A look at German fighter Ace kill claims

[GregP]

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.

Your remark that the Luftwaffe used a points system, even on the eastern front tells me a bit.

A points system WAS used, but generally ONLY on the western front. If it was used at all, it was used solely for awarding decorations for aerial combat accomplishments, such as Iron cross, Honor cup, German cross, Knight's cross. It was never used for tracking aerial victories. The system for awarding actual aerial victories was stringent, but there were exceptions, as with most any system, that got through.

This became more apparent when the German archives were made public in the 1990s. Reviews showed German claims were around 90% accurate when compared with Allied records. This compares VERY favorably when compared with almost any other air force that participated in WWII.

I don't have much to ask, but thanks for the offer. Perhaps in the future.

Cheers.

 

[Luft.4]

Your remark that the Luftwaffe used a points system, even on the eastern front tells me a bit.

Hopefully it does because it was present. JG 51, JG 52 etc... even in late March 1945. They were titled "abschüssen gleichzusetzen". It converted the type of claim into a point/s. The Luftwaffe did use the points system on the Eastern Front.

but generally ONLY on the western front.

Simply not true. Ample evidence it was used on the Eastern front as well.

It was never used for tracking aerial victories.

That is again incorrect. Claims and points had a 1:1 relationship because one is derived from the other and vice-versa. The number of claims can directly be extracted from the points breakdown of a pilot... and period documents do exactly that.

The system for awarding actual aerial victories was stringent

Verified Victories, Chapter 1, will provide about 10 pages and 97 footnotes on how messy the situation was. This messy situation was acknowledged even by high ranking RLM/OKL staff post war.
Take Erich Hartmann's 301 in August. Approved by his unit while he was still flying (ie. no paperwork filled out yet!), he gets his award, pictures/leave/etc, and the OKL only give their final approval way after in October/November 3 months after the fact once all the propaganda had been created. It was increasingly a mess from 1943 on wards.

 

[GregP]

Been looking at this for more than 50 years, including talking with WWII pilots about it ... including German veterans, and you are the first person to suggest the Germans used a point system for aerial victories.

I'll pass on commenting and watch from the sidelines as an interested observer.

Methinks it is YOU who are incorrect.

In the end, it doesn't matter much to me. I have loads of references that never once mention the points system for anything except decorations.

But, don't let that get in the way of promotion. Go for it.

Cheers.

 

[Luft.4]

First

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

then

Been looking at this for more than 50 years

... anyway. BAMA, NARA, TNA, TsAMO. Online, free, been that way for a decade and only getting better.

you are the first person to suggest the Germans used a point system for aerial victories.

I believe you fail to understand me. It was used since at least 1943 to translate an action into a standardized metric for awards. Nothing special about it. I am about the 10,000th person who has made mention of the points systems used for aerial victories. It was also used for operational flights, special mission types, etc. Its purpose was literally to track the aerial claims, define them by a standardized metric, and then after accumulating X number of points to be "cashed out" as an award. Nothing about the above deviates from the past 80 years of research. Careful re-reading of my post #22 clearly states this. From these lists you can count the number of claims a pilot made. If the points system is not tracking aerial claims (or special flights, etc), what would you think (or 'methinks') it tracks exactly?

The system tracks actions (input), then it accumulates these to result in an equivalent for an award (output).

One is welcome to "methinks" all they wish, meanwhile aviation research based on archival documents steadily continues to get better and better. It has never been this accessible either which is an excellent thing!

 

[GregP]

For those of you who are interested in real-world data, attached is a list of the kills for the top Aces, who are all German.

Notice in particular the top 3. Note their victory lists are not composed of points; they are composed of aircraft that were shot down. So, Erich Hartmann had 352 victims, not 352 points awarded.

His points accumulated with the point system then in use, were used to award his uniform decorations, like they were for the other pilots. Hartmann had the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves and, later, diamonds ... 1 of only 27 to receive the diamonds.

Cheers.

 

[Luft.4]

An impressive compilation from various sources! For Hartmann these appear to come from a defunct Czech website, Tony Woods listings based on the OKL microfilms, Bernd Barbas's historiography (he helped with the book as well) and data complied by Micheal Balss in his database (which is derived from sources already mentioned), possibly also from my good collaegue Johannes Mathews (Luftwaffe Aces series) who selflessly assisted in Verified Victories and was a great proponent of the book, perhaps a few more.

Note their victory lists are not composed of points; they are composed of aircraft that were shot down

Pilots made claims, at the same time they were also awarded points based on the system of the time. Perhaps you once again misinterpreted me. Then what did we write 215 pages on, cross checking an arbitrary point with a detailed Soviet loss? Then again those who have the book clearly understand this is not the case.
So maybe a third time is a charm, now with posts #22 and #24. I'll leave the points topic at that as there is little sense in reiterating something that apparently cannot/does not want to be understood. If one wants more on points, the answers lie in some pilot logbooks and at BAMA (I would suggest RL 19-11/154 as a start on the claiming systems).

they are composed of aircraft that were shot down.

*Claimed* It is necessary to make this distinction. Claim≠ Victory. What is a victory? -> Chapter 1 of the book in 10 pages.

Based on archival/documented sources for late 1944-capitulation (unit association as written in documents, many late claim victim models derived from letters sent back home apparently. TsAMO docs are German docuemtns captured by Soviets now held at TsAMO). Some *real-world* data below/attacehd.

1944.11.22	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	7./JG52	Yak-9	98453​	at 3.500 m.	11:40​	BAMA	Abschusse Microfilm	317
1944.11.22	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	7./JG52	La-5	98452​	at 4.500 m.	11:45​	BAMA	Abschusse Microfilm	318
1944.12.05	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	7./JG52	LaGG-5	98419​	at 1.200 m.	13:20​	BAMA	Abschusse Microfilm	319
1944.12.05	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	7./JG52	LaGG-5	98278​	at 1.000 m.	13:25​	BAMA	Abschusse Microfilm	320
1944.12.09	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	7./JG52	Yak-9	88683​	at 2.000 m.	13:10​	BAMA	Abschusse Microfilm	321
1944.12.09	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	7./JG52	Yak-9	88694​	at 2.000 m.	13:20​	BAMA	Abschusse Microfilm	322
1944.12.10-22	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	-	-	-	-	-	?	?	323
1944.12.10-22	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	-	-	-	-	-	?	?	324
1944.12.10-22	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	-	-	-	-	-	?	?	325
1944.12.10-22	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	-	-	-	-	-	?	?	326
1944.12.10-22	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	-	-	-	-	-	?	?	327
1944.12.23	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	-	-	-	-	-	TsAMO	VOL report	328
1944.12.24	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	-	-	-	-	-	TsAMO	VOL report	329
1944.12.24	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	-	-	-	-	-	TsAMO	VOL report	330
1944.12.24	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	-	-	-	-	-	TsAMO	VOL report	331
1944.12.25	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	-	-	-	-	-	TsAMO	VOL report	332
1944.12.25	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	-	-	-	-	-	TsAMO	VOL report	333
1944.12.25	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	-	-	-	-	-	TsAMO	VOL report	334
1944.12.25	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	-	-	-	-	-	TsAMO	VOL report	335
1944.12.25	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	-	-	-	-	-	TsAMO	VOL report	336
1945.02.04	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	I./JG 53	Yak	Sárkeresztes-Mór area	at 3.000 m	~14:00	TNA/Book	JG 53 Vol.3, Verified Victories; Pictures	337
1945.02.05-03.05	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	-	-	-	-	-	?	?	338
1945.02.05-03.05	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	-	-	-	-	-	?	?	339
1945.03.06	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	III./JG52	Yak-9	71193​	-	-	NARA	Lft.Kdo 6 KTB	340
1945.03.06	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	III./JG52	Yak-9	71194​	-	-	NARA	Lft.Kdo 6 KTB	341
1945.03.07	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	I./JG52	Yak-9	71414​	-	-	NARA	Lft.Kdo 6 KTB	342
1945.03.07	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	I./JG52	Yak-9	71473​	-	-	NARA	Lft.Kdo 6 KTB	343
1945.03.8-15	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	I./JG52	-	-	-	-	?	?	344
1945.03.8-15	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	I./JG52	-	-	-	-	?	?	345
1945.03.8-15	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	I./JG52	-	-	-	-	?	?	346
1945.03.16	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	I./JG52	-	-	-	-	NARA	Lft.Kdo 6 KTB	347
1945.04.10	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	I./JG52	-	-	-	-	NARA	Lft.Kdo 6 KTB	348
1945.04.11-16	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	I./JG52	-	-	-	-	?	?	349
1945.04.17	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	I./JG52	-	-	-	-	NARA	Erfahrungsbericht JG 52; Picture	350
1945.04.18-05.07	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	I./JG52	-	-	-	-	?	?	351
1945.05.08	Hptm. Erich Hartmann	I./JG52	Yak	Brno Area	at 4.000 m	~9:00	Book	Blond Knight of Germany; Graf&Grislawski	352

 

[CHen10]

So, Erich Hartmann had 352 victims,

A lot of those victims never actually crashed. They suffered minimal or no damage at all and returned to base. He was credited with 352 victories, but a lot of those victories never actually resulted in destroyed aircraft.

 

[GregP]

In your opinion, and you are welcome to it. I wasn't there and can't say for sure.

But, the evidence survived for the victory board discussion. Most pilots, including the Germans, didn't put in for a victory unless they saw the plane explode or otherwise go down, the enemy pilot bail out, or the plane going down into cloud while substantially on fire and seemingly out of control.

Then again, as I said, I wasn't there.

Cheers.

 

[Luft.4]

A lot of those victims never actually crashed. They suffered minimal or no damage at all and returned to base.

Exactly. Even by OKL standards these are not victories, but rules were relaxed and claim information could not be followed up on... or propaganda was already created (see previous note on his 301 record) that no person wishing to remain alive would go against.

In your opinion

It is literally evidenced by stacks of archival documents enough to fill a room. This is not opinion, rather fact.
The bar to enter is thankfully low, needing only an internet connection: BAMA,NARA, TNA, TsAMO.

 

[CHen10]

This is not opinion, rather fact.

Exactly. We can say with certainty that Hartmann did NOT destroy 352 planes. He damaged a lot of planes but they never crashed and sometimes he thought he hit them but he didn't.

 

[Luft.4]

Exactly. We can say with certainty that Hartmann did NOT destroy 352 planes. He damaged a lot of planes but they never crashed and sometimes he thought he hit them but he didn't.

Fully agree. I believe he had 352 claims, I can also believe he had more claims (ex Johannes Mathews found 2 more unconfirmed even by the OKL (from his first logbook?). But 352 victories? No, not even close.

 

[GregP]

Damaged a lot of planes - yes.

Never crashed? You have to be joking.

Thought he hit them but didn't? Every pilot in combat has those, but if they didn't get hit, they didn't crash or appear to be crashing, and those are the ones you don't claim.

 

[Luft.4]

Taking the time to carefully read post #30 allows one to understand the context and avoid misinterpretation. Although he damaged many planes, (those damaged planes) did not crash.

 

[CHen10]

Damaged a lot of planes - yes.

Never crashed? You have to be joking.

Thought he hit them but didn't? Every pilot in combat has those, but if they didn't get hit, they didn't crash or appear to be crashing, and those are the ones you don't claim.

The thing is, Hartmann did claim the ones that never crashed. That's why he has overclaims. Of his 352 victories, a lot never crashed.

 

[GregP]

I suppose you were there to witness that statement.

His wingmen said otherwise, and they WERE there and WERE witnesses.

Your statement smacks of being your opinion. That's fine. Everyone has one.

My opinion is that I won't arbitrarily decide to change a pilot's score that was awarded in a war without significant evidence to back up the change, and I am not interested in going after one or even a few people in that regard. I we are going to change the historic scores, let's look at the entire set of scores. Unfortunately, most of what would have been eyewitness accounts have been lost if they have not already been written down, because the pilot's involved have passed away.

The accounts that HAVE been written down about Hartmann that I have seen don't support your statement. So, and I am not speaking for others here, I'll stick with his score as it was awarded during the conflict.

At least, that seems reasonable to me.

Arguments with words like "never crashed" seem ill-considered. Hartmann was credited with 352 victories. To say "never crashed" is a rather obvious attempt to stir the pot of discord. Let's just say it didn't work. If you're going to make that case, what is your evidence, specifically, by date and reference?

I posted an Excel file above with the dates of his victories. Which ones are you disputing and what is your specific evidence for the disagreement with the victories you take issue with?

Curious to read about it.

Cheers.

 

[CHen10]

I don't know why you think saying "never crashed" is stirring the pot of discord. There's nothing insulting about that phrase.

Here's the evidence that Hartmann had overclaims and that his victims didn't always crash. You can look at the tables and see that the losses don't match his claims:

 

[Luft.4]

Curious to read about it.

There is an entire 215 page book on it.

 

[GregP]

Primary source, CHen10. And I can write that stuff, too, and have.

The main thing you say above is that losses do not match claims. Ya' think?

That's true and there are very many scenarios when someone who gets shot down will not show up as a loss.

The very idea that losses will match claims is incorrect from the outset. I've covered that many times in here, so I won't both to cover it again.

If that's the best you have, you don't have much. Seeing some of it makes me want to see more, but Soviet admitted losses will NEVER match claims. That does not invalidate the claims. What invalidates the claims is if the airplanes claimed as shot down didn't, in fact, go down. Whether or not it was repaired later is inconsequential.

Somehow, I knew the pic of the book was coming. I wonder how I knew that?

Cheers.

 

[Luft.4]

Are your eyes unable to see the dozens of footnotes?
No primary sources, lol. According to yourself you can't seem to find the German sources, let alone Soviet ones. I suppose this is true as when presented with a page directly citing dozens of primary sources this still slips under the radar.
Anyway, an old Western saying about bringing a horse to water comes to mind…
Your displayed knowledge on Soviet aircraft loss reporting is not surprising given what has been written.
I don't mean the above to chastise, only to square the situation.
If one wishes to read about the Luftwaffe claiming system, Verified Victories provides the probably the most up-to-date and expansive reading in a single book in the English language written to date. If one is serious in wanting to know, they will at least make an attempt at understanding.

 

[CHen10]

Primary source, CHen10. And I can write that stuff, too, and have.

These are primary sources, they are from TsAMO RF

but Soviet admitted losses will NEVER match claims.

The very idea that losses will match claims is incorrect from the outset. I've covered that many times in here, so I won't both to cover it again.

This is completely wrong. Helmut Lipfert for example, was really accurate and his claims match Soviet losses most of the time. So yes, Soviet losses do match claims since they match with Lipfert, Barkhorn, Fönnekold, Wolfrum etc. They also sometimes match with Hartmann too.

I could show you proof that Lipfert's claims match Soviet losses but I don't know if it's fair to keep showing pictures from Verified Victories since you haven't bought it.

I'll ask Luft.4 since he's the author

L Luft.4 Do you mind if I show a few more excerpts from Verified Victories?