A look at German fighter Ace kill claims (1 Viewer)

[Thumpalumpacus]

I must have misunderstood. That's my fault sorry about that.

No need to apologize, brotha. We need not agree on every.single.thing in order to learn from each other, and on my part, I've learnt a lot from you and others here too. I too may have misread how vociferous you were (or weren't) about the supremacy of records being infallible.

In either event, it's just a discussion, and in one where my knowledge is so limited, I shoot questions and the occasional opinion, which is all I've done.

 

[CHen10]

I think the book that started all this has an agenda, and that agenda includes discrediting Hartmann. I think that largely from reading this thread. If it doesn't have that agenda, then this thread is NOT a good advertisement for the book. The agenda may or may not be accurate but, if not, it sure seems that way to me.

Verified Victories isn't the first book to ever discuss overclaiming. There are loads of books which discuss overclaiming.

Verified Victories has no agenda. It's unfair to say a book has an agenda when you haven't even read it

 

[CHen10]

No need to apologize, brotha. We need not agree on every,single.thing in order to learn from each other, and on my part, I've learnt a lt from you and others here too. I too may have misread how vociferous you were (or weren't) about the supremacy of records being infallible.

In either event, it's just a discussion, and in one where my knowledge is so limited, I shoot questions and the occasional opinion, which is all I've done.

Yeah it's not a big deal.

 

[Dimlee]

Somewhat off-topic...or not.

About 18-20 years ago, researchers in ex-USSR discovered and published the numbers of VVS losses in 1941 which were filed in the official records under the rather unusual category: "neuchtyonnaya ubyl''", which can be translated as "unaccounted losses".
Over 50% (fifty per cent) of VVS losses on 01 Aug 1941 were in this category. There were various theories and debates around that.

 

[Retattack]

Somewhat off-topic...or not.

About 18-20 years ago, researchers in ex-USSR discovered and published the numbers of VVS losses in 1941 which were filed in the official records under the rather unusual category: "neuchtyonnaya ubyl''", which can be translated as "unaccounted losses".
Over 50% (fifty per cent) of VVS losses on 01 Aug 1941 were in this category. There were various theories and debates around that.

I've read that latter operations were intentionally spread piecemeal over multiple units to limit the number of losses for any particular unit. Which would obviously make it easier to hide total losses, if they were so inclined.

Chris Lawrence discussed an example of reporting discrepancies in his Kursk research here [The Soviet General Staff study on Kursk compared to Unit Records (part 2 of 3 – Airplane Losses)]:

This is concerning, for it does appear that Soviet General Staff study is understating the Second Air Army losses, omitting the considerable losses from the Seventeenth Air Army and of course, grossly overclaiming the number of German aircraft shot down. This was in an internal classified report that was supposed to be an analysis of the battle. Hard to properly analyze if your data is not correct.

 

[Juha3]

Somewhat off-topic...or not.

About 18-20 years ago, researchers in ex-USSR discovered and published the numbers of VVS losses in 1941 which were filed in the official records under the rather unusual category: "neuchtyonnaya ubyl''", which can be translated as "unaccounted losses".
Over 50% (fifty per cent) of VVS losses on 01 Aug 1941 were in this category. There were various theories and debates around that.

Yrs it is well known that there were many holes in Soviet loss records from the summer and autumn 1941. Surprise attack and chaotic retreats, whole armies were wipe out. In fact that is not so strange. I suspect that the US Army and USAAF files for the 1941-42 Philippines Campaign are far from complete. Same to the BEF and AASF files.

 

[Juha3]

I've read that latter operations were intentionally spread piecemeal over multiple units to limit the number of losses for any particular unit. Which would obviously make it easier to hide total losses, if they were so inclined.

Chris Lawrence discussed an example of reporting discrepancies in his Kursk research here [The Soviet General Staff study on Kursk compared to Unit Records (part 2 of 3 – Airplane Losses)]:

I was surprised when Glantz and his publisher began to publish those Soviet General Staff studies, they were products of Stalinist system and one easyly noticed the exaggeration of German strengths and losses and at least some of the underestimations of the Soviet losses. But as Lawrence notes by going to VVS KA records much higher air losses can be found.

 

[Holtzauge]

Chen10, you state pretty clearly that since Hartmann's victories fall into your set of doubtful claims, that he was a chronic overclaimer. That means liar when the overclaims are frequent. You didn't use those words, but that's what you said.

You also think that way largely because there is no reported loss on the other side, despite being told of numerous ways such a thing can happen without a reported loss.

You rather obviously think that wartime records were exceedingly accurate and complete.

So, you apparently want to say Hartmann is a liar, that he isn't a liar and, now, that it is all a misunderstanding.

It isn't a misunderstanding. You are calling Hartmann a liar, plain and simple, because his victories don't all fit your pet theory, so SOMETHING must be wrong. You are basing this on reports that you believe tell the complete story of the entire air war in the area and a book that trashes Hartmann.

Some believe you. A lot of us disagree.

I think the book that started all this has an agenda, and that agenda includes discrediting Hartmann. I think that largely from reading this thread. If it doesn't have that agenda, then this thread is NOT a good advertisement for the book. The agenda may or may not be accurate but, if not, it sure seems that way to me.

So, just to be clear:

I very strongly disagree that a victory means a corresponding loss report must have been generated.
I very strongly disagree that all such reports are available today.
I do NOT believe all reports from the original claiming unit survived the war.
I do not believe Hartmann was a liar or that a significantly larger portion of his victories were overclaims than for other top pilots.

And, once again, I am outta' this thread, this time for good except to check the thread development.

None of this reflects personally on YOU. You are entitled to your opinion, for sure.

I fully agree with this summary. Added to this we have the author's own words in post #268 where he suggests that German overclaiming was endemic: "humpty-dumpty Goring with his thirst for power created an environment where this could take place" and that: "the Luftwaffe and introduced the possibility for filing sneaky claims" and that: "staffel captains signing off on their own claim". Finally, this is how he portrays Erich Hartmann: "does Hartmann need 11 more claims to get over the world record of 300, let him have it and broadcast it and give him the medal etc etc etc" and that "they let that slide as he is the poster-boy". And this is just a sample. There is more of the same in that post.

And since this is the way the author chooses to express himself here in the forum on the subject, I feel absolutely no inclination at all to get the book. After all, why would I want to read a book by an author with such a biased opinion?

 

[CHen10]

I fully agree with this summary. Added to this we have the author's own words in post #268 where he suggests that German overclaiming was endemic: "humpty-dumpty Goring with his thirst for power created an environment where this could take place" and that: "the Luftwaffe and introduced the possibility for filing sneaky claims" and that: "staffel captains signing off on their own claim". Finally, this is how he portrays Erich Hartmann: "does Hartmann need 11 more claims to get over the world record of 300, let him have it and broadcast it and give him the medal etc etc etc" and that "they let that slide as he is the poster-boy". And this is just a sample. There is more of the same in that post.

And since this is the way the author chooses to express himself here in the forum on the subject, I feel absolutely no inclination at all to get the book. After all, why would I want to read a book by an author with such a biased opinion?

 

[Holtzauge]

Since this is the third time you post a cartoon Chen10, I can only assume that this is an attempt to get the thread locked. In addition, Luft.4 giving this "bacon" simply underscores that both of you are out of arguments.

 

[Luft.4]

I fully agree with this summary. Added to this we have the author's own words in post #268 where he suggests that German overclaiming was endemic: "humpty-dumpty Goring with his thirst for power created an environment where this could take place" and that: "the Luftwaffe and introduced the possibility for filing sneaky claims" and that: "staffel captains signing off on their own claim". Finally, this is how he portrays Erich Hartmann: "does Hartmann need 11 more claims to get over the world record of 300, let him have it and broadcast it and give him the medal etc etc etc" and that "they let that slide as he is the poster-boy". And this is just a sample. There is more of the same in that post.

And since this is the way the author chooses to express himself here in the forum on the subject, I feel absolutely no inclination at all to get the book. After all, why would I want to read a book by an author with such a biased opinion?

I assume you are aware that apart for authors such as Theo Boiten, Morgan Seibel, Erik Mombeeck, and Johannes Matthews I am far from the only person to write about how Goring relaxed claiming regulation and how the claiming system had to start anew? And that these are derived from official documents at BAMA. If you recognize none of the above authors then the claiming question must not be your forte.
But as previous admitted some people do not use original documents, in fact they dismiss them. Not surprising.
Both you and that Greg guy appear to be dead set on the booked being biased, as you both have yet to read it I am curious as to how you came to that conclusion? Author of the 4 volume Luftwaffe aces series Johannes Matthews has publicly stated verified Victories is unbiased. They have read the book. They are real experts on claiming.
Interesting that the real researchers and published authors on this thread ( A Andrew Arthy and Nick Beale , in addition to myself) can agree that over claiming is a real thing, that high claiming pilots had over claims, and that Soviet documents is a go-to/must for researching the eastern front and that their losses and trustable. At the same time, those that have not used the documents dismiss them.
There is no biased against Hartmann nor any of the other 7 pilots in the book. Hartmann's performance was based on the same docs which propels other pilots to near perfect claiming. His performance was lack luster over Hungary, period. I/JG 53 pilots agreed to btw! Laughable that those who have not read the book would claim such things. This only shows how engraved legacy understandings of the aerial war over the eastern front still is.

This thread still lacks documented proof from the dismissive side btw, 400+ posts in.

 

[CHen10]

Since this is the third time you post a cartoon Chen10, I can only assume that this is an attempt to get the thread locked. In addition, Luft.4 giving this "bacon" simply underscores that both of you are out of arguments.

No you couldn't be more wrong

I can post memes if I want

I posted that picture because it's hilarious how you think Verified Victories is full of opinions because it's actually just facts in the book.

Here are some facts that are also my arguments:

- Soviet records contain a list of the tasks carried out so if there are 7 tasks but only 5 task reports then we know records are missing. This has never happened to me personally and the records are always there. So the records are all there and we would know if they aren't there.

-If some records are lost, it still doesn't matter because losses are recorded at multiple levels and there are multiple copies of those records. There will always be a trace of the loss. It's too far fetched to say every trace of the loss will get lost. There are just too many documents that would have to go.

-Losses are always documented. An aircraft can't go down and there is no record of it.

-Soviets can't lie about records because everything is accounted for. Pilots, planes, ammunition, fuel, etc. are all documented as being used or lost. If the Soviets lost loads of stuff and didn't report it they would be questioned as to why it wasn't reported.

-All ww2 aviation historians that analyse victories always look at opposing losses.

Henry Sakaida
Michael Claringbould
John Lundstrom
Edward Young
Gábor and Dániel Horváth
Nikita Egorov
Christopher Bergström
Ivan Lavrinenko

And many more

Plus all the people that do research and post their findings online

-I actually praise Hartmann as a skilled pilot. He shot down Soviet aces and Heroes of The Soviet Union

 

[CHen10]

This thread still lacks documented proof from the dismissive side btw, 300+ posts in.

It's 400+ posts now!!

 

[CHen10]

Oh and records are not 100% accurate. People make mistakes when they report things, so the location or time could be slightly wrong. I report 1230 hours but it's actually 1245 hours for example. The rule is that it has to be close enough.

 

[SaparotRob]

.. The rule is that it has to be close enough.

So, you are agreeing with Gregp?

 

[Snautzer01]

I assume you are aware that apart for authors such as Theo Boiten, Morgan Seibel, Erik Mombeeck, and Johannes Matthews I am far from the only person to write about how Goring relaxed claiming regulation and how the claiming system had to start anew? And that these are derived from official documents at BAMA. If you recognize none of the above authors then the claiming question must not be your forte.
But as previous admitted some people do not use original documents, in fact they dismiss them. Not surprising.
Both you and that Greg guy appear to be dead set on the booked being biased, as you both have yet to read it I am curious as to how you came to that conclusion? Author of the 4 volume Luftwaffe aces series Johannes Matthews has publicly stated verified Victories is unbiased. They have read the book. They are real experts on claiming.
Interesting that the real researchers and published authors on this thread ( A Andrew Arthy and Nick Beale , in addition to myself) can agree that over claiming is a real thing, that high claiming pilots had over claims, and that Soviet documents is a go-to/must for researching the eastern front and that their losses and trustable. At the same time, those that have not used the documents dismiss them.
There is no biased against Hartmann nor any of the other 7 pilots in the book. Hartmann's performance was based on the same docs which propels other pilots to near perfect claiming. His performance was lack luster over Hungary, period. I/JG 53 pilots agreed to btw! Laughable that those who have not read the book would claim such things. This only shows how engraved legacy understandings of the aerial war over the eastern front still is.

This thread still lacks documented proof from the dismissive side btw, 400+ posts in.

But it does show there is much intrest in it.
So relax.
I think it is safe to say that after 80 years it is still an opinion for some what happened.
A few books wont cut it as the more then not refer to each other.
Its quite different for the the one who did do the research. Not all can understand.
One can take a donkey to the well, but not make it drink.
So there is the queste.
Dont get angry

 

[CHen10]

So, you are agreeing with Gregp?

I agree with the fact that some documents won't be 100% accurate. But that's all I agree with.

As long as it's reasonably close enough you can link a loss to a claim.

 

[CHen10]

Dont get angry

He doesn't sound angry to me.

 

[Luft.4]

But it does show there is much intrest in it.
So relax.
I think it is safe to say that after 80 years it is still an opinion for some what happened.
A few books wont cut it as the more then not refer to each other.
Its quite different for the the one who did do the research. Not all can understand.
One can take a donkey to the well, but not make it drink.
So there is the queste.
Dont get angry

There is no anger in my post. Just stating the obvious about a book I wrote, one which a few didn't read and then state it is biased.

 

[Dimlee]

Yrs it is well known that there were many holes in Soviet loss records from the summer and autumn 1941. Surprise attack and chaotic retreats, whole armies were wipe out. In fact that is not so strange. I suspect that the US Army and USAAF files for the 1941-42 Philippines Campaign are far from complete. Same to the BEF and AASF files.

Many holes - of course. What was strange, at least at the time when that information was revealed:
1. The amount of "unaccounted", over 5,000 aircraft.
2. The name of the category itself. The Soviet system tried to impose total control. The losses (military, industry, agriculture, any spheres of life) were supposed to be not only counted but explained, categorised, and confirmed by the signatures of more than one person. With the responsible individuals mentioned and/or reprimanded (or worse). The appearance of the category "unaccounted" and its usage in the official records was very unusual.