A look at German fighter Ace kill claims

[bf109xxl]

understanding of Soviet losses

In principle, it is plausible to assume that the Soviets could spread the losses over different days post facto, so that they would not be too high on one day. Have you encountered such a situation? I suppose such falsifications are unlikely because they are extremely difficult technically - you need to falsify a number of minor documents with different people's signatures.
In fact, there were cases when losses of Soviet airplanes from enemy fighter attacks were recorded in Soviet documents, but there were no Luftwaffe pilots' claims for them. Of course, friendly fire is also very probable, but Soviet fighters did not claim them either. The incidents from 1941 (Su-2s were shot down) are apparently a consequence of chaos after the shock of gigantic losses.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Mr. Moderator, please also stress the decency of reading someones post and work rather than misrepresenting it.

I can agree with that. You are not wrong. That is a common decency that should be extended to all. I, however, do not believe anyone here is intentionally misrepresenting something. Key word: intentionally

In the end, however, once tempers flair (I have been guilty of this myself before) there is no way to reach any form of understanding, even if it is to simply agree to disagree.

 

[Luft.4]

not believe anyone here is intentionally misrepresenting something

Ample evidence, see posts:
#38 asking for primary sources as the context of the message was that the book is not/does not posses primary sources. The book is filled to the brim with primary sources.
#49 asking for a source that provides proofs with date/time/locations etc discounting the fact that the book clearly has this. This is clearly in the book, readable in the samples. intentionally misrepresenting the book's contents.
#54 about November 21st claim. Same as above, it is readable in the sample pages. One sentence was read, the rest discarded completely.
So where does the intentionality come into play, it comes into play exactly when a player refuses read the evidence laid before them. There is no excuse for not reading the sample pages.
Agree to disagree is fine and to be expected, but purposefully misrepresenting a book several times despite having sample pages provided is worthy of criticism as found in post #58.
If this was only a single occurrence, that would be different. But it is a repeated thing.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Ample evidence, see posts:
#38 asking for primary sources as the context of the message was that the book is not/does not posses primary sources. The book is filled to the brim with primary sources.
#49 asking for a source that provides proofs with date/time/locations etc discounting the fact that the book clearly has this. This is clearly in the book, readable in the samples. intentionally misrepresenting the book's contents.
#54 about November 21st claim. Same as above, it is readable in the sample pages. One sentence was read, the rest discarded completely.
So where does the intentionality come into play, it comes into play exactly when a player refuses read the evidence laid before them. There is no excuse for not reading the sample pages.
Agree to disagree is fine and to be expected, but purposefully misrepresenting a book several times despite having sample pages provided is worthy of criticism as found in post #58.

We'll agree to disagree…

 

[Luft.4]

In principle, it is plausible to assume that the Soviets could spread the losses over different days post facto, so that they would not be too high on one day. Have you encountered such a situation? I suppose such falsifications are unlikely because they are extremely difficult technically - you need to falsify a number of minor documents with different people's signatures.
In fact, there were cases when losses of Soviet airplanes from enemy fighter attacks were recorded in Soviet documents, but there were no Luftwaffe pilots' claims for them. Of course, friendly fire is also very probable, but Soviet fighters did not claim them either. The incidents from 1941 (Su-2s were shot down) are apparently a consequence of chaos after the shock of gigantic losses.

I have found no evidence that the Soviets spread losses over different days to 'smooth' out the loss rate. Why spread out losses? What benefit would that provide the unit? delay reporting, delay in resupply. No planes/pilots, failure to complete missions. Perhaps for public facing material they could amalgamate losses over a period of time, but for their own personal use (which is the type of documentation we used for the book) this is not the case.
To do so would require OSUM departments and COs to falsify documents on many levels. That would never successfully work. And as written above it make no positive difference.
In cases where they reported attacks by fighters but the Luftwaffe did not make claims, there could have been other air forces (Hungary, etc), Blue-on-Blue, or flak from below which they misinterpreted as a fighter attacking from below.

 

[CHen10]

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.

I think this happened with Peter Düttmann in March 1945 (can't remember the exact date). Flak damaged a Boston, he saw the damaged Boston and ended up shooting it down. I don't know if the ground battery was credited with it but Düttmann definitely was and so you could argue that this Boston was shared between flak and Düttmann

 

[GregP]

We have casualties not because we are at wat, but because the enemy is at war!

Advance to the rear!

How did it get so late this early?

 

[GregP]

Hi Luft.4,

I have not read Verified Victories, so I am not intentionally or in any other way misrepresenting it.

I daresay I don't disagree with the research. I enjoy that it got done.

What I disagree with strongly is the notion that a victory for one side means there must be a corresponding reported loss on the other side.

At the risk of seeming a bit sarcastic, unintentionally, go back and read that last sentence. The notion is just wrong. Doesn't mean your research is useless or incorrect; it just means your premise is flawed in the extreme, in my opinion. So, while the data may or may not be correct (I assume they largely are correct), the conclusion(s) about victories for people like Hartmann are not valid in my estimation. Not because your data are wrong, but because you start with an incorrect assumption that any victory must be a reported loss and that, further, the loss report must somehow still exist, and must further have been sent to whatever archive you found the data in.

I don't disagree with your research at all; I disagree with your primary assumption, and have so stated at least several times in this thread. You seem to feel that is somehow an attack. It isn't.

Like your opinion in your Verified Victories work, it is my opinion. You wrote your opinion in your book. I wrote mine in here.

I salute the data you researched and brought into the light after it's long slumber hidden away in darkness.

I cannot agree with the conclusion that any victory without a reported loss is an overclaim. There are MANY reasons why a victory may have not been reported as a loss by the other side.

 

[Luft.4]

I think this happened with Peter Düttmann in March 1945 (can't remember the exact date). Flak damaged a Boston, he saw the damaged Boston and ended up shooting it down. I don't know if the ground battery was credited with it but Düttmann definitely was and so you could argue that this Boston was shared between flak and Düttmann

The date was 1945.03.14. As Ltn. Peter Düttmann was the final player to cause damage to the enemy aircraft (in this case causing it to explode) he is the victor over this actual victory. All the AA did was force the Boston out of formation, the 'killing' was caused by Peter. The battery might have received some points through the point system for its cooperation in this engagement. I except that should Abschussbestatigung have been created this late in the war for this claim, the OKL would have included the text "i.Zus.Arb" or "im Zus.".

 

[bf109xxl]

What benefit would that provide the unit?

It's not about benefit, but rather about avoiding punishment by the commander/chief of staff of the regiment/division for a poorly organized sortie. Total weekly or monthly losses don't change, neither does the replenishment, but high losses in a single sortie could attract a closer attention of higher commanders.

there could have been other air forces (Hungary, etc), Blue-on-Blue, or flak from below which they misinterpreted as a fighter attacking from below.

Yes, all of this could be the reason. But the pilots swore on the "Short Course in the History of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks" that they were shot down by "messerschmitts" which were only German to that time... I doubt it's possible to find out what happened at that time.

Ok, thanks, then I'll ask a more general question: have you encountered any falsifications/intentional distortions in Soviet documents? And if yes, what kind of them?

 

[Luft.4]

It's not about profit, but rather about avoiding punishment by the commander/chief of staff of the regiment/division for a poorly organized sortie. Total weekly or monthly losses don't change, neither does the replenishment, but high losses in a single sortie could attract a closer attention of higher commanders.

Yes, all of this could be the reason. But the pilots swore on the "Short Course in the History of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks" that they were shot down by "messerschmitts" which were only German to that time... I doubt it's possible to find out what happened at that time.

Ok, thanks, then I'll ask a more general question: have you encountered any falsifications/intentional distortions in Soviet documents? And if yes, what kind of them?

By benefit I mean it does not provide a positive result to the unit (I am not speaking of monetary rewards and such). They needed to know accurately what happened, where and when and under what circumstance. That is why falsifying such events (for personal use) does not provide any benefit. Now falsifying such events for propaganda for back home or for the enemy is a different story. But this is not present in the internal documentation, rather it is in the public facing reports. This is the reason why one needs to use archival information to get closer to the truth, this is inescapable.
I only study the late aerial war, if your example is specifically from 1941 I cannot provide info. If the same scenario took place over Hungary the points I provided could guide you to what might have taken place.
As for the general question, my answer for the air force losses is no. This is probably because of the quality of material I work with (internal reporting). They need to know accurately what is going on, even if it is not pretty. This is standard and sane military protocol. Once you look at public facing reports, this will change (but that is to be expected). As for Soviet aerial claiming, they were worse than the Germans, and they were credited with shared claims much more often than German pilots (yes, the Luftwaffe did have shared claims, if you want more info go to chapter 1 of the book).

 

[bf109xxl]

They needed to know accurately what happened, where and when and under what circumstance.

...especially if losses were extremely high - daily, weekly or monthly. If the losses remained acceptable you - as a commander- could be not asked about the circumstances.

my answer for the air force losses is no.

This is exactly the impression I got after reading articles by modern Russian aviation historians who deal with similar research.

As for Soviet aerial claiming, they were worse than the Germans, and they were credited with shared claims much more often than German pilots

This is a very well known fact. Unfortunately.

 

[CHen10]

What I disagree with strongly is the notion that a victory for one side means there must be a corresponding reported loss on the other side.

I'm curious as to what you think about Helmut Lipfert then. The vast majority of his claims have a corresponding loss. So why do you think that Lipfert's claims for example often have a corresponding loss but Hartmann's claims don't?

It's not just Lipfert that has claims with a corresponding loss by the way, many other pilots have claims backed up by losses on the other side, I just use Lipfert as an example.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

[...] what the Luftwaffe called a HHS (Herausschuss).

Which roughly translates to English to "haul-ass shoot".

 

[Luft.4]

Like your opinion in your Verified Victories work

Show me my opinion in the work please? We even explicitly state we do not have an opinion in the book! Oh what, you do not even read the book, I forgot. Only one writing opinions here is you.

I have not read Verified Victories, so I am not intentionally or in any other way misrepresenting it.

Well when presented with sample pages you don't even read those. You spout foolish falsehoods about the book that could be avoided by simply reading what has been provided. Just look at what you wrote for the claim on November 21, 1944! That is misinterpreting. Or saying that you want primary sources and not the book... the book has nearly 600 footnotes, most of which are from archival primary sources.
Read chapter 1 and you will understand what the claiming system was like, until then you continue to only prove you level of unfamiliarity with it. Should you not want to read my book (you have demonstrated this by not reading the sample pages), try Combat Kill, or Luftfahrt 11 Sept-Okt 1975, or Vol 1 of JG 300 by JY Lorant, or the original docs at BAMA or NARA (but then again you do not work with archival sources)

 

[GregP]

I'm curious as to what you think about Helmut Lipfert then. The vast majority of his claims have a corresponding loss. So why do you think that Lipfert's claims for example often have a corresponding loss but Hartmann's claims don't?

It's not just Lipfert that has claims with a corresponding loss by the way, many other pilots have claims backed up by losses on the other side, I just use Lipfert as an example.

Hartmann was not a superb shot. He himself acknowledged that. His way to make up for that was to get in very close and shoot when the enemy aircraft filled the sight ring. As a result, he went down from hitting debris several times. I'm sure you know this.

One result of his getting in very close was that Hartmann used very short bursts of fire to down his victims. If his first burst hit the engine and it quit, Hartmann didn't keep pouring in fire just because he had ammunition, he let the airplane go down. I'm decently sure that many of Hartmann's shoot-downs had minimal damage but were rendered non-operational. There are accounts of just that from his wingmen, so-stated on several occasions, with many more implied.

I have not done a lot of reading on Lipfert. Perhaps he was a good shot and his victims were much more often set on fire. I can't say. There are reason for everything and many are simply lost to time. We do not have the opportunity to interview Hartmann or his wingmen at this time. War doesn't follow the Normal or Binomial distribution for individual outcomes; only for general population trends.

You can make the assumption that there is something wrong with Hartmann because his victories don't follow the same statistical path as Lipfert.

That is what I call "armchair quarterbacking 80 years later," and I'm dead set against it. I wasn't there, to be sure, but you weren't, either. For you to sit back and say Hartmann was lying because his kills don't fit your pet statistical model is the height of what might pass for arrogance, but I won't claim that. Instead, I'll just say I won't participate in it.

Instead, show some proof that one of Hartmann's victims did NOT get shot from the fight when Hartmann claimed he was downed, at that particular day and time. It's a tough ask, I know, but you need some indisputable facts to impeach historic account that are long-accepted. Showing something didn't happen is reason enough to doubt it. Saying one Hartmann's victims didn't have a reported loss on some date just isn't in the same ballpark. I covered it above in earlier posts and will not rehash it again here.

I am a retired electrical engineer who was in on the first stages of the Six Sigma movement in the late 1980s. I lived statistics for about 10 years. Statistics works for general questions when dealing with large populations. Statistics won't tell you jack about individual outcomes. Statistics is NOT the tool to use for individual aerial victory validity.

Instead, you have to find some way to investigate individual victory claims. That is never easy because, incompletely and in no particular order:
1) Hartmann (or anyone else, for that matter) didn't know who he was shooting at. It was just an enemy aircraft.
2) That said, it would be very hard to identify what individuals to investigate on a given day and time.
3) Lack of a reported loss can happen for at least several reasons, including the fact that it may have been reported, but never made it to or got saved in archive, or the person using the archive may not have seen it yet, among many other reasons.
4) There are many ways an aircraft can be shot down and NOT be a total loss requiring a report of same. No sense in rehashing it again here. See above several places.


There are more, but this is getting long-winded.

Kudos to Luft.4 for the research. I look forward to reading about it.

But it'll take a lot more than statistical assessment for me to want to revise Hartmann's victory total. It'll take some reasonable doubt about an individual victory on a particular day, time, and location. Then maybe we can look at revising Hartmann's accomplishments as a combat pilot. Until then, I think not.

They tried to do the same thing with Pappy Boyington and they got virtually nowhere. Yes, his total got revised from 28 to 22, but there is an asterisk on the number 22. The asterisk means his total in US service was 22. He had another 6 with the AVG, which worked for CAMCO and the Chinese government. Never mind that the USA supplied the aircraft, the pilots, and the spare parts ... it wasn't in US service. So, Boyington still has 28 victories, but only 22 were in service to the USA.

You may find gaining acceptance for lowering Erich Hartmann's victory total to be just as difficult, not the least for the simple reason that the data about his individual victims will prove hard to find, if it exists at all.

 

[CHen10]

Instead, show some proof that one of Hartmann's victims did NOT get shot from the fight when Hartmann claimed he was downed, at that particular day and time.

This is a picture from the sample I showed previously

Yak-9D flown by Streltsov was damaged in a dogfight at 1120-1200 hours. Streltsov left the battle and landed safely (no crash landing) His aircraft was repaired.

Hartmann claimed a Yak-9 at 1140 hours at the same location, and so it's clear Hartmann damaged Streltsov.

This is proof of a specific aircraft being attacked by Hartmann, getting damaged and then NOT going down. The aircraft landed safely back at base.

 

[GregP]

Citing a primary source somewhere in your work does not make you a primary source. You'd think an author would KNOW that.

Your pic of the page above says that all Yak fighters were later repaired or returned. If they were shot down and required repair to fly again, that is a legitimate claim as a shoot-down. You have no idea if Hartmann claimed one of the fighters that" later returned" or one of the ones that was "later repaired." None came home with an "Erich Hartmann claimed me as a victim" bumper sticker on it.

So, what you are saying yet again is that, to be a validated claim, there must be a reported loss. That is incorrect, so, we are going in circles and I have had enough circling.

You have a pet theory, you say some round words of "it didn't happen that way," and expect you made your proof. It doesn't work that way. The scientific method says you state your hypothesis and then attempt to prove it wrong. If you can't, then it MAY be correct.

OK, your hypothesis is that Erich Hartmann's victories were all valid or NOT all valid. It really doesn't matter which you choose here. Now, prove it wrong. Showing that airplanes he may or may not have shot at and claimed were repaired to fly again does not prove he didn't shoot them down or that he ever saw them to start with. Showing that many airplanes returned to the field does not prove Erich Hartmann claimed them as victims. As I see it, you have no proof of anything except that the Soviets had some airplanes return from missions and others that needed to be repaired before they flew again after they were recovered. None of that is logically related to Erich Hartmann or one of his claims.

Because one unit operated at a time when Hartmann made a claim doesn't mean he engaged with that unit. There were more than one unit at very many places on the Russian Front. I assume you are stating above that there were no other Soviet fighters operating in the area. Are you sure? If so, how are you sure? Do you have Soviet mission schedules for all units?

What you are doing is cherry-picking a single thing (a unit was operating at the time Hartmann made a claim) and saying it had to be Hartmann who claimed a victory over THIS unit at THAT time because they were in the air at the same time.

What you need is some proof there were no other units operating at that time anywhere close to where Hartmann claimed his victory. The Germans had a grid they used to show locations and many times included that location in the claim. I'm not sure if this claim has the grid numbers but he DID include grid number many times in his claims. I have never encountered anyone with knowledge of that grid sufficient to decode the location. Instead, the location is usually given as "12 km north of XYZ" or something similar. Are YOU familiar with the grid? if so, will you share it so we an all check locations?

I'll watch for any grid answer and be grateful for it if you know the German grid.

At this point, Hartmann stays at 352.

Be well and have a nice day.

Its getting tiresome to keep replying with the same logic only to have it ignored yet again.

I'm done with this, probably to everyone's delight. There may be more pages, but there will be no more long replies from me. If it is interesting enough, I may chime in with a shorty reply, but I have made whatever point I was trying to make several times, and enough is enough.

 

[CHen10]

Citing a primary source somewhere in your work does not make you a primary source. You'd think an author would KNOW that.

Your pic of the page above says that all Yak fighters were later repaired or returned. If they were shot down and required repair to fly again, that is a legitimate claim as a shoot-down. You have no idea if Hartmann claimed one of the fighters that" later returned" or one of the ones that was "later repaired." None came home with an "Erich Hartmann claimed me as a victim" bumper sticker on it.

So, what you are saying yet again is that, to be a validated claim, there must be a reported loss. That is incorrect, so, we are going in circles and I have had enough circling.

You have a pet theory, you say some round words of "it didn't happen that way," and expect you made your proof. It doesn't work that way. The scientific method says you state your hypothesis and then attempt to prove it wrong. If you can't, then it MAY be correct.

OK, your hypothesis is that Erich Hartmann's victories were all valid or NOT all valid. It really doesn't matter which you choose here. Now, prove it wrong. Showing that airplanes he may or may not have shot at and claimed were repaired to fly again does not prove he didn't shoot them down or that he ever saw them to start with. Showing that many airplanes returned to the field does not prove Erich Hartmann claimed them as victims. As I see it, you have no proof of anything except that the Soviets had some airplanes return from missions and others that needed to be repaired before they flew again after they were recovered. None of that is logically related to Erich Hartmann or one of his claims.

Because one unit operated at a time when Hartmann made a claim doesn't mean he engaged with that unit. There were more than one unit at very many places on the Russian Front. I assume you are stating above that there were no other Soviet fighters operating in the area. Are you sure? If so, how re you sure? Do you have Soviet mission schedules for all units?

What you are doing is cherry-picking a single thing (a unit was operating at the time Hartmann made a claim) and saying it had to be Hartmann who claimed a victory over THIS unit at THAT time because they were in the air at the same time.

What you need is some proof there were no other units operating at that time anywhere close to where Hartmann claimed his victory. The Germans had a grid they used to show locations and many times included that location in the claim. I'm not sure if this claim has the grid numbers but he DID include grid number many times in his claims. I have never encountered anyone with knowledge of that grid sufficient to decode the location. Instead, the location is usually given as "12 km north of XYZ" or something similar. Are YOU familiar with the grid? if so, will you share it so we an all check locations?

I'll watch for any grid answer and be grateful for it if you know the German grid.

At this point, Hartmann stays at 352.

Be well and have a nice day.

Its getting tiresome to keep replying with the same logic only to have it ignored yet again.

I'm done with this, probably to everyone's delight. There may be more pages, but there will be no more long replies from me. If it is interesting enough, I may chime in with a shorty reply, but I have made whatever point I was trying to make several times, and enough is enough.

Hartmann definitely attacked that Yak-9 because his claim time AND claim location match. He is the ONLY one to have a claim that matches. There are no other victory claims made by Germans or Hungarians which could match this attack. If you don't think Hartmann attacked the Yak, then who did? There is no other possible pilot.

Hartmann HAS to have attacked the Yak-9.

There are many cases like this where an aircraft is definitely attacked by Hartmann but the aircraft safely landed.

 

[Snautzer01]

At this point, Hartmann stays at 352

For you, he does. For someone not have done any work on the subject nor stating any sources that has to be expected.

. I have never encountered anyone with knowledge of that grid sufficient to decode the location. Instead, the

There are websites with even calculators. Just a little research not even have to leave chair.

Luftwaffe Grid Reference System for Action Locations

Personal history of aviation people from all nations and all eras, and including descriptions of the site's methods and objectives, including original research.

aircrewremembered.com

Do see DeZengs airfields to get a grasp of where the fighting was

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.ww2.dk/Airfields%2520-%2520Russia%2520and%2520Ukraine.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiviZjd4q6HAxX33gIHHdWUBO0QFnoECCQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw05dK_MO83qoVCOHVkTmkU6

You seem to type a lot of text with no depth in it. And you challenge a historian on bias alone. Nothing else you put forward has any substance nor any vaque hint of research by yourself. No sources attacking without even have read the book, not stating your sources besides "once i have read a book"

I am sorry, but that will not do.