A look at German fighter Ace kill claims

[CHen10]

an aircraft leaving combat smoking like a Trabant, with a fire, with parts beaking away was considered a victory, it doesn't mean the plane (and pilot) was lost.

This reminds me of a situation on 28 May 1945 over Kanoya.

343 Kokutai N1K2s vs 318 FG P-47Ns

William Loflin's P-47's windshield was covered in oil and his radio was damaged.

(He couldn't have his windshield covered in oil from chasing a smoking enemy aircraft because he wasn't credited with an enemy aircraft shot down and he was forced to disengage immediately from the dogfight giving him no chance to chase enemy aircraft)

Due to this fact and the damaged radio in his cockpit, it was clear he was hit by something.

Since the N1K2s were seen attacking William Loflin and then caused him to disengage, the fact they were credited with shooting down P-47s, and the fact that no one else was credited with a P-47, the 343 Kokutai N1K2s definitely damaged William Loflin's P-47.

To this day no one knows if Loflin's P-47 was scrapped or not.

For me if it was scrapped, then I would consider that a victory because it's been concluded that the P-47 was damaged beyond repair.

If it was repaired, then I would consider it an overclaim since the aircraft isn't destroyed.

Let's just assume it was repaired for argument sake (may not have been)

What do people in this thread consider this if we assume it's repaired?

Victory or Overclaim?

For me it's overclaim

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Victory

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Both victory and overclaim. Victory because he was forced out of the fight, overclaim because he wasn't in fact destroyed.

An infantryman who forces his enemy to flee the field, or wounds him such that he cannot fight back, is considered the victor in that engagement. A battalion who chases off an opposing battalion and seizes the vital ground is the victor. Same for fleets, in most cases.

The loser is not always destroyed. The victor doesn't always exterminate the enemy.

 

[Luft.4]

For the P-47 example and its hypothetical end result of a reparable plane: ultimately an over claim for the Japanese fighters, even though the claim might have been put in with good faith. Why? Because in this hypothetical example the P-47 was repaired and not destroyed. If not destroyed, all that the Japanese fighter did was damage the P-47. You could provide the Japanese pilot with a damaged claim at best.
Post #240 outlines several official documents which state destruction to be the threshold for a victory from multiple nations. All state destruction. War-time, post war-time it is all the same.
Should all those B-17s and B-24s which turned back from a mission with combat damage and landed safely in England be also considered victories for the Axis? Of course not. RLM regulations even explicitly state this to be grounds to reject the claim. If you forced out the enemy aircraft you could maybe get an HSS claim in, maybe, but not an aerial victory (luftsieg).
Indeed I have seen many VNE cards given to units stating that the reason they were rejected was because the enemy aircraft flew back over the front lines and towards their base, destruction could not be proven. Hence: Vernichtung Nicht Erwiesen.
A small note on scrapping, and this is where things get extremely tricky, one needs to demonstrate that the scrapping was a result of the combat damage and not because of other factors (obsolescence, weather damage, self-inflicted damage, etc). For this one needs a lot of information and it takes a wack-ton of time to sort these examples out.

 

[WARSPITER]

As a lot of the stories still around stem from the book The Blond Knight of Germany, please show which 4 P-51s were claimed by him on 24 June 1944 over Romania using American records?

A lot of the Hartmann 'claim' figures come from earlier publications and subsequent research into RLM records show them to be wrong.

The RLM records for 24 June 1944 show that Hartmann claimed one Mustang only. This aircraft according to US records was piloted
by Joseph W. Harper and was seen being engaged by ME 109's. The pilot baled out and the plane crashed near Loloiasca. Harper was
captured and hospitalised with burns.

Other publications have Hartmann claiming as many as seven P-51's on the same day when the RLM records clearly state he claimed one
only and one went down where his unit had engaged.

 

[rochie]

ok here's a situation.

an aircraft is damaged in a fight with an enemy aircraft, it limps to safe territory and is recovered.
it is put aside to be repaired to be put back into the fight.
this is delayed for whatever reason and in the meantime replacement aircraft are received so it is not repaired and scrapped !

victory or not ?

 

[WARSPITER]

ok here's a situation.

an aircraft is damaged in a fight with an enemy aircraft, it limps to safe territory and is recovered.
it is put aside to be repaired to be put back into the fight.
this is delayed for whatever reason and in the meantime replacement aircraft are received so it is not repaired and scrapped !

victory or not ?

Place it in a museum to show the dedication and bravery of the pilot who flew it home and credit it whoever
caused the damage as well. Two for the price of one and everybody wins. A Groundhogless (is that a word? ) argument.

 

[Dimlee]

ok here's a situation.

an aircraft is damaged in a fight with an enemy aircraft, it limps to safe territory and is recovered.
it is put aside to be repaired to be put back into the fight.
this is delayed for whatever reason and in the meantime replacement aircraft are received so it is not repaired and scrapped !

victory or not ?

45 years later a thorough researcher found out that the aircraft was not scrapped but donated to a third country where it was operated by local pilots who scored several kills... or victories...wait, no - claims.

 

[Luft.4]

A lot of the Hartmann 'claim' figures come from earlier publications and subsequent research into RLM records show them to be wrong.

The RLM records for 24 June 1944 show that Hartmann claimed one Mustang only. This aircraft according to US records was piloted
by Joseph W. Harper and was seen being engaged by ME 109's. The pilot baled out and the plane crashed near Loloiasca. Harper was
captured and hospitalised with burns.

Other publications have Hartmann claiming as many as seven P-51's on the same day when the RLM records clearly state he claimed one
only and one went down where his unit had engaged.

And this was the point I try to draw out: the story of 4x verified P-51s for Hartmann is incorrect because based on RLM documents we are able to see he had only 1.
It would be appropriate if the same standard of using original documentation to form our understanding of history would be applied to their claiming system too rather than basing it on personal opinion.
The RLM directives over and over gain clearly state destruction as the criteria. Other nations claiming criteria state this too.

Joseph W. Harper, 0-811902, 15AF, 325FG, 318FS, P-51C-7-NT, 42-103599, V-1650-7 #V-320773. MACR6077.

Any takers for the May-8th one using US documentation?

For the second hypothetical example (I guess the first one got boring as the logic based on original directives makes it relatively easy to sort) the exact same principle follows. Did the 'friendly' aircraft make it back to friendly territory? If yes then according to the RLM directives (should they be followed to a T) require this claim to be rejected at the time. If one uses additional research afterwards and discovers that the 'friendly' aircraft is to be scrapped as newer replacements arrived, then one would first need to know if the scrapping was primarily due to combat damage (too much for economical repair so just scrap the plane) or fresh replacements (the primary driver behind the scrapping). The first would result in a victory for the 'enemy' pilot despite their claiming system rejecting their claim (yes, this does happen), the latter would result in an over claim.

Claims and victories are two different things, they measure two different things. believing they are the same is a basic mistake to make, but an easy one to correct.
Reiterating a quote form post #240 (it would benefit many to read the documentation referred to in the post): "Claims should be regarded as no more than that. Claims are not shoot-downs. To regard them as such is madness".

 

[WARSPITER]

That is the question here too. Who verified four. Later historians ?

It also brings into question whether Hartmann can be said to be over claiming when he only claimed one ?

 

[Luft.4]

As pointed out above, we have to go back to the original documentation. No way around that.
BKoG was written in co-operation with Hartmann, therefore he himself cannot fully be excused from this mix-up. Why did Hartmann not intervene to state that he only claimed 2 US fighters in his career (as shown in documented evidence) rather than the absurd 7 as written in the book he helped create? 4x P-51s in a single day, the first time he was opposed by this type (does anyone actually believe this)? IDK if a Western front Luftwaffe pilot even had such a track record.
Archival records show only 1 claimed by him this day making Hartmann's recollection/BKoG incorrect. This does not imply he lied, only that his recollection differed from what actually happened.
In Verified Victories we made a tally based on his officially confirmed claims from the OKL listings (and the other 7 pilots in the book), plenty of over claiming even when reduced to these 'official OKL' claims.
How do we know this? Because we looked at the 'enemy' losses (VVS/USAF). Similarly for Hartmann's 24 June 1944 P-51 claim we can find the US losses that day and come to a conclusion.

 

[GregP]

As we see above, there are situations, several at the very least, where a pilot may score a victory and not have a recorded loss on the other side. You even have a USAF F-15 pilot who agrees.

To have conclusive proof someone overclaimed in WWII, you need to 1) tie the specific aircraft that returned to the claiming pilot and 2) show it wasn't forced down at the time of the claim. Whether or not is was a total loss is irrelevant to whether or not a victory was awarded. Many times, the victory WAS a total loss. Many times, it wasn't.

Another situation: Suppose a pilot gets shot up and thought he had to bail out. He does, and the enemy pilot machine guns him in the chute, killing him. The pilot's aircraft recovers near-level flight and glides in for a soft crash landing, is later recovered to fly again some time later or donate significant parts that fly again. Is it a victory? I say yes. Was a loss recorded? No or maybe.

Are victories considered to be victories over the enemy pilot or over the enemy aircraft? If you kill the enemy pilot and the enemy airplane survives, is it a victory? We already know that if you destroy an enemy aircraft but the enemy pilot survives, you can be awarded a victory.

To have a victory, is shooting it out of the fight and causing it to force land sufficient or do you have to destroyed it completely? In real life, this changed over time, sometimes even to include grounded aircraft that were strafed and caught fire. Sometimes they were not observed to have exploded to be classified as a victory.

Probable victories were enemy aircraft that were seen to be damaged and left the scene headed down burning or apparently out of control, but not verified as crashed; sometimes they went down into a cloud and were last seen burning, headed downward.

Damaged aircraft were enemy aircraft that were hit in combat and pieces came off, but the aircraft apparently flew away under control of its pilot and was not observed to crash or force-land.

 

[SaparotRob]

I think the hangup here is with the word "kill". "Knockout" (KO) and "Technical Knockout" (TKO) might be more applicable terms but we are dealing with over a century of pilot jargon.

 

[Luft.4]

Welcome back GregP , post #97 outlining Az 29 Nr. 55270/41 would help in understanding your query.
HS-73, HS-85 all clearly stated destruction from the POV of the US for WW2. Just to quote what the F-15 pilot said about the claiming system:

Greg,

I will say the standards have changed between now and WW2

The standards used in WW2 for determining a kill seem totally acceptable to me.

So once again it is the original documentation which we have to go back to, and those say destruction. Seems the F-15 pilot agrees with this? No matter if yes/no, anyone can read HS-73 or HS-85 to understand how the USAF saw the situation back then.
To your hypothetical example, post #97.
SaparotRob indeed there is much confusion in this thread between a victory and a claim (which can take many forms). From the German side you could make OZ, WB, EV, HSS and group claims just to name a few.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Just to play devils advocate here:

1. Just because an aircraft is engaged in combat (and defeated) in one location, does not mean it will actually go down at that location.

2. Just because an aircraft is "destroyed" does not mean it can't be recovered and eventually repaired. When you are in combat you do what you have to do to make the mission and fight the enemy.

There were several aircraft shot down by ground fire during my service, and some where retrieved and returned to service. They were still shot down though right? Some combatant on the ground still had a "victory" right?

So yeah, I do have issues with the way victories are being counted. My view will not be changed.

My point, however, is combat is NEVER black and white and simple as it is being made out to be. That includes claims and victories.

 

[CHen10]

1. Just because an aircraft is engaged in combat (and defeated) in one location, does not mean it will actually go down at that location.

That's true but this kind of situation is already thought of.

Example 1

Someone claims aircraft at 1500 hours at Györ

An aircraft crashes at 1500 hours at Székesfehérvár

This loss is not linked to the victory because the shot down aircraft can't be in two places at once.


Example 2

Someone claims an aircraft at 1500 hours at Györ

An aircraft crashes or crash lands at 1515 hours at Székesfehérvár

This loss may well be linked to the victory because there is some time difference between the claim and loss which would happen if it struggled on to a new location. Soviet records acknowledge this too. It will say things like "X aircraft piloted by this person was hit at Y location but it ended up crashing at Z location."

2. Just because an aircraft is "destroyed" does not mean it can't be recovered and eventually repaired. When you are in combat you do what you have to do to make the mission and fight the enemy.

Soviet losses state if an aircraft is a total loss and that it can't be recovered.

There were several aircraft shot down by ground fire during my service, and some where retrieved and returned to service. They were still shot down though right? Some combatant on the ground still had a "victory" right?

They were shot down but they weren't destroyed because they were eventually repaired

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That's true but this kind of situation is already thought of.

Example 1

Someone claims aircraft at 1500 hours at Györ

An aircraft crashes at 1500 hours at Székesfehérvár

This loss is not linked to the victory because the shot down aircraft can't be in two places at once.


Example 2

Someone claims an aircraft at 1500 hours at Györ

An aircraft crashes or crash lands at 1515 hours at Székesfehérvár

This loss may well be linked to the victory because there is some time difference between the claim and loss which would happen if it struggled on to a new location. Soviet records acknowledge this too. It will say things like "X aircraft piloted by this person was hit at Y location but it ended up crashing at Z location."



Soviet losses state if an aircraft is a total loss and that it can't be recovered.



They were shot down but they weren't destroyed because they were eventually repaired

Irrelevant. The pilot shooting down an aircraft does not care if an aircraft was returned to service. If he shot it down, he shot it down. That is a victory. Period.

Irrelevant again. Who cares if they were repaired? One pilot shot down another pilot and was victorious over the other. He gets a victory.

Anyhow, this is nothing more than groundhoggery. Neither of us will have our minds change. Over and out…

 

[CHen10]

Otto Fönnekold

Helmut Lipfert

Walter Wolfrum

Gerhard Barkhorn

Günther Rall

Just some photos of the pilots I mentioned as being accurate

 

[CHen10]

Irrelevant. The pilot shooting down an aircraft does not care if an aircraft was returned to service. If he shot it down, he shot it down. That is a victory. Period.

Irrelevant again. Who cares if they were repaired? One pilot shot down another pilot and was victorious over the other. He gets a victory.

Anyhow, this is nothing more than groundhoggery. Neither of us will have our minds change. Over and out…

It's not a victory if the aircraft isn't destroyed since the criteria for a victory is destruction of the aircraft

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Otto Fönnekold
View attachment 791826



Helmut Lipfert
View attachment 791827



Walter Wolfrum
View attachment 791828


Gerhard Barkhorn
View attachment 791829

Günther Rall
View attachment 791830


Just some photos of the pilots I mentioned as being accurate

That does not prove anything, because it does not change what a victory is.