A look at German fighter Ace kill claims

[RCAFson]

This video gives a quick summary of an in depth study of selected German Fighter Ace kill claims:


View: https://youtu.be/TV86LNJKYYM

 

[GregP]

The book "Verified Victories" is based on the notion that a victory for one side means the other side records a loss. That is not always the case, and many records were destroyed in war. There are any number of reasons why this is not the case, but the main one is exceedingly simple.

Suppose pilot A shoots an enemy plane from the sly by simply hitting his fuel line or carburetor. The airplane is recovered, repaired, and flies in combat again. Whether or not with the same pilot is immaterial.

1) Fact: The pilot claiming the victory shot an enemy airplane from the fight, and so SHOULD be awarded a victory.
2) Fact: The enemy shot from the fight was not completely destroyed. In my mid, complete destruction is not a requirement anyway.
3) Fact: The enemy side did not record a loss, nor SHOULD they have recorded it as such.

So, we have a victory without a corresponding match.

I have a very basic issue with "Verified Victories" premise (each victory must be matched by a corresponding loss) , and believe there are many cases where a victory is warranted when there is no recorded corresponding loss.

Sorry, Hartmann stands at 352 for me. It was his wartime total as awarded. I'll happily look at the aces for countries that used a point total for victory awards, such as Bulgaria. They used a point system:
individual claim for a four engined bomber destroyed = 3 points.
individual claim for a four engined bomber damaged = 2 points.
individual claim for a fighter aircraft destroyed = 1 point.
individual claim for a two engined bomber damaged = 1 point.
shared claim for a four engined bomber destroyed = 1 point.
shared claim for a four engined bomber damaged = 1 point.
individual claim for a fighter aircraft damaged = 0 points.

Others used points, too, such as Romania: 3 victories for a 4 or 6 engined aircraft - 2 victories for a 2 or 3 engined aircraft - 1 point for a single engined aircraft. I cannot agree with "points" when we are talking about victories over individual enemy aircraft, but they DID have some good pilots.

 

[RCAFson]

The book "Verified Victories" is based on the notion that a victory for one side means the other side records a loss. That is not always the case, and many records were destroyed in war. There are any number of reasons why this is not the case, but the main one is exceedingly simple.

Suppose pilot A shoots an enemy plane from the sly by simply hitting his fuel line or carburetor. The airplane is recovered, repaired, and flies in combat again. Whether or not with the same pilot is immaterial.

1) Fact: The pilot claiming the victory shot an enemy airplane from the fight, and so SHOULD be awarded a victory.
2) Fact: The enemy shot from the fight was not completely destroyed. In my mid, completer3 destruction is not a requirement anyway.
3) Fact: The enemy side did not record a loss, nor SHOULD they have recorded it as such.

So, we have a victory without a corresponding match.

I have a very basic issue with "Verified Victories" premise (each victory must be matched by a corresponding loss) , and believe there are many cases where a victory is warranted when there is no recorded corresponding loss.

Sorry, Hartmann stands at 352 for me. It was his wartime total as awarded. I'll happily look at the aces for countries that used a point total for victory awards, such as Bulgaria. They used a point system:
individual claim for a four engined bomber destroyed = 3 points.
individual claim for a four engined bomber damaged = 2 points.
individual claim for a fighter aircraft destroyed = 1 point.
individual claim for a two engined bomber damaged = 1 point.
shared claim for a four engined bomber destroyed = 1 point.
shared claim for a four engined bomber damaged = 1 point.
individual claim for a fighter aircraft damaged = 0 points.

Others used points, too, such as Romania: 3 victories for a 4 or 6 engined aircraft - 2 victories for a 2 or 3 engined aircraft - 1 point for a single engined aircraft. I cannot agree with "points" when we are talking about victories over individual enemy aircraft, but they DID have some good pilots.

Logically, given a large sample size, any pilot's kill claims should have the same probability of being being verified as a loss or not. The study found that Hartmann's kill claims had only a ~21% verification rate vs ~90% of other pilots such as Lipfert. How could the enemy 'discriminate' against some German pilots and not others?

 

[GregP]

You may apply whatever logic you want. Hartmann was almost exclusively, but not 100%, on the Russian Front, where confirmation of anything that went missing was not easy nor necessarily in any record.

I take the WWII totals as they were awarded during the conflict by the various air forces, except for ones that used a points award system.

You are free to take them as you want, but you make the classic statistical mistake of thinking that everyone's efforts will follow the Normal Distribution. That is rather emphatically not the case. You also have to remember, Hartman hunted alone a lot of the time, with only his wingman tagging along. The other top 2 weren't nearly as much of lone hunters as Hartmann was. I'm pretty sure that had a lot to do with it.

I have no way to verify Hartmann's victories, but if I were wondering about the top aces' victory lists, I'd look at Hartmann (352), Barkhorn (301), and Rall (275); aces 1, 2, and 3, and then look at, say, aces number ... say ... 25, 26, and 27, which would be Schack (174), Lang (173), and Schmidt (173) and see how their lists compared with primary sources. Of course, I don't HAVE and do not see how I can GET German primary sources. What percent "stack up" for these three?

If they came out significantly different from one another, then I'd say to look at something like the top 30 aces (all Luftwaffe) and see how much variation seemed normal. It would entail a significant study, which is something I'd actually DO if I could find the primary sources to do it with. To date, I cannot find those sources, and I am left with the scores as awarded. I will NOT arbitrarily change someone's score because his victory list seem to be abnormal to someone in a forum.

By the way, when you say 25% certification rate for Erich Hartmann, what sources are you comparing his kill list with that show a 25% verification rate?

 

[Snautzer01]

I have no way to verify Hartmann's victories

Of course, I don't HAVE and do not see how I can GET German primary

Yet you are convinced.

You commented on a book. Did you read it?

 

[RCAFson]

You may apply whatever logic you want. Hartmann was almost exclusively, but not 100%, on the Russian Front, where confirmation of anything that went missing was not easy nor necessarily in any record.

I take the WWII totals as they were awarded during the conflict by the various air forces, except for ones that used a points award system.

You are free to take them as you want, but you make the classic statistical mistake of thinking that everyone's efforts will follow the Normal Distribution. That is rather emphatically not the case. You also have to remember, Hartman hunted alone a lot of the time, with only his wingman tagging along. The other top 2 weren't nearly as much of lone hunters as Hartmann was. I'm pretty sure that had a lot to do with it.

I have no way to verify Hartmann's victories, but if I were wondering about the top aces' victory lists, I'd look at Hartmann (352), Barkhorn (301), and Rall (275); aces 1, 2, and 3, and then look at, say, aces number ... say ... 25, 26, and 27, which would be Schack (174), Lang (173), and Schmidt (173) and see how their lists compared with primary sources. Of course, I don't HAVE and do not see how I can GET German primary sources. What percent "stack up" for these three?

If they came out significantly different from one another, then I'd say to look at something like the top 30 aces (all Luftwaffe) and see how much variation seemed normal. It would entail a significant study, which is something I'd actually DO if I could find the primary sources to do it with. To date, I cannot find those sources, and I am left with the scores as awarded. I will NOT arbitrarily change someone's score because his victory list seem to be abnormal to someone in a forum.

By the way, when you say 25% certification rate for Erich Hartmann, what sources are you comparing his kill list with that show a 25% verification rate?

See 0900 of the video. As I stated it is a short summary.

 

[GregP]

Yet you are convinced.

You commented on a book. Did you read it?

Why are you "stirring the pot," Snauzer01?

I am not "convinced," and I DID read several books about the top German aces (indeed, top British and US Aces, too). I daresay I have a very GOOD WWII aircraft library. I have been chasing aerial victories for more than 50 years, and have a pretty good list, world-wide, of victories. While I have not read "Verified Victories," I DID read two reviews, and they both state quite clearly the premise used for the books claims. With that premise, I wouldn't waste my money on it.

What I have is the scores as awarded in WWII and NO decent reason to change them because someone without any apparent evidence except hearsay statistics thinks they might be wrong. The work "Verified Victories" has a basically flawed premise to start with: that there will always be a recorded loss on one side for a victory on the other side. That's not even CLOSE to reality, but it sure seems to make some people sit up and take notice for some reason. I can't figure out why.

I have said this several times in here, and you have no doubt read it from me, too, but if you are looking to revise the top ace, don't even bother unless you are going to look at ALL the aerial victories and do a complete victory review, world-wide or, at minimum for an entire country.

And, before you start, you need to define what "validated" means.

At the risk of being repetitive, if someone gets shot down for a simply mechanical damage issue such as a fuel line, then he STILL got shot out of the fight and the person who got him deserves a victory in my book. That would NOT result in a recorded loss on the other side, but the pilot who shot the fuel line (or other non-fatal damage) still gets credit for it in almost ANY system, so your review would have to recognize such claims to be legitimate. "Verified Victories" does not recognize such a claim, so I will not agree with its conclusions. If you require a loss on the other side, then you might as well throw mission discipline out the window as people would be leaving their mission to pursue potential kills all the way to the ground to get the credit they think they deserve!

So, I say, leave the victories as awarded during the conflict of interest and get on with life.

But, if someone wants to spend a LOT of time doing the review, I certainly wouldn't stop them. I'd have to agree with their definitions and premises before granting them any credence. Therein lies the issue with "Verified Victories." As I say, if I could find the sources, I'd do the review myself. Since I have been trying for years and haven't had much success except for many U.S. victories, I'll say that the scores as awarded during WWII hold up as well as any I've ever seen to some scrutiny.

Was there overclaiming? Yes. Can you say by how much with degree of certainty for everyone? No. Until we CAN say yes to that, the scores as awarded seem to be the best data we have.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Groundhog 3.0

 

[GregP]

Hey, I'm still waiting for a new work on the Ta 152 that was supposed to be in the stages of completion in here. I'll plunk down money for it.

Unless I misremember, it was maybe by Cheddar Cheese? Or did I get that wrong? Seems like it maybe got delayed for some reason. I understand those reasons arise.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think there's a lot more nuance to it than some folks seem to believe. Overclaims happened. Not every claim was accompanied by an opponent's loss-report. Claim sheets from the end of the war are every bit as suspect as revisionists demanding a corroborating loss report and therefore downgrading claims.

The truth is somewhere in the middle and likely beyond the scope of any investigation at this point.

 

[Snautzer01]

Why are you "stirring the pot," Snauzer01?

I am not "convinced," and I DID read several books about the top German aces (indeed, top British and US Aces, too). I daresay I have a very GOOD WWII aircraft library. I have been chasing aerial victories for more than 50 years, and have a pretty good list, world-wide, of victories. While I have not read "Verified Victories," I DID read two reviews, and they both state quite clearly the premise used for the books claims. With that premise, I wouldn't waste my money on it.

What I have is the scores as awarded in WWII and NO decent reason to change them because someone without any apparent evidence except hearsay statistics thinks they might be wrong. The work "Verified Victories" has a basically flawed premise to start with: that there will always be a recorded loss on one side for a victory on the other side. That's not even CLOSE to reality, but it sure seems to make some people sit up and take notice for some reason. I can't figure out why.

I have said this several times in here, and you have no doubt read it from me, too, but if you are looking to revise the top ace, don't even bother unless you are going to look at ALL the aerial victories and do a complete victory review, world-wide or, at minimum for an entire country.

And, before you start, you need to define what "validated" means.

At the risk of being repetitive, if someone gets shot down for a simply mechanical damage issue such as a fuel line, then he STILL got shot out of the fight and the person who got him deserves a victory in my book. That would NOT result in a recorded loss on the other side, but the pilot who shot the fuel line (or other non-fatal damage) still gets credit for it in almost ANY system, so your review would have to recognize such claims to be legitimate. "Verified Victories" does not recognize such a claim, so I will not agree with its conclusions. If you require a loss on the other side, then you might as well throw mission discipline out the window as people would be leaving their mission to pursue potential kills all the way to the ground to get the credit they think they deserve!

So, I say, leave the victories as awarded during the conflict of interest and get on with life.

But, if someone wants to spend a LOT of time doing the review, I certainly wouldn't stop them. I'd have to agree with their definitions and premises before granting them any credence. Therein lies the issue with "Verified Victories." As I say, if I could find the sources, I'd do the review myself. Since I have been trying for years and haven't had much success except for many U.S. victories, I'll say that the scores as awarded during WWII hold up as well as any I've ever seen to some scrutiny.

Was there overclaiming? Yes. Can you say by how much with degree of certainty for everyone? No. Until we CAN say yes to that, the scores as awarded seem to be the best data we have.

Not stirring. You commented on a book. You havent read it. So.

 

[GregP]

Fair enough.

I was trying to comment on the basic premise and not doing a good enough job of it, apparently.

I'm retired on a fixed income and don't generally buy a book without first reading the reviews or at least asking about it. Many times, I get to see a copy before I buy it. Sometimes I don't. In this case, I don't know anyone who bought it, and the reviews say something about the premise that make me want to bypass spending money for it.

But, hey, it might be a revelation. I'm certainly open to that, but I'd need take a gander at it first before biting. Having personally heard Hartmann speak in the 1980s and finding him humble and not given to bragging about himself but rather about his wingmen, I find it tough to think of him as a glory seeking score inflator. I suppose it's possible. I doubt it very much.

 

[CHen10]

Logically, given a large sample size, any pilot's kill claims should have the same probability of being being verified as a loss or not. The study found that Hartmann's kill claims had only a ~21% verification rate vs ~90% of other pilots such as Lipfert. How could the enemy 'discriminate' against some German pilots and not others?

In addition to Lipfert, Walter Wolfrum, Otto Fönnekold and Gerhard Barkhorn are other pilots who were very accurate when you use the idea of a kill only being legitimate when there's a corresponding loss.

Other pilots like Peter Düttmann, Erich Hartmann and Friedrich Haas have only about 10-20% accuracy when using this method.

Some pilots like Heinrich Sturm and Heinz Ewald are in the middle with 50-60% accuracy.

It's interesting to see how different pilots have different degrees of accuracy when using this method for analysis.

In my opinion, it's the best method because the end goal of shooting at a plane is to try and destroy it and so we can see how accurate they were in their attempts.

 

[Denniss]

That again?

 

[Snautzer01]

Fair enough.

I was trying to comment on the basic premise and not doing a good enough job of it, apparently.

I'm retired on a fixed income and don't generally buy a book without first reading the reviews or at least asking about it. Many times, I get to see a copy before I buy it. Sometimes I don't. In this case, I don't know anyone who bought it, and the reviews say something about the premise that make me want to bypass spending money for it.

But, hey, it might be a revelation. I'm certainly open to that, but I'd need take a gander at it first before biting. Having personally heard Hartmann speak in the 1980s and finding him humble and not given to bragging about himself but rather about his wingmen, I find it tough to think of him as a glory seeking score inflator. I suppose it's possible. I doubt it very much.

You missed this. From the author himself.

Verified Victories

Just FYI: Erich Hartmann and his victories and overclaims over Hungary I personally consider historical verification to be an extremely important scientific task and highly appreciate the efforts of those who deals with it. I do not consider personal accounts of pilot victories as a "sacred cow".

ww2aircraft.net

 

[GregP]

Thanks. I did miss it. I'll watch the video clip and decide.

I'm quite familiar with the claiming systems used world-wide.

Maybe they show some source material. I do not agree that a victory means a reported loss, and will not agree with that ever, but perhaps the reviews I read are incomplete or have an agenda that is not evident. Maybe the video clip will suffice to address that notion.

Cheers.

 

[Snautzer01]

but I'd need take a gander at it first before biting.

You can directly ask. L Luft.4

i mean no disrespect towards you offcourse.
I am just here for the some honest debate.

I followed on torch a lenghty discussion and then some. About this book.

Now just ask questions at the author. Having written a book about the subject, he can perhaps help to understand why how etc.

Then disagree with your facts. If that is the case.

Just ask. I am interested in the results.

 

[Luft.4]

How could the enemy 'discriminate' against some German pilots and not others?

Bingo! No bias in the records, they did not care who shot down who. It was pure accounting for the resupply of units with aircraft, pilots, and supplies.

I take the WWII totals as they were awarded during the conflict by the various air forces, except for ones that used a points award system.

The Luftwaffe used a points system, even on the Eastern front.

I have no way to verify Hartmann's victories

We do, see Verified Victories.

Of course, I don't HAVE and do not see how I can GET German primary sources.

BAMA, NARA, TNA, TsAMO. This takes effort.

It would entail a significant study, which is something I'd actually DO if I could find the primary sources to do it with. To date, I cannot find those sources, and I am left with the scores as awarded.

Once again, BAMA, NARA, TNA, TsAMO. These have been open for decades and have ample online information one may access for free. Since about 2010 there has been no excuse for not checking the original scanned documents for those actually interested in the topic. Checking the original paperwork is what sets those genuinely interested in the subject apart from others, and the bar to enter is extremely low (you need an internet connection). I started my journey about 8 years ago and the resulting information has been amazingly rewarding.

While I have not read "Verified Victories,"

Bingo.

I DID read two reviews, and they both state quite clearly the premise used for the books claims. With that premise, I wouldn't waste my money on it.

Very interesting that those who write the history books we read, those who do genuine research, those who do the archeological digs, those that teach in universities actually read the book, and agree with its approach.
One fault people continuously fall into is they fail to read the very first chapter literally titled "What is a Victory", which uses the actually Luftwaffe claiming directives.

don't even bother unless you are going to look at ALL the aerial victories and do a complete victory review, world-wide or, at minimum for an entire country.

It only take the difference of 1 claim to change a total. Simple arithmetic. No need to review some 80,000+ claims.

you need to define what "validated" means.

Exactly why it is easy to spot those who have read the book, vs those who have not, because the answers are in the very first chapter.

and the person who got him deserves a victory in my book.

But now you are introducing a personal preference 80 years after the fact. That's why that is faulty. That is also why the Luftwaffe gave specific directives which we outline in the first chapter.

"Verified Victories" does not recognize such a claim

According to the official Luftwaffe claiming directives, neither did the Luftwaffe.

don't generally buy a book without first reading the reviews or at least asking about it.

Military Aviation History: This is a very good book.
Dr. Klaus Schmider highly recommended the book to Chirs
Dr. Andrew Arthy is a proponent of the book
Nick Beale is a proponent of the book
Delmar Davis is a proponent of the book
Dénes Bérnad is a proponent of the book
Punka György is a proponent of the book
Dr. Markus Reisner is a proponent of the book, etc...

I am here, ask away.

 

[Snautzer01]

Bingo! No bias in the records, they did not care who shot down who. It was pure accounting for the resupply of units with aircraft, pilots, and supplies.

The Luftwaffe used a points system, even on the Eastern front.

We do, see Verified Victories.

BAMA, NARA, TNA, TsAMO. This takes effort.

Once again, BAMA, NARA, TNA, TsAMO. These have been open for decades and have ample online information one may access for free. Since about 2010 there has been no excuse for not checking the original scanned documents for those actually interested in the topic. Checking the original paperwork is what sets those genuinely interested in the subject apart from others, and the bar to enter is extremely low (you need an internet connection). I started my journey about 8 years ago and the resulting information has been amazingly rewarding.

Bingo.

Very interesting that those who write the history books we read, those who do genuine research, those who do the archeological digs, those that teach in universities actually read the book, and agree with its approach.
One fault people continuously fall into is they fail to read the very first chapter literally titled "What is a Victory", which uses the actually Luftwaffe claiming directives.

It only take the difference of 1 claim to change a total. Simple arithmetic. No need to review some 80,000+ claims.

Exactly why it is easy to spot those who have read the book, vs those who have not, because the answers are in the very first chapter.

But now you are introducing a personal preference 80 years after the fact. That's why that is faulty. That is also why the Luftwaffe gave specific directives which we outline in the first chapter.

According to the official Luftwaffe claiming directives, neither did the Luftwaffe.

Military Aviation History: This is a very good book.
Dr. Klaus Schmider highly recommended the book to Chirs
Dr. Andrew Arthy is a proponent of the book
Nick Beale is a proponent of the book
Delmar Davis is a proponent of the book
Dénes Bérnad is a proponent of the book
Punka György is a proponent of the book
Dr. Markus Reisner is a proponent of the book, etc...

I am here, ask away.

Oh ...there are more then a few others.
Quite a few.

And you do not have to defend.

This is not face book.

Here, mostly, if one can convince the other with debate, one will see your point. Sometimes it takes some reasoning but that is what this site is about.
Except for the p-39. ( running gag here) most will see the better arguments.

So please do not take some critical thinking bad.

Hope you feel like to answer, in a field i think only a few did make that efford to get it realley tight right.

Now ... cant wait to hear you debate.

 

[SaparotRob]

It's P-39.