As I said groundhog 3.0…
Neither side will convince the other.
Neither side will convince the other.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.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.
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.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
I have read this article before. IMHO, quite a decent study despite the non-academic style of the articleThere's an article called "Hartmann over Iasi: Fantasies in pursuit of Swords"
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.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.
Yes and they would have assumed the wrong thing just as Hartmann did. Hartmann and his wingmen were mistaken.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.
Get real.
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.I have read this article before. IMHO, quite a decent study despite the non-academic style of the article
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.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.
Say that one more time for the people in the back, lol!I don't claim to be well read
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.
Say that one more time for the people in the back, lol!
Could you please specify, which exactly?Claims aren't always supported by opposing loss reports for many reasons.
How many % of claims should be attributed to reach the crystal clarity?Believing that crystal clarity is obtainable in such circumstances doesn't strike me as realistic.
The truth is not in the middle, it is strongly shifted towards one end.As I wrote earlier, I firmly believe the truth is somewhere in the middle and probably unknowable in the end.
Greg,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.
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.Is that necessary?
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.