A look at German fighter Ace kill claims

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

We're going to have to agree to disagree, Chen10. Surprise, huh?

You have a genuine combat fighter pilot telling you that there are circumstances when a valid victory will not generate a claim and you still don't get it. Who is better qualified to say, you or a career fighter pilot? If you say you are, then I know something I only suspected previously.

However, I said above I'd stop. I had a relapse ...

So all I will say right here is you and I cannot agree on this and that's OK. It doesn't change history or any official numbers regardless whether you are right or I am right or neither of us is right. It has already been recorded in detail.

Though you are extremely unlikely to get Hartmann's official total lowered, you are free and even encouraged to think whatever you want in good health.

Cheers.
 
I think the problem is that we have, on the one hand, a count of claims by pilots for which they were awarded victories by the powers-that-be, which may not necessarily all be destroyed enemy aircraft/killed pilots; and on the other hand, a list of confirmed destroyed aircraft, which could only be confirmed years or decades after the fact, with access to the other side's archives. We are now trying to link the two numbers.
My biggest question is simply this- what, exactly, does this achieve? Will the honours and medals the pilots achieved be rescinded? Will ALL the records and sources (and there are LOTS, not many of which can be unilaterally controlled in our modern world of the internet) be set straight? Or is it simply a personal quest to determine which pilots put in more claims than they were entitled to, or which pilots under-claimed?
 
There was also the Hungarian Air Force over Kursk which explains why the Soviet losses are more than Luftwaffe claims only. If you added all the Hungarian claims then it would probably be more than the Soviet losses.

And yes Hartmann did actually start overclaiming more over Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland and he was more accurate in 1943 to very early 1944.

This is because in 1943-44 Hartmann is fighting against many different fighters Yaks, LaGGs, La-5s, P-39, P-40 etc. Whereas in late 1944 onwards over Hungary he could only fight against Yaks or La-5/7. This means he has a higher chance of fighting Yaks and Yaks have this tendency to appear critically damaged when they actually aren't. They have this canvas sheet design which causes big holes to appear that look critical. This caused him to think an aircraft was critically damaged but wasn't. You can read about this phenomenon in Verified Victories.

If you read Soviet archives, you can see the detail is clear and with everything accounted for, they can't be censored or anything like that.
 
GregP said:
You have a genuine combat fighter pilot telling you that there are circumstances when a valid victory will not generate a claim and you still don't get it.
Click to expand...
Do you mean a valid victory won't generate a loss?

If a victory is real, there will always be a corresponding loss. It will be logged in some way. Whether it's a damaged aircraft crash landing or an aircraft exploding completely.
 
Good questions, Mainly38s.

The war had been over for 79 years. Why try to rehash things now? Pretty much everyone who matters cannot be questioned as they have passed away, the honors have been bestowed and received, and the reputations have been established. I thank them all for their service and wish them all the very best.

My ace list hasn't changed in a long time except to add data that was previously missing, and I have posted it here several times in Excel format. I still have Greg Boyington with 28 victories, just not all in U.S. service despite the fact that the AVG was a completely US-supported organization.

I'm not a big fan of rewriting things that were over before I was born. I speculate, yes, but refrain from saying things were recorded incorrectly at the time since I wasn't there.

Again, cheers.
 
For me it's fun. I like investigating kill claims so I guess you could call it a personal quest.
 
Such a coincidence.
Yesterday I watched this interview with a Ukrainian pilot. His first combat mission was on the 1st day of the invasion. His wing leader was shot down during take-off. The young pilot tried to intercept incoming missiles and completely lost orientation. GPS was spoofed, comm links were broken, ground control was helpless, and friendly radar sites were hit or relocated. He didn't know where he was. He wanted to land on the road but managed to get linked to ground control at last and was vectored to the reserve base.

"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again."

Ukrainian Su-27 pilot and bike driver. No official English translation, sorry. But YT subtitles are not bad. He openly describes his confusion in the first combat sortie. He prefers Su-27 to MiG-29. His current desire is to have more various weapons, air-to-air and air-to-ground, and upgrade the...
ww2aircraft.net

Now, imagine that he was not lucky and did not avoid the enemy missile. Explosion, shock, ejection, loss of consciousness. Landed in the middle of nowhere, picked up by a passing truck, and brought to the hospital, where he woke up. In the chaos, nobody asked the truck driver where he found this guy.
The pilot returns to his unit and is requested to file a report.
What has happened? - Shot down.
Enemy weapon? - Hmm... AAM? SAM?
Time? - Well... When was my last radio contact? 10 minutes later, I guess... Or 40 minutes later...
Altitude? - 6500 m probably. But I tried to avoid the incoming one and quickly descended, so...
Location? - Between Kyiv and Odesa is my best guess.

Then, 40 years later someone compares the records from both sides.
- there is a claim of VKS (Russian Air Force) pilot with all details: his position, time of missile launch and the target hit, altitude and position of the target.
- Ukrainian records show the loss of PSU aircraft but in position 300 km away, 40 min later, at a different altitude, and not by AAM but by SAM.
- PVO-PRO (Russian Air Defence) records show 18 launches of long-range missiles into that area in the period 30 min before and 30 min after the VKS pilot claim and 6 probable hits.
Is the claim of the VKS pilot verified?
 
GregP said:
circumstances when a valid victory will not generate a claim and you still don't get it.
Click to expand...
If you mean a valid victory doesn't always have a victory claim then yeah I know.


Here are examples

25 February 1945

Helmut Lipfert in a Bf-109 shoots down Romanian Bf-109 flown by Traian Darjan but he never made a claim for it.

20 March 1945

Szentgyörgyi Dezsö is credited with a La-7 but he never realised that the La-7 he hit collided into another La-7. So he got another victory without submitting a claim.
 
Unfortunately I don't know much about missiles and fighter jet combat and how they work, but why is the loss 300km away?
 
One of the tasks of historical research is to find out what really happened and not to repeat what was once thought to have happened.
 
The above example is probably poorly worded and is the reason why it seems fantastical. 300km is a BIG distance to travel without crew. Going off this hypothetical example, the pilot ejected. Go back to back to post 97 (many people on this thread would benefit from reading those directives), if the entire crew abandons the plane mid flight then that is grounds for a victory because this will cause the aircraft to crash (fast forward 50 years when aircraft are remote controlled this may change, we are not there yet).

To Dimlee's concern about reporting, we have ample reports like this for WW2: USAAF MACR (missing air crew reports). They simply state the last know existence of the crew.
When you use these, in combination with 'enemy' reports, you are able to get a much better what actually happened. Plus it is always wise the take note of current events but wait until the propaganda from both sides dies down (alias 'Ghost of Ukraine'), then use all available facts to draw a conclusion. But this is a topic for another thread, this one is about German claims.

Ex we had a group of Hungarian researchers ask us for assistance in locating the crash site of a Soviet A-20 claimed around lake Balaton on a certain day. No such aircraft was downed there. BUT, we do have records of an A-20 attacked by lake Balaton which flew ~40km south before it crashed. Wreckage confirmed this. You need both side's info to get the whole story, and this is what is required for victory verification.

In short, we have the wartime directives clearly stating what constitutes a victory (destruction). We have documentation for the Luftwaffe going against their own directives for propagating the Luftwaffe's achievements. We have the Soviet losses over Hungary so we can assess claims over this country.

If one requires proof, take the time to read up on the subject. Do not expect all answers will be provide to you in 1 thread on the internet. If one disagrees they have an opportunity to substantiate their personal opinions with archival facts, and I would be glad to see such facts surface. Put something concrete on the table and give it a shot
 
Ok, mods what happened to the consensus in post 228 about cartoons and such? Post 270 and now 293.
Post documents not memes and cartoons.
 
Ok.
Post documents to prove your point. 295 posts in and we have yet to see a single one.
 
Based on the quote "the Luftwaffe claimed 220 planes shot down by air and 40 by antiaircraft on the 5th of July", it seems to me that Lawrence did not have Heeres-Flak-Artillerie (Army AAA units) claims in use. In addition, I assume that the "did not return" group is included in the losses of the Soviet Union, i.e. those whose fate was not known at the time of recording, some were shot down by enemy planes, some by AA-fire, the fate of some was a technical failure, etc. And what about the claims of air-gunners, their claims were often badly inflated but they shot down enemy planes.
 
Why are you calling me out? No need to be an ass. I'm NOT disputing your research, nor do I disagree that there was definitive over-claiming.

I just don't agree with what constitutes a victory, and that there will always be a corresponding loss recorded to a claim, and therefore you and I will not agree with the outcome/analysis. That's it, and nothing will change that.
 
Ok DerAdlerIstGelandet , I am going to be civil about this. Please read posts. Don't call people asses. Your a mod, be above that.
This is the second time you think I'm going after you or want to insult you (post 103). IDK why but you do. I have yet to use an insulting word agaisnt you. Not everything is about you.

You were not part of post 228, the other mod was. If you read the post you would see this clear as day.
My post 296 could have been better worded to direct it at the party which dismisses the archival evidence, not solely at yourself. Sorry.
From your post 260 I guess you align yourself with the dismissive party. If yes, then post 296 partly applies to yourself then too.

Its OK to not agree on what constitutes a victory. One side has the documented evidence, the other side does not. One is welcome to choose which one they wish to stay in.
To the document dismissive party who does not wish to acknowledge wartime claiming directives, you are welcome to present your evidence too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

T
Average sorties/kill for German night fighters
Replies
16
Views
2K
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
German WW2 seaplane bases
Replies
1
Views
504
Dimlee
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
GrauGeist
Any Japanese claims on 10 July 1945?
Replies
0
Views
632
CHen10
S
Day fighter Ta 154
Replies
0
Views
583
spicmart
S
Menu
Log in
Register