38 Lightning escorts from 49th Squadron, 14 FG was engaged by 32 Bf 109G-6s from the 101. Honi Légvédelmi Vadászrepülő Osztály, Royal Hungarian Air Force over central Hungary. American fighter pilots reported 13 Bf 109s destroyed, 1 probable destroyed and 5 damaged. In the preliminary report the Hungarian fighter pilots filed claims for twelve probably destroyed P-38s, and ultimately filed claims for seven; five were eventually claimed confirmed. 
The actual losses of the day: five P-38s were shot down, with pilots MIA, two were severely damaged while several aircraft were lightly damaged; one Bf 109G was destroyed in air combat (pilot KIA), one Bf 109G destroyed during forced landing as a result of air combat (pilot safe); one Bf 109G damaged during a landing accident.

18 June 1944 Luftwaffe The Luftwaffe claimed 39 B-24s and five P-51s shot down over Schleswig-Holstein. Just 13 B-24s and two P-51s were lost. 

1944 - 1945 Luftwaffe Oberleutnant Kurt Welter, claimed perhaps 25 Mosquitoes shot down by night and two further Mosquitoes by day while flying the Me 262, adding to his previous seven Mosquito kills in "hot-rodded" Bf 109G-6/AS or Fw 190 A-8 fighters. As far as can be ascertained, three of his Me 262 claims over Mosquitoes coincide with RAF records.

1 January 1945 Luftwaffe On this date German pilots overclaimed by between 4 and 3:1 . During Operation Bodenplatte the Luftwaffe claimed 55 destroyed and 11 probably destroyed in air-to-air combat (according to document: "Fernschreiben II.JakoIc Nr.140/44 geh.vom 3.1.1945"). Other German sources (according to document: "Luftwaffenführungsstab Ic, Fremde Luftwaffen West, Nr. 1160/45 g.Kdos.vom 25.2.1945"), quote 65 claims and 12 probables. Just 31 Allied aircraft were hit. 15 were shot down in aerial combat, two were destroyed whilst on take-off and seven were damaged by enemy action. 3 of the dmaged aircraft were scrapped.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 21, 2011)

parsifal said:


> 1 January 1945 Luftwaffe On this date German pilots overclaimed by between 4 and 3:1 . During Operation Bodenplatte the Luftwaffe claimed 55 destroyed and 11 probably destroyed in air-to-air combat (according to document: "Fernschreiben II.JakoIc Nr.140/44 geh.vom 3.1.1945"). Other German sources (according to document: "Luftwaffenführungsstab Ic, Fremde Luftwaffen West, Nr. 1160/45 g.Kdos.vom 25.2.1945"), quote 65 claims and 12 probables. Just 31 Allied aircraft were hit. 15 were shot down in aerial combat, two were destroyed whilst on take-off and seven were damaged by enemy action. 3 of the dmaged aircraft were scrapped.


revised:

Subsequent research has showed that these figures are relatively conservative. More aircraft of the US Ninth AF were destroyed *and none of the Eighth AF aircraft present on the airfields seem to have been included*. A detailed analysis of all known aircraft losses on the airfields has been made and this results in the following figures: 

Single-engined a/c....Twin-engined a/c....Four-engined....Total Destroyed....Damaged total (all)
143...........................74........................15...................232........................156

This number is already considerable higher than the number listed in the HQ 2nd TAF report. As these figures are based on known individual aircraft losses, it seems logical that even these figures are conservative. For instance in these figures only 16 B-17s/B-24s and three P-51s of the Eighth AF are included and it is known that some 16 B-17s, 14 B24s, eight P-51s and two P-47s of the Eighth AF were destroyed in the attack. Including these figures and assuming that the actual losses were some 15 per cent higher than the conservative losses listed above, *a total of some 290 aircraft destroyed and a further 180 damaged is achieved*. *This leaves the aerial claims by the German pilots and there is detailed information on only some 50 of the reported 79 aerial victories.* On the other hand, relatively accurate details are available on the number of Allied aircraft destroyed in aerial combat. In fact, only 15 Allied aircraft were actually shot down by German fighters and around ten more were damaged in aerial combat. *This leads to the conclusion that there was an over-claiming by the German attackers of approximately 1:3. Combining all the figures known on the actual Allied losses incurred during Bodenplatte leads to the conclusion that around 305 aircraft were destroyed and a further 190 damaged. A total number not far off the actual claims by the German pilots.*


----------



## claidemore (Aug 21, 2011)

Njaco said:


> "Spitfire vs Bf 109" by Tony Holmes
> pg 71
> 
> "Overall during the four months of the Battle of Britain.....the Jagdwaffe lost 610 Bf 109s which compares favourably to Fighter Command's 1,023 Spitfires and Hurricanes. Of course the only targets presented to the Jagdflieger during this period were fighters, and it appears that they claimed around 770 of the aircraft lost by Fighter Command. This gave the Bf 109E pilots a favorable kill ratio of 1.2:1...."


But lets not forget that the Luftwaffe was fighting in either a fighter sweep or escort role, while the RAF mission was heavily weighted towards bomber interception. The ratio given would be more accurately given as a fighter _*loss *_ratio. It would be difficult indeed to break down the pure fighter vs fighter encounters during BoB to get an accurate kill ratio pertaining strictly to fighters.

I have four books on BoB, the highest quoted combat related loss for RAF is 950, the lowest combat loss for Luftwaffe is 1590 (most are 1700+). That's a 1.67 to 1 positive kill ratio for RAF, worst case presented.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 21, 2011)

to throw in a little twang. 

_August 17, 43 mission for day/eve ops: US 8th AF reported an incredible amount of claims for both Schweinfurt and Regensburg : 288 kills for the bombers alone and another 19 kills by US P-47's. The Luftwaffe lost a total of 25 a/c. JG's 1, 2, 3, 26, 51, 54, NJG's 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 ands training unit 101. The Bf 110G units lost to B-17 combats were 8 on this date, none to US or RAF fighters. At night on the 17/18th of August, 2 Bf 110G's to Beufighters, several to landing accidents . .what's my point you say ? crosscheck everything. two more 1943/44 dates just to show how crazy the claiming system was in 43/early 44 for the bomber crews of the 8th AF . . . . and the craziness of the aerial engagements there-of. 10 October 43 terrible battle over Münster: Bombers claimed 183 Luftwaffe kills, for the losses of 30 bombers . Luftwaffe actually lost 27 fighters. 14 October 43, the other Schweinfurt battle: Bombers claimed some 186 Luftwaffe kills for losses of around 72 bombers . Luftwaffe lost 38 fighters. 11 Janaury 44, Oschersleben, Halberstadt, Brunswick battle: Bombers claimed some 228 Luftwaffe kills with 31 kills going to fighters in addition. over 60bombers shot down. Luftwaffe lost 21 fighters heavy rocket attacks by Bf 110G fighters destroy lead pathfinder and the 8th AF bomber missions seemed to head down stream from there._

overclaiming? you betcha, everybody did. but the Allies by far over-claimed leaps and bounds more then the Luftwaffe. I mean, .14 of a kill? really?


----------



## parsifal (Aug 21, 2011)

I dont think any firm conclusions can be made about who was the most excessive in overclaiming. In 1940, Luftwaffe claims were 334% above actual losses, compared to 155% for the Allies. Conversely over Dieppe, Luftwaffe claims appear about right, until thactual breakdown of how Allied planes were lost is looked at. Same deals apply on the eastern Front....in the 6 months of 1941, VVS claims were about double what they should be, whilst at the same time LW claims against the VVS are about 3 to 5 times what they should be. These overclaiming figures are not for isolated incidents they represent overclaiming for an extended period. I dont think that any particular nation can be singled out for excessive overclaiming. A lot of it appears to relate to circumstance, and some to just poor reports. I think a lot of overclaiming extends from more than one plane or gunner claiming the same enemy aircraft.

Sensationalising results doesnt help much either, it just decreases the credibility of the claim. Too much hype is always a bad thing for sober assessment


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 21, 2011)

I like you parsifal.. your a cool cucumber.. but if you will, could you please provide a response to post #178? many thanks. =)


----------



## parsifal (Aug 22, 2011)

Thanks ratsel, Ive learned that the best way to talk to people is to put your argument, and then let them decide, rather than trying to make their minds up for them. Cant say i always live by that wisdom, but its what i aim for.

I cant respond too much to your Post 178. All i can say is that most accounts i have seen put allied losses at a somewhat lower number than the one you have arrived at....then again what you seem to be saying is that the knock on effects of the german attack....aircraft not shown as immediate losses in the allied tally sheets is entirely consistent with what i have been arguing, except that whereas I take the LW to task, your doing the same to the Allies. 

My accounts other than the one I posted put Allied losses at a total of 470 a/c destroyed and or damaged, to about 280 LW, plus a further 80 or so moderately to heavily damaged. 143 LW aircrew were killed with a further 70 or so captured. They are the heaviest losses the LW suffered in any single operation I think, so if it is being argued that it was a kind of victory, its a pyrrhic victory


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 22, 2011)

So the Allies lost something they had very little problem replacing, aircraft. But very few pilots lost. 

The Luftwaffe, however, lost something that they had in very short supply, and could not replace, pilots.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 22, 2011)

not entirely true. pilots they had. fuel to adequately train their pilots was lacking. however Experten pilots lost were ireplaceable. Bodenplatte was a classic example of what not to do.


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 22, 2011)

What could they do ?? They didn't have enough fuel to train new pilots, even safe airspace to train them in was getting hard to find. Not even enough fuel for operations. The experten pilots left had to be suffering from some degree of battle fatigue. Every rational thinking person had to know no miracle weapon was going to turn things around.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 22, 2011)

there was one Miracle weapon that would have saved Germany...... Operation Valkyrie


----------



## stona (Aug 22, 2011)

They tried it in 1944 and it didn't work.
Steve


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 22, 2011)

stona said:


> They tried it in 1944 and it didn't work.
> Steve


yes your right. but it came very very close. some devine intervention dictated that Hitler should take his own life.


----------



## stona (Aug 22, 2011)

It did come close and to be fair it was a somewhat modified "Valkyrie". It is one of history's great "what ifs?"
The course of human history turning on a table leg!
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Gixxerman (Aug 22, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> not entirely true. pilots they had. fuel to adequately train their pilots was lacking. however Experten pilots lost were ireplaceable. Bodenplatte was a classic example of what not to do.



Johannes Steinhof's book 'The Last Hours: The Luftwaffe plot against Goring' makes interesting reading on this very subject.
It talks a lot about the Galland idea of a 'big blow' (no gigling at the back!) made by the surviving remaining best pilots and bulked up by the schools output.
The experten to have the Me262s (which I was unaware had largely been going to bomber units and Goring held as a reserve for a strike that was never to come)

Mind you, as is also evident in the book the scale and speed of collapse was plainly shocking to all, even senior Luftwaffe people like Steinhof Galland.
Their idea that they could inflict losses so great as to cause the allied air assault to pause is fanciful, in my opinion at least.

You can see their POV but then they couldn't see the whole picture themselves, us having the benefit of hindsight all that.



Ratsel said:


> there was one Miracle weapon that would have saved Germany...... Operation Valkyrie



You know I'm not so sure about this.
Whilst I can see it being a huge change whether it would have ended the war any more favourably for Germany I doubt.
From what I've seen the German conspirators ideas were to go back to Germany's pre Sept 1939 borders.
After what had been done to Russia I do not see that getting much support on the allied side.

In fact if that was the case then a Hitler-free Germany with its back to the wall facing an allied assault that insisted on their utter defeat might have led to an even more horrificly murderous final year of the war (or maybe slightly longer).


----------



## stona (Aug 22, 2011)

It was only Britain and the U.S that had called for Germany's unconditional surrender at Casablanca in January 1943. Stalin didn't like the idea. Had the conspirators eliminated Hitler and the nazi leadership I think a negotiated settlement may have been possible,even in mid 1944. It would not have been on terms favourable to the new German leadership.
As I said above,one of history's great what ifs.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 22, 2011)

agreed stona.

Gix, I wasn't talkin about Germany winning.. just _saving_ what was left of Germany.


----------



## Gixxerman (Aug 22, 2011)

Oh I know Ratsel, I was just throwing in my 2 pennies on that one (and I don't want to derail the debate, its just it came up).
Don't get me wrong, I know there is no right or wrong here really, just lots of speculation of varying interest.

I have read on a few occasions that what the conspirators hoped for was quite different to what those on the other side might have expected or hoped.
They had no intention of renouncing a lot of the 'Hitler gains' but rather merely hoped to end the hurt resulting from the war.
There's still an element of what Harris called the gambler wanting to walk away from the table pocketing gains at reduced cost.
But by July 1944 (particularly with Ultra Russian spies at that stage so effective) I'm not so sure they would have been allowed to walk away with so many gains and if that was the case then it is possible that the end might have been even more terrible than the awful experience it was.

As Steve says, a great 'what if' in its own right.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 22, 2011)

I am very doubtful that the Allies of r the soviets would have accepted anything less than unconditional surrender from Germany, with or without Hitler after the casablanca conference. There is a disturbing tendency to underestimate the importance of these international agreements, yet they were critical to Allied victory, and were a tangible and fundamental difference to the way the Axis conducted their international relations. he Russians showed some inclination to negotiated settlement only whilst there was slight doubt as to whether they could win. The last time any sort of suggestion of peace occurred was in November 1943, from memory, but if the Stalin cummunique in raltion to that feeler is read i detail, it would still have required unconditional surrender of Germany. Afte Kursk, the Russians were convinced that they could not be stopped, and Russian war aims solidified to controlling all of eastern Europe. Moreover the division of Germany had been agreed to quite early between the allies and the soviets. Unless the germans accepted unconditional surrender, their country was headed for the scrap heap.

The glue that held the Anglo-American-Soviet alliance together during the war was the determination to defeat Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and Japan’s military government reaching for control of east Asia. The Axis powers had provoked a conflict that would eventually take upward of 50 million lives and change the face of Europe and Asia for decades. At the same time, however, as Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt , and Joseph Stalin pulled together to win the war, they held discreet aims for their respective countries that were in conflict with each other, but the hitler phenomenon had virtually no relevance to those aims and the level of allied co-operation. Their skillful military and political leadership allowed the alliance to survive by temporarily muting their differences.

For Churchill and Great Britain, the goal was not only to defeat the Nazis but also to assure arrangements in postwar Europe that prevented Germany from attacking its neighbors again and provoking continental havoc as had occurred twice in the previous forty years and 3 times in the last 70 years. Churchill also believed it essential to reestablish Britain’s worldwide empire, which had allowed the United Kingdom to prosper and stand as one of the world’s handful of great powers.

For Stalin, the principal objective of the war was to eliminate German dominance of the continent and its capacity to invade Russia, as it had twice since 1914. This was a goal incompatible with an independant germany, and the presence or absence of Hitler or the nazis was irrelevant to the equation. German defeat promised to end the greatest threat to the Russians. To achieve his goals, Stalin aimed to establish socialist satellite governments across eastern Europe, especially in Poland, which had been a corridor through which German armies had invaded the Soviet Union. For Stalin, domination of the European continent was a possible prelude to creating Communist governments around the globe–across the Middle East and throughout Asia beginning with a socialist revolution and regime in China.

For the United States, the highest possible good that could result from the second Great War of the twentieth century was the destruction of totalitarian regimes in Germany, Italy, and Japan and the rise of democracy everywhere, as President Woodrow Wilson had promised during World War I. To Roosevelt, the United States’ conversion from traditional isolationism to internationalism assured that American power and dominance of the world stage could be assured.


----------



## Nikademus (Aug 23, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> not entirely true. pilots they had. fuel to adequately train their pilots was lacking. however Experten pilots lost were ireplaceable. Bodenplatte was a classic example of what not to do.



According to Jay Cuttler, the Luftwaffe made it's errors with pilot training long before oil became an issue. Oil shortages only exaserbated an existing issue. It was similar for the Japanese.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 23, 2011)

Nikademus said:


> According to Jay Cuttler, the Luftwaffe made it's errors with pilot training long before oil became an issue. Oil shortages only exaserbated an existing issue. It was similar for the Japanese.


perhaps. I'm not to familiar with pre-1944 Luftwaffe practices.. My studies are mostly Reichsluftverteidigung.


----------



## stona (Aug 23, 2011)

Nikademus said:


> According to Jay Cuttler, the Luftwaffe made it's errors with pilot training long before oil became an issue. Oil shortages only exaserbated an existing issue. It was similar for the Japanese.



Correct. 
Have a look at "Luftwaffe 1933-45 :Strategy for Defeat" by Williamson Murray if you can find an affordable copy.
Problems with the training and supply of pilots goes back to 1939. There are plenty of complaints about the quality of replacement pilots after the Polish and French campaigns. These losses are often overlooked by a tendency to think that the first real air campaign was the BoB. At the start of these campaigns and again in 1941 the training of new pilots was virtually abandoned with the schools and training units shutting down. Pilots and instructors were seconded to combat units. Losing your flight instructors in combat and operational accidents is not a good way of ensuring consistency in the quality of future pilots. The Luftwaffe never really sorted this out.
The problem was definitely compounded late in the war by fuel and other shortages but was always organisational and ran much deeper than that.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## parsifal (Aug 23, 2011)

Luftwaffe was also virtually forced to abandon advanced bomber flight training and blind flying after the losses to instructors (flying Ju52s) in the Stal;ingrad relief effort. Those that suvived were never returned to the flight schools. 

These guys were even more important than the experten, but LW high command never saw it that way.

Another shortage was in the numbers of trainers....there were never enough.

Evidence that the Luftwaffe training elements were being overstretched can be seen in their accident rates for their training aircraft. Despite having a training element that was a fraction the size of the US elements in the US, they succeeded in having 2.5 times as many trainer write offs as the Americans. If we assume a training elment about 1/4 the size of the Americans (based on sortie rates for their training commands, compared to the training flights undertaken by the US), thats an accident rate roughly 10 times as great.

Based on the results they achieved, the Germans seemed to have the ability to produce a few very high quality pilots, like hartmann, and truckloads of chaff, like the countless thousands shot down in 1944.

Which is the superior model, training a few really high quality pilots that outshone everything about them, or producing a solidly based all round well trained cadre of pilots that in most situations were dependable, survivable and effective. 

I know which air force Id prefer to fly for


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 23, 2011)

parsifal said:


> I know which air force Id prefer to fly for


yep. me too. The Luftwaffe. Especially on the Western Front during late 1944 - 1945.



parsifal said:


> Based on the results they achieved, the Germans seemed to have the ability to produce a few very high quality pilots, like hartmann,


lots more then just a few high quality pilots my friend. lots more. names you don't always see in print.



parsifal said:


> and truckloads of chaff, like the countless thousands shot down in 1944.


just like the thousands of high quality allied aircraft/pilots that were shot down.


----------



## stona (Aug 23, 2011)

Parsifal is right. They repeated the same mistake with the Stalingrad "air bridge" and in every other crisis right until the end.Take a look at some of the pilots who flew on "Bodenplatte".
I know which airforce I'd rather be flying for too! It's one of those in which I could do my front line hours,hopefully with several hundred hours of training behind me, and move on to something safer. You wouldn't get me into a British or American bomber though.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## parsifal (Aug 23, 2011)

The following is an article from another site. It is very similar to an article from a magazine i used to contribute years ago. 

The period of training given to new pilots of the German Air Force (Luftwaffe) was steadily shortened during the course of World War 2; the description below may be considered representative of the situation during the latter half of 1941.

For the prospective pilot joining the Luftwaffe from civilian life, the first step was a spell of six months at a Fliegerersatzabteilung or recruit training depot; this was the equivalent to the 'square-bashing' or 'boot camps' in other air forces. There the main emphasis was on drill and physical training, and the air aspect was introduced only in elementary lectures on the principles of wireless and map reading.

Having completed this initial training, the student pilot moved to a Fluganwarterkompanie, where he spent up to two months studying general aeronautical subjects. Thus prepared, he moved to an A/B Schule (elementary flying school) where he flew light aircraft such as the Klemm 35, the Focke Wulf 44 and the Buecker 131. 

For his A2 licence the pupil received instruction in aerodynamics, aeronautical engineering, elementary navigation, meteorology, flying procedures and training in the reception of morse. For his B licence he flew higher-performance aircraft like the Arado 66, the Gotha 145 and the Arado 76, heavier aircraft like the Junkers W33 and W44 and the twin-engined Focke Wulf 58, and obsolescent combat types such as the He51, the Ar65 and the Hs123. On successful completion of his B2 training the candidate had between 100 and 150 hours flying time, and received his Luftwaffenflugzeugfuehrerschein (pilot's licence) and his Flugzeugfuehrerabzeichen (pilot's wings).

Those pilots selected for single-engined fighters or dive-bombers now went straight to the respective specialist schools for training in these roles.

Prospective twin-engined fighter, bomber and reconnaissance pilots went on to the C Flying Schools, where they received a further 50 to 60 hours flying during a course of some six months duration. These pilots were given ground training in advanced aeronautical subjects, and flew obsolescent operational types such as (in the case of bomber pilots) early versions of the He111, the Ju52, the Ju86 and the Do17. When he qualified at the C School the pilot received his ELF* or advanced pilot's licence. He was now able to fly his aircraft by day or by night with reasonable proficiency, had limited training in instrument flying, and could perform simple cross-country navigational flights under fair weather conditions.

On leaving the C School, the twin-engined fighter pilots went to their specialist school; the bomber and reconnaissance pilots were sent for 50 to 60 hours extra training in blind-flying, before moving to their specialist schools.

At the various specialist training establishments (Fighter, Bomber, Twin-engined Fighter, Dive-bomber and Reconnaissance) the pilots to fly multi-seat aircraft joined up with their crews. Combined crew training began, flying in operational types of the latest design. In general the exercises engaged in at the specialist schools were similar to those flown by bomber and reconnaissance pilots at the C Schools, but the night and cross-country flights were of longer duration and were undertaken in less favourable weather. On completion of their training at the specialist school, the crew usually remained together and was sent to an operational unit.

An important point to note is that during the initial part of the war the role of the observer (German: Beobachter) in a multi-seat aircraft was not so close to that of navigator as the literal English translation of the term might suggest. In fact the observer was trained as an aircraft captain, having flown as a pilot up to C standard before moving to the observers' school for a nine-month course (where he received further training in blind flying as well as navigation). Soon after the outbreak of the war the rule of the observer being the aircraft captain was gradually relaxed; from the beginning of 1942 observer training steadily deteriorated, until by 1944 it was down to five months, with little pilot training.

Having passed through their respective specialist training schools, the crews were sent to Ergaenzungseinheiten (operational training units) attached to the various operational Geschwader or Gruppen (groups). Here the crews learnt the tactical methods peculiar to the operational units they were later to join. As well as providing operational training, the Ergaenzungseinheiten served as holding posts for trained crews until they were required by the front-line units.

From the time he joined the Luftwaffe until he arrived at his Ergaenzungseinheit, a fighter or dive-bomber pilot had received about 13 months training with 150 to 200 flying hours; a bomber or reconnaissance pilot had received respectively 20 months and 220 to 270 hours. 

It must be stressed, however, that these figures refer only to men who had passed through the system prior to the beginning of 1942. For in that year the Luftwaffe training organisation, efficient and smooth-running at the beginning of the war, began to crack under the strain exerted upon it.


----------



## Readie (Aug 23, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> yep. me too. The Luftwaffe. Especially on the Western Front during late 1944 - 1945.



You are having a turkish Ratsel 
I admire your optimistic hope of survival.
John


----------



## Readie (Aug 23, 2011)

parsifal said:


> The following is an article from another site. It is very similar to an article from a magazine i used to contribute years ago.
> 
> The period of training given to new pilots of the German Air Force (Luftwaffe) was steadily shortened during the course of World War 2; the description below may be considered representative of the situation during the latter half of 1941.
> 
> ...





Michael,
You have an excellent and concise grasp on this thorny subject.
I have learnt a lot from you.
Thanks
John


----------



## parsifal (Aug 23, 2011)

This is the second part of the article I previously posted, and provides some insight as to why the LW training standards absolutley nosedived after 1942. 

Decline of the Pilot Training 

The Battle of Britain had been the first major setback for the Luftwaffe, but in the main the losses in trained crews were made good by drawing upon the reserves already available within the service. Moreover, the comparatively low casualty rate during the first half of 1941 enabled the remaining gaps in the ranks to be filled without placing undue strain on the training organisation.

The relentless rate of losses from the beginning of the Russian campaign, however, made demands which the flying training organisation found almost impossible to meet: during the first six months of the offensive Luftwaffe casualties in aircrew, of all categories from all causes in all theatres, amounted to some 2,200 men; during the second six months an almost exactly equal number of men was lost.

The campaign in Russia also brought more direct forms of pressure on the flying training organisation. Early in 1942 many Ju52 aircraft, together with their instructor pilots, were removed from the C, blind-flying and bomber schools and sent to Russia to supplement the fleet of air transports engaged in flying supplies to the German troops cut off at Demjansk and Cholm. Owing to actual losses and shortages at the front line units, the instructors and aircraft were never returned to the training organisation. Later in the year the pace of air operations in the east led to a shortage of aviation fuel throughout the Luftwaffe; again it was the flying training schools that suffered.

The shortages of instructors, suitable aircraft and fuel threw out of gear the training programme for bomber and reconnaissance crews; in the short term there was a surplus of partially-trained pilots from the A/B Schools, but at the same time a lack of trained crews available at the Ergaenzungseinheiten. 

In July 1942 General Kuehl, the Director of Training, brought to Goering's notice the fact that the shortages were leading to an impossible situation at the C Schools. As was so often the case, the Reichsmarschall had a glib answer: he ordered that the C Schools should be disbanded, and their functions taken over by the Ergaenzungseinheiten. 

This proved to be beyond the capacity of the latter, however, for they had insufficient aircraft or instructors to cope with this sudden influx of pupils; so, in their turn, the Ergaenzungseinheiten farmed out many of them to the operational Gruppen (groups) for training. The net result of this confused situation was that the general standard of training of new crews for the bomber and long-range reconnaissance units fell so low that operational efficiency began to suffer significantly.

During 1943 the new Director of Training, Generalleutnant Kreipe, was able to slow the rate of deterioration of his organisation. But simple expedients, like the introduction of short glider courses to provide initial flying experience for pilots, could not make up for the perennial shortages of good instructors, modern aircraft and, above all, fuel.

By the beginning of 1944 German fighter pilots were joining their operational units with only about 160 hours flying training; this compared with more than 350 hours their counterparts in the RAF and the USAAF. The average flying experience in the USAAC at this time was in excess of 500 hours for their fighter elements.

During the first half of 1944 the Luftwaffe day fighter units suffered debilitating losses at the hands of the better-trained American escort fighter pilots, whose P-51 Mustangs could in any case out-perform the best fighters the Germans then had in service at this time; during this period the home-defence units lost some 2,000 pilots killed, missing or wounded. 

When the Luftwaffe training organisation tried to make good these heavy casualties with similar numbers of new pilots, the result was a vicious circle: the ill-trained replacement fighter pilots were no match for their opponents and suffered heavy losses, and their places in the front line were taken by new pilots who had had a more hurried training and were even less of a match for their opponents. 

During the late spring standards fell yet further, when the B flying schools were disbanded. Fighter pilots were now sent into action with only about 112 hours flying, made up as follows: A School, two hours glider flying and 50 hours powered flying on elementary types; Fighter School, 40 hours; Replacement Fighter Groupe, 20 hours. 

Moreover, the so-called Windhund programme, which provided for the hasty conversion of ex-bomber pilots by giving them 20 hours flying in fighters resulted in a stream of pilots little able to stand up to the enemy.

In September 1944 the Luftwaffe flying training organisation received its death blow. With the systematic wrecking of the German synthetic fuel industry by Allied strategic bombers, aviation fuel production fell so far beneath Luftwaffe requirements that operations had to be curtailed. In such a climate the training schools, always the poor relation, could not survive long. First the elementary and many of the specialist schools were closed then, as the last of the trainees passed through, the specialist fighter schools were also disbanded and their instructors sent to the front. By February 1945 the Luftwaffe aircrew training organisation had, to all intents and purposes, ceased to exist.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 23, 2011)

Just glanced over my shoulder and observed a lot of smoke rising.....did i do that?????


----------



## Readie (Aug 23, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Just glanced over my shoulder and observed a lot of smoke rising.....did i do that?????




Not unless you are here in Plymouth.
The Pyromaniacs are playing up at the moment. 
Where are our magnificent Police force?
Good question 
Cheers
John


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 23, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Just glanced over my shoulder and observed a lot of smoke rising.....did i do that?????


yup. keep better tabs on your wingman.. and check your six low.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 23, 2011)

stona said:


> . You wouldn't get me into a British or American bomber though.
> Cheers
> Steve



Steve. From the latter half of 1944 on you were relatively safe. BC loss rates for example sank to about 0.5% per sortie from June 1944 (roughly)....well down on the 4% earlier in the year, and a lot less than the 7% casualty rates experienced in the latter half of 1941. Similar situation for US daylight bombers. 

Whereas German fighters had done a lot of damage to the bombers in the early part of 1944, from about May 1944 on, they simply had great difficulty in successfully engaging them from that time on.

During 1944, the US lost about 3500 bombers in combat, I dont know the exact numbers of US fighters lost in air combat. Perhaps some of the US enthusiasts could assist here? Roughly speaking, however, the US fighter groups were shooting down about 6 LW fighters for every one they lost....so my guesstimate is about 2000 fighters lost. Thats a total of about 5500 US aircraft lost in ecahange for around 16000 LW fighters brought down. Thats an exchange rate heavily in favour of the US IMO


----------



## Nikademus (Aug 23, 2011)

Put simply.....the Germans treated their pilot training program the same way they did their production and failed to create a much larger and comprehensive program in place until it was too late and well before Spaatz's Oil campaign even got well off the ground.

According to Mr. Cutler (Who's book I am suprisingly enjoying despite the somewhat controversial choice of Book Title), Germany's leadership failed to institute any kind of Long Term Expanded training program to churn out the numbers needed to the attrition war the Luftwaffe eventually faced....even after it became obvious what was coming/happening. (Cutler states that no such action was taken either in 42 or 43 to match pilot numbers with the increased aircraft production numbers that churned out by 44)

As has been related...instead, Germany started employing quick fix ad hoc solutions, like pulling instructors from flying schools and tapping bomber and transport pilots for Fighter plane conversion. As would be expected, training programs were shortened causing an increasing decline in quality as pilots reported to front line units.

In a thread already bloating with "Stats", I will hopefully be forgiven for introducing one or two more (but will try to keep it to a minimum  ) Per Cutler's research, Germany produced a mere 15,000 fighter pilots between 1940 and 44. The USAAF in this same period produced 200,000.

In April of 1944 alone, LuftFlotte Reich lost nearly 40% of his frontline fighter pilots....LuftFlotte 3 lost nearly 25%. The replacements were weaker and weaker while US pilots were decently trained. US training was geared for mass production so baring the exceptionally talented pilot they were not anything special, but they were prepared and decently trained....averaging 300 hours before seeing combat. In 43 USAAF fighter pilots had about a 2:1 edge in flight hours over new Ger pilots (300/170) which declined further to 300/135 in 44. 

When you combine the above with the numbers game.....its Lights Out for the Luftwaffe....oil or no oil. (Luftwaffe Disadvantage in pure numbers deteriorated from 1:2 to 1:4 by the end of 43 in favor of the USAAF.)


----------



## stona (Aug 23, 2011)

Excellent posts above,you've both saved me a lot of typing! Well done. I was leafing through a couple of books wondering how I was going to condense so much information. Statistics may vary slightly but the gist is the same.

Parsifal,I was unaware how much one's chance of surviving in a bomber had increased towards the end of the war,but you still wouldn't have got me up in one,at least not willingly.

I think Ratsel that you must be an optimist too,but there's nothing wrong with that.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Erich (Aug 23, 2011)

not sure if I agree with all the statements spoken. Blind flying schule at least for NF's continued right into 1945 in the weapons/radar NJG 101 and 102. 262 unit Kommando welter the same as newer pilots/R/O's came into the oversized squadron and ont the goofy twin seater with Neptun FuG 217.

also though fewer losses of bombers from summer onward the tactic now was to devastate US bomber formations from the rear, Individual Us bomb groups faced and were hit pretty hard right up into January 1945 some of the worst air battles over the Reich were in July/August of 1944 right into November and December. the LW flying in much smaller denominations but bringing more firepower to bear.

Before my cousin was KIA in November 44 his JG 301 practiced and exercised the arrowhead rear attack and then from up high down on an angle. very effective and lethal, problem for this JG as well as others there just was not enough S/E fighters to make any real difference as the Reich was pounded daily.


----------



## Nikademus (Aug 23, 2011)

things got more hairy for BC as the war wound down too.....since NF's couldn't be overwhelmed like the day fighters and the tech improvements made their attacks devestating to the targeted bombers. I recall Miller and Neillands commenting on it.


----------



## Erich (Aug 23, 2011)

March 45 was nasty for BC, have to admit that the LW NF's crew seemed to be pretty lucky if they could get in the stream of things and take out 1-2 heavy bombers with Schräg-waffen and being diligent enough during that mode to watch for 100th grp Mossies. Don't want to stray too OT but the German LW night fighter crews due to jamming would just shut down their radar and go where the window being dropped was the heaviest and the old way of using their "eyes" for trailing exhausts.


----------



## kettbo (Aug 23, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Steve. From the latter half of 1944 on you were relatively safe. BC loss rates for example sank to about 0.5% per sortie from June 1944 (roughly)....well down on the 4% earlier in the year, and a lot less than the 7% casualty rates experienced in the latter half of 1941. Similar situation for US daylight bombers.
> 
> Whereas German fighters had done a lot of damage to the bombers in the early part of 1944, from about May 1944 on, they simply had great difficulty in successfully engaging them from that time on.
> 
> During 1944, the US lost about 3500 bombers in combat, I dont know the *exact numbers of US fighters lost in air combat*. Perhaps some of the US enthusiasts could assist here? Roughly speaking, however, the US fighter groups were shooting down about 6 LW fighters for every one they lost....so my guesstimate is about 2000 fighters lost. Thats a total of about 5500 US aircraft lost in ecahange for around 16000 LW fighters brought down. Thats an exchange rate heavily in favour of the US IMO



Wouldn't Goring's policy to ignore the fighters and go after the bombers have something to do with the moderate losses of US fighters?
It would make sense to me to hit the US Fighter Groups early on. This would make the escorts drop the long range tanks and or disrupt escort arrival / link-up timetable to make deep strike missions less well escorted. FWIW, I'd really not covet the "attack the escorting horde" assignment. This would have to be a large hit on one part of the escort plan.


----------



## Erich (Aug 23, 2011)

George that was deemed as a written order to defend Reich airspace that in essence was to take out all US heavy bombers as to whatever means in spring of 1943 with all the silly proliferation of weapons systems that the German could put on their aircraft, most were failures. heavy cannon and the limited and not effective range of the Br 21 rocket launcher.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 23, 2011)

parsifal, 16000 LW fighters brought down when? 1944? I don't think so... 1/2 that is more realistic. but your entitled to your opinion.. which is usualy spot on.

compare here: http://www.don-caldwell.we.bs/claims/tonywood.htm


----------



## drgondog (Aug 23, 2011)

View attachment 8th Ops Award-Losses_by type dec-1-09.pdf
here is a summary of 8th AF FC losses - most of which were 1944 - as well as 8th AF victory credits. The combined 15th and 9th were roughly half of the combined 8th credits and losses.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 23, 2011)

kettbo said:


> Wouldn't Goring's policy to ignore the fighters and go after the bombers have something to do with the moderate losses of US fighters?
> 
> *It surelay had some effect - on the other hand after Jan 1944 I believ that tactic would have a.) increased loss rates for LW, increased 8th FC losses - with advantage USAAF, and b.) decreased 8th BC losses overall because of a.)*
> 
> It would make sense to me to hit the US Fighter Groups early on. This would make the escorts drop the long range tanks and or disrupt escort arrival / link-up timetable to make deep strike missions less well escorted. FWIW, I'd really not covet the "attack the escorting horde" assignment. This would have to be a large hit on one part of the escort plan.



Recall that escort was largely a 'Relay' - so the LW would have to be very careful where and when they isolated and pinpointed the attacks, and would have to have sufficient force to attack in the numbers required to engage ALL the local escorts - which tended to dribble out flights and sections to repel. To disrupt Target escort they would have to find and concentrate on the long range fighters early in the R/V leg or mid range tot the target.

If they attacked over Holland or France they likely would engage P-47s on inbound Penertation Ramrod.. if they bounced over western germany they would affect only the local group working a series of bomb wings - and yes they would have to turn back before reaching a deep target.. if they bounced deep - then the escorts still had fuel to go to the target and back to Withdrawal Support R/V.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 23, 2011)

Erich said:


> March 45 was nasty for BC, have to admit that the LW NF's crew seemed to be pretty lucky if they could get in the stream of things and take out 1-2 heavy bombers with Schräg-waffen and being diligent enough during that mode to watch for 100th grp Mossies. Don't want to stray too OT but the German LW night fighter crews due to jamming would just shut down their radar and go where the window being dropped was the heaviest and the old way of using their "eyes" for trailing exhausts.




Gives data on RAF BC sorties and losses.
BC Operational Stats

At night: sorties - missing - crashed - percent
Jan 1945 - 9603 - 121 - 57 1.9%
Feb 1945 - 13715 - 164 - 60 - 1.6%
Mar 1945 - 11585 - 168 - 76 - 2.1%
Apr 1945 - 8822 - 51 - 25 - 0.9%

August 1944 - 10013 - 186 - 22 - 2.1%


----------



## Erich (Aug 23, 2011)

in 43 and early 44 the LW did not have the problem they knew they could attack over a rather large area from Holland/France and then into the interior of Germany. After the Normandie fiasco the LW was then limited and radar control would vector the Lw gruppen to the largest area it could find of US bomber and not the escorts as that seemed menial to the hierarchy's minds through the war in the Reich defense factor. per Facto it was engage the US heavy bombers at any cost if at all possible we know through LW and US operations that more and more the LW S/E's could not even engage the bombers as they were pounced by P-51 groups and shot to pieces. 21 and 26 November 44 comes to mind though the latter too many B-24's were engaged and shot down by Fw's


----------



## stona (Aug 23, 2011)

So you did indeed have a better chance flying with bomber command after mid 1944.
I STILL don't fancy it!
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Juha (Aug 23, 2011)

Hello Milosh
You beat me, thanks for injecting some cold facts into the discussion

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Aug 23, 2011)

Cold facts are bit like statistics...lies, damn lies and statistics. 

Here is an extract from "Aspects of the Combined British and American Strategic Air Offensive against Germany 1939 to 1945.", Including an assessment of RAF Bomber Command and the 8th 9th US Army Air Forces’ Casualties and Losses in World War II; 
Michael Varley 2005

In summary from July the loss to sortie ratio for BC was as follows. The figures are interpeted from the graphs in Varleys article, so ive had to do some rounding (eyesight not so good these days) 
(sorties/losses, percentage)
Jul: 16000/260: 1.625
Aug:18000/260: 1.388 
Sep: 20000/150: 0.750 
Oct: 16000/150: 0.938
Nov: 17000/170: 1.000 
Dec: 16000/160: 1.000 
Jan: 16000/190: 1.188 
Feb: 11000/220: 2.000
Mar 17000/300: 1.76
Apr 21000/110: 0.524

What erich refers to as March 1945, may be equivalent to what I have categorised as February. Certainly these two months, feb/Mar were not as good as the preceding months which had seen a drop to less than 1% for the first time, but wre still below the wartime average for BC. The command during the war had flown a total of either 364514 with 8325 lost, or 389809 with 8655 lost, which gives average loss rates of 2.203-2.284%

The material that this is based on is attached


----------



## Milosh (Aug 23, 2011)

Your welcome Juha.

parisfal, the link in post #220 gives specific numbers so need to strain your eyesight.


----------



## Erich (Aug 23, 2011)

are your stats the bi-product of both T/E and S/E fighters plus Flak ? for NF's one can hardly disagree with the performance of the Boiten McKenzie duo-both volumes on the Nachtjagd against BC giving the standard claims to real victories issue obviously still a further work as both are being re-written right now before the move to the Eastern Front Nachtjäger.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 23, 2011)

when did RLM stop verifying claims? late 44 sometime?


----------



## parsifal (Aug 23, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> parsifal, 16000 LW fighters brought down when? 1944? I don't think so... 1/2 that is more realistic. but your entitled to your opinion.. which is usualy spot on.
> 
> compare here: http://www.don-caldwell.we.bs/claims/tonywood.htm



The site you have directed to me are combat losses and claims. Caldwell is an excellent reference, no argument thre. however, like so many sources, he fails to take into account all Luftwaffe losses, because of the LW methods of damage assessment, reporting. Also does not include what might be termed non-combat losses. 

Between January and May, the Reich Air Defences lost 2300 pilots, and a further 3000 odd aircraft to non-combat causes. That means that at minimum the LW lost Jan-May 1944 a minimum of 5300 aircraft.

For cross referencing you might want to have a look at Murray. An oldie, but a goodie, it provides some sobering figures on LW losses

Attrition and the Luetwaffe


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 23, 2011)

operating in the dark means in a lot of cases you're never going to know what happened to the bombers, other than they never returned. They wouldn't know if it was flak, nightfighters, or if they just got lost and flew into the North Sea.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 23, 2011)

Hi Erich

In response to your query, which i assume was for me to answer.....

I think they represent all combat losses

According to Varleys preamble

"_In respect of RAF operations the main source of statistical data
has been that contained in the Appendices to Vol. IV of "The
Strategic Air Offensive Against Germany" 1939-1945 by Webster
Frankland, HMSO, London 1961 ( referred to in this paper as
the Official History). Supplemented by information contained in
ACM Sir Arthur Harris' "Despatch on War Operations", written
1945 but not published until 50 years later by Frank Cass,
London_"

But he says he also refers to Chorleys nine volume work on BC, which as a generalization gives a further 10% losses over and above the figures given. I have not looked at Chorley all that closely (its nine volumes remember, plus i dont have a copy with me right now), but my guess is these represent post action write offs and/or non-combat losses. Obviously if you prefer Chorleys losses to the official history's, you need to add 10% to those loss rates

What makes me suspect Chorleys loses are including post action write offs is that his losses for personnel are very close to those given in the official history. you dont lose personnel fopr birds that make it back home and are then scrapped.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 23, 2011)

I think the figure should be just limited to combat losses.. that'll give it a true comparison.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 23, 2011)

Thats certainly an option, but even then there are complications. Many German aircraft were dmaged, taken out of group control, and then scrapped some time later. Some aircraft were lost to causes unknown. Ther is also the issue of comparability. BC losses for rxample, include aircraft lost in accidents and aircraft lost to Non-combat causes, but I am less sure if the BC stats include airframes subsequently scrapped, or simply not repaired. 

To me the most comparable losses are in fact the total losses....what each side lost as a result of a given operation, from all causes, including non-combat losses. That way we know we are not being selective in the losses we include. 

Thats the best way to compare, but for some reason, authors seem to delight in hiding some losses, not reporting others....all sorts of games and tricks...applies to all sides incidentally


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 23, 2011)

If a aircraft goes on a combat mission and doesn't return, it's a combat loss, even if it just ran out of fuel, am I correct ?

What is the difference between a combat loss, and a operational loss ?

Is a aircraft preparing for a mission the day before that crashes on a check flight a operational loss ?

Is a aircraft that crashes on takeoff for a combat mission a combat loss ?


----------



## parsifal (Aug 24, 2011)

tyrodtom said:


> If a aircraft goes on a combat mission and doesn't return, it's a combat loss, even if it just ran out of fuel, am I correct ?
> 
> What is the difference between a combat loss, and a operational loss ?
> 
> ...



Some very good questions here. if you take the German nightfighter forces, their biggest single sources for loss were crash landings, either from being lost, flying low to avoid marauding Mosquitoes, or simply misjudging where they were. Im sure Erich can give a far better answer than me in this regard.

What to classify these losses as. If not for the BC activities, most of these losses would never occur, but then again, the losses are not the result of direct action by BC. Are they combat losses or, as you describe them, operational losses. If we exclude those sorts of losses we tend to get a very skewed result for the Night Fighter losses. They come away looking as if they were more or less impervious, but in reality they were far from that.

Like I said, my opinion is that you do your best to ferret out every last loss that might be associated with that operation, even if the airframes final fate is not determined for some months after the operation. In my book, a loss is a loss, and ought to be counted that way


----------



## stona (Aug 24, 2011)

Is their not a heirarchy of RAF losses? I've always understood combat losses to come under operational losses. i.e. all combat losses are operational losses.Other losses incurred whilst on operations also come under this umbrella.
Non operational losses would be just that. A loss whilst not on operations,say a ferry flight for example.
If I've been labouring under an allusion,which is distinctly possible,I hope someone will correct me.
Steve


----------



## Juha (Aug 24, 2011)

Now
what Chorley says in his introduction in Vol 1. "...In later volumes a/c lost on operational sorties from bomber OTUs and HCUs will be included...The casualties reported are confined to those airmen whose a/c was lost or deemed to have been damaged beyond economical repair and, therefore, I have not mentioned those airmen who were killed in the air but whose a/c made a safe return to base. Neither have I included casualties unconcerned with air operations..." 

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Aug 24, 2011)

Which on the face of it is inconsistent with Varley, who says Chorley gives figures for all aircraft lost, with totals for operational losses, non-operational losses and losses on the ground. There is an inconsistency here somewhere.

The figures given in the officieal History are for all losses from all causes, as are the figures given in Harris's final report. oddly enough, however, the loss figures given in these two other sources are both lower than those given by Chorley


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 24, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> when did RLM stop verifying claims? late 44 sometime?


anybody know the answer?


----------



## parsifal (Aug 24, 2011)

I dont think its that simple. There was a tendency as the war wound down, for LWs otherwise thorough and logical confirmation system to be disreqgarded. However all through the war the LW has instances of confirmation procedures not being followed. 

There are statistical certainties to overclaiming, but i cant see any clear patter in the LW of things getting better or worse as the war progressed. Perhaps as a rule of thumb, shoot downs over friendly territory were inherently more accurate. But conversely, losses over enemy territory that is then overrun and becomes friendly territory wouldnt have much "home town advantage". 

Sorry for not being much help on that one ratsel


----------



## stona (Aug 24, 2011)

Ratsel,I can't find a specific date but several references to the autumn of 1944 or late 1944 as the date when the claims system was abandoned or collapsed. I'm guessing it just petered out.

I was just checking night fighter claims and came across the story of Major Walther Ehle of II./NJG 1. He attacked a 77 Squadron Halifax flown by a Sergeant Lewis on the night of 25/26 May 1943. The Halifax blew up and destroyed two other aircraft,both Stirlings,one of 7Squadron and one of 218 Squadron. Ehle was officially credited with both these aircraft but refused to count them in his personal score as he had never even seen them,let alone fired on them. There's an honest man.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Juha (Aug 24, 2011)

Hello Parsifal
Looking your attachment, it states that in it only those a/c that went missing are counted, Chorley incl. also those which crashed in GB. But also Chorley seems to have changed his criteria, because in his introduction in Vol 5 (1944) he writes:”followed by target detail or an appropriate term describing a non-operational loss…” The latter seemed to have been rather insignificant, during a randomly chosen timeframe 14 Jun – 22 Jun 44 there were appr 120 losses of which only 4 were non-operational, (2 training, one air-testing and one ferrying) rest happened during operations. Of course that was at summer, wintertime non-oper would probably have had greater share.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Aug 24, 2011)

stona said:


> Ratsel,I can't find a specific date but several references to the autumn of 1944 or late 1944 as the date when the claims system was abandoned or collapsed. I'm guessing it just petered out.
> 
> I was just checking night fighter claims and came across the story of Major Walther Ehle of II./NJG 1. He attacked a 77 Squadron Halifax flown by a Sergeant Lewis on the night of 25/26 May 1943. The Halifax blew up and destroyed two other aircraft,both Stirlings,one of 7Squadron and one of 218 Squadron. Ehle was officially credited with both these aircraft but refused to count them in his personal score as he had never even seen them,let alone fired on them. There's an honest man.
> 
> ...



Hello Stona
that is also my understanding, but there were exeptions, for ex. the only He 162 claim, a Tempest or Typhoon, I cannot remember which, in early May 45 was officially given to a nearby AA battery so He 162 pilots don't have any confirmed victory.

Juha


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 24, 2011)

Well I personally don't think it was a case of claims 'petering out', the LW still shot down alot of enemy a/c right up until the end. I think it was a simple matter that RLM's priority shifted during this time frame. Thanks for the responses guys.


----------



## Erich (Aug 24, 2011)

Ratsel it was October/November 44 where victory credits were no longer recognized "officially". only in the JG and NJG KTB's will you find them listed and in private Pilot/crews Flugbuchs


----------



## Juha (Aug 24, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Well I personally don't think it was a case of claims 'petering out', the LW still shot down alot of enemy a/c right up until the end. I think it was a simple matter that RLM's priority shifted during this time frame. Thanks for the responses guys.


As Stona wrote it was the confirmation system that just "petering out" not claims.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Aug 24, 2011)

Juha said:


> Hello Parsifal
> Looking your attachment, it states that in it only those a/c that went missing are counted, Chorley incl. also those which crashed in GB. But also Chorley seems to have changed his criteria, because in his introduction in Vol 5 (1944) he writes:”followed by target detail or an appropriate term describing a non-operational loss…” The latter seemed to have been rather insignificant, during a randomly chosen timeframe 14 Jun – 22 Jun 44 there were appr 120 losses of which only 4 were non-operational, (2 training, one air-testing and one ferrying) rest happened during operations. Of course that was at summer, wintertime non-oper would probably have had greater share.
> 
> Juha




I have to disagree with your reading of Varleys graphs. He does give figures for the total number of sorties, from the official History and harris' report, and these add up to about 2.2%, and they do say aircraft missing. That much is true. However the graphs on pages 21-2 of Varleys paper give a loss rate of 2.7% (or thereabouts, when you add up the total losses and the total sorties, and divide the losses by the sorties. The graphs on losses given in the excerpt is based on the official history, but from the figures he has added in losses both operational and crashes (including return to base crashes). The table shows operational losses (in red, which for the RAF means all losses that relate to the combat mission, not just those shot down) and losses from crashes (in blue). Further, earlier in the paper he spends a considerable amount of time analysing personnel and materiel losses, including losses to ground personnel. I am quite confident that graph that he has presented includes both aircraft missing and aircraft crashed, but I doubt it includes aircraft that were written off due to excessive damage. That might account for the difference with Chorley. 

What in fact he actually states a few paragraphs after that table is

_The average loss rate, missing aircraft only, on sorties over the
whole war period was about 2.0% whereas if ‘crashed' aircraft are
included the rate increases to 2.7%. As a substantial number of
aircraft crashing did so as a result of damage sustained on
operations it would not seem unreasonable in making any
analysis, at least as far as risk is concerned, to include them as
operational losses, nevertheless often this is not done_.


It does NOT state that his presentation of loss data in his graphs, which was the basis of my presentation) makes that error. he merely states that many sources do. Since the table is based on official history losses and crashes, and he has in fact noted the error, i would find it very strange that he would then go ahead and present his graphs with the same mistake built in as well. I think your claim is basically incorrect, unless you can direct me to a specific statement that states otherwise.


----------



## stona (Aug 24, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Well I personally don't think it was a case of claims 'petering out', the LW still shot down alot of enemy a/c right up until the end. I think it was a simple matter that RLM's priority shifted during this time frame. Thanks for the responses guys.



Not the claims,the claims system,i.e.the verification system. I wrote "...as the date when the claims system was abandoned or collapsed. I'm guessing it just petered out."
Cheers
Steve

Edit. Sorry Juha,I missed your post making the same point above....cheers.


----------



## Erich (Aug 24, 2011)

it did not peter out as you guys state, it was official the OKL did not go through the processing of any victory claims anymore there was not time as other issues were more important.


----------



## stona (Aug 24, 2011)

Erich I was just suggesting,as noone seems to have a specific date,that the system could have been abandoned as a matter of fact rather than policy. I was guessing that the system just ceased to work rather than was officially closed down. Maybe the staff were diverted to more pressing matters.
The organisation of the OKL deserves a thread all of its own! 
It doesn't really matter,we all agree that claims ceased to be processed in late 1944.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 24, 2011)

The " fog of war " just never goes away does it ?


----------



## Juha (Aug 24, 2011)

Hello Parsifal
I’d say that he is then a bit unclear in his grap. red=operational losses, blue=crashes. Now IMHO a/c damaged by enemy fire while on oper. sortie that crashed on return is a oper. loss, especially those shot down by LW long-range night fighters over GB while returning from a sortie. Those which crashed while on training flight etc were IMHO non-operational losses. But if he clarify his criterias in his text, that’s OK. But something is still amiss, because of Chorley doesn’t incl. those KIA and DOW whose a/c was not destroyed or written off, so if the personnel losses are about the same, Chorley’s data incl. losses that were not incl. in official histories, a bit same as in BoB, later research had found 10%+ more losses than are incl. in official BoB histories.

Juha


----------



## stona (Aug 24, 2011)

tyrodtom said:


> The " fog of war " just never goes away does it ?



It gets worse as time goes by 
Steve


----------



## parsifal (Aug 24, 2011)

Juha

Its very late her, but i will tabulate the losses from the entire war, based on the graph values tomorrow night. If we get 2.7% (as I have done previously) then we should be able to conclude that we have a reasonably accurate figure for operational losses, including crashes on return. I agree that we would need to add about 10% to that figure, but not for the reasons you are saying. I think the losses need to be adjusted to account for post action scrappings, which are not included in the official histories data


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 24, 2011)

are you going to cross check with actual LW figures like say Ron Putz has? thats the only real way to do it. the only way to get an accurate asessment. its time consuming and takes years. Unlike some websites/books that just copy what info they happen to google.


----------



## Juha (Aug 24, 2011)

Hello Parsifal
why bother, BCWD by Middlebrook and Everitt is very highly regarded and they have made the counting already, IIRC.

Juha


----------



## Readie (Aug 24, 2011)

Wouldn't it fair to say that the German war effort petered out in all respects towards the end of WW2?
Surely counting losses (whoever caused) was the last thing on the LW or armies mind as they were gradually defeated by the allies.
Just a thought chaps
Cheers
John


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 24, 2011)

Most Luftwaffe pilots knew the war was lost in late 43/early 44. Anyways, LW pilots recorded there claims in their flight journals.. Right until the end. Theres no debate there. For what planes/fuel was left in 1945, they fought just as hard as any time frame during the war. Only on their terms.. Not to what the fatman said they should do or how to fight.


----------



## Erich (Aug 24, 2011)

as to the records for the completeness of LW claims and losses there are none, burned up in at least two trucks outside of Berlin and vaporized during spring of 45. Many KTb's of JG's and especially the LW NJG's do not even exist. As to lost time element I would say late summer of 44 not before.


----------



## Readie (Aug 24, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Most Luftwaffe pilots knew the war was lost in late 43/early 44. Anyways, LW pilots recorded there claims in their flight journals.. Right until the end. Theres no debate there. For what planes/fuel was left in 1945, they fought just as hard as any time frame during the war. Only on their terms.. Not to what the fatman said they should do or how to fight.



Why fight a lost cause though? You have referred to 'saving what was left of Germany', surely to carry on fighting was ultimately self destructive?
Or,was it a refusal to accept the inevitable?
As we weren't there maybe we'll never know for sure.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 24, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Most Luftwaffe pilots knew the war was lost in late 43/early 44. Anyways, LW pilots recorded there claims in their flight journals.. Right until the end. Theres no debate there. For what planes/fuel was left in 1945, they fought just as hard as any time frame during the war. Only on their terms.. Not to what the fatman said they should do or how to fight.



The only debate of course is the link between logbook claim to LW review process to LW victory credit/award process to nearly 60-100% over credits when comparing Tony Woods Lists of LW Credits to USAAF actual losses plus supplemental awards extracted from LW squadron histories.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 24, 2011)

Readie said:


> Why fight a lost cause though? You have referred to 'saving what was left of Germany', surely to carry on fighting was ultimately self destructive?
> Or,was it a refusal to accept the inevitable?
> As we weren't there maybe we'll never know for sure.



Then we reflect on so many historical turnarounds when the odds were hopelsss ranging from Spartans to the US War for Independence from Britain to frozen Chosin, etc


----------



## parsifal (Aug 25, 2011)

Following on from my Post 248 I have attached a table based on varleys Graphs, which gives the monthly sorties, losses and monthly loss rates (losses/sorties x 100). I have provided yearly subtotals, and a final wartime number.

For the record, my reading of varleys tables gives a total sotie rate of 387300, total losses of 10280 and a loss percentage of 2.65%

I would almost categorically state that Varleys graphs are for total operational losses, not just aircraft missing. I would say further that he may even have included aircraft grounded then subsequaently scrapped, so his figures appear to be a total loss figure for operational sorties.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 25, 2011)

Readie said:


> Why fight a lost cause though? You have referred to 'saving what was left of Germany', surely to carry on fighting was ultimately self destructive?
> Or,was it a refusal to accept the inevitable?
> As we weren't there maybe we'll never know for sure.



I dont agree with the basic premise here. I think most lower and middle ranked officers were still ardent disciples of hitler. though they could see their formations being overwhelmed, none could know that this was happening in all sectors. many believed that hitler was preparing reserves for a massive counterstrike. others believed that terror weapons would turn the tide. Others, more logically believed that hitler would not allow Russian hordes to rape and pillage the fatherland. They fought on desperately, believing hitler would negotiate peace, or somehow achieve victory. perhaps the belief of total victory was gone, but most still believed in the nazi star. Belief in hitler was deep seated and almost unshakeable until the very end.

The fear of unconditional surrender also motivated many to fight on, hoping that something would change. 

The high command knew much better, but even they deluded themselves into believeing that they could fight a war of attrition that would somehow demoralise their enemies, and that Hitler would be able to break up the grand alliance ranged against him and make separate peace with one or more of germany's enemies. Throughout germany there was an air of complete detached unreality as to the attitude the world had taken towards them (which was that germany had to be exorcised of its warlike, aggressive, murderous, untrustworthy ways) did not sink in. 

It was not so much a refusal to accept the inevitable, as continuing to beleieve the lies put out by Hitler. most still believed in him until the very end. a few continued to do so even after the surrender


----------



## stona (Aug 25, 2011)

You'd fight on facing retribution from the East,the fear of which was much encouraged in nazi propaganda,and the Morgenthau plan from the West.
It seemed that losing the war meant that Germany would cease to exist.
For the ardent nazi,life without Hitler and national socialism was inconceivable. The fate of the Goebbel's family was by no means unique,just the highest profile.
The policies of the allies helped Hitler achieve his "Gotterdammerung".
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Readie (Aug 25, 2011)

parsifal said:


> I dont agree with the basic premise here. I think most lower and middle ranked officers were still ardent disciples of hitler. though they could see their formations being overwhelmed, none could know that this was happening in all sectors. many believed that hitler was preparing reserves for a massive counterstrike. others believed that terror weapons would turn the tide. Others, more logically believed that hitler would not allow Russian hordes to rape and pillage the fatherland. They fought on desperately, believing hitler would negotiate peace, or somehow achieve victory. perhaps the belief of total victory was gone, but most still believed in the nazi star. Belief in hitler was deep seated and almost unshakeable until the very end.
> 
> The fear of unconditional surrender also motivated many to fight on, hoping that something would change.
> 
> ...



Not much to argue with there. as ever you succinctly sum things up.
Maybe the higher people in the Nazi party machine knew that defeat would expose them for what they truly were.
I have been reading my Fathers war diary, he was a POW in Germany in 1944 and he comments that as the 'end' became obvious even to the lowly POW guards, they seemed almost pleased to be POW's themselves, especially as the US Troops arrived before the Russians. A remark was made about 'getting fed now'.
No blind faith in Hitler, just a very human concern to somehow survive it all.
Cheers
John


----------



## Readie (Aug 25, 2011)

drgondog said:


> Then we reflect on so many historical turnarounds when the odds were hopelsss ranging from Spartans to the US War for Independence from Britain to frozen Chosin, etc



A bit off topic, but I'll answer your point.

Absolutely. History records many examples of this.
The difference between a languid and benevolent empire like the British one, and a brutish one like the Nazi's dreamt of is that we encouraged and developed the countries we arrived in. More importantly, when the time was right we gave independence and protection to these fledgling nations.
Cheers
John


----------



## stona (Aug 25, 2011)

Readie said:


> benevolent empire like the British one, and a brutish one like the Nazi's dreamt of is that we encouraged and developed the countries we arrived in. More importantly, when the time was right we gave independence and protection to these fledgling nations.
> Cheers
> John



You are kidding right. There was nothing benevolent about the British Empire if you were on the wrong side of it,unless you fancy being strapped to a cannon and blown to bits.
For "encourage and develop" you could easily substitute exploit. A Jamaican slave cutting sugar cane on an 18th century plantation would struggle to see how he was being encouraged and developed by his benevolent masters.
This is not the place or forum to discuss this as it is inevitably a political debate but I couldn't just leave a contentious post like yours,even if trolling,to go unchallenged.
I'm saying no more.
Steve


----------



## Tante Ju (Aug 25, 2011)

Readie said:


> Why fight a lost cause though? You have referred to 'saving what was left of Germany', surely to carry on fighting was ultimately self destructive?
> Or,was it a refusal to accept the inevitable?
> As we weren't there maybe we'll never know for sure.



Because choice was made between unconditional surrender, and unconditional surrender. German already knew what it means to have unconditional surrender from 1918.. this rooted deep in nation pschycology, and strongen by propganda also. Allied plans for post war Germany was known - divided mini states, without any industry etc. These were serious plans, only changed after ware.

So there was really no choice given... Szun Ce already thousends year ago: always let enemy seeming way to escape - otherwise he fights till death, having nothing to loose. and a desperate enemy, a dangerous enemy! And perhaps hope in negotiated peace. After all - no Allied or Soviet boots on German soil until March 1945.. I do not believe even top nazis believed in "final victory" - propaganda slogan or not - but they probably believed they can make cost too high and negotiate peace.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 25, 2011)

I should also say that these higher considerations of national survival are not the major reasons why the common soldier or airman fights, even when losing. The nationalistic motivations, the thought of king and country are motivations to join in the first place. Once you are in battle however, its questions of unit cohesion and survival that are the primary motivations. A man is motivated by his will to survive, and his loyalties to the unit that he is attached to. This is why there is all that hype about unit elitism and sybolism....they are symbols to make you feel you are special, and that you must fight at all costs. often the two issues, survival and unit loyalty, go hand in hand together. You want to survive, and you dont want to let your mates down, but often your own personal survival is linked to the units survival. How do you maximise the units survival....you keep fighting as effectively as you can. Only in the quieter moments of reflection might you consider these higher issues. If the higher issues like national survival become patently unsustainable....like the country is literally being overrun might you consider saying to yourself "this is ridiculous, why am i fighting....the country, my mates, my family, and myself would be better off if I stopped fighting!", which is what most Germans did at the finish

I would correct one historical innaccuracy raised in the preceding discourse on this issue. Germany did not unconditionally surrender at the end of the 1st world war. She laid down her arms, after a negotiated peace. this led directly to a resurgence of german militarism and the rise of the Nazi Party....the belief that germany had been defeated by a jewish led 5th column that had stabbed her in the back and that victory could have been achieved but was denied by international conspiracy along racial lines. Total fabrication, and a direct reason why, the second time around, the allies determined that there would be no mistake, no negotiated settlement, no chance for more lies to be generaratewd within Germany itself about robbed opportunities. this time there would be no mistaking who won and who lost, this time the fight would be taken right into the heart of the reich itself.

Thank the lord for the unconditional surrender terms. It changed Europe, and it changed Germany forever. The world is rid of one less problem because of it.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 25, 2011)

Readie said:


> A bit off topic, but I'll answer your point.
> 
> Absolutely. History records many examples of this.
> The difference between a languid and benevolent empire like the British one, and a brutish one like the Nazi's dreamt of is that we encouraged and developed the countries we arrived in. More importantly, when the time was right we gave independence and protection to these fledgling nations.
> ...



John - in no way am I disparaging the Empire - but King George did not 'give us' anything, and the Empire retained a short memory of the woes of 3000 mile logistical chain in 1812-1814? Nor do I recall much in the way of protection to our 'fledgling nation' - lol

Maybe we were the poster child for the inevitable and Canada was one of the first beneficiaries of the 'new policy'?

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Readie (Aug 25, 2011)

stona said:


> You are kidding right. There was nothing benevolent about the British Empire if you were on the wrong side of it,unless you fancy being strapped to a cannon and blown to bits.
> For "encourage and develop" you could easily substitute exploit. A Jamaican slave cutting sugar cane on an 18th century plantation would struggle to see how he was being encouraged and developed by his benevolent masters.
> This is not the place or forum to discuss this as it is inevitably a political debate but I couldn't just leave a contentious post like yours,even if trolling,to go unchallenged.
> I'm saying no more.
> Steve



Steve,
I was generalising in order to answer a point made, agreed to be way off topic. 
I'm not interested in *any* political debate on this forum and its not 'trolling' whatever that is supposed to be...
Cheers
John


----------



## Readie (Aug 25, 2011)

drgondog said:


> John - in no way am I disparaging the Empire - but King George did not 'give us' anything, and the Empire retained a short memory of the woes of 3000 mile logistical chain in 1812-1814? Nor do I recall much in the way of protection to our 'fledgling nation' - lol
> 
> Maybe we were the poster child for the inevitable and Canada was one of the first beneficiaries of the 'new policy'?
> 
> ...



Well said Bill.
Mistakes were made of course but, the legacy of the British empire is one of benefit.
Regards
John


----------



## Readie (Aug 25, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Thank the lord for the unconditional surrender terms. It changed Europe, and it changed Germany forever. The world is rid of one less problem because of it.




Spot on Michael, We are all only here because of that.

Regards
John


----------



## Readie (Aug 25, 2011)

Better get back to the planes chaps before we upset the moderators.
Regards
John


----------



## parsifal (Aug 25, 2011)

drgondog said:


> John - in no way am I disparaging the Empire - but King George did not 'give us' anything, and the Empire retained a short memory of the woes of 3000 mile logistical chain in 1812-1814? Nor do I recall much in the way of protection to our 'fledgling nation' - lol
> 
> Maybe we were the poster child for the inevitable and Canada was one of the first beneficiaries of the 'new policy'?
> 
> ...



The relationship between the United States and Britain is a peculiar love hate relationship if ever there was one. Most of your liberal democratic institution have roots in the earlier, less well developed democratic institution of britain, except you guys improved and refined the model. Your legal system is based on British legal principals rather than European....a man is presumed innocent and must be proven guilty, whereas in Europe, if you stand accused, you are guilty until proven inncent. Your ideas on propriety and acceptable behaviour, concepts of right and wrong are based on Anglo-Saxon principals, rather than Gallic, Hispanic or Germanic principals. The fact that the british attempted to rob you blind and attempted to deny you liberty is a bit of a problem, and one that you had to fight for.

Britains empire was for British power and prestige, and for non-whites exploitive. Thats no different to the US attitude to non-whites. Its cause for great conflict in our western societies to this day. But as the 19th century wore on, the British white mans burden, at least to the other white dominated dominions changed perceptably from parent child relationship, to a venerated parent, young adult relationship for the young dominions. It was less harmonious for the non-white possessions like India, but in my opinion still more benevolent than the other European nations. Britain was just slightly more mature in her dealings with native populations than the other colonial powers, but not by much, and not because of any superior intellect or motivation.....they were just a bit more clever at keeping the natives passive for longer i guess.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 25, 2011)

parsifal, whats that chart for? allies?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 25, 2011)

Get back on topic.

If the thread has run its course, I will close it.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Aug 25, 2011)

Before you lot continue to play the race card (and quite what all this has to do with Eric Hartmann is beyond me,) you would do well to remember that it was the Royal Navy who led the way in putting an end to white slavery, by non-white nations, in the Mediterranean.
Edgar
P.S. Sorry, wrote this while the boss was trying to pull this back on course. To drag it right back, I suspect that, as with other top men in their profession, some were quite happy with them, while others loathed them. Talk to those who knew Bader, and you'll find a 50/50 split, even Johnny Johnson has his detractors.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 25, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> parsifal, whats that chart for? allies?



It shows British Bomber losses according to Varley, and confirms the loss rate is 2.7% or thereabouts.

Trying to get back on topic, I believe hartmanns motivation wa consistent with what I put in the posts about motivation. He believed in his country, but even when faced with hopeless situations continued to fight. he showed outstanding and noteworthy concern for the welfare of his comrades. Even though he did not much believe in the hype of the nazis I believe he still believed in their competency as the national government, ergo, it motivated him to continue fighting because he believed, or at least hoped, they would find a way out of the corner that germany had been forced into.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 25, 2011)

Edgar Brooks said:


> Before you lot continue to play the race card (and quite what all this has to do with Eric Hartmann is beyond me,) you would do well to remember that it was the Royal Navy who led the way in putting an end to white slavery, by non-white nations, in the Mediterranean.
> Edgar
> P.S. Sorry, wrote this while the boss was trying to pull this back on course. To drag it right back, I suspect that, as with other top men in their profession, some were quite happy with them, while others loathed them. Talk to those who knew Bader, and you'll find a 50/50 split, even Johnny Johnson has his detractors.



I agree, this is completely off the rails, partly my bad, lets get back on topic


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 25, 2011)

theres also a russian connection, has to do with Hartmann resigning his appointment with JG 53 in the west and going back to JG 52. He though the greatest threat to Germany survival at this time was the russians and wanted to continue fighting them. In a way, he was right.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 25, 2011)

I thought perhaps we should look at the man as a pilot rather than the the organization that surrounded him.

This iss an excerpt of his training that I found

Hartmann began his military training on 1 October 1940 at the 10th Flying Regiment in Neukuhren. On 1 March 1941, he progressed to the Luftkriegsschule 2 in Berlin-Gatow, making his first flight with an instructor four days later, followed in just under three weeks by his first solo flight. He completed his basic flying training in October 1941 and began advanced flight training at pre-fighter school 2 in Lachen-Speyerdorf on 1 November 1941. There, Hartmann learned combat techniques and gunnery skills. His advanced pilot training was completed on 31 January 1942, and, between 1 March 1942 and 20 August 1942, he learned to fly the Messerschmitt Bf 109 at the Jagdfliegerschule 2 in Zerbst/Anhalt.

Hartmann’s time as a trainee pilot did not always go smoothly. On 31 March 1942, during a gunnery training flight, he ignored regulations and performed some aerobatics in his Bf 109 over the Zerbst airfield. His punishment was a three-month period of confinement to quarters with the loss of ⅔ of his pay in fines. Hartmann later recalled that the incident saved his life:

That week confined to my room actually saved my life. I had been scheduled to go up on a gunnery flight the afternoon that I was confined. My roommate took the flight instead of me, in an aircraft I had been scheduled to fly. Shortly after he took off, while on his way to the gunnery range, he developed engine trouble and had to crash-land near the Hindenburg-Kattowitz railroad. He was killed in the crash.

Afterwards, Hartmann practiced hard. During a gunnery practice session in June 1942, he hit a target drogue with 24 of the allotted 50 rounds of machine-gun fire, a feat that was considered difficult to achieve. His training had qualified him to fly 17 different types of powered aircraft, and, following his graduation, he was posted on 21 August 1942 to Ergänzungs-Jagdgruppe Ost (Fighter Supply Group, East) in Gleiwitz, Upper Silesia, where he remained until 10 October 1942.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 25, 2011)

Further narrative from the same source

In October 1942, Hartmann was assigned to fighter wing Jagdgeschwader 52 (JG 52), based at Maykop on the Eastern Front in the Soviet Union. The wing was equipped with the Messerschmitt Bf 109G, but Hartmann and several other pilots were initially given the task of ferrying Junkers Ju 87 Stukas down to Mariupol. His first flight ended with brake failure, causing the Stuka to crash into and destroy the controller’s hut. Hartmann was assigned to III./JG 52, led by Gruppenkommandeur Major Hubertus von Bonin, and placed under the experienced Oberfeldwebel Edmund “Paule” Roßmann, although he also flew with such experienced pilots as Alfred Grislawski, Hans Dammers and Josef Zwernemann. After a few days of intensive mock combats and practice flights, Grislawski conceded that, although Hartmann had much to learn regarding combat tactics, he was quite a talented pilot. Paule Roßmann taught Hartmann the fundamentals of the surprise attack, a tactic that led to his “See – Decide – Attack – Break” style of aerial combat.

Hartmann flew his first combat mission on 14 October 1942 as Roßmann’s wingman. When they encountered 10 enemy aircraft below, Hartmann, obsessed by the idea of scoring his first kill, opened full throttle and became separated from Roßmann. He engaged an enemy fighter, but failed to score any hits and nearly collided with it instead. He then ran for cover in low cloud, and his mission subsequently ended with a crash landing after his aircraft ran out of fuel. Hartmann had violated almost every rule of air-to-air combat, and von Bonin sentenced him to three days of working with the ground crew. Twenty-two days later, Hartmann claimed his first kill, an Ilyushin Il-2 of the 7th Guards Ground Attack Aviation Regiment, but, by the end of 1942, he had added only one more kill to his tally. As with many top aces, it took him some time to establish himself as a consistently scoring fighter pilot.

Hartmann’s youthful appearance earned him the nickname “Bubi” (the hypocoristic form of “young boy” in the German language), and the ace Walter Krupinski, to whom Hartmann was assigned as wingman, would constantly urge him: “Hey, Bubi, get in closer”. On 25 May 1943, he shot down a LaGG-5 before colliding with another Soviet fighter but was able to maintain control of his damaged aircraft. On 7 July, in the large dogfights that occurred during the Battle of Kursk, he shot down seven enemy aircraft. At the start of August 1943, his tally stood at 50, and, by the end of the month, he had added another 48 kills. In the following month, he was appointed Staffelkapitän of 9./JG 52.

In his first year of operational service, Hartmann felt a distinct lack of respect towards Russian pilots. He recalled that most Soviet fighters did not have proper gunsights, and their pilots resorted to drawing them on the windshield by hand.

In the early days, incredible as it may seem, there was no reason for you to feel fear if the Russian fighter was behind you. With their hand-painted “gunsights” they couldn’t pull the lead properly or hit you.

While Hartmann considered the P-39, P-40, and Hurricane inferior to the Fw 190 and Bf 109, they did provide the Soviets with valuable gunsight technology.

The Germans learned a few tricks from their enemy. Oil freezing in the DB 605 engines of their Bf 109G-6s made them difficult to start in the extreme cold of the Russian winter. A captured Soviet airman demonstrated how pouring fuel into the aircraft’s oil sump would thaw the oil and allow the engine to start after only one attempt. Another solution to this problem, also learned from the Soviets, was to ignite fuel under the engine.


----------



## Tante Ju (Aug 25, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Your legal system is based on British legal principals rather than European....a man is presumed innocent and must be proven guilty, whereas in Europe, if you stand accused, you are guilty until proven inncent.



I am sorry, you are very much mistaken.. there's nothing 'british' in that.. I studied medieval history.. this is what you describe - true for the dark medieval ages, very early, say up to 12 centuria.. also for England. But then, not true, neither for Europe.. accusation was replaced by inquisition type process, and needed proof of guilt. So you assume wrongly that some way Britain was sharing modern democratic rights to its people, other places not... sorry this is complete wrong in both factual and view.. medieval was very different place than modern, you cant judge modern eye.. Say some Slavic area (speaking of Russia chiefly) is different - there was, for example, collective guilt of village for wrongdoers - there development is very special, more influenced by byzantium and mongol...No British until 18 century anyway... in any case - student of British history also knows this transference of "democratic" instutues to US from England.. on bit weak legs.. really it was Dutch "invention", transferred to England with House Orange before Hannoverian princes from Germany took throne.. Dutch was already republic (a true republic, not consititonal monarchy like England - also England was not alone in this respect, same trends in Medieval France, Germany, Kingdom of Poland, Kingdom of Hungary)



> Your ideas on propriety and acceptable behaviour, concepts of right and wrong are based on Anglo-Saxon principals, rather than Gallic, Hispanic or Germanic principals.



Anglo-_Saxon_ is not Germanic...? And what is "Hispanic"? Gallic? Gallic was romanized, there is no seperate gallic culture, unless you mean french.. Anyway - these are generic concepts - mostly "canonized" and spread by Romans thousend year ago before first saxon invader set foot on English isles... search term: "Bonus pater familias"...



> Britain was just slightly more mature in her dealings with native populations than the other colonial powers, but not by much, and not because of any superior intellect or motivation.....they were just a bit more clever at keeping the natives passive for longer i guess.



Not really make argue, but in my opinion, French were masters of making natives their best buddies.. through century, French gained colonies much more by good diplomacy, rather than direct "projection of force". They did very cunningly how to make Iroquis and other tribes in North America their allies and turn them against the rival English. They were, but also less inclined to settle down overseas, say unlike British or Spanish.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 25, 2011)

Tante

We've been asked to get this thread back on topic. I would be happy to discuss your point of view either by PM or ina separate thread for that purpose, but this is not the place to do that. It has no real relevance to the thread subject


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 25, 2011)

Part of the Erich Hartmann interview:


Q: How was the meeting with Hitler and receiving the Diamonds different from 

the previous two encounters?



A: Well Dieter Hrabak and the rest threw a party before I left, and I was so drunk 

I could not stand the next day. It sounds like we were all alcoholics, but this 

was not the case. We lived and played hard. You never knew what the next 

day would bring. I few my 109 to Insterburg, and JG-52 gave me an escort. 

When I arrived at the Wolfschanze the world had changed. Hitler had already 

begun the trials and executions of those involved and everyone was under 

suspicion. You had to enter three areas of security, and no one was allowed to 

carry a weapon into the last section. I told Hitler’s SS guard to tell the Fuehrer 

that I would not receive the Diamonds if I were not trusted to carry my 

Walther pistol. The guy looked like I had just married his mother. He went to 

speak with von Below, who was a Colonel then, and Below came out said it 

was all right. I hung my cap and pistol belt on the stand and Hitler came to me, 

and said, “I wish we had more like you and Ruedel,” and he gave me the 

Diamonds, which were encrusted upon another set of Oak Leaves and Swords. 

We had coffee and lunch, and he confided in me, saying ‘militarily the war is 

lost,’ and that I must already know this, and that if we waited the Western 

Allies and Soviets would be at war with each other. He also spoke about the 

partisan problem and he asked me of my experience. Hitler asked me my 

opinion of the tactics used in fighting the American and British bombers. 

Since I did not have a lot of experience with this, I simply stated what I 

thought was a fact. Goering’s orders to combat them and the method 

employed was in error. I also informed him of the deficiencies in pilot 

training; too many minimally trained men were simply throwing their lives 

away. He also spoke about the new weapons and tactics, and then we parted. 

That was the last time I saw him, 25 August 1944. I flew back to the unit, 

where an order for ten days leave waited. I also had to report to Galland, 

where we discussed the Me-262 situation. I went back to marry my Ushi, that 

was all that mattered to me.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 25, 2011)

and some more:

Q: During the war what were your worst fears?


A: Well, I feared capture in Russia, that was a very eye-opening prospect. The 
bombing of our cities also worried us, as our families were very dear to us. I 

suppose I was most worried that Ushi would not wait, so I always tried to see 

her whenever I was on leave. *Medals meant leave, and that was an incentive*. I 

had the choice of losing her or returning all the decorations, I would send the 

medals back. She was too important to me, and always has been. It was later 

learned that the Soviets knew exactly who I was and Stalin placed a 10,000 

ruble price on my head. This was later increased, and Ruedel and I had the 

highest bounties of any Germans during the war, probably with exception to 

Hitler and a few of the Nazi elite. Every time I went up I knew that someone 

would be looking for me. I had thoughts of the American western films, where 

the top gunfighter is called out into the street; another person wanting to make 

his mark. I felt marked, so I had to change my aircraft occasionally. I found 

that when I used the black tulip I had more difficulty in finding opponents, 

who avoided me for the most part. I needed camouflage.


----------



## Tante Ju (Aug 25, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Tante
> 
> We've been asked to get this thread back on topic. I would be happy to discuss your point of view either by PM or ina separate thread for that purpose, but this is not the place to do that. It has no real relevance to the thread subject



I agree. Too much off topic this thread.. perhaps start new thread in correct place, so others can discuss too? Can you do it?


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 25, 2011)

the first casualty of war is truth.. and so it seems to be the case with certain Luftwaffe pilots. personally I'll take their words over Allied list.. perhaps the wrong plane was listed as being shot down. Hence some ' inaccurate' claims. How many times did the VVS for example listed Hartmann as a claim? a dozen or so?


----------



## David N (Aug 25, 2011)

Erich Hartmann first became known in the United States because of the publication of Toliver and Constable's first book, "Fighter Aces of the USA" in 1965, I believe. There was a chapter called "The Enemy Aces" in which the authors listed the most prominent Luftwaffe aces and explained the LW confirmation procedures. The high scores of the German WWII aces had previously been discounted as propaganda, when mentioned at all. 

Air Classics magazine had an interview with Erich Hartmann in 1968 titled, "The Reluctant Eagle." It took a year of negotiations with the West German government. Hartmann was still in the Bundesluftwaffe at the time. The article with the interview was reprinted in a 1981 Air Classics anthology. I still have it. Of Erich Hartmann Air Classics wrote:

"The years have mellowed Hartmannn. On the surface, he appears easy-going and relaxed, but underneath he is a tired, disenchanted man. Although he has more than earned it, he does not play the role of hero. He has nothing more to prove. For Hartmann has seen and done it all, and he has a very accurate memory."

The article then goes into the reason for the high scores by LW fighter pilots and details Hartmann's career with quotes from Hartmann. It's fairly long. 

The biggest innacuracy is that the article repeats the myth that Hartmann shot down Ralph Hofer. 

Hartmann gave an opinion on the combat then taking place in Vietnam: "He feels that aircraft such as the F-104, which he flies, and most other current American fighters are too sophisticated for Viet Nam. He calls them 'technical masterpieces, which are wasted against simple, easier to maintain, cheaper Russian types that do the job called for even better." 

"But in the final analysis, Erich Hartmann has had his fill of war. Now 46 years old, he speaks from an experience few others can claim. Hartmann's formula for peace is simple: "Politicians who urge war should be sent to the front and made to do just what they order their soldiers to do."

Overall, Air Classics magazine was impressed by meeting and talking to Erich Hartmann.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 26, 2011)

Welcome aboard David. Interesting article


----------



## Readie (Aug 26, 2011)

David N said:


> Erich Hartmann first became known in the United States because of the publication of Toliver and Constable's first book, "Fighter Aces of the USA" in 1965, I believe. There was a chapter called "The Enemy Aces" in which the authors listed the most prominent Luftwaffe aces and explained the LW confirmation procedures. The high scores of the German WWII aces had previously been discounted as propaganda, when mentioned at all.
> 
> Air Classics magazine had an interview with Erich Hartmann in 1968 titled, "The Reluctant Eagle." It took a year of negotiations with the West German government. Hartmann was still in the Bundesluftwaffe at the time. The article with the interview was reprinted in a 1981 Air Classics anthology. I still have it. Of Erich Hartmann Air Classics wrote:
> 
> ...




Thank you David, this is the best post in this long thread.
Cheers
John


----------



## drgondog (Aug 26, 2011)

John - Last comment off topic - I have enormous respect for Britain and the Empire, that we should exist for half as long in a benevolent way would be a miracle


----------



## Readie (Aug 26, 2011)

drgondog said:


> John - Last comment off topic - I have enormous respect for Britain and the Empire, that we should exist for half as long in a benevolent way would be a miracle



Last off topic remark from me too. I also have a great deal of respect and affection for America and the Commonwealth countries.
We are, in many ways, like a big family..squabbling, arguments, huffing but, if anyone else attacks us then we are one.
Regards
John


----------



## David N (Aug 26, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Welcome aboard David. Interesting article



Thanks. I've found a lot of information on this forum.


----------



## Erich (Aug 26, 2011)

E. Hartmann was known well before the Toliver book which needs to be re-written. Erich and other top dogs were flying out of Luke A/F which then became a buzz somewhat from Arizona and Cali historians as the place to be to catch the former LW pilots before and after cockpit time


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 26, 2011)

Been going through my notes on anything Erich Hartmann ever said. It seems he shot down at least five P-51 Mustangs. two just outside of Prague where he witnessed Americans russians dogfighting with eachother ( two Jaks lost, 1 P-51 Damaged), then three more P-51s during the Ploesti raids.


----------



## Erich (Aug 26, 2011)

not sure if anyone has seriously cross checked to see what P-51 groups he engaged with JG 52 or if they were indeed even shot down. His meaning E. Hartmann's score has been really degraded downward the last 5 or so years.


----------



## jim (Aug 26, 2011)

Erich said:


> not sure if anyone has seriously cross checked to see what P-51 groups he engaged with JG 52 or if they were indeed even shot down. His meaning E. Hartmann's score has been really degraded downward the last 5 or so years.


 
By who? And how without his logbook?


----------



## Erich (Aug 26, 2011)

this has been noted with some accuracy by Soviet historians and German historians as it is very unwise to believe or wish to believe the ace had 300 plus victories the same could be said of the bogus score of Rüdels over all talley of Soviet tank kills, there is not one LW tank ace even close. 

also one must consider the very limited use of gun cameras on the 109's of JG 51, 52 on the Ost front, we of course in the past could only go by the glorification of the aces such high scores. As I said earlier the Horrido book needs a revamp completely. Marseilles score needs to be serious re-done as huge daily scores of his do not match Allied losses records. Generalizing am I don't think so.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 26, 2011)

Some of the near daily fights by hartmann have him allegedly shooting down 9 or 10 aircraft in a single sortie. It would be easy to count the same aircraft twice in those circumstances, or even to lose count. Such actions could only be described as hectic. 


I am not trying to take anything away from the man. in my opinion he is probably the greatest fighter pilots of all time. Silly to argue otherwise really. And whilst i am not a great student of his career, the bits and pieces I do know suggest it would be very easy to get the tally wrong....


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 26, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Some of the near daily fights by hartmann have him allegedly shooting down 9 or 10 aircraft in a single sortie. It would be easy to count the same aircraft twice in those circumstances, or even to lose count. Such actions could only be described as hectic.
> 
> ....



thats not a stretch to believe. Bartels shot down 4 P-38's in less then two minutes just outside of Kalamki Greece. those weren't counted twice, three times whatever. Plus confirmed by both sides.

So Hartmann's 10 P-39 claims in a day isn't that unbelievable. those were fairly spaced apart too.


----------



## Erich (Aug 26, 2011)

be careful with what you state. we are now talking the perfect bounce with P-39's nearly lined up how obvious would that be. are we talking one mission or multiple sorties, out of fuel, refueling and back in the air ................ some of the German high ranked aces claims are most unbelievable. could it be error on the administration's point of JG 52 writing down the claims base for the JG KTB ? anything is possible.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 26, 2011)

I'm always careful... anyways this was on 26.2.1944, three sorties, between 09:08 14:50. and yep.. anything is possible I suspose.

speaking of Bartels, why is it that I cannot find a pic of his Bf109G-10 'Yellow 13'?!?!?


----------



## Erich (Aug 26, 2011)

because there aren't any pics of yellow 10. and very few pics of 15th staffel anyway.


----------



## jim (Aug 26, 2011)

I would like to ask a simple question. All these modern reserchers,with acces to the german pilots ,, who accept Stalin archives, why did not asked directly the pilots thems selfs about their claimings?
Barckhorn was killed in 1980, Hartmann deid 1993, Rall 2010 and was very very accesible to reserchers, Walter Scuck as far as i kknow is still alive and also very accesible.Galland in 1997 and very popular among anglosaxons. Even Rudorrfer i think is alive and a main suspect of overclaiming (but not wiiling to talk about the war)
Why did not ask directly? Since you consider them wildly overclaiming and insult their name you should at least ask their point of view. And there is insult. If a person claims 352 and someone says that in reallity was 50-70 then we dont have a case of human mistake but clear deception.
And in Hartmanns question we would talk for massive deception. His most succesful day 25/08/1944, victories 290-301 in 2 missions.He flew in staffel strength and the entire unit was monitoring throuh radio the missions and prepering the celebrations. All these people were co responsible of deception ? 
Hartmann was fan of hit and run tactics and carafully choosing its attacks.. But by the summer 1944 his skills included deflection shooting that made multiple kills possible.
About Mareseille. In books i poses there is a statement of Galland that calls Marseille " the uniqe virtuoso of the fighter pilots" . Is that statement acceptet today that took place? Anyone who met Galland has spoken about that?
About soviet historians. These people do not accept that rudel sunk Marat . Because eventually the soviets manage to raise the stern and make the rear turret operational . But it is true with Rudels tank claims that nobody was close to him from his comrades ,unlike Hartmann who many were close and at least Graf,Nowotny,Rall, and Barckhorn could have finished with higher scores if not retired or injured. But it is also very true that he flew 2517 missions, his unit was very effective and the army units were requiring its presence everywere . The man flew Ju87G1 in 1945!!! In the presence of superfighters LA7 and P51 .And lost a leg in one. And he flew again. ( Can not be leis, i have photos him climbing out of cocpit with his cut leg) Why would he do that if he was not getting results?


----------



## Erich (Aug 26, 2011)

Jim

they have been interviewed, in part too much has been lost in 1945 with destruction of vital records LW and otherwise near Berlin. you believe in everything you read without asking yourself now wait a minute what about the other sides records ? to be quite truthful it is only the last 15 years we have such info available to us, much was hidden or like I said lost. Rüdel was the TR propaganda child and obviously held still in huge esteem by all that look at his record even if it has been tainted, like the sinking of the Murat of which it wasn't, it was heavily damaged. don;t you think there could be possible errors to give a man claiming over 500 Soviet tanks to his credit and the next Soviet tank killer barely reaches 200 kills ? face it I took pride back in the 1960's meeting some of these pilots and thought they were the greatest guys on earth.

you have to cross check all archiv's not stick to just one side of the story in which 99% of the LW histories are based upon. 
As I said this is based on facts now. It can no longer be denied. you can get all the supposed mythical facts about ground to air radio intercepts and hurrahs by staffeln members who were not even close to Hartmann or other contenders of LW pilots in the air on the Ost front and West front.

so we agree to disagree. on another hand the Western front Nachtjagd claims are some of the worst recorded.

there will be more de-bunking of claims as more info's come out of hidding of private sources and that is where all of this materials(s) are coming from as of late. not just LW but Soviet, and all the Allies, can I say JG 301 and the US forces intercepting their fighters . . . .


----------



## Erich (Aug 26, 2011)

lets forget the record whatever it is, Bills posting # 15 says it probably best ............


----------



## Juha (Aug 26, 2011)

Hello Ratsel
for Bartels' Yellow 13 see: FalkeEins - the Luftwaffe blog: Bf109G-6 Heinrich Bartels IV./JG 27 (2) sorry you asked his G-10, no photos on that and the wreck was so smashed when found in was that 1968 near Bonn, that not much could deduce from it on camo and on markings. More exact info here : http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=3318

On Hartmann
my view is close to that of Nikita Egorov, see his message #70 at the bottom of the page here: Erich Hartmann - several questions - Page 7 - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum 

Juha


----------



## Erich (Aug 26, 2011)

Juha that is red 13 on Neils fine blog not yellow 10 that he is looking for ...............the crate in which he was in combat with P-47's KIA with them in December of 44.

I said directly to Jim and for that matter others on the forum cross-checking is vital for truth


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 26, 2011)

Bartels’ Bf 109G-10 WNr.13 0359 “Yellow 13” is what I was looking for.. but thanks.

the problem with Hartmann's debunkers is that they can never show the proof. and when they do, its weak. I remember all the stories of "yah.. he shot down 352 a/c, but they were all cargo planes and/or obsolete a/c". then they found out that only a tiny % were obsolete, and most were fairly good/modernfighters.. then the debunking begins.


----------



## stona (Aug 26, 2011)

I alluded to this in another thread. There were pilots with JG 27 who we know for sure made fraudulent,not optimistic or mistaken claims. Fraudulent claims in a dishonest effort to up their tally.They were busted at the time but more or less got away with it,though they were not allowed to fly together again. I believe these men to be the exception rather than the rule though they surely weren't the only ones. Some of these men survived the war. Post war researchers never seem to have really challenged them about this,at least not in anything I've seen or read. There was a tendency to defer to these old warriors and not ask the really tough questions. Of course they could just have chosen not to answer honestly,just as they did at the time.

Neither Hartmann's detractors nor his supporters can prove how many aircraft he shot down. I don't know how many and don't pretend that I do. It was a lot by any tally.
I'll wager that no post war interviewer ever asked him tough and searching questions about his claims. 

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Erich (Aug 26, 2011)

stand corrected I said 10 it should be 13 + ~. no pics just mythical profiles

I go back to say this : which 15th AF Mustang grp did JG 52 engage and shot down ? this is not de-bunking this is trying to find the truth of the matter. the aces have been interviewed but as Steve said hardly a one questions the validity of their claims. Sheeeeeesh they are nearly all dead isn't it time to set the records straight if it is at all possible, but it may be no-one really cares anymore.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 26, 2011)

Erich said:


> stand corrected I said 10 it should be 13 + ~. no pics just mythical profiles
> .



' mythical '... too funny lol. can't be as bad as the one I've seen of Mendl's... yikes!



stona said:


> Neither Hartmann's detractors nor his supporters can prove how many aircraft he shot down. Cheers
> Steve


very true. But in the few interviews I've read, Erich seems to remember his very first kill, his last kill, and everything in between. He says 352 as we all know. safe to say anywhere between 176 352.


----------



## Juha (Aug 26, 2011)

Hello Ratsel
on the contrary, several Russians have looked on the matter plus some others, all seem to agree that while Barkhorn's, Rall's, Lipfert's etc claims usually seem to be verifiable when checked against Soviet docus, there are problems with many of Hartmann's claims, also of Nowotny's 10 first claims was that that only one can be verified from Soviet docus. 

Now IIRC Pokryshkin claimed in one interview that he shot down almost 100 planes, but because he made many lonely patrols, for ex over Black Sea hunting supply planes for Sevastopol in 44, he had not withnesses of many of his kills, so he would not got them accepted, so he didn't even bother report them. Do you believe him?

Juha


----------



## jim (Aug 26, 2011)

Erich said:


> Jim
> 
> they have been interviewed, in part too much has been lost in 1945 with destruction of vital records LW and otherwise near Berlin. you believe in everything you read without asking yourself now wait a minute what about the other sides records ? to be quite truthful it is only the last 15 years we have such info available to us, much was hidden or like I said lost. Rüdel was the TR propaganda child and obviously held still in huge esteem by all that look at his record even if it has been tainted, like the sinking of the Murat of which it wasn't, it was heavily damaged. don;t you think there could be possible errors to give a man claiming over 500 Soviet tanks to his credit and the next Soviet tank killer barely reaches 200 kills ? face it I took pride back in the 1960's meeting some of these pilots and thought they were the greatest guys on earth.
> 
> ...


 
Mr Erich
I mean directly ask them about overclaiming.In no interviews have ever read such question. Now only Schuck is available for such a question.and also accused of overclaiming.
I would like to tell me clearly the opinion that you have today about Erich Hartmann considering his claims and the results of recent reserch.
Because we cant call someone decent and speak highly if he has overclaimed by 50%or 100% . I understand the human mistake but cannot consider such differencies as such. If he was a bad person must be known to everyone. Please speak openly. I know its not always black or white but in this case either he was decent or leier
Finaly , i have asked you again, could you report your books? I am interested in them consindering your knowledge.
PS Yes i believe that Rudel was somewhat optimistic in his tank kills but i SEE him in photos 2 monthes after loosing his leg again in cocpit! In our days we dont fly if we have cattarh!


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 26, 2011)

Juha said:


> Hello Ratsel
> on the contrary, several Russians have looked on the matter plus some others, all seem to agree that while Barkhorn's, Rall's, Lipfert's etc claims usually seem to be verifiable when checked against Soviet docus, there are problems with many of Hartmann's claims, also of Nowotny's 10 first claims was that that only one can be verified from Soviet docus.
> 
> Now IIRC Pokryshkin claimed in one interview that he shot down almost 100 planes, but because he made many lonely patrols, for ex over Black Sea hunting supply planes for Sevastopol in 44, he had not withnesses of many of his kills, so he would not got them accepted, so he didn't even bother report them. Do you believe him?
> ...



well if a 100 planes disappeared over the black sea, then something happened to them. and should be on record somewhere.

as spoke by Erich Hartmann about kills:

"_When a pilot shot down a plane he would call out over the radio, "Horrido." At this point pilots or ground crew in the area would look about and see if they saw the event. Most often on the eastern front, there were many on hand to see the victim smash into the ground, and thereby make the kill "official." 
A few other things deserve to be mentioned here too...
Shared kills were not individually counted by the pilots involved, but they did count toward the squadron's score as a whole. You won't see a score of 50.5, for example, for a German Ace. 
And, points were awarded depending on the number of engines a plane had that was destroyed. 1 point for a single engine, 2 for a twin, 4 for a four-engined bomber and so on. These points were added up and when a pilot achieved a certain number of points he was awarded a medal (the points required for a given medal was much higher on the eastern front than it was on the western front).
These points are in no way related to a pilot's total score of victories. Bringing down a 4-engined bomber may have gotten a pilot 4 points, but it only got him 1 victory. 
So make no mistake, my (Erich Hartmann's) score of 352 does not refer to engines but 352 individual planes I shot down_."


heres another little tibit spoken by Erich Hartmann:

" *No room for Nazi's *"

"*Hrabak made it a point to explain to the new young pilots that if they thought they were fighting for National Socialism and the Fuhrer they needed to transfer to the Waffen SS or something*"


----------



## Juha (Aug 26, 2011)

Hello Ratsel
I made a simple question, if Pokryshkin said that he shot down over 100 enemy a/c, I checked the number, do you believe him because he said so? You and a few others have wrote that you believe that Hartmann shot down 352 a/c because he said so, so how about Pokryshkin? On the man see for ex Alexander Pokryshkin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and notice, Russians have tried to check what was his real score, so the complains that people tried to check only / doubt only, LW aces’ scores is simply untrue.

Juha


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 26, 2011)

I wouldn't believe Pokryshkin.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 26, 2011)

Why wouldnt you believe Pokryshkin, but beleive hartmann. This might be interesting......


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 26, 2011)

Becouse Hartmann I fought side by side in the summer of 480 BC at the Hot Gates. Pokryshkin asked for a gift of 'earth and water', he promised peace, there was this big fight, never trusted him after that.

Just kidding of course. I would have to see proof that those 100 planes went missing over the black sea. Most of Hartmann's claim are easy to check. notice I didn't say all. =)


----------



## kettbo (Aug 27, 2011)

Ok, have Hartmann's *wingmen been identified and questioned*? I am sure he had 1-3 steady guys he would trust with his arse to cover him over the years. 
I'd bet being one of the top dogs he had someone pretty sharp looking after his 6. 

I'd think anyone overclaiming would be shunned by his peers. All 352 kills really all shot down? Doubt it. But the number has got to be way up there to allow him to stand proud among his peers. I say you're still a bad SOB for even damaging 300 planes or being in a position to shoot at 200


----------



## Juha (Aug 27, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Becouse Hartmann I fought side by side in the summer of 480 BC at the Hot Gates. Pokryshkin asked for a gift of 'earth and water', he promised peace, there was this big fight, never trusted him after that.
> 
> Just kidding of course. I would have to see proof that those 100 planes went missing over the black sea. Most of Hartmann's claim are easy to check. notice I didn't say all. =)



Now if you read my messages more carefully you'll find out that Pokryshkin didn't claim that he shot down 100 a/c over Black Sea but that some of the 100+ planes he shot down were those he shot down while flying alone above Black Sea and he didn't bother wrote combat reports on these cases because he had no witnesses to confirm his claims and so didn't have any chance to get them accepted. And the problem with many Hartmann's claims is that it SEEMS to be that there were not corresponding losses on Soviet side.

To clarify, certain extent of overclaiming was the norm, it got worse during bigger fight with many planes from several units participated. That goes to all AFs but it was a bigger problem in some than in others. But in the end its up to how realistically pilots could see their own actions. One problem is that a good fighter pilot should have strong self-confidence and strong belief on his own abilities. And the accuracy in one's claims did not necessarily correspond with his skills as a fighter pilot. There were excellent fighter pilots with accurate claims as Barkhorn, Rall, Lipfert and Marseille but also excellent fighter pilots whose claim accuracy wasn't as good as those mentioned. Even at least some of those who seemed to have made clearly fraudelent claims were excellent fighter pilots and formation leaders.

Juha


----------



## stona (Aug 27, 2011)

The problem with the fraudulent overclaiming on the side of the Luftwaffe must be related to the reward system. It became established that at certain numbers of victories certain "gongs" would be awarded.
There are many cases of clusters of claims appearing as a pilot approaches such a landmark. This could be entirely coincidental and does not convict anybody of anything but it does raise suspicion.
The German attitude to scoring is also reflected in the points system (not the number of victories) that was operated. 
On the allied side (Western,I am ignorant of Soviet practices) there were not dozens of pilots claiming 40,80,100+ victories.
Evidence at least from RAF pilots suggests that personal competition was somewhat frowned upon and certainly not encouraged.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 27, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Why wouldnt you believe Pokryshkin, but beleive hartmann. This might be interesting......



Do you really have to ask that? It is pretty obvious why.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 27, 2011)

Agreed, but do you think I would let that one past the keeper. Personally, I think both men were exceptional pilots, and quitre decent human beings to boot.


----------



## Wotan (Aug 27, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Most of Hartmann's claim are easy to check.


When was the last time you were TsAMO?


----------



## Juha (Aug 27, 2011)

Hello Stona
there might well be some connection with the German reward system but IMHO the question is more complicated. There was pressure from the members of one’s unit to achieve round figures, 10th, 50th 75th, 100th etc kill. One can also think a fighter unit as a pack of alpha males with whom the number of kills is very important, but not the only one, status symbol. Some are simply more vain than others etc, there can be multiple explanation to fraudulent overclaiming but of course the culture and values played a role in that.

Juha


----------



## stona (Aug 27, 2011)

Juha said:


> Hello Stona
> there might well be some connection with the German reward system but IMHO the question is more complicated. There was pressure from the members of one’s unit to achieve round figures, 10th, 50th 75th, 100th etc kill. One can also think a fighter unit as a pack of alpha males with whom the number of kills is very important, but not the only one, status symbol. Some are simply more vain than others etc, there can be multiple explanation to fraudulent overclaiming but of course the culture and values played a role in that.
> Juha



Hi Juha,I agree. The reward system was just a manifestation of the culture that existed within Luftwaffe units. Your pack metaphor is probably accurate. It stems from an earlier era. When Von Richthofen was a national hero in Germany the British were still agonising over whether to publicly name their successful pilots under intense pressure from the press. The R.F.C. was very much against it. A different culture. 
This culture did not exist on the allied side and,at least in the RAF,was actively discouraged. Air fighting was a cooperative activity. Take a look at the tactics devised by U.S.pilots to counter the agile Japanese fighters. You can't do a Thach weave on your own!
Cheers
Steve


----------



## drgondog (Aug 27, 2011)

I know from my limited sampling of conversations with Rall, Galland and Steinhoff that Hartmann was held in serious respect,

Fighter pilots of all nationalities are brutal on over claiming, self agrandizement, boasting, and losing wingmen/leaders.

I know overclaiming existed but have enough historical perspective the understand hitting an opponent very hard and having to break w/o seeing a wing fall off or a ball of fire - making the call a judgment call.

I know that the USAAF 8th AF Victory Credits Board was pretty hard on claims that were not verified by wingman or film - hence many 'Probable's' which really didn't exist as far as I know in LW awards.

I also know from my own research in a smapling of perhaps 25 major air battles between the LW and 8th AF that the ration of actual LW losses in the category of 100% destroyed as recorded by LW records ranged in the 85-100 percent match BUT that discounts losses that the Bomb groups inflicted! And further many credits awarded for a film confirmation of a crash landing did Not account for the resourcefulness of LW repair capabilities. That was one point of significant deviation between Credit and Claim.


----------



## stona (Aug 27, 2011)

The Luftwaffe never had an efficient salvage and repair system comparable to say the British Civilian Repair Units. Figures published in the Strategic Bombing Survey for aircraft production INCLUDED aircraft repaired after serious damage.
It was another case of too little,too late. It wasn't until March 1944 that the following message was decrypted (ULTRA)

The extraordinarily difficult situation in the air defence of the homeland recquires with all emphasis:
1. The speedy recovery of all fighter and heavy fighter aircraft and their immediate return for repairs.
2. The unrestricted employment of salvage personnel for salvage tasks. Subordinate units are expressly forbidden to employ them for any other purpose.
3. That spare parts be acquired by repair and salvage units by removal from aircraft worth salvaging only in case of absolute necessity.
4. That repair of aircraft in your area be energetically speeded up in order to increase seviceability and to relieve supply.

Aircraft were still expected to be returned,by rail,to major facilities or manufacturers. Much of the above is wishful thinking.
By way of example on August 14th 1944 Luftflotte 3 was down to 75 operational fighters. By early September most of its units were back on German airfields in complete disarray having abandoned vast amounts of materiel,spares,supplies and aircraft.


Cheers
Steve


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 27, 2011)

Juha,

I understood perfectly what you said. Pokryshkin at some point said he shot down 100+ planes over the Black Sea. He was alone, no witnesses, so he didn't bother making a claim for them. I get it. I say BS, unless some record of those missing 100+ planes surfaces.

Hartmann on the otherhand, was almost never alone when he shot down enemy a/c. 

Now, how did the russians mark there a/c as lost? only if it didn't come back? What if the plane made it back but was too damaged to fly again? was it still marked as a writeoff? russian records seem to swing wildly from from extreme to the other.

Stona,
the most productive year for a/c manufature in Germany was 1944... planes they had.


----------



## stona (Aug 27, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Stona,
> the most productive year for a/c manufature in Germany was 1944... planes they had.



It doesn't make the slightest difference how many aircraft you produce if the enemy is destroying them at a higher rate. You will still run out of aircraft.
It is a credit to German production that as late as September 1944 they still had 1600 single engined fighters (less than the 1850 of July). Only 70% were serviceable compared with 85% for July. 
Considering the way that Luftwaffe losses escalated from mid 1942 onwards (between January and June 1944 they lost nearly 3000 fighters!) it's amazing they could field any at all.
Of course the signal I reproduced above might not reflect the desperation of the Luftwaffe to "increase seviceability and to relieve supply". You read it how you like. They were short of aircraft in 1944. Luftflotte 3 could field 75 operational fighters,some of its units had lost 200% of their strength in one month (August 1944). Infact they were short of aircraft throughout the entire war but that's another story.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 27, 2011)

I was looking at the Luftwaffe Strength Report for 12.12.1944 for ten different JG units (West Front) they had around 1500 a/c on hand with 1000 ready to fly. with about 1200 pilots ready to go. I guess agree to disagree. agreed?


----------



## stona (Aug 27, 2011)

Your figures are okay. It's less than a few months previously. They were by now failing to replace aircraft as quickly as they were lost.
In 1944 the German's much vaunted aircraft production total was 36,000,a mere 8,000 more than the Japanese in the same period. The numerical increase over 1943 was an impressive 55.9% but as almost all this production was fighters the actual increase in airframe weight was only 23.9%. It still kept them fighting. To put this in perspective Milch's forecast for 1945 was 80,000 aircraft.
According to a document of 3/11/44,after "Big Week" Galland claimed he only had 250 fighters to meet the next American onslaught and demanded "fighters,fighters,nothing but fighters" from the industrialists and managers present at a meeting chaired by Karl-Otto Sauer (Speer's deputy and head of the "fighter staff").
Cheers
Steve
As an interesting aside the percentage of aircraft lost to non combat causes actually fell in the final months. Some cynics suggest that this was because the allies were shooting the new aircraft down before the inexperienced pilots had a chance to crash them!


----------



## Juha (Aug 27, 2011)

Hello Drgondog
very true but in the most famous case of fraudulent claiming, exposed by other pilots, at Geswader level the only punishment was dispersing the schwarm, all fraudulent claims staying in force. Now, the Schwarm leader died a few days later in an accident during a test fly and we don’t know was it accident, suicide or sabotage, but other tree continued their career without any black marks, one of them becoming a RK traeger later on. 

One other fairly well known case, which SEEMS to had at least some truth in it, again others in the Gruppe got enough leaned hard on X’s wingman who eventually confessed ( after being unable to found wrecks of X’s latest claims which he had confirmed when forced to fly a sortie with an another officer who demanded that the wingman should show the wrecks to him) that X had coerced him to confirm also some false claims. Again, higher up the case was hush-hushed at higher level and somewhat later X got transfer to another unit. But X being a good leader and an excellent fighter pilot at least I don’t know was the transfer because of the claim scandal or simply that someone in OKL decided that X was a right man to his new job.

On those enemy planes which were hit and then crashed but later repaired. I have always think that they are real victories even if they don’t fulfil kill criterions of at least some AFs.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Aug 27, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Juha,
> 
> I understood perfectly what you said. Pokryshkin at some point said he shot down 100+ planes over the Black Sea. He was alone, no witnesses, so he didn't bother making a claim for them. I get it. I say BS, unless some record of those missing 100+ planes surfaces.
> 
> ...


 
Hello Ratsel
Now you clearly don't understand. Once again Pokryshkin claimed that altogether he shot down 100+ planes and SOME OF THOSE were shot down while he flew alone above Black Sea and he didn't bother wrote combat reports on these cases because he had no witnesses to confirm his claims and so didn't have any chance to get them accepted. So he NEVER claimed that he shot down 100+ a/c over Black Sea. he What is so difficult to understand in this.

And if the plane got back even if written off later it didn't fulfil confirmation ctiterions of LW and many other AFs, which demanded that the destruction of the victim was observed by the withness. Soviet docus are not perfect but that goes to docus of all nations. How you explain that Hartmann's claims seems to hit sometimes into those holes in Soviet docus but Barkhorn's, Rall's and Lipfert's not? All flew in same Geschwader. 

Juha


----------



## jim (Aug 27, 2011)

Juha said:


> Hello Drgondog
> very true but in the most famous case of fraudulent claiming, exposed by other pilots, at Geswader level the only punishment was dispersing the schwarm, all fraudulent claims staying in force. Now, the Schwarm leader died a few days later in an accident during a test fly and we don’t know was it accident, suicide or sabotage, but other tree continued their career without any black marks, one of them becoming a RK traeger later on.
> 
> One other fairly well known case, which SEEMS to had at least some truth in it, again others in the Gruppe got enough leaned hard on X’s wingman who eventually confessed ( after being unable to found wrecks of X’s latest claims which he had confirmed when forced to fly a sortie with an another officer who demanded that the wingman should show the wrecks to him) that X had coerced him to confirm also some false claims. Again, higher up the case was hush-hushed at higher level and somewhat later X got transfer to another unit. But X being a good leader and an excellent fighter pilot at least I don’t know was the transfer because of the claim scandal or simply that someone in OKL decided that X was a right man to his new job.
> ...


 
Names please, names.What are you afraid of?


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 27, 2011)

Juha said:


> Hello Ratsel
> Now you clearly don't understand. Once again Pokryshkin claimed that altogether he shot down 100+ planes and SOME OF THOSE were shot down while he flew alone above Black Sea and he didn't bother wrote combat reports on these cases because he had no witnesses to confirm his claims and so didn't have any chance to get them accepted. So he NEVER claimed that he shot down 100+ a/c over Black Sea. he What is so difficult to understand in this.
> 
> And if the plane got back even if written off later it didn't fulfil confirmation ctiterions of LW and many other AFs, which demanded that the destruction of the victim was observed by the withness. Soviet docus are not perfect but that goes to docus of all nations. How you explain that Hartmann's claims seems to hit sometimes into those holes in Soviet docus but Barkhorn's, Rall's and Lipfert's not? All flew in same Geschwader.
> ...


aight.. if he didn't claim them, then he didn't shoot them down. goes for anybody who did the same. see what I posted elsewhere on how Luftwaffe pilots made their claims. agree to disagree. Thanks Juha.


----------



## stona (Aug 27, 2011)

The 4./JG 27 schwarm of cheats was composed of Vogel, Sawallisch, Bendert and Stigler.
They aroused suspicion with their high rate of claiming at a time when the British had retreated to El Alamein and RAF activity was very low. Experienced men like Sinner and Boerngen already had their doubts.They were caught when another experienced hand,"Fifi" Stahlschmitt of 2./JG 27,saw them strafing sand dunes only to return and make claims. 
Steve

Edit. Bendert ended up with the RK.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 27, 2011)

Yeah.. JG 27 had some characters.. what do you think of Bartels claims/kills?


----------



## Tante Ju (Aug 27, 2011)

stona said:


> The Luftwaffe never had an efficient salvage and repair system comparable to say the British Civilian Repair Units.



I do not think there was special about British Civillian Repair Units. What was different from German - damaged planes were collected, sent to private owned factories, repaired, sent back to front. German system was the same. I think there is much hype about BBritish Civillian repair, probably due author of Battle of Britain emphasize it always how important it was for English survival. It was, but it does not make it special.

German after all never seem to lack planes, or tank. By 1945, they had more plane than ever. Ironic, is not it?


----------



## parsifal (Aug 27, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> aight.. if he didn't claim them, then he didn't shoot them down. goes for anybody who did the same. see what I posted elsewhere on how Luftwaffe pilots made their claims. agree to disagree. Thanks Juha.



One of the issues being examined is exactly whether the "rate" of overclaiming was the same for all nationalities. With awards and benefits associated with German claims, and no real action taken even if caught, and at times no real adherence to the confirmation system, (indeed some individuals like Marseilles encouraged and allowed to overclaim on an institutional basis), some here are arguing that the germans had greater motive and opportunity to cheat than anybody. 

Mind you, Russians too received rewards for claims that they logged. However, there were greater rewards for group claims....claims not attached to any individual bu to the unit. The most common reward was to be designated a guards unit, which carried with it better pay, better equipment and a lot of prestige. There were rewards for individual achievement as well, though not as marked as was the case for the german flyers. A man that received a decoration, could also expect some financial reward, though usualy the amount was pretty modest, even by Russian standards


----------



## parsifal (Aug 27, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> I do not think there was special about British Civillian Repair Units. What was different from German - damaged planes were collected, sent to private owned factories, repaired, sent back to front. German system was the same. I think there is much hype about BBritish Civillian repair, probably due author of Battle of Britain emphasize it always how important it was for English survival. It was, but it does not make it special.
> 
> German after all never seem to lack planes, or tank. By 1945, they had more plane than ever. Ironic, is not it?




i dont know if the British salvage system was especially efficient, or the german especially innefficient, but there is strong evidence to suggest a much higher write off rate in the luftwaffe than in Allied air forces. As an example, JG11 in 1943 suffered a 250% loss rate from all causes, and about 150% due to post action scrappings and non-combat losses. At the same time Allied units were suffering about a 100% loss rate from all causes per annum. That means the overall loss rate for the LW unit was about 2.5 times greater than a typical allied unit, and most of these units were dropping out of commission as scrapped units rather than wrecked units. 

I suspect the high loss rate has something to do with the heavy demands placed on LW units, but even so, a hell of a lot of crippled birds were not returning to service, and the ULTRA intercept posted by Stona gives some indication of this. 

Germany was never really short of planes, is true to a degree. They were unable to greatly expand on their frontline forces, because to maintain an adequate reserve, and keep existing units up to strength meant there were not enough resources to put into other arms, like bombers and trainers. there were never enough trainers, and because of this (along with other reasons) the germans were always short of pilots as well.

So it is only partially true what you are saying. They could keep the numbers of fighters up to strength, but they had to virtually abandon production of all other types to do that. In the end, that shortcut caught up with the LW in a very nasty way


----------



## stona (Aug 27, 2011)

The Luftwaffe did lack aircraft towards the end. In the simplest terms the allies were destroying more than they could produce. They never really had enough aircraft. They embarked on "Barbarossa" with 4,882 aircraft which is very similar to the amount,4,782, that they had about a year earlier in May 1940 when they were about to start and subsequently lose the Battle of Britain. This despite much heavier commitments in several theatres.
The Luftwaffe repair system was very inefficient and unwieldy,here is a schematic. Too many arrows.







The British system was more streamlined and major repairs could be carried out on bases by civilians. It was also much easier to get a badly damaged airframe from a base in the South of England to say Cowley (Oxford) than from Abbeville to Munich.
As of 24/6/40 de Havilland started converting all Spitfires,Hurricanes and Defiants in service to accept a constant speed unit.
De Havilland manufactured the relevant parts,including those to adapt the Merlin engine to drive the hydraulic pump. It was deemed more important that Rolls Royce themselves concentrated on building Merlins. They did not need to change the propeller blades but did have to increase their pitch range. The time allowed to convert a squadron was ten days and in less than a month,by 20/7/40,all Spitfire squadrons had been converted.
On 16/8/40 every Spitfire and Hurricane in service,over 1000 aircraft,had been converted. Much of this work was carried out by civilians trained by de Havilland. I don't believe that the Luftwaffe would have been capable of such a project in 1940 or any other time during the war.

Late in the war the massive production of aircraft by the allies,something planned for years in advance,which Germany never did,meant that a Spitfire or Mustang badly damaged during Bodenplatte could be bull dozed off the runway and replaced with a brand new one in days. There was no need to repair it and in some cases salvageable parts were not retrieved. The Luftwaffe could not do this.
Simplistically it's why they lost the war and we won.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## stona (Aug 27, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Yeah.. JG 27 had some characters.. what do you think of Bartels claims/kills?



I've never seen any evidence that Bartels made a fraudulent claim. I don't know what his actual tally was,I've not compared or seen it compared, to losses and I think I've already made it clear what a fruitless excercise I find that to be. There are just too many holes in the available evidence.
He ended up with an official tally of 99 IIRC,which makes him a fine combat pilot.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 27, 2011)

stona said:


> I've never seen any evidence that Bartels made a fraudulent claim. I don't know what his actual tally was,I've not compared or seen it compared, to losses and I think I've already made it clear what a fruitless excercise I find that to be. There are just too many holes in the available evidence.
> He ended up with an official tally of 99 IIRC,which makes him a fine combat pilot.
> Cheers
> Steve


times/dates/location/aircraft shotdown here: Aces of the Luftwaffe - Heinrich Bartels I think you'll find everything crosschecks.

as far as 'holes' in the evidence, maybe after Nov./44 when RLM stopped confirming claims.

_Yammas_


----------



## Juha (Aug 27, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> aight.. if he didn't claim them, then he didn't shoot them down. goes for anybody who did the same. see what I posted elsewhere on how Luftwaffe pilots made their claims. agree to disagree. Thanks Juha.



Yes, we seem to disagree. IMHO claiming is not 1 to 1 with shoot downs, there are many well known cases from several AFs when one shot down an enemy plane but didn't bother to make a claim because he knew that the claim wouldn't be accepted because of lack of withnesses. And there are many more cases when claims were made and accepted as confirmed even if there were no corresponding losses. And I know the LW system of making claims and their confirmation system, thank you.

On LW claims, they tended to be fairly accurate, in early war years more accurate than those of RAF but RAF, which were well aware on its pilots overclaiming by ULTRA, became stricker with confirmations later on and during later part of the war RAF system seems to have been fairly good. On the other hand later in the war there seems to be lapses in the LW system, claims which by little work on ground would have found to be clearly inflated were anyway accepted. But generally IMHO LW confirmation system remained fairly accurate until it was run down. And IMHO LW claim accuracy in the East was better than that of VVS but there seems to have been fairly bad problems with at least JG 5 after mid 42 or sometimes after that, in L41 LW claim accuracy in the North was at more or less normal LW level.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Aug 27, 2011)

jim said:


> Names please, names.What are you afraid of?



Hello JIm
Stona already gave names of Sawallisch schwarm, the other case also is not that big secret, if you seriously research on LW in the eastern front during the later part of the war you will be able to identify pilot X.

Juha


----------



## stona (Aug 27, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> times/dates/location/aircraft shotdown here: Aces of the Luftwaffe - Heinrich Bartels I think you'll find everything crosschecks.
> as far as 'holes' in the evidence, maybe after Nov./44 when RLM stopped confirming claims.
> _Yammas_



Hi Ratsel I meant cross referenced with allied losses,so not just "Spitfire" but its unit,pilot serial number etc.
It may have been done but I've not seen it. I'm not that interested in the numbers for individual pilots,exceptional airmen though they were. I'm more interested in the big picture from which we have more to learn.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Juha (Aug 27, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> times/dates/location/aircraft shotdown here: Aces of the Luftwaffe - Heinrich Bartels I think you'll find everything crosschecks.
> 
> as far as 'holes' in the evidence, maybe after Nov./44 when RLM stopped confirming claims.
> 
> _Yammas_


In fact one sees in the table that nothing is crosschecked on Bartels case, see for ex Wutz Galland Aces of the Luftwaffe - Wilhelm-Ferdinand Galland as an example when there are some crosschecking made.

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Aug 27, 2011)

stona said:


> It doesn't make the slightest difference how many aircraft you produce if the enemy is destroying them at a higher rate. You will still run out of aircraft.
> It is a credit to German production that as late as September 1944 they still had 1600 single engined fighters (less than the 1850 of July). Only 70% were serviceable compared with 85% for July.
> Considering the way that Luftwaffe losses escalated from mid 1942 onwards (between January and June 1944 they lost nearly 3000 fighters!) it's amazing they could field any at all.
> Of course the signal I reproduced above might not reflect the desperation of the Luftwaffe to "increase seviceability and to relieve supply". You read it how you like. They were short of aircraft in 1944. Luftflotte 3 could field 75 operational fighters,some of its units had lost 200% of their strength in one month (August 1944). Infact they were short of aircraft throughout the entire war but that's another story.
> ...



Steve - true but you have to reflect that so much of LuftFlotte Reich was deployed to eastern France/Belgium and Holland during the Normandy Campaign - and weren't pulled back until August/September 1944.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 27, 2011)

Juha said:


> In fact one sees in the table that nothing is crosschecked on Bartels case, see for ex Wutz Galland Aces of the Luftwaffe - Wilhelm-Ferdinand Galland as an example when there are some crosschecking made.
> 
> Juha


Great example.


----------



## Maximowitz (Aug 27, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Great example. however for Bartels I should have said if somebody wants to crosscheck the claims. or should I? yes I think I should.



Somebody has done some investigation already. Some interesting thoughts in that thread - I remain however open minded.

Severe Overclaimers Vs. Reliable Claimers List - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum


----------



## stona (Aug 27, 2011)

drgondog said:


> Steve - true but you have to reflect that so much of LuftFlotte Reich was deployed to eastern France/Belgium and Holland during the Normandy Campaign - and weren't pulled back until August/September 1944.



Yes,and it took a battering. In August 1944 Luftflotte Reich lost 375 Bf109s and Fw190s nearly 20% of its establishment in one month.
We need to put this "the luftwaffe was never short of fighters" thing to bed.

Increases in German aircraft production,no matter how impressive on a graph or bar chart were ineffective since,in relation to allied industrial efforts,they were falling further and further behind. The impact of the air war on the German force structure was such that rising attrition cancelled out increased production. In May 1940 the Luftwaffe had 1,369 fighters and 1,758 bombers. Three and a half years later,in January 1944,it had 1,561 fighters and 1,604 bombers.
The loss rate was such that increased German production was NEVER able to maintain frontline squadrons at their full authorised strength. The trend from 1942 onwards,with fluctuations in the percentage,was always downwards.
Add to this the attrition of aircrew and eventually the collapse of fuel supplies and it is evident why the luftwaffe was effectively defeated by September/October 1944. Frankly it's amazing that they carried on for as long as they did.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 27, 2011)

Maximowitz said:


> Somebody has done some investigation already. Some interesting thoughts in that thread - I remain however open minded.
> 
> Severe Overclaimers Vs. Reliable Claimers List - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum



ahhh yes, Mr. Rob Romero, basing some (or all) of his research on the finding of Dimitri Khazanov. That should tell you something right there.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 27, 2011)

4-24-44 is probably one specific example of overclaiming by Bartels , et al. In addition to these victory credits there are two more in Tony Woods list for the Munich area on 24 April 1944. The USAAF in fact lost two Mustangs (357FG) to mid-air collisions with their Me 110 victims, two Mustangs east of Munich (NE Erding/SW Landshut plus NeuMarkdt-Sangt Viet near Muhldorf/Simbach) 1 near Taufkirchen (S Munich) and and 1 at Lake Wessling west Munich. Net four of 11 Mustang credits plus a bogus (or mis identified P-47 in exactly the same area two hours later 

Neumarkdt-Sangt Viet might match up w/ Zeller 9./JG26 (W Simbach) or Bartels (10km w Muhldorf but 10km west Muhldorf is 20 km sw of Neumarkdt-Sangt Viet and more closely matches "W. Simbach"for Zeller award than Bartels). NE Erding/sw Landshut might match up w/Ayerle (12./JG26), Taukirchen might match up with Rabenstein 10./JG27 (1Km SE Munich) or Mueller 2./JG301, and Lake Wessling - no idea unless it is close to Steiner Zee (which I couldn't fight on the map.

Point - Bartels claimed three P-51s withing a 20 mile radius where only one went down. The LW claimed 11 P-51s when only four were shot down by Me 109s and two were downed in mid air collisions for which Me 109s were nowhere close or in escort - both SE of Landhut.

Ergo - Dahl, Bartels and Steigler were awarded four additional P-51s in locations and times that do not match any crash site in the KJ reports. The first Mustang down were the 357FG pair that hit Me 110s ne Erding at ~ 1340. The next one was a Mustang about 10 minutes later as the bombers turned south of Erding for lower corner of se Munich... that almost certainly was Ayerle. Then one went down in Muhldorf/Simbach/Waldkraiburg triangle (Neumarkdt-Sangt Viet) ~1400, then one between Munich and Holzerkirchen at 1405 (s or se of Munich) the last one at 1415 between Landsberg and Munich (Lake Wessling). Most specifically two of Bartels awards could not reasonably be valid based on time and location, ditto Dahl and likely not Stigler. 

Make your own judgment - and BTW one P-47 was claimed by Barr of 2./JG106 near Landshut at 1535, two hours after the battle, and 200 miles east of any P-47 range possible - all of which turned back near Mannhein/Stuttgart at 1215. 

According to Woods these are the "official P-51 Credits" awarded in Munich area Me 109 pilots between 1315 and 1430 on April 24. Additionally there are 3 more P-51 credits per Prien's history of the JG27 unit.

4/24/1944	Uffz.	Joachim	Zeller	9	JG 26	P-51	CF-89: 500-7000m [W. Simbach]
4/24/1944	Uffz.	Hermann	Ayerle	12	JG 26	P-51	CD: NNE München
4/24/1944	Ltn.	Otto	Engel	11	JG 27	P-51	-
4/24/1944	Fw.	Heinrich	Bartels	11	JG 27	P-51	10km W. Mühldorf: 4500m
4/24/1944	Fw.	Heinrich	Bartels	11	JG 27	P-51	10km W. Mühldorf: 5000m
4/24/1944	Fw.	Walter	Rabenstein	10	JG 27	P-51	DD-25: 100m [1km SE München]
4/24/1944	Fw.	Heinrich	Bartels	11	JG 27	P-51	N. Waldkraiburg
4/24/1944	Ltn.	Franz	Stigler	11	JG 27	P-51	-
4/24/1944	Ofhr.	Michael	Frasch	1	JG 3	P-51	bei Augsburg: 6000m
4/24/1944	Major	Walter	Dahl	Stab III.	JG 3	P-51	Raum München: 6500m
4/24/1944	Ofw.	Hans	Müller	2	JG 301	P-51	Ebersberg


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 27, 2011)

drgondog said:


> Point - Bartels claimed three P-51s withing a 20 mile radius where only one went down. The LW claimed 11 P-51s when only four were shot down by Me 109s and two were downed in mid air collisions for which Me 109s were nowhere close or in escort - both SE of Landhut.


point - perhaps Mr.Bartels hit those other two Mustangs, seen them smoking, and made a call that he got them. Just a guess. What happened to those two suposed P-51 claims? They returned to base I assume.. did they ever fly again? How many P-51's were damaged that day? Just curious.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 27, 2011)

They were eithernot hit, or hit and escaped to be shot down by one of the other awardees, or he downed them in a location that was in gross error to his reporting. What is baffling is that with only four wreck sites - what judgment was used for 7 (8 including a P-47 which could never be found because it could never fly that far) credits more than wreck sites and KJ Reports?

There are no Battle Damage reports for April 24 for the 355th and 357th FG - which were the two escort groups taking the 1st BD from Augsburg past Munich and around to Oberphaffenhofen/Landsberg and up to Hildesheim. According to Caldwell and Prien there were ~ 250 s/e fighters deployed to attack around Munich. 

Ergo, none were hit and returned as 'limp off's'.. either no damage or shot down. Additionally the 355th and 357th lost one Mustang each between Stittgart and Bingen to flak while strafing on the way home.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 27, 2011)

what references are you using for those lost/damage/locations for the P-51's you've listed? thanks.


----------



## stona (Aug 27, 2011)

The debate you are having is typical and sort of proves my point 
Steve


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Aug 27, 2011)

I think that you should check the German figures, before airily dismissing the British repair organisation. From June to December 1940, 1802 new Hurricanes were produced, and 752 were repaired; in the same time 987 Spitfires were produced, and 470 repaired. How many 109s 110s were repaired, and put back into service, during those same months? I don't know, and would like to know.
Edgar


----------



## Juha (Aug 27, 2011)

On Bartels
I hazely recall reading somewhere that he wasn't a most accurate claimer and cleraly there seems to be problem with his 15 Nov 43 claims on P-38s see http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/november-15-1943-p-38-afficiandos-618.html

Juha


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 27, 2011)

again, zero proof to discredit Bartels claims.. Still waiting on drgondog's USAAF source. =)


----------



## Juha (Aug 27, 2011)

A bit OT
but here has been some talks on JG 5 pilots, if you want to see a LW veteran who operated up north see: Karl Fritz Schlossstein vieraili Suomessa - Ilta-Sanomat

At first there is a commercial, then the proper program began, mostly in Finnish but if you are patient you’ll hear also short segments of Schlossstein’s answers in German.

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Aug 27, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> what references are you using for those lost/damage/locations for the P-51's you've listed? thanks.


 
MACRs for 8th AF losses, KJ reports for crash locations, Tony Woods Lists for LW awards, 357 and 355FG Battle Damage Reports for April 24


----------



## claidemore (Aug 27, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> again, zero proof to discredit Bartels claims.. Still waiting on drgondog's USAAF source. =)



Why do you need proof to discredit Bartels claims? You don't seem to need proof to discredit Pokryshkins solo kills, which he didn't even officially claim. If Bartel has claims that can't be substantiated, and you believe him, then you also have to believe Pokryshkins claims.


----------



## Juha (Aug 28, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> again, zero proof to discredit Bartels claims.. Still waiting on drgondog's USAAF source. =)



Hello Ratsel
interesting conclusion, if 82nd FG didn’t loss any P-38s and 1st FG lost only one on 15 Nov 43 , see: ms4311a and 1st FG lost only 2 P-38s in combat during the whole Nov 43, see: Untitled Document 
from which units were the 14 P-38s claimed by IV./JG 27 on 15 Nov 43? After all we don’t even know if the only known P-38 loss on that day was caused by IV./JG 27.

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Aug 28, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> again, zero proof to discredit Bartels claims.. Still waiting on drgondog's USAAF source. =)



Ratsel - here is an example of my research on 355th Losses. I have the same on the 357th FG but invite you to do your own research on topics such as this?

44-04-24	Norman,Lt.Robert	KIA	Crashed at ~ 1400 at Sankt-Wolfgand near Walkraiburg, 24 mi ESE of Munich. Macr states OSR but pic shows OSG 
357FS	OSG 42-106433	OPS 
MACR 4320	UNK-A	MACR 4320,J.Hey,LW Rpt J-937, Whitten L

Hillman,2Lt.Howard	KIA	Crash site near Taufkirchen Vils, S Munich ~ 20 mi from Norman.
357FS	OSC 43-7103	OPS-EA 
MACR 4317	UNK-A	LW Rpt J-956 and 884 Whitten Letter

Demers,Lt.Raymond	KIA	Lost wing diving on barge ~1420 near Bingen/Rhein River. Macr states OSG, pic shows OSR
357FS	OSR 42-106723	OPS 
MACR 4321	STRCT	MACR 4321, King report. Whitten Letter

Sturm,2Lt.Jack	POW	Shot down by 109 E.Lake Wessling @ 1400-1415 ~20mi SW Munich. Flying Yellow 3 and last seen about 1330 NE Munich. Probably downed by Stiegler - 11/JG27
357FS	OSN 43-7140	OPS 
MACR 4318	AIR	MACR 4318.LW Rpt J-934. Whitten Letter


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 28, 2011)

15.11.43 Fw. Heinrich Bartels: 67 11./JG 27 P-38 S.E. Kalamáki: 4.000 m. 13.10 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr.4

15.11.43 Fw. Heinrich Bartels: 68 11./JG 27 P-38 S.E. Kalamáki: 4.000 m. 13.10 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr.5

15.11.43 Fw. Heinrich Bartels: 69 11./JG 27 P-38 S.E. Kalamáki: 3.500 m. 13.11 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr.6

15.11.43 Fw. Heinrich Bartels: 70 11./JG 27 P-38 S.E. Kalamáki: 3.500 m. 13.12 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr.7

_'According to the history of the 1st FG, on Nov. 15th, 1943 the group flew escort for some B-24s attacking the Athens area. One pilot is listed as missing though the cause for his loss isn't covered. *Though there may have been some P-38's on the date that may have been wrecked as total CAT E damaged/destroyed that were not mentioned in the diaries*.

XII Air Support Command B-25s attack Athens/Kalamaki Airdrome. Also, while Fifteenth Air Force B-24s attack the Athens/Eleusis Airdrome at about 1300 hours, P-38 escorts from the 82nd Fighter Group stave off attacks by GAF fighters, damaging six and downing an FW 190 and a Ju 87.

*No mention is made of USAAF losses but the info contained in this reference is obviously incomplete, as no mention at all is made of 1st FG activity on this date*_.'

conclusion: how does one make sence of incomplete, inaccurate, Allied documents? Well, looking at Luftwaffe diaries is a good start.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 28, 2011)

i have not studdied these documents at all, but the extracts you have posted look to me to be reasonable. "Some P-38s ,ay have been wrecked on the date as total CAT E damaged and destroyed" Might be referring to aircraft removed from group control and scrapped or otherwise removed from squadron controil. It in no way supports the notion that the aircraft were destroyed by enemy action.

With regard to your second bolded statement, perhaps ther was no 1FG activity on that day l


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 28, 2011)

My friend, its been established that 1FG flown missions that day and recorded one lost pilot. If you look in some Allied docs., there seems to be many aircraft that disapeared w/o explanation and/or junked w/o reasoning. 8th,12th airforce etc.


----------



## Erich (Aug 28, 2011)

I own a copy of the US 82nd fg history and it states just for the record 1 Ju 87 destroyed, 5 Me 109's damaged, 1 Fw 190 damged (from what unit who knows). US losses over Greece were only 1 B-25. so for the record there were NO P-38's lost on the 15th of November, this is a statement made in the 82nd fg history for all US 15th AF units.

I have found this in general for possible claims but non confirmation for all S/E LW fg's in any theater, Bartel's, Marseille and other top aces are no exception, I will just give it to the quickness and chaos of turns, overshooting, battle nervousness and not being able to follow victims to the ground.

like I said nothing is foolproof until you get both sides accurately drawn up, Bill knows that with his own re-do of the 355th fg book we have corresponded at some length about US to LW losses and claims and of course very interesting topic of discussions have come up even on this site the past 2-3 years. again I point out and will just admit I am trying to place accurate info on the JG 301 book by Reschke as there was no positive cross-checking of US bomber/fighter formations encountered in fact we have dates that do not even correspond with US activity over the Reich in which claims of destruction both fighter and bomber are made


----------



## Juha (Aug 28, 2011)

Hello Ratsel
really, as Erich wrote, he had not find any 82nd FG losses from unit history. And as you know, LW confirmation criteria demanded observed destruction of the enemy a/c. So what happed to the 13 P-38 pilots?

On your 1st quote, the first part of it is identical to Lightning Guy message on 01-24-2005, but from where is the last part of it, that written on bold letters?

The second quote is from Hammel’s 'Air War Europa Chronology 1942-1945' for 15 November 1943”, it doesn’t usually give USAAF losses, that is its weak point, but that isn’t problem with docus but with Hammel’s way to write his book.

Have you tried to find out the MARCs or how you have come to conclusion that Allied docus are inaccurate and incomplete in this case? Did Germans recover P-38 wrecks or how else would LW diaries help to find out USAAF real losses?

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Aug 28, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> My friend, its been established that 1FG flown missions that day and recorded one lost pilot. If you look in some Allied docs., there seems to be many aircraft that disapeared w/o explanation and/or junked w/o reasoning. 8th,12th airforce etc.



The 8th AF meticulously recorded lost (DNR), Damaged, Salvaged in Every Mission Summary Report which was a consolidated roll up from each Fighter and Bomber Group Daily Mission Summary. Whether 'with or w/o reasoning' per your definition, the category of damage was defined and followed as well as meticulous coding of the type of damage.

Disappearing without explanation? Yes - many of which are identified and cross referenced by LW KU and KJ Reports - and attached to the Missing Aircrew Report folder


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 28, 2011)

Juha,

dunno. just quoting what I found. The 1st Fighter Group became part of the newly-created Fifteenth Air Force after November/43.. so maybe the answer is there.


----------



## Erich (Aug 28, 2011)

so am assuming you do not have their history then ? I do not but feel confident what I just posted. again this is nothing new what appearance show in the heat of battle for both sides a huge problem is the lack of gun cameras fitted to even the LW aces A/C and only going by their private words and if a wingman was in the area.

what source(s0 are you using for the 1st fg Ratsel ? am assuming also you are using Priens LW history volume on III./IV./JG 27 for your response or Woods Freiburg listing which has some big inaccuracies and I can name a huge one for JG 301 as an example 56 kills on 26 November 1944 when we know they had a total of 21 B-24's confirmed by US sources 491st with 16 and the 445th with 5 plus a possibility of 1-2 Mustangs. Bill of course and I have talked till we are tired of talking of this mission but there are still many unanswered questions .............. this is on old but quite informative posts on this very forum


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 28, 2011)

Erich,

For JG 27 reference I always refer to _JAGDGESCHWADER 27 Die Dokumentation uber den Einsatz an allen Fronten 1939 - 1945, Hans Ring Werner Girbigs _(Excellent book by the way), and to some extent_ Priens volume III./IV./JG 27_. Also, as aways _Woods Website _( even with some errors). As far as sources for the 1st/FG well, thats a bit more difficult. Seems the 15th/AF holds the key to that. So anybody who wants to chime in with 12th 15th airforce information would be greatly appreciated. For that matter, any information on all the Various P-38 fighter groups that could have been operating in the area. I sincerely believe Bartels shot down the four P-38s on 15.11.43, its just a matter of finding which P-38s.


----------



## stona (Aug 28, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> I sincerely believe Bartels shot down the four P-38s on 15.11.43, its just a matter of finding which P-38s.



Good luck! I've wasted far to much time and effort over the last twenty five years on this sort of thing.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Readie (Aug 28, 2011)

stona said:


> Good luck! I've wasted far to much time and effort over the last twenty five years on this sort of thing.
> Cheers
> Steve



True, Steve, We seem to agree that Hartmann was an Ace in every sense of the word. The information provided in this thread is amazing.
Cheers
John


----------



## Erich (Aug 28, 2011)

try working both sides system for over 45 years, not as impossible as it seems as there is much more the last 10 years available than ever before.

Ratsel. Girbig's book is too breif get Priens/Stemmer's work it far surpasses it and digs just into the two gruppen on JG 27 I mentioned I have the whole set as well as JG 1/11 most of JG 3. Sturmgruppen volumes by E. Mombeek which is primarily JG 4 and strumstaffel, etc................there are of course others obtained over too many years.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 28, 2011)

45 years....youve been at this awhile then Erich.....well done


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 28, 2011)

Erich,

I'll keep an eye on that book. I'm currently working on a colour profile of WNr.13 0359 based on some other Gruppe IV G-10's.

found this:

' _447th BS War Diary: 14 planes scheduled to participate in a raid over ATHENS. All 
planes returned early, failed to rendezvous with fighters. Photo Freddie back again today 
(1030). He should have gotten some good shots as all planes were lined up at end of 
runway ready for take-off. Telegram on Bulletin Board which was sent from Wing: TO:_. ' 

so the question: what happened to the fighters?


----------



## drgondog (Aug 29, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Erich,
> 
> For JG 27 reference I always refer to _JAGDGESCHWADER 27 Die Dokumentation uber den Einsatz an allen Fronten 1939 - 1945, Hans Ring Werner Girbigs _(Excellent book by the way), and to some extent_ Priens volume III./IV./JG 27_. Also, as aways _Woods Website _( even with some errors). As far as sources for the 1st/FG well, thats a bit more difficult. Seems the 15th/AF holds the key to that. So anybody who wants to chime in with 12th 15th airforce information would be greatly appreciated. For that matter, any information on all the Various P-38 fighter groups that could have been operating in the area. I sincerely believe Bartels shot down the four P-38s on 15.11.43, its just a matter of finding which P-38s.



For these dates you need 12th AF records. 12th AF Fighter Command didn't become 15th AF until spring 1944

Ratsel for a belief system to be supported when research on Credits to claims, you should suspend belief until all the facts support your conclusions? Have you done any research on MACR's for November 15th?


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 29, 2011)

well the quote in post #383 was taken from the 12th/AF History diaries dated 15.11.43. The fighter escorts failed to rendezvous. Ergo, something happened to those P-38's. If you know more by all means please post what you know.


----------



## Erich (Aug 29, 2011)

Bill and I have both used this before footnote.com was available for macr's listing(s)

go to: U.S. Army Air Forces of World War II > Home and check their database out. you can click in the date start and ending of an operation and the US losses/macr's will be listed for the most part. essential if you want to see and at least start on the research hunt


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 29, 2011)

yep, according to the site no 1st/FG P-38s were anywhere near Kalamaki. The search continues.


----------



## Erich (Aug 29, 2011)

and since the thread is essentially about Herr Hartmann it might be interesting to find if listed the MACR's of those P-51's he has claimed to have shot down.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 29, 2011)

yep would be interesting to know. Prauge he shot down two and Ploesti he shot down three (according to Hartmann). As far as Bartels in Kalamaki it had to be 15th/AF P-38s that he shot down on 15.11.43.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 29, 2011)

Is it possible the germans misidentified the aircraft over Kalamakis on that day....perhaps they werent P-38s at all?


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 29, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Is it possible the germans misidentified the aircraft over Kalamakis on that day....perhaps they werent P-38s at all?


Anything is possible, adrenlene going, furious pace, four in two minutes he had to have snuck up on them... Otherwise I dunno what it could be mistaken for.... Beaufighter perhaps? Not that I have any basis for comparison but when I play IL-2 I'm pretty good at ID'ing a plane fairly fast. I'm sure the Germans were much better.


edit:

before it gets out of hand... I KNOW computer games are different then real life. so no hate mail please...


----------



## marshall (Aug 29, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Anything is possible, adrenlene going, furious pace, four in two minutes he had to have snuck up on them... Otherwise I dunno what it could be mistaken for.... Beaufighter perhaps? Not that I have any basis for comparison but when I play IL-2 I'm pretty good at ID'ing a plane fairly fast. I'm sure the Germans were much better.



I wouldn't be comparing computer game to real life.

While reading much about ww2 air combat I had the impression that identification of enemy planes during the war was quite a big problem. Friendly fire incidents, claming non existing aircrafts or some prototypes, general overclaiming, it seems that fighter pilots were rather a poor source of information.


----------



## stona (Aug 29, 2011)

The doctrine in all airforces was that fighters should always identify enemy aircraft before engaging them. Aircraft recognition was treated very seriously.
Early in the war a court of enquiry in Scotland which was investigating "friendly" fire incidents ruled that bombers and coastal command aircraft returning to Britain must identify themselves to fighters. Dowding's response on 21 January 1940 was "This is an intolerable doctrine and I am surprised that responsible officers should have set their names to it. Fighters must always be sure that their target is an enemy before opening fire."
The onus was on pilots to identify the aircraft they were seeking to engage. I think it is unbelievable that Luftwaffe pilots would mis-identify P-38s,which are distinctive looking aircraft, as some other type.
There were of course mistakes. Friendly fire incidents still happen today with all the technological assistance available.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## marshall (Aug 29, 2011)

stona said:


> I think it is unbelievable that Luftwaffe pilots would mis-identify P-38s,which are distinctive looking aircraft, as some other type.



Yes, P-38 is a special case. Though when I think about events like "Battle of Barking Creek" I have the impression that identification wasn't easy.


----------



## stona (Aug 29, 2011)

The battle of Barking Creek happened days after the beginning of the war,for the British. It was a result of several unfortunate failings and factors. The air defence system hadn't yet been tested "for real" and the nation was gripped by a slight hysteria to which the young pilots were not immune. All of 56 Sqn. along with elements of four other squadrons were scrambled in what can kindly be described as an over enthusiastic reaction to a perceived threat. Most of these men had never seen a Luftwaffe aircraft. It was a disaster waiting to happen,not that this would be any consolation for the unfortunate P/O Hulton-Harrop.








Air to air incidents were much less common than cases of anti aircraft units opening fire on just about anything that flew over them. It's one of the few things I've ever heard the formidable ladies of the A.T.A. complain about. They had to fly within sight of the ground and then they got shot at!
Cheers
Steve


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 30, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Anything is possible, adrenlene going, furious pace, four in two minutes he had to have snuck up on them... Otherwise I dunno what it could be mistaken for.... Beaufighter perhaps? Not that I have any basis for comparison but when I play IL-2 I'm pretty good at ID'ing a plane fairly fast. I'm sure the Germans were much better.
> 
> 
> edit:
> ...



Perhaps if the computer game started firing back at you then you might have more of a problem


----------



## Readie (Aug 30, 2011)

fastmongrel said:


> Perhaps if the computer game started firing back at you ...QUOTE]
> 
> I'm sure that's planned into the next generation of computer games.
> Shades of Total Recall perhaps?
> ...


----------



## Maximowitz (Aug 30, 2011)

For those interested there's some nice info and photos pertaining to Bartels over on the 12 O' Clock High Forum..


----------



## Kryten (Aug 30, 2011)

I think I see where Ratsels 109 obsession comes from , I also play Il2 online, it's good fun but should be taken with a huge dose of salt as to flight models and especially damage modelling!

It's actually easier to ID a real plane than it is in the game due to pixelation, however, sitting in your house with a beer one side and a bag of crisps the other battling your mates creates zero fear or anxiety, I can easily see how a blue on blue could happen, whilst i was an aircraft recognition instructor in the army I had to mark numerous exams where people mistook such diverse aircraft as a Foxbat and a Tomcat, I can only sympathise with the guys who had to do it whilst flying an aircraft with not exactly brilliant visibility, holding station with your wingman, the gnawing anxiety of watching your tail and thats wthout G force throwing you about inside the plane!
I often am thankfull I was not one of that generation!


----------



## parsifal (Aug 30, 2011)

IMO the most well known misidentification that I can think of was Sakai over guadacanal. Mistook a group of TBFs for SBDS. They bunched, he thought they had not seen him. He attacked the "SBDs" from their weak spot, below and from behind, received a nasty shock when he saw the underside ball turrets open on him. That mistake almost cost him his life


----------



## parsifal (Aug 30, 2011)

Kryten said:


> I think I see where Ratsels 109 obsession comes from , I also play Il2 online, it's good fun but should be taken with a huge dose of salt as to flight models and especially damage modelling!
> 
> It's actually easier to ID a real plane than it is in the game due to pixelation, however, sitting in your house with a beer one side and a bag of crisps the other battling your mates creates zero fear or anxiety, I can easily see how a blue on blue could happen, whilst i was an aircraft recognition instructor in the army I had to mark numerous exams where people mistook such diverse aircraft as a Foxbat and a Tomcat, I can only sympathise with the guys who had to do it whilst flying an aircraft with not exactly brilliant visibility, holding station with your wingman, the gnawing anxiety of watching your tail and thats wthout G force throwing you about inside the plane!
> I often am thankfull I was not one of that generation!



To be fair, Simulations are how battle plans and tactics training are worked out in peacetime....how to react to a given situation. A simulation is only as good as the variables put into it, and the trouble is, there are so many 14 YOs brought up on the myths of german invincibility that if game designers tried to put in realism based on historical known constants, the game would be branded as "unrealistic" and would fail commercially.

Years ago, I had a friend who would participate every year in sand table exercises at Australias national wargaming conventions. Sort of similar to the US "Origins" expo held every four years or so (I think). Bit like the Olympics of wargaming. Basically you get points to "buy" your army. Combat rules were pretty realistic. All the young turks went for the classy armies...Israeli, US, West German that kind of thing. They had every imaginable piece of upmarket technology you could think of...MICVs, SPGs, Modern top class armour like Leopard IIs you name it.....at about company strength. My friend, a seasoned pro at this type of thing, "bought" a Royal Omani army, slightly older, less well equip0ped troops, riding around in Landrovers and Leopard Is. All the 14YOs laughed at him....until they realized that he could afford to "buy" a full regiment of this stuff, have some off board artillery support and nearly a full squadron of Jaguar FBs to support him. 

Competition started, and army after army of these snotty little know it alls gets their butts kicked. The 14 YOs get cheesed off and start to pack up and leave. To save their competition, the organisers changed the rules mid competition and outlawed my friends Omanis from the competition. Thats the sort of mentality you are dealing with in the commercially available sim world, and I expect computer comps are just the same. Its a common and often occurring problem....dont let a few known realities get in the way of a good fantasy. 

It doesnt happen when you are using simulation to train for a purpose within the military, which is where I learnt a lot of this stuff....you are looking for the most realistic and accurate representation that you can, so that you can test untried theories and ideas, without getting anyone killed. Places like Sandhurst, Duntroon and Wst Point use this stuff all the time


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 30, 2011)

Maximowitz said:


> For those interested there's some nice info and photos pertaining to Bartels over on the 12 O' Clock High Forum..


yeah.. thats my thread for a personal matter.



Kryten said:


> I think I see where Ratsels 109 obsession comes from , I also play Il2 online, it's good fun but should be taken with a huge dose of salt as to flight models and especially damage modelling!
> 
> It's actually easier to ID a real plane than it is in the game due to pixelation, however, sitting in your house with a beer one side and a bag of crisps the other battling your mates creates zero fear or anxiety, I can easily see how a blue on blue could happen, whilst i was an aircraft recognition instructor in the army I had to mark numerous exams where people mistook such diverse aircraft as a Foxbat and a Tomcat, I can only sympathise with the guys who had to do it whilst flying an aircraft with not exactly brilliant visibility, holding station with your wingman, the gnawing anxiety of watching your tail and thats wthout G force throwing you about inside the plane!
> I often am thankfull I was not one of that generation!


my monitor in almost the exact dimension as the foward armor windscreen on the real Bf109G. As far as anxiety for me anyways theres plenty. I'm like Hartmann.. never got shotdown by an enemy a/c. on a side note.. everything is set to realistic. and yes I know its not the same as the real thing.. or is it? never flew in 'real' combat.  I think the next gen IL-2 needs multiscreen display capability. 

parsifal,
good post.


----------



## bobbysocks (Aug 30, 2011)

IDing E/As was something practiced over and over again. they had playing cards with the pictures and specs of the E/As they would most likely encounter. they also had to know the ID for the K14 gunsite. IIRC, once they knew the plane they would select it on the gunsite then turn a dial until it fit into the circle..that would computer the range. all this was given you had that much time. but for all their practice, all their keen eyes they still misIDed a lot. i have read where mustangs from different SQs shot each other down. in the heat of battle and the speeds they were dealing with friendly fire was more than the occasional occurance. as for memories afterwards, during battle pilots would make their planes do bizzare maneuvers to get out of trouble or turn the attack on the LW. back at base a fellow SQ mate would ask ask them what they did to get their ac to maneuver like they did. very rarely could they answer. they had a target fixation and a lot became automatic and autonomic. the mind plays funny games in times of stress...hence the reason they put cameras in ac. it is hard to simply take their word for it. not that they are deliberately lying or embellishing it. but what they saw and what really was may have been 2 different things. Finnish ace Ilmari Juutilainen claims he shot down a couple P 51s during the soviet summer offensive. possible? very very remotely. 

MH: Another unusual plane on your victory list is the North American P-51 Mustang of which the Soviets received only 10. Could you describe your two encounters with the Mustangs? 

Juutilainen: The only time we saw Mustangs was during the peak of the Soviet summer offensive of 1944. The Mustangs we met were older models, with Allison engines. On June 26 we had just been escorting Bristol Blenheim bombers and were returning over the front line when I saw a Mustang approaching me from my right side in a right turn with his belly toward me. I yanked the throttle to idle to let it slide past me. The Mustang pilot, however, recovered his turn and then saw me. He also pulled his throttle back, and I saw long flames backfiring from his exhaust pipes. He also kicked his rudder to slow down, but I was doing the same thing, and because I had started sooner than he, the Mustang slid right out in front of me. The Mustang pilot then went to full power and tried to shake me off his tail with a climbing turn. In so doing he made his last mistake and flew directly in front of my gunsight. I fired, and soon the Mustang was burning in the forest near Tammisuo. Two days later my section was returning from a reconnaissance mission and made the usual detour to have an aerial engagement before returning to base. Soon we saw an Il-2 formation coming toward us escorted by three Mustangs. One of them pulled left and the other two went into a dive. In a tight diving turn I went after the airplane that had broken left, firing short bursts to break the pilot's mental backbone. It worked, for he apparently got nervous and went into a dive. The pilot kicked his rudder, but much too rapidly, only causing the tail to waggle while his plane stayed rather comfortably in the middle of my sight. The target was at an altitude of about 150 feet when it caught fire and crashed into the tall pine trees. 

Interview: Ilmari Juutlainen

so who do you believe?


----------



## Erich (Aug 30, 2011)

sadly with Pegs fotos on 12 o'clock we still can only guess as to what Gelbe 13 looked like the pic of number 13 he presented is a very well known shot NOT yellow sadly.

who do you believe you ask D ~ nobody it appears as sure the possibility is rather large when these pilots were interviewed post war some details do not change other change too much. In fact they can schange within a years time........."I did not say that! " oh yes you did I have the date and the interview time and .............. yes been there numerous times with veterans from both sides


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 30, 2011)

Well we know with Mtt-Reg built G-10's the fuse Balkenkreuz was in the white outline only, the Hakenkreuz was black w/ white outline, the top wing Balkenkreuz was white outline only, wing bottom Balkenkreuz was black w/ white outline. We also know 'Marga' was in white German Script, and the '13' was in Yellow. We also know that the Gruppe IV machines carried the 3/4 wavy bar, in this case it would be Yellow. Colours always seem to be RLM 75,76, 82, at least for Mtt-Reg G-10's. Most JG 27 G-10 machines also used a white spiral on a black spinner. The WNr. is also on the top of the vert.fin right above the rudder hinge. More often then not, the division line between the top colours and fuse side is wavy. 

But yes in General its speculation on what Bartels G-10 looked like, but an educated guess can be made. Also if one get see enough examples from a givin JG gruppe, then it brings one that much closer. Another thing, one can look at his past machines as a basis of comparison to see if any other added 'camo' was done. Bartels had his G-10 for quite a while before his death.


----------



## bobbysocks (Aug 30, 2011)

Erich said: "who do you believe you ask D ~ nobody it appears as sure the possibility is rather large when these pilots were interviewed post war ....."

Ya know E. the internet has done more to cast dispersions and chink more than one person's armor with suspicion. all due to the wealth of information that is accessable at lightening speed. but this also creates a new problem. people take the net as gospel. "I read somewhere on the web that...." its a cheap and unrelable form of research plain and simple. i am not saying its all bogus but that it needs to be taken not at face value. it IS a great framework to begin to dig further into specific topics to see if they hold up...if the creds of the poster or author are trustworty AND if or what has changed since then. authors back then were also hampered by the lack of this technology and availablity of information. they printed what they knew/believed at the time. so to answer your question....i dont believe anyone until i can dig through it myself...if i am even motivated to do so. i did some of those and found out what i needed...being #3 is good enough for me...lol.


----------



## Erich (Aug 30, 2011)

no doubt wiki and it's associates is not high on your list ?

as I said cross-check, cross-check. for over 35 years we have accepted as fact anything as an example some of the noted LW aces for their kill claims as being bonafide fact. much has changed as you said with the advent of the net, we are closer to each other than probably what we would like but this is just all part of advancements in high tech.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 31, 2011)

wiki always with a grain of salt. Somebody with a masters degree can write it, then a borderline retard can edit it.. yup, thats wiki.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 31, 2011)

That can be said about a lot of information in the computer age. In the past if a person wanted to disemminate his ideas, he would either have to write a book with credible research to back his position, or at least write a paper that would be scrutinized by learned peers. This tended to generate a limited, but reliable body of published and unpublished work on a given subject. Even a schoolboys essay would be marked and assessed, so its relative worth as a pece of research could be at least indicated. 

Nowadays, its open slather. People, can and do write anything, the tendency is to sensationalize if not tell outright porkies, to get their point across. I sincerely believe that there are people out there with an agenda other than seeking the truth. History is being re-written by the internet, based not on solid research or subject knowledge, but on sensational claims, outright lies and half truths. Anything can be "proven", because nothing has to be proved, just rpeated often enough.

I predict that in a short space of time we will be reading about how the holocaust is just an anti germanic propaganda stunt, about how the Luftwaffe won the war, but decided to hand back the conquered territories so that the EU could be established and how Adolf Hitler managed to escape to badlands of Bolivia, where he had five children and died in his sleep at 94, but has alrady been cloned and will be back.


----------



## Kryten (Aug 31, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> yeah.. thats my thread for a personal matter.
> 
> 
> my monitor in almost the exact dimension as the foward armor windscreen on the real Bf109G. As far as anxiety for me anyways theres plenty. I'm like Hartmann.. never got shotdown by an enemy a/c. on a side note.. everything is set to realistic. and yes I know its not the same as the real thing.. or is it? never flew in 'real' combat.  I think the next gen IL-2 needs multiscreen display capability.
> ...



if you have never been shot down your not playing against experienced players then?
its nothing like real flying Ratsel, I was a member of a glider club for years and even in a glider you are subjected to G-forces, you have no peripheral vision in the game, the flight models, especially the 109 in the updated versions are a bit of a farce, it floats round the sky like a baloon, the damage modelling is very poor, I have many times limped home with huge holes in both wings in a 109F and still been able to maneuver etc, its a game but you cant try and equate whats happening in the game to real flight the AI behave in a very predictable manner, human players are very difficult compared!
there is a multi screen capability now, but the best investment is a head tracker, even then , you have to realise the models have mostly been redone these days by enthusiasts to seem incapable of not "massaging" thier favourite planes flight model, its got to the point the FW190 is preffered as an opponent to the Me109 as the 109 is rediculously easy to fly!

but its only a game, good to learn the basics of stick and rudder mind you if you have the controllers available!


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 31, 2011)

I raced circle track for several years, the last year with a in car video camera. When I play back the races I will notice a some of stuff that occured will be different than the way I remember it, and details that completely escaped my attention during the race. I'm not trying to compare the stress of racing to combat flying, but I do have knowledge of what real combat stress is like, I was a OH-6 crewchief in Vietnam. I've also played some video games.

With a real scary moment in combat being a 10, i've give circle track racing a 3 or 4, on the stress and adrenilin level, and video games a 1.

Under high stress you mind isn't going to take in many spare details, and it retains very little. It concentrates on the details needed for immediate survival, nothing else. Sometimes your imagination will fill in the details later, but you can't depend on it to be true.


----------



## Njaco (Aug 31, 2011)

interesting passage....

"Bf 109: The Operational History" by Jerry Scutts

"Many a Bf 109 pilot, intent on hauling his machine out of the hosepipe fire of eight Browning machine guns, watching out for his wingman and the enemy to avoid a collision, scanning the sky for the bombers he was supposed to be protecting and keeping an eye on fuel state; engine revolutions, temperature and so on, all at the same time, could be forgiven the finer recognition points of Hawker or Supermarine design!"


----------



## razor1uk (Aug 31, 2011)

I'd love for a military style aero sim with as realistic handling as possible - even if it's much more difficult,easier to die, and of course the super computer to run it on - even if only flying with keyboard, stick n' pedals...


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 31, 2011)

dunno what some of these guys are talking about.. but when I lose a elevator or aileron in IL-2.. good luck to me, I have a super difficult time flying. The AI planes have no problems with the same situation, they can adjust much much faster then me. 

couple years ago I never flew a radio controlled airplane in my life.. bought the G5 simulator, tried that for a few months, went out bought a warbird RC and flew it like a pro. that experianced translated to 'real life' very well. that was just me though, others experiance may vary....

Kryten, I do fly with experienced players.. but I'm that much better then them.

Njaco, my pilot friend who flew Bodenplatte told me he just listen to the engine.. he rarely looked at the gauges, he had other things to worry about 

PS I know a couple pilots who couldn't fly an RC aircraft to save their lives....


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 31, 2011)

Flying a RC is still a quatum leap from flying a real aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 31, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> dunno what some of these guys are talking about.. but when I lose a elevator or aileron in IL-2.. good luck to me, I have a super difficult time *playing*. The AI planes have no problems with the same situation, they can adjust much much faster then me.
> 
> couple years ago I never flew a radio controlled airplane in my life.. bought the G5 simulator, tried that for a few months, went out bought a warbird RC and flew it like a pro. that experianced translated to 'real life' very well. that was just me though, others experiance may vary....
> 
> ...



Fixed...


----------



## Readie (Aug 31, 2011)

parsifal said:


> I predict that in a short space of time we will be reading about how the holocaust is just an anti germanic propaganda stunt, about how the Luftwaffe won the war, but decided to hand back the conquered territories so that the EU could be established and how Adolf Hitler managed to escape to badlands of Bolivia, where he had five children and died in his sleep at 94, but has alrady been cloned and will be back.




Very good Michael, that made me laugh. You're probably right too.
The next BIG question is did the American's actually land on the moon in 1969?
Cheers
John


----------



## Erich (Aug 31, 2011)

back on topic please ................ or is the thread done ?


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 1, 2011)

well in searching.. which surprisingly didn't take to long, the one thing about USAAF docs. some I noticed is that they can never seem to agree on anything. So as far as those USAAF ones that I've seen go, I'll have to deem them as unreliable, and LW docs. reliable.

on 12 o'clock high there are some wonderful examples on how meticulous the LW pilots were on the details on there claim, as opposed to Allied docs. about the same.


----------



## Erich (Sep 1, 2011)

what documents are you talking of when you state they do not agree as per US. would recommend for one the US Mustang claims encounter reports from :

Mustang Encounter Reports

a wealth of information not read quickly but to be absorbed and then cross-checked with other pilots of the same group for the same dated mission. I have used these reports for years in verifying JG 301 claims and losses in 44-45.

the web-site also has P-47 groups encounter reports from earlier eyars including the 56th's right into 44-45.


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 1, 2011)

56th P-47 Encounter Reports. specifically 23.12.44 encounter reports SW of Bonn Germany or Bonn vicinity (havn't look at the P-51 encounters for Hartmann yet). Those clearly stated as NW of Bonn I ignored. I should have been more specific. My appologies.


----------



## Erich (Sep 1, 2011)

you mean the 56th fg ? check the web-site out I offered for the P-47 units of the 8th AF- maybe you are meaning the US 9th AF TAF ...............good luck in finding any encounter reports as they are sketchy to say the least, the best resource is finding the old fighter group histories of the 9th operating the T-Bolt, far and few between as most were written in the lat 1950's and are therefore OOP some redone by Schiffer pubs.

by thew ay the 56th fg encountered JG 4 on the date you have selected.


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 1, 2011)

isn't this one an encounter with JG 27? It matches the area/time where Bartels was shot down, and to a lesser degree the circumstances.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 1, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> well in searching.. which surprisingly didn't take to long, the one thing about USAAF docs. some I noticed is that they can never seem to agree on anything. So as far as those USAAF ones that I've seen go, I'll have to deem them as unreliable, and LW docs. reliable.
> 
> on 12 o'clock high there are some wonderful examples on how meticulous the LW pilots were on the details on there claim, as opposed to Allied docs. about the same.



So with extreme and reliable LW claims, presumably with location and times for claims - why are the LW Credits (theoretically reduced from Claims) 2:1 versus recorded USAAF losses for the same missions - when they had every advantage including wrecks and debris to confirm the 'meticulous records"??

Or maybe I'm missing something in the definition of 'Reliable"?


----------



## Erich (Sep 1, 2011)

approx 1210 hrs, ok so this means the engagement started or ended ? the JG 's overlapped continuously, this was also the case of JG 300 and sister JG 301 Fw 190's, giving me nothing but a pain in the A** to sort out and re-check for my book for late December mid-January 45 operations.

JG 4 after a more thorough examination was NOT involved with the 56th but the gruppen of JG 11, 27 and 54 were shot to pieces so yes your report could be a 109 from JG 27 or JG 11. JG 54 was flying the Fw 190A-8


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 1, 2011)

book? well I must put that on my 'to buy' list when its done. theres another report too that listed the engagment right at 11:45 hours. Bartels took off at aprox. 11:00 hours, but it just states the 47 pilots observed strikes all over the fuse/cockpit, and the 109 pilot peeled off too the left.. hmmm.. he didn't claim that one. Also, I thought JG 11 was also using Fw 190's in the area also(?).


----------



## Erich (Sep 1, 2011)

II./JG 11 had 109G-14 and G-14/AS

would suggest purchasing drgndog's 355th fg book when completed, hopefully in the final stages, mine is just plugging along and back to Bill's notation about LW claims/credits for too long we have depended on T. Williams supreme efforts of the Freiburg Archiv translations which of course are needed as a base but are at times grossly inflated. I have made several references to the 26 Nov 44 op over Misburg as one in particular.


----------



## Kryten (Sep 2, 2011)

It seems to me taking individual claims as even remotely correct is a fallacy , when you compare numerous losses to claims its plainly obvious what a pilot "sees" in the heat of battle is often completely incorrect,an aircraft attacked by several enemy, all claiming individual kills, a pilots evasive action seen as spiralling out of controll, a smoking aircraft? is that damage or exhaust smoke from a firewalled throttle? did the plane going down smoking actually pull out once clear of the fight and get home? it goes on and on, what really matters and in the end and decides the issue is who controlls the battlespace at the end of the campaign!


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 2, 2011)

Bartels four P-38 claims on 15.11.43 were imo true. Now as to what happened to those P-38's. On 15.11.43 it was a very heavy overcast, so Bartels would not have likely seen what happened to the P-38s after he shot them up and they went down through the heavy overcast. Mitchells pilots reported four P-38s got 'holed'. One went down and crashed near Kalamaki (found), apparently the other 3 all made it back to their home base in Foggia, Italy, but, all three crashed when they landed do to Hydraulic / Brake / Control surfaces problems. It dosn't say if those P-38s were repaired or replaced. So I would call all of those kills. Other people may not.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 2, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Bartels four P-38 claims on 15.11.43 were imo true. Now as to what happened to those P-38's. On 15.11.43 it was a very heavy overcast, so Bartels would not have likely seen what happened to the P-38s after he shot them up and they went down through the heavy overcast. Mitchells pilots reported four P-38s got 'holed'. One went down and crashed near Kalamaki (found), apparently the other 3 all made it back to their home base in Foggia, Italy, but, all three crashed when they landed do to Hydraulic / Brake / Control surfaces problems. It dosn't say if those P-38s were repaired or replaced. So I would call all of those kills. Other people may not.



What is your source for the crash landing/battle damage data? Absent the official Battle Damage or Accident reports as well as the Mission Summary there would be no fact based derivative for cause/effect?

Second, the LW did not count a shot up/crash landed 109 as a 'loss' because it was not salvaged. Why would you count a returned P-38 w/Battle damage as a 'loss" if it also was not written off?

Have you thought that you may be biased to Bartels and trying to explain discrepancies in his credits without all the facts in hand?

As 'to not seeing what happened" - in the USAAF most of those were awarded 'Damaged" or "Probable" versus "Destroyed". They made mistakes as all Air Forces did. But the official criteria for credit evaluation as Destroyed were a.) seen to blow up, b.) lost a major structural component rendering the a/c unflyable, c.) seen to crash, d.) pilot/crew seen to bail out, e.) seen to be on fire and/or out of control. 

The last criteria was usually subjective and resulted in most variances of claim to credit. LW pilots were known to put an Fw 190 into a spin - which was recoverable more often than a Mustang or Me 109.

This is a list of all MACR's for USAAF 15 November 1943. Looks like (1) P-38 from the 1st FG failed to return, for which a Macr 1306 was created


431115 B-24 42-7617 6AF CARIBBEAN 1091 
431115 F-5 42-13275 5 ADRIATIC 1121 
431115 P-40 42-105509 8 NEW GUINEA 1191 
431115 P-47 42-8413 355 FRANCE 1289 
431115 P-47 42-8408 155 FRANCE 1290 
431115 P-38 43-2184 1 GREECE 1306 
431115 B-24 42-40409 308 CHINA 12394


----------



## drgondog (Sep 2, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Bartels four P-38 claims on 15.11.43 were imo true. Now as to what happened to those P-38's. On 15.11.43 it was a very heavy overcast, so Bartels would not have likely seen what happened to the P-38s after he shot them up and they went down through the heavy overcast. Mitchells pilots reported four P-38s got 'holed'. One went down and crashed near Kalamaki (found), apparently the other 3 all made it back to their home base in Foggia, Italy, but, all three crashed when they landed do to Hydraulic / Brake / Control surfaces problems. It dosn't say if those P-38s were repaired or replaced. So I would call all of those kills. Other people may not.



The missing aircrew report 1306 for McClure states CAVU at 1115 when McClure's 71stFS P-38F 43-2184 was hit by flak - lost and engine and disappeared below, behind, the B-24 formation, heard to say "looks like this is it". Crashed with his airplane near Thebes. No enemy fighters in the area. No cloud cover, no aircraft spinning into undercast.

No record of a claim by Bartels in Woods List - in fact no claims in MTO for LW on 15 November.


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 2, 2011)

> What is your source for the crash landing/battle damage data? Absent the official Battle Damage or Accident reports as well as the Mission Summary there would be no fact based derivative for cause/effect?


 history of the 488th. 



> Second, the LW did not count a shot up/crash landed 109 as a 'loss' because it was not salvaged. Why would you count a returned P-38 w/Battle damage as a 'loss" if it also was not written off?


becouse we don't know what happened to them after crash landing. so barring some other evidence, I consider those as lost.



> Have you thought that you may be biased to Bartels and trying to explain discrepancies in his credits without all the facts in hand?


of coursed I'm biased to Bartels. With the available facts in hand, I came to a resonable conclusion imo. but on the other hand, if the claim was bogus, I'll accept that too.



> As 'to not seeing what happened" - in the USAAF most of those were awarded 'Damaged" or "Probable" versus "Destroyed". They made mistakes as all Air Forces did. But the official criteria for credit evaluation as Destroyed were a.) seen to blow up, b.) lost a major structural component rendering the a/c unflyable, c.) seen to crash, d.) pilot/crew seen to bail out, e.) seen to be on fire and/or out of control.


so? the Luftwaffe didn't. Shared/damaged/probables were awarded to the Staffel. and yes mistakes were made. no doubt. 
a) yes.
b) loss of an engine, aileron, rudder, elevator, wingtip, hydraulics, etc., etc., etc. dosn't nessesarily mean its not flyable. Perhaps they chose to replace rather then repair sited wear/tear as the cause.
c) yes.
d) if the pilot isn't seen to bail its either:
- he's dead
- he feels the plane is still controllable
- the other a/c pilot did not see him bail
e) smoking and on fire would be a resonable asumption of the a/c destroyed. even if the fire/smoke went out and somehow it landed.



> The last criteria was usually subjective and resulted in most variances of claim to credit. LW pilots were known to put an Fw 190 into a spin - which was recoverable more often than a Mustang or Me 109.


so did Bf 109's. Mendl is a great example, at around 1000ft no less.



> This is a list of all MACR's for USAAF 15 November 1943. Looks like (1) P-38 from the 1st FG failed to return, for which a Macr 1306 was created


one confirmed P-38, as I stated above.



> The missing aircrew report 1306 for McClure states CAVU at 1115 when McClure's 71stFS P-38F 43-2184 was hit by flak - lost and engine and disappeared below, behind, the B-24 formation, heard to say "looks like this is it". Crashed with his airplane near Thebes. No enemy fighters in the area. No cloud cover, no aircraft spinning into undercast.
> 
> No record of a claim by Bartels in Woods List - in fact no claims in MTO for LW on 15 November.


thanks drgondog for conflicting data on the part of the USAAF. Bartels [P-38] claims are in woods list.


----------



## Erich (Sep 2, 2011)

first off anyone have an updated URL for tony woods claims listing, and let me be very clear these are anot all officially confirmed especially after October 1944 as they were not even counted and logged through official sources.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 2, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> history of the 488th.
> 
> *Why do you accept a bomb broup narrative over an official 1st FG Mission Summary, or a Macr?*
> 
> ...



I now am looking at Woods List for 1943. Between 13 November and 16 November are one entry for a Mosquito (Glunz JG26) near Lilleon the 14, and a Halifax near Calvados on the night of 15-16. Tow entries - both ETO, no entries Ost or Sud.

There are zero claims/awards for 15 November 1943. Could you extract your entry for that date. My copy of Woods lists is 2005 while contained on Caldwell's JG 26 website - yours?


----------



## Erich (Sep 2, 2011)

Bill does the woods listing still exist on the JG 26 site, all I am getting via the net links is porno


----------



## Erich (Sep 2, 2011)

found the site and bookmarked it now .......

weirdness galore ~ besides Bartels 4 claims there are another 10 P-38's claimed by IV./JG 27 on 15 November 1943.


----------



## stona (Sep 2, 2011)

'loss of an engine, aileron, rudder, elevator, wingtip, hydraulics, etc., etc., etc. dosn't nessesarily mean its not flyable.'

Yes it does hence the criterion. Lost means seperated from the rest of the aircraft,not failing to function as in engine failiure. It also says MAJOR component. You lose one of those,an aileron,elevator,rudder and you lose control.
Some aircraft,typically heavier ones like the B-17 or even the P-47 could absorb surprising amounts of damage but we are talking about Luftwaffe,primarily single engined,fighters which don't fall into that category
Cheers
Steve


----------



## drgondog (Sep 2, 2011)

stona said:


> 'loss of an engine, aileron, rudder, elevator, wingtip, hydraulics, etc., etc., etc. dosn't nessesarily mean its not flyable.'
> 
> Lol - usually the loss of the Merlin or P&W R2800 in a 51 or 47 means the war is over for you.
> 
> ...



The criteria as you noted is loss on major component like wing, eppenage. not rudder or partial elevator or one aileron


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 2, 2011)

Stona, 
I had this conversation with a Luftwaffe Pilot friend of mine that flew survived Bodenplatte in his Me 109 where he got his first aerial kill, a P-47 at Y-29. He lost his rudder part of his port side elevator from a *German* flak hit. I'll quote him:

' _Er versteht nicht, oder nie flog ein Me 109_. '


----------



## Erich (Sep 2, 2011)

A Pilot in II./JG 11 I see ...........


----------



## stona (Sep 3, 2011)

He did well flying a 109 with no rudder!
Steve


----------



## drgondog (Sep 3, 2011)

Erich - I just found the 2009 update and still see nothing there for Nov 15 1943?
Exactly the same Mosquito/Halifax/ETO awards for 14th and night of 15th.


----------



## Readie (Sep 3, 2011)

stona said:


> He did well flying a 109 with no rudder!
> Steve



' Er versteht nicht, oder nie flog ein Me 109. ' 

I think the above roughly translates to 'A Me109 won't fly without a rudder'

John


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 3, 2011)

drgondog said:


> Erich - I just found the 2009 update and still see nothing there for Nov 15 1943?
> Exactly the same Mosquito/Halifax/ETO awards for 14th and night of 15th.


Are you looking at the ' _15. November 1943 Lw.Kdo. Süd-Ost: Jafü Greichenland _' PDF? Becouse theres fourteen P-38 claims (four claimed by Bartels) for 11.15.43.

Erich,

what unit badge is that???


----------



## Juha (Sep 3, 2011)

Now how I interpret the combat report see:
340th Bomb Group History

is that the holed planes were B-25s of 488th, nothing on P-38s and from target photo overcast seems to have been above B-25s, which saw the excellent escort work of P-38s, so B-25s seem to have been holed by flak. IMHO nothing to prove Bartels’ or others claims.

Juha


----------



## Erich (Sep 3, 2011)

Juha I think you are very right, again this may indeed been early for JG 27 of IVth gruppe to have gun cameras yet . . . ? so a wingman was needed but no doubt the Bf 109G-6'smixed it up with P-38's and again we see total chaos from both sides in who claimed whom shot down. Wingmans on both sides were too busy clearing off their own tails to watch their own leadership claiming or trying to escape. Again for the date we need all P-38 units histories plus it appears the B-25 units as well, a general overview by Ken Rust will not be acceptable.

Bill yes the MTO section for the years as Ratsel stated on Woods exhaustive listings.

Ratsel that is the stadt wappen of Lückau which is right on the edge almost some 5km ENE of III./JG 301's Airfield at Alteno when they were flying more for testing purposes the TA 152H-0. I have pics of the A/F for my book, the wappenshield seemed pretty cool to have as an avatar for now.


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 3, 2011)

Yep, and its also stated that the failed to meet up with some P-38 escorts. 1stFG seems to be missing a few. It could just be incomplete records though. So the question remains, what happened to those P-38s? the 488th dosn't seem to know or cannot pinpoint which P-38s were present. Also, there were many many P-38fg's within range of Kalamaki. JG 27 patrolled Kalamaki to Eleusis, Dafni, Patras, Akrata, and all points in between. To assume all Gruppes in JG 27 were all at Kalamaki that day is foolhearty (yes I know in the Woods list it say downed at Kalamaki I'm sure a pilot log would be more specific). 

checked MACRs. twice. maybe I should check again.

Erich, chaos is an understatement I think. And agreed on who shot who down. Most interesting on your advatar. Thanks for the info.


----------



## Erich (Sep 3, 2011)

again please check the MACR's that we have been talking about.

note the JG 301 wappenshield and note the animal in black ....see any resemblance ?


----------



## Juha (Sep 3, 2011)

Hello Ratsel
we know that not all Gruppen of JG 27 were at Kalamaki on 15 Nov 43, is somebody claimed otherwise? That fighters missed their rendezvous with bombers usually meant only that they just didn’t meet, not that something sinister had happened to either formation.

Juha


----------



## Milosh (Sep 3, 2011)

I./JG27 - 22.8.43 - 6.6.44 > Fels am Wagram (near Vienna)
II./JG27 - 20.8.43 - 12.9.43 > Eschborn (near Frankfurt)
III./JG27 - 10.11.43 - 11.43 > Kalamaki, 11.43 - 3.12.43 > Tanagra
IV.JG27 - 28.10.43 - 22.11.43 > Podgorica, 22.11.43 - 12.43 > Mostar

Jagdgeschwader 27


----------



## Erich (Sep 3, 2011)

ok hopefully this settles this .......... for the proposed claims of IV./JG 27

1 B-25 shot down south of Lebadeia
1 P-38 shot down west of Arachoba
1 P-38 shot down south of Aspra Spitia
1 P-38 shot down west of Arachoba
1 P-38 shot down south of Amfissa
6 P-38's shot down S.E. of Kalamaki, this includes the 4 claims by Bartels
1 P-38 shot down 20 km S.E. of Kalamaki
1 P-38 shot down over Flebes
1 P-38 shot down over Aigina
1 P-38 shot down East of Aigina

times for these purported claims is from 11:24 hrs - 13.17 hrs.


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 3, 2011)

Missing allied aircraft reports in axis held territory


awesome Erich, thanks!


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 3, 2011)

P-38 42-13062 - GREECE 
P-38 43-2332 - GREECE 
P-38 42-13206 - GREECE 
P-38 43-2184 - GREECE 
P-38 43-2531 - GREECE 
P-38 44-24131 - GREECE 
P-38 43-28359 - GREECE 
P-38 43-28540 - GREECE 
P-38 44-23153 - GREECE 
P-38 44-24191 - GREECE


----------



## Juha (Sep 4, 2011)

Hello Ratsel
can you explain what those -38s ordered during FY 1944 do in your list?, at least 44-23153 seems to have been lost in Oct 44, something what one expects with that serial number, I have not info on the other two but nearest serials to those on which I have info were lost in Apr 45 (24132 and 24190 both from 1st FG)

Juha


----------



## Juha (Sep 4, 2011)

Dig a bit more early in FY 1943 ordered, now some hits, first is the known loss on 15 Nov 43, to AAA, two others were lost to fighters but in Oct and in Dec 43 respectively

2184 (1st FG, 71st FS) shot down by AAA over Greece Nov 15, 1943. MACR 1306. Pilot KIA.
2332 (82nd FG, 95th FS) shot down by Bf 109G-6 of JG 27 over Greece and ditched near Cape Kefali, Greece Oct 8, 1943. Pilot evaded.
2531 (82nd FG, 96th FS) damaged by fighter over Greece Dec 6, 1943 and crashed 80-90 mi NW of Athens. MACR 1469. Pilot evaded.

Must ask, what’s your game Ratsel?

Juha


----------



## Erich (Sep 4, 2011)

there were only 2 P-38's lost, 1 from the 1st fg the other from the 14th the 82nd fg history says a big fat 0 for losses on the 15th of November 43.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 4, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Yep, and its also stated that the failed to meet up with some P-38 escorts. 1stFG seems to be missing a few. It could just be incomplete records though. So the question remains, what happened to those P-38s? the 488th dosn't seem to know or cannot pinpoint which P-38s were present. Also, there were many many P-38fg's within range of Kalamaki. JG 27 patrolled Kalamaki to Eleusis, Dafni, Patras, Akrata, and all points in between. To assume all Gruppes in JG 27 were all at Kalamaki that day is foolhearty (yes I know in the Woods list it say downed at Kalamaki I'm sure a pilot log would be more specific).
> 
> *The MACRs are complete Ratsel - so the JG27 claims for 15 November 1943 had nothing to do with USAAF except for the one I noted above which started out as a flag damaged P-38F and that one went down at Thebes. *
> 
> ...



I went to 'all LW West claim list and found the 13 claims for JG 27. Seven at Kalamaki between Bartels and Hackl. How close is Kalamaki to Thebes where the one P-38 Crash and recorded loss occurred?


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 4, 2011)

KG 27? Thebes is 60km (37 miles) NW of Athens.


----------



## stona (Sep 4, 2011)

Juha said:


> Must ask, what’s your game Ratsel?
> 
> Juha



If someone is determined enough to believe something they won't let a few inconvenient facts and figures stand in their way.

Steve


----------



## Kryten (Sep 4, 2011)

what this thread shows is how unreliable individual and unit claims are, it was gross overclaiming and the lack of realistic intelligence to back it up that caused the Luftwaffe to believe they had attrited the RAF enough to shift thier focus away from fighter command airfields in the BOB, and it happened on both sides during the war, the only true judge of an air forces performance in a campaign is the end result!


----------



## Readie (Sep 4, 2011)

Kryten said:


> what this thread shows is how unreliable individual and unit claims are, it was gross overclaiming and the lack of realistic intelligence to back it up that caused the Luftwaffe to believe they had attrited the RAF enough to shift thier focus away from fighter command airfields in the BOB, and it happened on both sides during the war, the only true judge of an air forces performance in a campaign is the end result!



I'm inclined to agree with you.
I have read all the learned posts filled with statstics about who claimed what and when.
There can be no doubt that Hartmann was an ace, as I have said before, arguing over claims that can never be truly confirmed does seem to demean him.
Just a thougth
Cheers
John


----------



## drgondog (Sep 4, 2011)

drgondog said:


> I went to 'all LW West claim list and found the 13 claims for JG 27. Seven at Kalamaki between Bartels and Hackl. How close is Kalamaki to Thebes where the one P-38 Crash and recorded loss occurred?



So, McClure hit by flak near Athens and crashed at Thebes 37 miles away - Where is Kalamaki relative to a straight line between Thebes and Athens? This particular P-38F seems to have been shot down approximately 13 times around 1115-1125.

Two 82FG victory credits (Moffit and Brown) 96FS, were awarded by USAF Study 85.. for 15 November, 1943 - all other scores were in SWP PTO, no more in MTO and none in ETO.

the 82nd FG lost 95FS Keller to a non combat related accident on 15 November. no more incidents/losses.

Ratsel - if you still hold to the opinion that JG27 had a big battle with P-38s on 15 November, in which they not only claimed - but were awarded 13 P-38s shot down - and the USAAF has one flying accident at the base on take off (82nd FG) and one hit by flak and down within 10minute/37 miles from the hit at 1115 to 1125 (1st FG), where are you locating non recorded losses for USAAF, in non existant air battle around Athens, or in the area of the 82nd Fg which claimed two 109s?

In other words why do you believe Bartel and Hackl - who claimed 7 together- more than half of the LW total, more than 7 times the actual losses (1) incurred by MTO P-38s in combat (and that is questionable unless Kalamaki is between Athens and Thebes and Bartels caught the cripple?).


----------



## jim (Sep 4, 2011)

drgondog said:


> So, McClure hit by flak near Athens and crashed at Thebes 37 miles away - Where is Kalamaki relative to a straight line between Thebes and Athens? This particular P-38F seems to have been shot down approximately 13 times around 1115-1125.
> 
> Two 82FG victory credits (Moffit and Brown) 96FS, were awarded by USAF Study 85.. for 15 November, 1943 - all other scores were in SWP PTO, no more in MTO and none in ETO.
> 
> the 82nd FG lost 95FS Keller to a non combat related accident on 15 November. no more incidents/losses.


 
Kalamaki is a south suburb of Athens ~10 km from the Akropolis . Back then it was a village ,today is part of Athens.


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 4, 2011)

drgondog said:


> Ratsel - if you still hold to the opinion that JG27 had a big battle with P-38s on 15 November, in which they not only claimed - but were awarded 13 P-38s shot down - and the USAAF has one flying accident at the base on take off (82nd FG) and one hit by flak and down within 10minute/37 miles from the hit at 1115 to 1125 (1st FG), where are you locating non recorded losses for USAAF, in non existant air battle around Athens, or in the area of the 82nd Fg which claimed two 109s?
> 
> In other words why do you believe Bartel and Hackl - who claimed 7 together- more than half of the LW total, more than 7 times the actual losses (1) incurred by MTO P-38s in combat (and that is questionable unless Kalamaki is between Athens and Thebes and Bartels caught the cripple?).



From Kalamaki to Thebes is exactly 60km as the crow flies. Bartels would have no problem catching that P-38 along that route. Especially one that may be experiancing problems. Most Fighters either took that route past the southern tip of Kerkyra to head to or back from Italy. Hackl I couldn't concern myself with.


----------



## Kryten (Sep 4, 2011)

yet you "concern" yourself with a man who claims 4 P38's shot down when the only loss is a single aircraft hit by flak, which there is zero evidence that any enemy aircraft engaged?
no offence but that does seem to be hero worshiping a guy whos credibility is stretched past breaking point in this matter?

lets be blunt, the sytem was played by all sides in all theaters in all branches of the military, "successfull" units got prefferential treatment, if you have ever been in the military you would know military beauracracy is always manipulated to get around the system!
It seems to me Luftwaffe units were as guilty as anyone else for making bogus claims if it made thier lives more comfortable or easier, and when it comes to being involved in a war, I have no doubt I would do it as well!


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 4, 2011)

well its not hero worshipping.. thats for sure. Equally there isn't any evidence that it wasn't shot down along that route also. Yes, I know all sides were guilty of overclaiming, I'm not disputing that. Strange though on the day before Bartels was killed, that he refused to take leave that day in pursuit of his 100th kill. Dosn't sound like a guy how would make stories up.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 4, 2011)

Ratsel - I am not saying that he was a notorious overclaimer. I will NEVER question his courage or skill.

I just note that research into actual losses of the 20+ big air battles I have researched show that LW victory credits usually run about 2:1 including a/c that got back and were Class 5/Cat E battle damage or limp off's to Sweden/Switzerland.

This deal on 15 November does seem to be a major contrast between award system and losses however, and Hackl seems to be part of the picture also.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 4, 2011)

jim said:


> Kalamaki is a south suburb of Athens ~10 km from the Akropolis . Back then it was a village ,today is part of Athens.



Jim - that would easily imply that McClure was caught while straggling behind and shot down by either Hackl or Bartels for one of their combined seven credits in that area... but getting hit over Kalimaki to the south of Athens then crashing 30 miles to the west is interesting..


----------



## Erich (Sep 4, 2011)

I will confirm what the guys have said already, Bill and I have done enough together to try and straighten the LW nightmare of claiming out, still in process that is all I can say. Try going through very limited ZG records if you can find any and attribute their claims to actual B-24 and B-17 losses.

Back to the Tony Woods listing of claims and that is exactly what they are not confirmations, more and more I am saying to myself . . . . Huh ?, who is this guy not listed in the LW KTB of that particular unit history.

example: just looking at JG 301 kill claims for 21 November, the only one correct possibly out of 5 pilots listed in the Freiburg lists is one who claimed 2 P-51's of which he may not have even done that as CO of JG 301. 2 of the other pilots are real guys who scored kills in the early spring of 1944.


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 4, 2011)

drgondog said:


> but getting hit over Kalimaki to the south of Athens then crashing 30 miles to the west is interesting..


Well its not actually Kalamaki, its the old Ellinikon Airport (this would be JG 27 base), a little south of Kalamaki. Thebes would then be 62km NorthWest of the airport. Most likely was that Bartels was already airborn and in the vacinity of Kalamaki. Or maybe just off shore to the west of Ellinikon. Depending on the route of the -24s and -38s.


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 4, 2011)

Some other JG 27 bases of note on the Greek mainland: Larissa (590km N. of Kalamaki), Tanagra (50km N. of Kalamaki), Eleusis (20km NW of Kalamaki), Ptolemais (600km n. of Kalamaki). One dosn't here about these bases mentioned to often.


----------



## Njaco (Sep 5, 2011)

Jagdgeschwader 27


----------



## stona (Sep 5, 2011)

I was reading a thread elsewhere about the Bf110. In it John Vasco,who knows as much as anyone about the type and whose books I possess,and would recommend to anyone made a comment about claims which exactly sums up my own attitude. I hope he won't mind me posting it here.

'The problem I have with claims, you see, is that in studying them, many times they are totally wide of the mark.'

Well said John!

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 5, 2011)

Well, I see theres no middle ground here. So I'll just continue to negotiate on one of Bartels last log books to bring it home, and I'll opt out of this thread. Interesting conversation gentlemen.


----------



## Erich (Sep 5, 2011)

well hopeful you learned something during this lengthy thread that you cannot stand on a pilots basis until further cross-checking of the claim is sought out.

the evidence has been presented, IV./JG 27 claimed P-38's and that is what they did: claimed


----------



## stona (Sep 5, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Well, I see theres no middle ground here. So I'll just continue to negotiate on one of Bartels last log books to bring it home, and I'll opt out of this thread. Interesting conversation gentlemen.



What does a logbook show as far as claims go? We know he made the claims which should be noted in his flugbuch but that doesn't prove anything.Why can't you differentiate between a claim and a loss? It's not the same thing.
I don't know why I'm bothering to post,this is pointless.
Steve


----------



## parsifal (Sep 5, 2011)

well for what its worth i enjoyed watching the discussion. It was a good effort gents


----------



## drgondog (Sep 5, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Well, I see theres no middle ground here. So I'll just continue to negotiate on one of Bartels last log books to bring it home, and I'll opt out of this thread. Interesting conversation gentlemen.



Ratsel - I must admit to some puzzlement regarding this exchange. Bartels was clearly a very good fighter pilot. What is being debated are two bodies of evidence, three if you include Bartels logbook.

On one hand there is an account of a couple of battles in which Bartels engages in and claims 4 and three respectively - namely November 15, 1943 near Athens and one on April 24, 1944 all around Munich.

In the first case Bartels logbook and the LW credits list is submitted for evidence. He receives credit for 4 out of 13+ P-38s awarded to JG 27 by theoretically meticulous claim-research-award process. Ditto the other 9 credited to various pilots. Seven of those are deemed destroyed at Kalamaki, south of Greece. The USAAF which also kept excellent loss and damaged records, which survived the war, records one Missing Aircrew report for P-38 which was observed to be hit by flak near Athens, seen to trail the bomber and escorting force westbound until it disappeared from view, was recorded as crashed near Thebes, pilot in wreckage, KIA. No enemy encounters reported by 1st FG, and no German fighters spotted in Witness reports.

One enmy combat was reported by 96FS/82nd FG in which 2 Me 109s were credited as destroyed (no corroboration from German records that I have seen) for no losses. One P-38 from 82nd crashed on take off. Pilot recovered but died of injuries.

Is it difficult to now question JG 27 claims of 13+ P-38s destroyed in air to air combat when there were only two possible examples of P-38 Fighter Groups escorting that day with one hit by flak and one lost in take off accident? It is feasible that the 1st FG pilot was caught by Bartels near Thebes but if his base was at Kalamaki - wouldn't he have said '40-60 km west of athens' - as he precisely stated in two of his April 24 claims? 

Ditto - April 24 when the LW claimed 12 USAAF fighters shot down by Me 109s (plus one Me 110) in Munich area when in fact, six were lost air to air, two of which were observed to collide with the Me 110's that they shot down. Now ZG26 DID claim one of the P-51s - but that leaves 12 P-51 claims against four actually lost. Bartels is credited with three of the 12, one of which based on location is within 20 miles of the credited location... All four of these were 'loners' separated from their squadron according to MACR statements.

It took me awhile to start checking facts when comparing credits to losses and in case of LW (large block of missing records) and spotty claim/award process for ALL air forces early in war and particularly in PTO where crash sites were near impossible to validate - or Africa or Russia in winter, etc.


----------



## Readie (Sep 5, 2011)

I read all the posts and was left wondering if Hartmann would approve of the dissection of his career and pointless arguing over semantics.

John


----------



## Erich (Sep 5, 2011)

John :

would any former WW 2 pilot of either nation ? but because of the notoriety of some maybe it is high time to question flugbuch entries. again as I have pointed out the last 5 years on many forums flugbuchs were fudged, the question is why and no-one has come up with a solid firm answer.

time to start up a new thread I feel guys.

and speaking of the April 24 operation : I./JG 301 has a high protection staffel # 4 bringing the gruppe up to 4 staffels in strength. H. Müller of 2./JG 301 flying a Bf 109G-6 shoots down a P-51 of ? group near Ebersberger Forest. in return his white 5 is shot to pieces where he makes a belly landing at Münche-Riem. I./JG 301 suffered this date with 8 losses KIA and WIA.


----------



## stona (Sep 6, 2011)

Readie said:


> I read all the posts and was left wondering if Hartmann would approve of the dissection of his career and pointless arguing over semantics.
> John



I suspect that he,and many others on both sides,would have kept his head down!
Flugbuchs were 'fudged' at the time as Erich says. Some have been blatantly altered or even forged since the war.
Steve


----------



## Readie (Sep 6, 2011)

Erich said:


> John :
> 
> would any former WW 2 pilot of either nation ?



Erich,
Absolutely not. I feel it dishonours all aces to dissect and ( by inference) discredit their claims.
But, that is just my opinion.
John


----------



## stona (Sep 6, 2011)

It's not to discredit the men themselves. It's an effort to establish what really happened. Noone is accusing any of these men of being dishonest (with a few proveable exceptions).

Claims are not a valid way of assessing losses. They weren't at the time and they certainly aren't now. There is an important distinction between the two which seems to be lost on some people.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Readie (Sep 6, 2011)

stona said:


> It's not to discredit the men themselves. It's an effort to establish what really happened. Noone is accusing any of these men of being dishonest (with a few proveable exceptions).
> 
> Claims are not a valid way of assessing losses. They weren't at the time and they certainly aren't now. There is an important distinction between the two which seems to be lost on some people.
> 
> ...



Agreed but, a true 'ace' is more than just a list of figures. There are qualities like leadership, charisma, being at the right place at the right time,luck, markmanship and most importantly being a gentleman.
I'll use Stanford Tuck as an example to illustrate my point without derailing the Hartmann thread.
Cheers
John


----------



## stona (Sep 6, 2011)

Readie said:


> Agreed but, a true 'ace' is more than just a list of figures. There are qualities like leadership, charisma, being at the right place at the right time,luck, markmanship and most importantly being a gentleman.
> I'll use Stanford Tuck as an example to illustrate my point without derailing the Hartmann thread.
> Cheers
> John



I'd agree with almost all of that. I'm not sure being a gentleman was obligatory if those other qualities were present. 
I like to stick to known facts and figures which is why conjecture and words like 'cheating' are things I avoid. The Luftwaffe system,whilst rigorous,also,by its very nature encouraged 'optimistic' claiming.
I have my own opinion about the claiming of many of these men,on all sides,but it is just that ...opinion,unprovable either way and which I will keep to myself.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## drgondog (Sep 6, 2011)

Erich - what is Ebersberger Forest close to? three of the four 51s that went down to 109s were perhaps in a semi circle from ne to ese of Munich


----------



## Milosh (Sep 6, 2011)

According to Google:

The Ebersberger Forst is a forest area about 20 km east of Munich in the district of Ebersberg. Its size is approximately 90 square kilometers,


----------



## drgondog (Sep 6, 2011)

Milosh - where relative to Muhldorf/Waldkraiburg? 

Thanks - that correlates roughly to two 355th pilots that went down - at least within 10-15 radius. The 357th FG pilot went down south of Landshut, east of Erding. The other 355th pilot went down west of Munich near Wessling Lake.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 6, 2011)

John - I certainly respect your feelings about questioning credit to awards as a process was usually in place and despite evidence of overstating the claims, there is no way to dissect facts with certainty.

That being said, when I write about something I do try to gather facts, opinions based on facts and state unequivocally when I observe an opinions for which there are no facts.. a little problem of mine but I supoose I will live with it.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Erich (Sep 6, 2011)

there is NO discredit to the aces it is getting to the bottom of their claims within the units history, I am doing a day by day and very thorough re-do of JG 301's history and there are so many blanks that need to be filled. Surley this is a massive undertaking the JG 300 tome just did not take 5 years to accomplish but tons and years of research of course the French authors were able to procure personal first hand interviews of many former pilots of that Reich defenses wing before their passing, this is one of the huge stemming problems I and others face toady they are either gone or too tired to think and memory's have faded.

Bill please go ahead and start up a thread on the April 24, 44 mission maybe we can all chip in with info and get things correct or more confused  well let's hope not.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 6, 2011)

drgondog said:


> Milosh - where relative to Muhldorf/Waldkraiburg?
> 
> Thanks - that correlates roughly to two 355th pilots that went down - at least within 10-15 radius. The 357th FG pilot went down south of Landshut, east of Erding. The other 355th pilot went down west of Munich near Wessling Lake.



Waldkraiburg is ~62km almost due east of Munich and 69km nw of Salzburg. Landshut is ~42km nnw of Waldkraiburg and ~61km ne of Munich. Erding is ~31km ne of Munich.(Google Earth)


----------



## drgondog (Sep 6, 2011)

Milosh said:


> Waldkraiburg is ~62km almost due east of Munich and 69km nw of Salzburg. Landshut is ~42km Ebersberger Forst nnw of Waldkraiburg and ~61km ne of Munich. Erding is ~31km ne of Munich.(Google Earth)



Sorry for my brevity earlier - Ebersberger Forest relative to Waldkraiburg?


----------



## Milosh (Sep 6, 2011)

drgondog said:


> Sorry for my brevity earlier - Ebersberger Forest relative to Waldkraiburg?



If Ebersberger Forest is ~20km e of Munich (Google Earth says 25km) and Waldkraiburg is 62km e of Munich, would it not make Ebersberger Forest ~40km west of Waldkraiburg?


----------



## drgondog (Sep 6, 2011)

I didn't see your reference to the forest being 20km east or I would have figured the math out.. lol

Having said that neither Hilman nor Norman were closer to Munich than Waldkraiburg..Donnell from 357FG had a mid air collision with an Me 110 that he shot down about 11 miles east of Munich about 1420, according to MACR 4329/J-935


----------



## Erich (Sep 6, 2011)

as I said lets start up another thread for what appears at least what I am getting a vibe for Bill and his future work to get things down solidly for the 355th fg and the LW units facing his Dad's unit. at present it is appearing a very wide area of coverage for this operation . . . .
am noting in my LW claims and losses listing that Bf 110G-2 gruppe III./ZG 26 claimed 6 P-51's .................... ah hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm and they lose 4 110's with 6 more heavily damaged


----------



## Readie (Sep 6, 2011)

stona said:


> I'd agree with almost all of that. I'm not sure being a gentleman was obligatory if those other qualities were present.
> I like to stick to known facts and figures which is why conjecture and words like 'cheating' are things I avoid. The Luftwaffe system,whilst rigorous,also,by its very nature encouraged 'optimistic' claiming.
> I have my own opinion about the claiming of many of these men,on all sides,but it is just that ...opinion,unprovable either way and which I will keep to myself.
> Cheers
> Steve



Agreed Steve, I mention being a gentleman as when you are good you don't have to abrasive or a lout.
Just my opinion
Cheers
John


----------



## Readie (Sep 6, 2011)

Erich said:


> there is NO discredit to the aces it is getting to the bottom of their claims within the units history, I am doing a day by day and very thorough re-do of JG 301's history and there are so many blanks that need to be filled. Surley this is a massive undertaking the JG 300 tome just did not take 5 years to accomplish but tons and years of research of course the French authors were able to procure personal first hand interviews of many former pilots of that Reich defenses wing before their passing, this is one of the huge stemming problems I and others face toady they are either gone or too tired to think and memory's have faded.
> 
> Bill please go ahead and start up a thread on the April 24, 44 mission maybe we can all chip in with info and get things correct or more confused  well let's hope not.



Bill, I'm glad that you are doing all this. I wonder what other information could be uncovered by diligent research concerning other theatres of war?
Cheers
John


----------



## Milosh (Sep 6, 2011)

drgondog said:


> I didn't see your reference to the forest being 20km east or I would have figured the math out.. lol



We all have our 'oldtimer' moments Bill.

I find Google Earth comes in handy, most times.


----------



## Erich (Sep 6, 2011)

Readie the only way is to post question(s) concerning a certain mission/event ................... and then wait patiently for a response.

as per the 24 April 44 mission my suggestion is to pick up a Deutschland Süd-Ost # 420 from Michelin Reise-Verlag (map) for starts. There are 6 different quadrants that cover all of Germany in 1/300 000 scale, 1cm = 3km if anyone is interested and for me for very serious research...... in the states the AAA travel agencies carry these or can be ordered if you are a member.

my central two maps with Hannover as the corner piece have too many pin holes for crash sites for the 26 November 44 mission over Misburg, the mission was a total wreck for the LW and not much better for the US either.


----------



## Erich (Sep 6, 2011)

one more very concise source is Euro Atlas 1: 300.000 scale, cities directory in the back obvious due to size details does not list every village in Deutschland. produced by American map. I picked up my copy back in 1999. personally you can't do any serious observational research without these ............


----------



## bobbysocks (Sep 6, 2011)

was confused about Donnel for a moment but got it straightened out. in his first book ( The Yoxford Boys Pg 28 )Olmsted had Connaham colliding with the 110. he revised that in his last book ( To War with the Yoxford Boys pg 271) and has Donnel in the crash instead.

also have Donnel as :
_1/Lt.Ralph H.Donnell,357th FG/ 363th FS,P-51B,43-6986,crashed 24th April 1944,*10 miles N.of Augsburg,Germany* _
1/Lt.Donnell


----------



## Njaco (Sep 7, 2011)

Erich said:


> Readie the only way is to post question(s) concerning a certain mission/event ................... and then wait patiently for a response.
> 
> as per the 24 April 44 mission my suggestion is to pick up a Deutschland Süd-Ost # 420 from Michelin Reise-Verlag (map) for starts. There are 6 different quadrants that cover all of Germany in 1/300 000 scale, 1cm = 3km if anyone is interested and for me for very serious research...... in the states the AAA travel agencies carry these or can be ordered if you are a member.
> 
> my central two maps with Hannover as the corner piece have too many pin holes for crash sites for the 26 November 44 mission over Misburg, the mission was a total wreck for the LW and not much better for the US either.



IIRC Don Caldwell's JG 26 website has the actual German map coordinates for Europe. Its a very large .pdf I believe.

RLV Jgergradnetzkarte

http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/basemaps.htm


----------

