As I said groundhog 3.0… 
Neither side will convince the other.
Neither side will convince the other.
A look at German fighter Ace kill claims
- Thread starter RCAFson
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
There's an article called "Hartmann over Iasi: Fantasies in pursuit of Swords"
It looks at some of Hartmann's claims over Iasi, Romania in 1944 and it has a similar conclusion to Verified Victories.
The article is in Russian but you can read it if you auto translate it into English using Google Translate.
If anyone wants to read the article I can post the link here.
It looks at some of Hartmann's claims over Iasi, Romania in 1944 and it has a similar conclusion to Verified Victories.
The article is in Russian but you can read it if you auto translate it into English using Google Translate.
If anyone wants to read the article I can post the link here.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I'm still on page 4 but stumbled across this video -- I know, I know, I said read books -- but it seems germane here:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TV86LNJKYYM&ab_channel=MilitaryAviationHistory
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TV86LNJKYYM&ab_channel=MilitaryAviationHistory
GregP
Major
You are arguing in circles again. Soviet air units were close to the front and close to each other. They never would think to send supply trucks along a snowy or muddy trail for days over the Russian Steppes to get to a flying field. They based the airplanes near the troops, near the supply routes, and near to one another. Otherwise, they'd have to make a new road to each and every field. Show me an armed force that does that during wartime. They all use existing roads and trails and base units near to one another for a solid military reason.
So, logically, there were a number of units based close to one another, just as with the USAAF and the RAF. They were literally minutes from one another. Any Soviet fighter moving at, say, 480 km/hr can get 160 km in 20 minutes. The units were nowhere NEAR that far apart.
OK, to your question, if another pilot shot at some Soviet plane that did not go down, then maybe he didn't turn it in as a claim. A damaged airplane is not the same as a shoot-down, and the Germans used the one plane equals a victory for one pilot scheme. They didn't award half or thirds to 2 or 3 different people.
Don't tell me that the Soviet units were so far apart that they never operated in the same area as another unit; that just isn't nearly true. Again, you are taking an incident and saying it had to be Hartmann because YOU say it is. Poppcock. It didn't have to be Hartmann just because YOU think it was. Any other German could have shot at the airplane, damaged it, and simply not turned in for a claim.
The Soviet records for the Russian Front don't cover all operations, all victories for the Soviets, or all losses for the Soviets. Luftwaffe records ALSO don't show everything. Many were lost to war. Necessarily, they are incomplete and the ones we have give the basics; not the relatively unimportant details in most cases. The Soviet records also don't cover ANY details about "this airplane was targeted by Erich Hartmann and lived to tell about it despite being claimed." Get real.
GregP
Major
There are apologists for EVERY pilot who did well. They want to show the world that this guy was not as good as has been claimed. It makes for a good hobby for armchair experts.
The easy way to tell them from the real experts is they were not there. To date, no real life experts have come forward to challenge Erich Hartmann.
But he had wingmen who said he scored what he claimed, and they WERE there when it happened. None of them have said he padded his score with false claims.
Let me rephrase that; I have looked for it and have not found such written challenges to Erich Hartmann as yet by anyone credible. They might be out there unread by me somewhere. I claim many things, but I don't claim to be well read on German top-tier aces other than knowing their victory totals.
Cheers.
I have read this article before. IMHO, quite a decent study despite the non-academic style of the article
Who did Hartmann shoot down that day then? If they went down they WOULD have been documented. Everything from an aircraft being slightly damaged to completely destroyed is documented.
Yes and they would have assumed the wrong thing just as Hartmann did. Hartmann and his wingmen were mistaken.
I am real. Hartmann DID NOT DESTROY 352 aircraft. Whether you like it or not it's a fact. His score is still impressive but definitely not that number.
Yeah I get what you mean. It's written like a casual social media post but the content is fantastic, and backed up by primary sources and evidence.
Third and final time that I will remind everyone, and I definitely mean EVERYONE involved (not singling any one out) to please remain civil. So far nothing is over the top, but I sense the water is starting to boil.
It is quite evident that you have absolutely no idea neither about Soviet documents, nor about the Soviet losses accounting system. And you have a very rough idea of the Luftwaffe's records of losses - which were - surprisingly! - more sophisticated and less transparent than the Soviet records! German perfectionism played a cruel joke: the simplicity of interpretation was lost in the pursuit of information accuracy. Verification of Soviet claims by German losses is a serious challenge for historical researchers. But the work is in progress, and I can only once again express my respect for those who are doing it.
GregP
Major
Not on my side, Adler.
I don't know if Hartmann had 352 victories or not, but he is officially credited with that number. It will take more than "I think it's wrong!" to change that score in most eyes invluding mine.
What I've seen so far is WAY far from proof of anything other than suspicions of an author with a motive to sell books and to achieve credit for his theories based on a claim that he has reviewed ALL the data for the entire time Hartmann was claiming victories, and he disagrees with Erich. I SERIOUSLY doubt the Soviet data is complete to start with after speaking with several former Soviet VVS pilots, and I have no thought that the data are as accurate or complete as is being claimed. I absolutely reject the notion that all victories were recorded as losses by the other side. There are just too many ways for it not to be, and some have been used by people who have described shoot-downs that weren't complete destruction events for it to be otherwise.
I don't much care who agrees or not, and I decry people who hear a theory not solidly-based and jump on it as gospel truth. It isn't. Its a theory based on solid, but not "definitely connected-to-Hartmann" data.
I'm not that gullible, but I also don't want to go all flame-war about it and have tried not to do so above.
The war ended in 1945 and there's no point in getting hot under the collar when someone doesn't agree with you. That's what the radical left and radical right political parties are doing and I am not part of either group. Whether or not Luft.4 or CHen10 agree, I don't reject the research; I reject the "1 victory = 1 loss" thing. That's all, and I'd MUCH rather talk about the airplanes since the airplanes are my main subject of interest. I restore old military airplanes as a hobby.
My interest in aerial victories is confined to accumulation of officially-recognized victory claims and description of the methodology used to score and award victory decorations. I am NOT a modern revisionist and take the number as-awarded at the end of WWII as the correct numbers unless and until someone can make a good case to change them. So far, there seems to be no way to tie Hartmann to any of the Soviet airplanes mentioned above other than conjecture based on circumstantial evidence. Even courts of law reject circumstantial evidence. While an interesting theory, it is hardly any proof of anything ... its a theory only. Pretty decent, truth be said, but still an unproven theory.
No more argument from me, at least in this thread. I'll continue read it as long as it is interesting, but I've changed my mind about picking up a copy of the book since there doesn't seem to be any way to discuss it without agreeing with the author, and I don't. True history is generally not correctly described by the side that yells the loudest.
Cheers to all, even the "other side of the argument" guys ... keep 'em flying!
I don't know if Hartmann had 352 victories or not, but he is officially credited with that number. It will take more than "I think it's wrong!" to change that score in most eyes invluding mine.
What I've seen so far is WAY far from proof of anything other than suspicions of an author with a motive to sell books and to achieve credit for his theories based on a claim that he has reviewed ALL the data for the entire time Hartmann was claiming victories, and he disagrees with Erich. I SERIOUSLY doubt the Soviet data is complete to start with after speaking with several former Soviet VVS pilots, and I have no thought that the data are as accurate or complete as is being claimed. I absolutely reject the notion that all victories were recorded as losses by the other side. There are just too many ways for it not to be, and some have been used by people who have described shoot-downs that weren't complete destruction events for it to be otherwise.
I don't much care who agrees or not, and I decry people who hear a theory not solidly-based and jump on it as gospel truth. It isn't. Its a theory based on solid, but not "definitely connected-to-Hartmann" data.
I'm not that gullible, but I also don't want to go all flame-war about it and have tried not to do so above.
The war ended in 1945 and there's no point in getting hot under the collar when someone doesn't agree with you. That's what the radical left and radical right political parties are doing and I am not part of either group. Whether or not Luft.4 or CHen10 agree, I don't reject the research; I reject the "1 victory = 1 loss" thing. That's all, and I'd MUCH rather talk about the airplanes since the airplanes are my main subject of interest. I restore old military airplanes as a hobby.
My interest in aerial victories is confined to accumulation of officially-recognized victory claims and description of the methodology used to score and award victory decorations. I am NOT a modern revisionist and take the number as-awarded at the end of WWII as the correct numbers unless and until someone can make a good case to change them. So far, there seems to be no way to tie Hartmann to any of the Soviet airplanes mentioned above other than conjecture based on circumstantial evidence. Even courts of law reject circumstantial evidence. While an interesting theory, it is hardly any proof of anything ... its a theory only. Pretty decent, truth be said, but still an unproven theory.
No more argument from me, at least in this thread. I'll continue read it as long as it is interesting, but I've changed my mind about picking up a copy of the book since there doesn't seem to be any way to discuss it without agreeing with the author, and I don't. True history is generally not correctly described by the side that yells the loudest.
Cheers to all, even the "other side of the argument" guys ... keep 'em flying!
Say that one more time for the people in the back, lol!
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I think everyone understands the potential unreliability of eye-witness accounts, especially in an aerial combat involving high-speeds. Claims aren't always supported by opposing loss reports for many reasons. Believing that crystal clarity is obtainable in such circumstances doesn't strike me as realistic.
As I wrote earlier, I firmly believe the truth is somewhere in the middle and probably unknowable in the end. It should be noted that you were not yourself there, either. If you accept all claims at face-value, well, that's you. You're clearly not amenable to factors which may argue against that.
Is that necessary?
Could you please specify, which exactly?
How many % of claims should be attributed to reach the crystal clarity?
The truth is not in the middle, it is strongly shifted towards one end.
The probability of undercounting Soviet losses can be estimated as very low. A much greater challenge, as it seems to me, is the presence of more than one claim per loss. All circumstances have to be taken into account - time, place, altitude, type of aircraft, and each parameter is recorded with a certain inaccuracy (even the type of aircraft - in Romania Hartmann regularly claimed victories over LaGGs!), as a result it is more difficult to attribute a victory to a single individual than to establish whether or not there was one. If I am wrong, any comments from specialists would be appreciated.
Greg,
I will say the standards have changed between now and WW2. Now the airplane records time, date, location, altitude etc every time you expend ordinance. The lengths the kill review board goes through now is extensive, to include IIRC satellite shots (of kill location and enemy ramp). Those tools were not available back in the day.
The standards used in WW2 for determining a kill seem totally acceptable to me. I also agree that an aircraft could be shot down, subsequently repaired and fly again. The pilot / gunner who shot it down should be given credit IMO. In other words total destruction is not required.
Cheers,
Biff
When speaking about someone who repeatedly does not read the sample pages and misrepresents them, yes it is. See post #63 again for more counts of this.
Well, even the fighter pilot himself even states that currently his Air Force goes to great lengths to verify that an enemy claimed is destroyed. Who would have thought?! Almost like the military is interested in knowing what permanent material damage it has inflicted on the enemy. The opinion at the end is off according to the Luftwaffe to which Hartmann was a pilot (this may be forgiven owing to unfamiliarity with the subject). Back then they did not have satellites, but they did have recon planes which regularly flew to asses if planes had in fact been shot down. I even have 2 photographs from such missions complete with location references, time, altitude of the photograph etc. So we are left with facts, not opinions.
A backgrounder on Luftwaffe the claiming system as found in Verified Victories, Chapter 1 3rd paragraph, taken from the directive itself: Az 29 Nr. 55270/41 states that there are 7 ways successes in the air could be made: 1) shoot down requiring the e/a to crash and burn upon impact (ie completely destroyed), 2) forced landing on friendly territory so as to deprive the enemy of the aircraft (completely deprived), 3) heavy dismantling such as blowing off tail unit or wings which would cause it to crash and be destroyed (explicitly stated that small fragments coming off or non-vital parts such as canopies are not allowed), 4) the burn while flying then crashing (ie completely destroyed), 5-6) causing heavy smoking which could lead to destruction although it is explicitly stated that these are the weakest indicators. Much more supportive evidence is required to verify as these do not indicate destruction. 7) Abandonment of the e/a by the entire crew because of an attack, causing it to fly unoccupied and become destroyed.
The above was used as a base for the book, so stating otherwise is laughable and only shows who speaks after reading the work vs those who have not even bothered but open their mouths. It seems that onion of a very few oppose what the Luftwaffe itself directed, and they try to state that the book has an incorrect premise? Then again they admit they do not look at archival references freely available online so I am not surprised. Truth over fantasy all day, any day.
fact: later in the war, pilots with over 30 victories previously confirmed by the OKL could submit claims without witnesses.
fact: Goring encouraged fighter pilots in the east to submit claims without witness statements, stating that this can be sorted out later. 16 April 1942 in order 582/42 to Adolf Galland.
fact: Adolf Galland wrote in his own book that many of the German claims would be considered probable by the allies as the Luftwaffe took on a more liberal approach to claims.
fact: sometime the OKL awarded claims to pilot who did not make them (ex Grislawski)
fact: sometimes claims would be randomly distributed after a mission by the CO to ensure pilots got one (statement by Lt. Hans Santler of JG 2)
fact: some pilots have claims associated to them post war despite them not making those claims (ex the baloney of 7 Mustangs for Hartmann, only 1 is documented when he claimed 4 in a day), or his November 21, 1944 claim so conveniently misread by a fellow on this thread). We have spoken to a pilot on the exact mission Hartmann claimed that 1 p-51... and only 2 Mustangs fell that day: one in Romania the other in Italy that was doing a different mission and went beyond the Adriatic. Its in the book.
Once again all in the book, there is a reason why serious researchers, authors, lectures, historians keep suggesting the book, or even use it in lecture halls because after 80 years 2 authors actually took the time to review facts and write them down in a single book.
No, it isn't. I asked you both to debate in a civil manner. That means no personal attacks. You talk about other's inability to read and comprehend, yet you apparently are not capable of doing that either. Hmmm…
I will not ask again. And this goes for all sides in the debate/argument. Do all parties understand?
Disagree with an X all you want. Makes no difference to me.
