A look at German fighter Ace kill claims

[GregP]

You can prove it when you find the actual wreckage itself and see the details match the record.

There is NO WAY to match wreckage with a victorious pilot 80 years after the fact.

You have NO IDEA who shot down any wreckage you find today, much less back in 1946.

Erich Hartmann didn't have bullets that nobody else had and he didn't sign his bullets or paint them with dye marks.

What you have is a theory and a paper case. That and a small bit of money will get you a cup of coffee, maybe.

Research is research; it isn't proof of anything except fodder to form a theory. Might be a good theory, and MIGHT even be true. Proving it is another matter entirely.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Oh so you think that the loss could go missing at all these levels?

In the VA report

In the corps report

In the Division report

In the regiment report

In the personnel loss report

In the front report

In other units reports that were in the area (and then the same thing here so their VA report, corps report, division report, regiment report, personnel loss report, front report)

For me the outcome that they all go missing is too far fetched and so I say I have every loss.

It may, it may not. Can incomplete reports at some levels definitely verify 100% a loss, or its reason for loss? Or even its location, time, etc.

In a perfect world, I would agree with you.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Maybe you're reading too much into it. I don't think L Luft.4 is trying to annoy you.

We'll agree to disagree…

 

[Luft.4]

Mod, your post 335 is hardly civil man, thought that was what you asked for explicitly in post 295. And I did not insinuate that you called CHen10 that. I am just shocked that as a mod you let yourself go.
Then go call me an ass and exhibit plenty condescending attitude.
All this, and you are a mod. If pointing this out is getting under your skin...
Rather, provide documented evidence supporting your opinion as a contribution.

I never said memes cannot be posted. I just want everyone to remain civil.

You said the above in response to my post 228. I am telling you that in post 228 you were not the mod, it was the other one.

Maybe you're reading too much into it. I don't think L Luft.4 is trying to annoy you.

Exactly. I am apparently trying in vain to have those dismissing RLM directives over their own personal opinion to present some additional evidence to support their side.

 

[Luft.4]

There is NO WAY to match wreckage with a victorious pilot 80 years after the fact.

You have NO IDEA who shot down any wreckage you find today, much less back in 1946.

Erich Hartmann didn't have bullets that nobody else had and he didn't sign his bullets or paint them with dye marks.

What you have is a theory and a paper case. That and a small bit of money will get you a cup of coffee, maybe.

Research is research; it isn't proof of anything except fodder to form a theory. Might be a good theory, and MIGHT even be true. Proving it is another matter entirely.

I assume you have done research past reading books than have you? archival visits, field expeditions, communicating with the top echelon of researchers from various countries who write the book we read about? What you states is simply not true.
One is able to state who shot down who if enough data is gathered.

 

[CHen10]

There is NO WAY to match wreckage with a victorious pilot 80 years after the fact.

You have NO IDEA who shot down any wreckage you find today, much less back in 1946.

Peter Düttmann claimed a Boston at a location (can't recall from memory) at a time (can't recall from memory) and a Boston went down in the same location and same time.

Soviet loss report mentions serial number of the Boston

Verified Victories includes a picture of the Boston wreckage with the serial number intact and it matches the serial number in the loss report.

Clearly this was Düttmann's victory

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Mod, your post 335 is hardly civil man, thought that was what you asked for explicitly in post 295. And I did not insinuate that you called CHen10 that. I am just shocked that as a mod you let yourself go.
Then go call me an ass and exhibit plenty condescending attitude.
All this, and you are a mod. If pointing this out is getting under your skin...
Rather, provide documented evidence supporting your opinion as a contribution.

You said the above in response to my post 228. I am telling you that in post 228 you were not the mod, it was the other one.

Exactly. I am apparently trying in vain to have those dismissing RLM directives over their own personal opinion to present some additional evidence to support their side.

I don't have to provide evidence for something I am not trying to prove or disprove. Nor do I have a desire to prove or disprove. I am merely playing devils advocate, and pointing out uncertainties in the data.

How about this. do not address me, and I will not address you. That is the best way to move forward.

 

[Luft.4]

I don't have to provide evidence for something I am not trying to prove or disprove. Nor do I have a desire to prove or disprove. I am merely playing devils advocate, and pointing out uncertainties in the data.

How about this. do not address me, and I will not address you. That is the best way to move forward.

As long as you don't go on calling others an ass or stating something is bullshit...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

As long as you don't go on calling others an ass or stating something is bullshit...

Then don't come across as one.

As long as I am not calling someone a name I can use the word bullshit all I want. Thats your problem, not mine.

Now, do you mind…

 

[Luft.4]

And another display of condescending attitude by the mod himself. Please go on, I believe you wanted to back in post 374 and even before.
On one hand you want civil discourse, on the other you state posts are bullshit.
A hollow apology too then, eh?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And another display of condescending attitude by the mod himself. Please go on, I believe you wanted to back in post 374 and even before.
On one hand you want civil discourse, on the other you state posts are bullshit.
A hollow apology too then, eh?

No I apologized sincerely when I insulted you. I should not have called you an ass, regardless of how I felt. If you don't accept that, thats your problem, not mine.

I won't apologize for saying the word bullshit, because I was not saying that about the person. I explained that to him as well, and he seems to understand that, and we have moved on. It's not hard to understand.

So I ask one final time for you to stop making something out of nothing. Drop it and move on. I said I am going to recuse myself from this discussion, and will only act as a moderator going forward. There is one thing you are correct on, that I should not let my feelings get the best of me. I have to be a moderator first. Believe it or not, I respect you for reminding me of that. I'm not the asshole you think I am.

 

[GregP]

Peter Düttmann claimed a Boston at a location (can't recall from memory) at a time (can't recall from memory) and a Boston went down in the same location and same time.

Soviet loss report mentions serial number of the Boston

Verified Victories includes a picture of the Boston wreckage with the serial number intact and it matches the serial number in the loss report.

Clearly this was Düttmann's victory

Because something happened the way your pet theory wants it to happens does NOT prove your general theory. All it means is that your theory is possible because it has been demonstrated. Doesn't mean it holds all the time. Your refusal to even acknowledge that all levels of reports are triggered by the unit making the original claim is telling. If any claim were lost at the reporting unit and never made it any higher, it wouldn't show up anywhere else along the reporting chain. I know because it has happened.

Reporting in war is rarely very accurate. The report writer gets some details right, but misses very many others that absolutely stand out to another observer. It's the nature of human observation.

All you have to do is have 2 or 3 people watch an event, even a TV series for, say, 15 minutes. Then, without talking with one another, they all write a report on it. If you actually do this (I have), you're likely be hard-pressed to figure out they were all describing the same event unless they so state it at the start of the report.

Try it. No coaching. Just ask them to observe and report independently without consulting one another.

It's a very interesting exercise.

 

[CHen10]

Because something happened the way your pet theory wants it to happens does NOT prove your general theory. All it means is that your theory is possible because it has been demonstrated. Doesn't mean it holds all the time. Your refusal to even acknowledge that all levels of reports are triggered by the unit making the original claim is telling. If any claim were lost at the reporting unit and never made it any higher, it wouldn't show up anywhere else along the reporting chain. I know because it has happened.

Reporting in war is rarely very accurate. The report writer gets some details right, but misses very many others that absolutely stand out to another observer. It's the nature of human observation.

All you have to do is have 2 or 3 people watch an event, even a TV series for, say, 15 minutes. Then, without talking with one another, they all write a report on it. If you actually do this (I have), you're likely be hard-pressed to figure out they were all describing the same event unless they so state it at the start of the report.

Try it. No coaching. Just ask them to observe and report independently without consulting one another.

It's a very interesting exercise.

As I said before, the details don't have to be 100% the same they just have to be close enough. The details will usually always be different in some way but they will still be close enough to be a match.

Your refusal to even acknowledge that all levels of reports are triggered by the unit making the original claim is telling.

I never denied this.

If any claim were lost at the reporting unit and never made it any higher, it wouldn't show up anywhere else along the reporting chain. I know because it has happened.

This couldn't happen with Soviet losses though, because there would still be the missing pilots. The missing personnel was also recorded separately and so you'd have to assume the unit report goes missing and the personnel report. There are also multiple copies of the same report with there usually being up to 3 copies.

So you think that all 3 personnel reports and 3 unit reports would get lost.

And the personnel report would have been recorded at the same time as the unit report because the personnel report belongs to the unit report.

 

[CHen10]

Because something happened the way your pet theory wants it to happens does NOT prove your general theory. All it means is that your theory is possible because it has been demonstrated. Doesn't mean it holds all the time. Your refusal to even acknowledge that all levels of reports are triggered by the unit making the original claim is telling. If any claim were lost at the reporting unit and never made it any higher, it wouldn't show up anywhere else along the reporting chain. I know because it has happened.

Reporting in war is rarely very accurate. The report writer gets some details right, but misses very many others that absolutely stand out to another observer. It's the nature of human observation.

All you have to do is have 2 or 3 people watch an event, even a TV series for, say, 15 minutes. Then, without talking with one another, they all write a report on it. If you actually do this (I have), you're likely be hard-pressed to figure out they were all describing the same event unless they so state it at the start of the report.

Try it. No coaching. Just ask them to observe and report independently without consulting one another.

It's a very interesting exercise.

It's also VERY cringe when you keep making subtle attacks at people.

From "Get real", "The fact you think this tells me a lot" or "It proves my suspicion about you"

It's really unnecessary and also embarrassing

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Unfortunately I don't know much about missiles and fighter jet combat and how they work, but why is the loss 300km away?

In a jet doing 550 mph 300 km (180 miles) is about 20 minutes' flying time. So if you're only wrong by 20 minutes, that's how big the discrepancy is going to be in the AAR.

 

[Denniss]

So many words, so much fighting in this thread. All based on the premise that soviet records are 100% complete/correct.

 

[GregP]

It's also VERY cringe when you keep making subtle attacks at people.

From "Get real", "The fact you think this tells me a lot" or "It proves my suspicion about you"

It's really unnecessary and also embarrassing

I'm pretty blunt. If I'm attacking you, you'll know it. Subtlety isn't a strong suit for me.

So I'll say it bluntly. The world is not anywhere near as orderly as you seem to believe, particularly during wartime. Wartime reporting is flawed to a high degree in general. Yes, there are specific instances of great reports ... but they are the exception, not the rule.

Life is simply not as well ordered as you believe. Incorrect reports happen all the time, all over the world, even in the best of organizations, of which any military organization is generally not a member. Most military services have some good people. But, by the law of averages, they also have the people who don't really care and are just there because of lack of options. Unfortunately, they tend to wind up with more than their share of the less than average in the clerk pool.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

"Pencil-whipping" is a thing. Anyone who has actually served in the military understands this fact.

 

[WARSPITER]

The problem with number of kills / claims / scores etc over the years is that there have been articles / books and so on
published by authors who want to glorify or tear down someone else's achievements / character.

This in turn leads to a polarisation of views by many people.

As far as the current subject goes I have seen both types of publications with the reality being somewhere in between.

Tank aces attract the same scrutiny and we will never know exact figures for them either.

 

[CHen10]

"Pencil-whipping" is a thing. Anyone who has actually served in the military understands this fact.

I'm pretty blunt. If I'm attacking you, you'll know it. Subtlety isn't a strong suit for me.

So I'll say it bluntly. The world is not anywhere near as orderly as you seem to believe, particularly during wartime. Wartime reporting is flawed to a high degree in general. Yes, there are specific instances of great reports ... but they are the exception, not the rule.

Life is simply not as well ordered as you believe. Incorrect reports happen all the time, all over the world, even in the best of organizations, of which any military organization is generally not a member. Most military services have some good people. But, by the law of averages, they also have the people who don't really care and are just there because of lack of options. Unfortunately, they tend to wind up with more than their share of the less than average in the clerk pool.

So many words, so much fighting in this thread. All based on the premise that soviet records are 100% complete/correct.

Well if we assume that records are incorrect why not assume Hartmann is a liar? If we go down the path of military records are wrong then maybe Hartmann was lying all the time and as a result the German records were wrong. He says "I shot this and this down" and then the Germans document those claims meaning they document the claims that are fraudulent.

I don't believe Hartmann was a liar

But you could argue he was if you say records are wrong