A look at German fighter Ace kill claims

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I can feel the tension starting to rise here in Groundhog Thread 3.0. Just a reminder to everyone, please keep it civil. This is not directed at anyone in particular, and so far everything is cool. It's just a general thought to everyone participating in this discussion. Thanks

 

[Luft.4]

Hi CHen10, I appreciate you asking. I believe there has been enough of the book posted for those truly wishing to understand to realize the quality and depth of research the book has. Posting more won't change the minds of a few and that is ok. For every couple dozen there remains one.
If they wish to read more, then why not pick up a copy of the book itself. Thanks for asking, but my response is no.
Dan.

 

[CHen10]

Hi CHen10, I appreciate you asking. I believe there has been enough of the book posted for those truly wishing to understand to realize the quality and depth of research the book has. Posting more won't change the minds of a few and that is ok. For every couple dozen there remains one.
If they wish to read more, then why not pick up a copy of the book itself. Thanks for asking, but my response is no.
Dan.

That makes sense. Sounds good to me!

 

[Snautzer01]

Getting that book. I like good research. Lord knows i have more then enough, but one more.

DerAdlerIstGelandet

This is not a groundhog thread. It is opinion against solid research. Noted so one can see for themselves.

It is bad sport to call it that. It is condescending.

It is a writer, historian, who has done the miles, explaining why another might be wrong in his beliefs. With facts. Not opinions.
I have not seen sources from others in this discussion that can lead me to see why one has such opposition toward facts.
And it it that lack of naming sources for that belief that leads to tension.

I believe there should be far more support for writers here. We lost a few didnt we.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Getting that book. I like good research. Lord knows i have more then enough, but one more.

DerAdlerIstGelandet

This is not a groundhog thread. It is opinion against solid research. Noted so one can see for themselves.

It is bad sport to call it that. It is condescending.

It is a writer, historian, who has done the miles, explaining why another might be wrong in his beliefs. With facts. Not opinions.
I have not seen sources from others in this discussion that can lead me to see why one has such opposition toward facts.
And it it that lack of naming sources for that belief that leads to tension.

I believe there should be far more support for writers here. We lost a few didnt we.

Care to show me where I said anything about the author, his work, or his posts? Please don't make more out of what I said…

 

[Snautzer01]

Care to show me where I said anything about the author, his work, or his posts? Please if there is don't make more out of what I said…

read my post again. It has nothing to do with your contribution towards this thread. It has to to with you naming it groundhog for starters.
i do not make more out of it other then that you are getting close to kill a thread because... well? opinion against facts.
Get on the fact side, protect that. dont chase away established writers on matters. They are ever so hard to find.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

read my post again. It has nothing to do with your contribution towards this thread. It has to to with you naming it groundhog for starters.
i do not make more out of it other then that you are getting close to kill a thread because... well? opinion against facts.
Get on the fact side, protect that. dont chase away established writers on matters. They are ever so hard to find.

Snautzer, you are making a lot of assumptions. show me where I said anything was about my contribution?

Show me where I said I am going to "kill a thread?" Please do. I am waiting. Seriously…

Show me where I am chasing anyone away? I'm not taking sides. I'm purposely staying out of the debate. I'm calling it a Groundhog thread because thats what it is. This thread will go on for 400 pages with neither side convincing the other of their argument.

Like I said, you are making more out of something than there is.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

As I said, I am taking no side in this debate. All I ask is that it remains civil, WHICH IT HAS BEEN SO FAR. I just feel the tension starting to rise, and that THE ONLY POINT I MADE. I also was not DIRECTING IT AT ANY PARTICULAR PERSON, no rules were broken, and no one had gotten out of hand.

 

[GregP]

Solid research is one thing, Snauzer01. Verified Victories may HAVE some solid research. The brief look at it suggests some decent amount of work on it, anyway.

But asserting that there was no German victory unless there was a recorded Soviet loss is very much another, hugely mistaken premise I cannot ignore; it is a false premise and following it in research gives necessarily skewed results that are unacceptable.

My entire opinion of what might otherwise be a nicely put-together work is strongly colored by the incorrect assumption that any victory must be a total loss to the other side. It's nice when it IS a loss, at least for your own side, but there are many circumstances whereby an aircraft shot out of the sky in a fight is not a total loss and will never be recorded as a loss on the other side. But, it is still a valid victory for the aggressor.

Therein lies my contention; you need to agree on what a victory IS before you begin your research or you do NOT know what you are looking for in the first place. Assuming every victory means a loss on the other side completely invalidates the research done for Verified Victories, despite the amount of work it must have been to write it. I'm sure it is well-written, but the basic underlying assumption is unacceptable to me.

Aside from Validated Victories, in most lists for WWII in the ETO, the P-51 Mustang is credited with 9,801 total victories. 4,950 were air-to-air victories and 4,313 were ground victories. In other commands of the same air force, ground victories were not counted at all. The US Navy/Marine Corps didn't even break out air-to-air from ground victories in their wartime statistical work. It would make a huge difference (overall, a 45% difference) if ground victories were invalidated. Do we dismiss losses to AAA? How about to mechanical issues, like engine failure or running out of gasoline? How about a mid-air collision? The answers matter to the numbers you get from a study of statistical data.

My point is simply that underlying assumptions make a large difference in what you find, and if you find the numbers for one scenario, it doesn't mean there aren't other numbers for other assumptions, sometimes wildly different numbers.

I'm sure Validated Victories is a good work from one standpoint, no question. I don't happen to subscribe to that standpoint's assumption. None of which make me want to say anything against the work other than the fact that I cannot agree with the definition for aerial victory that was used in the generation of the Verified Victories book.

That does not stop me from being interested in the work. I might, in fact, pick it up and use the information in it for my own purposes, but I will NOT state that anything whatsoever needs to be done to adjust Erich Hartmann's victory count based on a work completed with the assumption it uses.

That dog just ain't gonna' hunt; Erich stands at 352 until someone can find proof one or more of his specific victims, by date, time, and location, didn't go down as claimed. I could not care less if one was recovered and flew again or parts of it did; if Erich shot it down, he gets his victory.

Since I've said this is several ways at several times, I consider this closed unless we find some proof that a claimed airplane didn't explode, force-land, crash-land, or otherwise get somehow sent from the air to the ground and out of the fight he was involved in. If we can find THAT, then we may have cause to revisit Erich's victory score.

Until then. it is 352 in my book and also for most of the world, including people in the American Fighter Aces Association. I attended one of the meetings as a guest in Mesa, Arizona, U.S.A in the mid-1980s and this exact subject came up. The Aces were unanimous that his total would be 352 until and unless specifically proven otherwise on a victory by victory basis. That is: prove a specific victory wrong and maybe it can be changed. Otherwise, it stands.

 

[Luft.4]

until someone can find proof one or more of his specific victims, by date, time, and location, didn't go down as claimed.

What do you think the book does? Have you taken time to even view the attachments in this thread?

you need to agree on what a victory IS before you begin your research or you do NOT know what you are looking for in the first place

Repeating this the Nth time, that is exactly why Chapter 1 is devoted to this subject. You verbiage is spiraling in a downwards circle, unwilling comprehend something stated repeatedly in this this thread alone... and many times elsewhere.

I cannot agree with the definition for aerial victory that was used in the generation of the Verified Victories book.

Firstly, your personal opinion is worth little as the German RLM directives state differently. Secondly, according to yourself you do not have the book, so do not know how it defines a victory. Your very first step should be to read Chapter 1 if you wish to compile a coherent counter (which you have failed to do so in this thread), because the above is laughably incorrect.
The rest of your post is verbiage not worthy of a response given that step 1 (actually knowing what the book defines a victory as) has yet not been taken.

 

[GregP]

Hey, I've got an idea. We have a genuine combat-trained jet pilot in this forum.

It's BiffF15.

Hey BiffF15, do you think an enemy aircraft must be totally destroyed and recorded as a loss by the other side in order to have a verified victory, assuming you are the pilot shooting guns at the enemy aircraft?

Not trying to put you on the spot, Biff, but I assume you guys have an opinion that isn't ambiguous or "politically-correct" and you might be willing to share it with us. If not, maybe PM privately and I'll keep it to myself.

 

[CHen10]

until someone can find proof one or more of his specific victims, by date, time, and location, didn't go down as claimed.

The attachments I included prove some of his victims didn't go down.

If you look at Lipfert's claims however, there is usually a Soviet loss which matches.

 

[Luft.4]

Chapter 1.

 

[GregP]

Thanks CHen10, I'll look at them.

Again, that happens in combat. Sometimes it is deliberate and sometimes it is a genuine mistake and not intended as a false claim.

Can't say for sure here, but I've not heard that Hartmann was glory-hunting with false claims except from one contemporary who never flew with Hartmann, and so SHOULD have little to say about Hartmann other than they were in the same Air Force. I have NEVER heard of that from one of Hartmann's wingmen. If anyone should make that claim and be taken seriously, it would be one of them.

In your first post from Verified Victories, on 21 Nov, the first sentence is incorrect. Lack of a Soviet loss record does NOT prove Hartmann's claim was an overclaim in any way. shape, or form. The aircraft in question would have been shot down and been repaired easily. If so, it still GOT SHOT DOWN. It might have been a loss and that record might have been lost on the Russian Front. That happened to both side a LOT.

Not finding a reported loss record simply means they somehow didn't report a loss. It absolutely does NOT prove an overclaim. There are several possibilities.

1) It might have been an overclaim.
2) It might have been repaired, but was still shot down and so reportable as a victory.
3) It might have had parts recovered to make a flyable airplane and so not been recorded as a loss.
4) It might have been recorded as a loss and the record might have been lost in combat before or after being passed upward. MANY records were lost before ever getting to headquarters and/or never getting to the archive. It's the nature of war.
5) It might be in the records and you have not seen it yet.

None of the above are more probable than the next or previous possibility, and there may be still more possibilities.

Again, one person's victory might or might not be a total, reportable loss. But, if a pilot gets shot down, it IS a reportable victory for someone, usually but not always on the other side.

 

[GregP]

These are primary sources, they are from TsAMO RF





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?

Hi CHen10. You showed me enough to make it seem interesting.

Again, I will not accept that the only way a victory is valid is via a reported loss on the other side, but there seems to be some good data in Verified Victories in any case. I never said the authors were completely wrong. I said their premise in the previous sentence is not acceptable.

That does not invalidate some good effort, good research, and good data. It only means I may seriously disagree with their conclusions, but that's the nature of publishing something with a conclusion in it. if you make a statement, people can agree, disagree, or be ambivalent toward it, and STILL appreciate the data and the effort it took to write it.

Having seen a excerpt, I am inclined to get a copy and still not agree with the contention that a victory must equal a loss.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

So what happens if a pilot claims a shoot-down, the damaged plane was later targeted by AAA and hit, and the credit was given to the ground battery? We still have an aerial claim with a corresponding loss, as well as a AAA claim with a corresponding loss. What if the airplane damaged the enemy a/c, which then allowed the AAA to accurately track and kill it? I'll bet dollars against your doughnuts that both crews claim it, and the desk-jockeys not wanting to investigate probably credit both.

This is why the matter is inherently subjective, It's why 8AF claimed so many LW fighters, and why we cannot break down which gunner shot down which -109 and which thought he saw something else. 288 fighters were claimed on the Schweinfurt raid. 25 or so were actually lost. When you're doing 200-250 mph, tracking stuff gets hard.

Overclaims happen in every arena of combat, aerial, naval, ground, and war has this annoying tendency to destroy records. It follows that treating even credited kills "verified" by records should be treated with skepticism, because even records can be wrong or destroyed.

From that, the conclusion is that this argument cannot be resolved to a granular level of facts. we can be sure Hartmann overclaimed. We can be sure that Kurita overclaimed. We can be sure that almost everyone overclaimed.

We cannot be sure that every actual shootdown has a corresponding loss record that accurately attributes the cause.

 

[SaparotRob]

"We demand rigidly defined boundaries of uncertainty."

 

[Luft.4]

In your first post from Verified Victories, on 21 Nov, the first sentence is incorrect. Lack of a Soviet loss record does NOT prove Hartmann's claim was an overclaim in any way.

Greg, do you have trouble reading? This has now been displayed at least twice in this thread alone (post # 38, 54).
Read how active II./JG 52 was that day. Read how active Luftflotte 4 was that day. Read the rest of the section, not only the first line so you may gain some much need context. If the Soviets did not loose any aircraft, and did not fly fighters due to bad weather, what exactly was there to shoot down? Are you aware that that supposed claim comes from a book responsible for the Hartmann glorification from the 70s on wards (BNoG), heavily criticized by German authors for its fantastic baloney and lack of research? If you actually read the section you would know.

Do yourself a favor and actually read the text because you continually misrepresent facts as they oppose your personal opinion.

The verbiage you spew about the book must stem from either sour stubbornness when faced with fact, or incompetence (disregarding facts, primary sources, unwillingness to read the book, constant misreading of posts, admitting to failing to look for archival information, inability to find a footnote at the bottom of a page, clear lack of understanding of Soviet losses, failing to even read the freely posted sample pages to get context, no apparent understating of how accounting of material losses work, no foundation in the Luftwaffe's own claiming regulations, constant injection of personal opinion, and aparent inexpereince with published material on Luftwaffe caiming written over the past decade).

If you believe that a victory can occur when a pilot forces an enemy out of an engagement, what you are thinking about is what the Luftwaffe called a HHS (Herausschuss). The Luftwaffe did not consider these to be fully equivalent to final destruction (that's why in the points system they were worth less). If you believe that a victory can occur when a pilot damages an enemy aircraft, what you are thinking about is what the Luftwaffe called a WB (Wirksam Beschuss/Wirklich Beschossen). The Luftwaffe again did not consider these to be fully equivalent to final destruction (that's why in the points system they were worth less).

What the Luftwaffe considered to be a claim is an Abschuss, what they beleived to be a victory was a Luftsieg (the total dectuction). The OKL accepted Luftsiegs into their final tally, claims for which office workers removed by thousands of Km and many months (sometimes years) had to peice together. Many times their efforts were in vain, many times they were wrong and there was no total destruction but had no way of verifing the situation. The claiming directives make this clear.
Read them before you foolishly spew falshoods on the internet. Many people are willing to give up there fantasies for the truth, few others give up the truth for their fantasies.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And here we go…

EVERYONE (i.e., all parties involved) can get their point across in a civil manner without using insults and personal attacks. Please refrain from making such posts.

 

[Luft.4]

Mr. Moderator, please also stress the decency of reading someones post and work rather than misrepresenting it. It is insulting when players do not event read what is provided, then spew verbiage opposing what is written before them. My above stands as a fair assessment of the current situation, this trend can change if players approach it honestly. Calling a spade a spade, should that upset so be it.
Post #44 appears to be correct in its assessment once again.