A look at German fighter Ace kill claims

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well I think it's the same as when GregP said "Get real"

I don't think that was necessary from GregP

If he can say "Get real" then Luft.4 can say what he said.

if you will notice, I have made repeated attempts to moderate everyone without directly calling anyone out. To no avail…

After being ignored repeatedly, I start calling out individuals. If Greg were to ignore me again, I would.

I'm taking no sides, so lets leave the he said, she said, at the Kindergarten door.

 

[Luft.4]

it just means your premise is flawed in the extreme, in my opinion.

State for us fact by fact,
a) supported with evidence (hopefully primary sources not opinions),
b) now knowing the German definitions of a claim and the RLM directives as previously posted in this thread so you know what the Germans were tracking,
c) knowing that the military's goal is to assess the long term material damage inflicted on the enemy even today as described by the fighter pilot,
why your opinion on what is a claim and what is a victory is correct?

Keeping in mind your post #49 "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." <- because this is exactly what VV has done for 8 pilots, if you even bothered to read the sample pages before typing. Also, keep in mind what the RLM defines as a victory when this assessment is completed.

You want it both ways. Your position is incoherent.
Self stated that you cannot find the German docs (post #4), not being well read on German aces (post #85), yet want date/time/location info (post #35, #49) and when that is most graciously provided you repeatedly fail to read the sample pages. It does not get easier than reading the pages posted. After your lack of follow through is pointed out repeatedly, you then write that we need to get real (post #84), well there is nothing realer than this in research.

If you personally believe (based on no research?) that a victory occurs when a pilot makes a claim of shooting down another aircraft, then I suppose Erich Hartmann is next in line to all the allied gunners. That is clearly not the case, because the Germans did not loose that many aircraft. Aaaand bingo, we are back to the premise of the book (based on RLM directives and solid research) that for claims you need to look at losses. Why is VV unique? Because after 80 years we were the first to publish this depth of information on Soviet losses. These were unatainable until 2 decades ago, so I am not surprised that when people talked to VVS pilot even they did not know their own losses. Moreove many of them do not research their war, they read books written on it. We have talked to a number as well, you don't see 80+ year old VVS pilots in the archives. I have binders of TsAMO files declassified as late as 2005. It is from these that the information was taken. We know they are correct because military specialists use these to exhume remains and the data matches 100% with physical evidence in the ground (this is also described and illustrated in the book).
You are welcome to continue to post your personal opinions and disregard documented evidence, but just know one ever growing camp works with real documents, military professionals, real historians and lectures. That is why there is serious advancement in this field and many flaws from the past 80 years are coming to light.
Victories and claims are 2 different things, both can exist at the same time, this is even explicitly stated in the book (again, chapter 1). This is the case because they measure 2 different things. For that very reason, the OKL had to have checks in place which I described earlier.

 

[Luft.4]

Looky here, Official USAF protocol for claiming, notice how they too set the bar at destruction?

 

[Luft.4]

From the Soviet side, USSR NKO Order No: 299 I.4: "For the destruction of enemy aircraft on the airfield fighter pilots are awarded and presented to the government award". Once again the key word is destruction with these nations.

 

[rochie]

there is very little to be gained in continuing this disagreement, as both sides don't even agree what the main point of contention is.
neither are going to be swayed so around in circles we go !

the above points could also have been made without the pointed jabs at the other side, you have all been warned already by DerAdlerIstGelandet please heed his advice.

 

[Luft.4]

as both sides don't even agree what the main point of contention is.

The main point of contention in the thread is very clearly what defines a victory. 7 pages of it. Lets not being to misrepresent that too now by injecting a mellow tone feel-good statement.
One side says a victory does not equate to a loss, the other side says yes it does.
I have put forward ample primary evidence. Awaiting what the other side can do with primary evidence.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Lets not being to misrepresent that too now by injecting a mellow tone feel-good statement.

Sigh…

 

[special ed]

Looky here, Official USAF protocol for claiming, notice how they too set the bar at destruction?

I don't like getting involved in these, however I point to item No.2 "enveloped in flames".
There has been more than one victory credited when a plane was seen diving away "enveloped in flames", trailing smoke, and yet the fire goes out, the plane keeps flying, out of sight of the furball and returns the pilot home.

 

[rochie]

The main point of contention in the thread is very clearly what defines a victory. 7 pages of it. Lets not being to misrepresent that too now by injecting a mellow tone feel-good statement.
One side says victory doe not equate to a loss, the other side says yes it does.
I have put forward ample primary evidence. Awaiting what the other side can do with primary evidence.

ok, my bad for putting it that way i am at work and rushed that.

i wanted to say wont ever agree on the main point of contention (what is considered a Kill)

but again with the jibes, you just can't help yourself !

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

ok, my bad for putting it that way i am at work and rushed that.

i wanted to say wont ever agree on the main point of contention (what is considered a Kill)

but again with the jibes, you just can't help yourself !

Its growing rather old…

 

[Luft.4]

ok, my bad for putting it that way i am at work and rushed that.

i wanted to say wont ever agree on the main point of contention (what is considered a Kill)

but again with the jibes, you just can't help yourself !

I really appreciate the honest approach, understood that typing from work, like many of us, one may not gain the entire context of the thread especially if they pop in suddenly. You are genuine enough to address that.

Meanwhile I await a real counter backed by evidence (primary if possible).

 

[Luft.4]

I don't like getting involved in these, however I point to item No.2 "enveloped in flames".
There has been more than one victory credited when a plane was seen diving away "enveloped in flames", trailing smoke, and yet the fire goes out, the plane keeps flying, out of sight of the furball and returns the pilot home.

I'm in total agreement. That is exactly the problem creditors faced back then. My post #97 address this too from the Luftwaffe's side. There too they explicitly stated that trailing smoke is the weakest indicator and that other supportive evidence is required.
That is why you need to look at losses.

 

[CHen10]

Hartman over Iasi: Fantasies in Pursuit of "Swords"

Хартман над Яссами: фантазии в погоне за «мечами»

Мнимые победы аса №1: раздували ли свои достижения «эксперты» люфтваффе?

warspot.ru

 

[Just Schmidt]

I watched the video.

The past is a very messy place, and often difficult to make sense of. Any attempt is certain to be met with, amongst other things, scepticism. That is a good thing, it encourages historians to painstakingly present the foundations for their conclusions, and to meticiously present the methods and assumptions (theories) they are founding their investigation on. So far it is my impression that the study does just that, but I haven't read it.

But why do we bother? Anybody who seriously want to pose that as a rethorical question should not be expected to participate in a forum like this. Because what does it matter who made the best fighter, dropped the most bombs or made the most beautiful or comical areoplane, we know who lost and who won. Nothing else matters in the big scheme of things. Yet, all of us are interested in at least one aspect, and oftenmost more, of the arial side of this fateful conflict, even when we are soon 80 years to late to influenze the outcome.

It is pretty clear that this study is not just out to get Hartman. As has been shown (video and the discussion), several ases' accuracy in claims is under scrutiny. I am interested in accuracy of claims because the efficiency of airforces, aircraft and strategies are to a great extent dependent on results. Then it is true that a mission kill is also a result, but it does not seem to be what nazi propaganda was thinking about when awarding victories. Like it or not, the aces in an aerial conflict are selebrated not in the interest of statistics, but rather as beacons and morale boosters. In that context it is easy to see how there was a vested interest in making the great look even greater. And an interest in celebrating the German aces that indeed for obvious reasons, that have been reiterated many times in his forum and elsewhere, had far greater scores than the allies. Still there are also those who will point to superior race or ideology.

I want to make it very clear that I do not think anybody in this thread has that agenda, I mention it because it is another reason why this may be important not only because I simply find the question to be interesting.

The study has of course a limited sample, but seem to make the most of it. I do not know exactly how it is done, i haven't read it. Maybe it presents its finding as a bit more absolute than would fit my tastes, still that would not make me discard everything out of hand, but rather encourage me to make my own assessments.

Reality and objectivity are difficult standards to meet. But also a wingman may not, never mind his intentions, be the best disinterested observer. His only job is not to document the victories of his leader, and if he does follow the striken plane down, will he be back in time to witnes the next victory of the fight? I they are two against ten, he may prioritize keeping an eye on the 9 that are still clearly posing a threat. Possibly he is also thinking of making a kill himself? Maybe back at the base, he will not be eager to sound like the one who thinks they are actually loosing the war. Neither will his bosss be eager to report up the chain of command that the goose has suddenly stopped laying gold eggs. Some tipping of scale may occur.

Soviet records, like all sources, must also be critically recieved. Not be accepted or rejected out of hand. People make mistakes, etc. Do the study take that sufficiently into account? I don't know, I haven't read it. It does try to square different kinds of sources with each other, which is always the preferred approach when we have more than one source, even if there are always problems doing that.

A thing that is interesting is that it shows a wide variety in the extent of overclaiming between individuals. I think that is very important. Pretty much all agree that overclaiming was a thing. Halving as a rule of thump makes some sense, but context and persons must be taken into account. Some pilots were notorious overclaimers, some invironments made overclaiming very easy, and in some cases you could match nearly every claim to a wreck on the ground.

Does the study overstate its cause? I dont know, I haven't read it.

You know, I think I would really like to read it...

 

[SaparotRob]

@GregP Hi I think I mentioned this before but when Sakai Saburo got hit in the eye on 7 August 1942, he flew his damaged A6M back to Rabaul and landed it safely. (No crash landing) The SBD gunner was credited with shooting him down but Sakai landed safely. Do you consider this to be a victory for the SBD gunner?
....

Absolutely.

 

[Snautzer01]

there is very little to be gained in continuing this disagreement

I beg to differ.

I have been researching ww2 since the 1980.
One could see what i do on a daily basis just posting relevant stuff here. I think one can see commitment right there.
This is not the only site, nor do i only post pictures. I have helped some people in writing land. And even a game like il-2.

I like the continuity of what horseUSA has done for years. It stays up and running. Reliable always. And might i add we have a Wurger

Now.

As the owner of this site put up a special section for writers , one, and i am one, could have thought, this site wants to attract writers and when they put out a book come and discuss it here. A big plus i think.
One does not have to take everything for granted but with a little research one can find stuff out.

That doesnt go well now does it. Right here.

Sadly a few of said established writers do not come here any more. Dana for one.
There are more i am sorry to say.

I hope you will start from page 1 and read. And keep in mind who did the legwork. The research.

Groundhog thread... sure.

Established, peer proven vs an opinion.

So it is quite fundamental for the course of this site wants to stear.

One needs to take a stand sometimes.

I think i just did.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Depends on who you are referring to when it comes to taking a stand.

I'm sorry I fail to meet your approval.

 

[rochie]

I beg to differ.

I have been researching ww2 since the 1980.
One could see what i do on a daily basis just posting relevant stuff here. I think one can see commitment right there.
This is not the only site, nor do i only post pictures. I have helped some people in writing land. And even a game like il-2.

I like the continuity of what horseUSA has done for years. It stays up and running. Reliable always. And might i add we have a Wurger

Now.

As the owner of this site put up a special section for writers , one, and i am one, could have thought, this site wants to attract writers and when they put out a book come and discuss it here. A big plus i think.
One does not have to take everything for granted but with a little research one can find stuff out.

That doesnt go well now does it. Right here.

Sadly a few of said established writers do not come here any more. Dana for one.
There are more i am sorry to say.

I hope you will start from page 1 and read. And keep in mind who did the legwork. The research.

Groundhog thread... sure.

Established, peer proven vs an opinion.

So it is quite fundamental for the course of this site wants to stear.

One needs to take a stand sometimes.

I think i just did.

that is a much bigger view than the one i was hinting at Snautzer.

i believe both sides are totally entrenched in their view of what is a confirmed Victory (i don't like using kill, though it is a valid description) that the thread will just go back and forth until someone says something out of hand and the thread is closed.
i don't think anyone is rubbishing anyone's books

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

that is a much bigger view than the one i was hinting at Snautzer.

i believe both sides are totally entrenched in their view of what is a confirmed Victory (i don't like using kill, though it is a valid description) that the thread will just go back and forth until someone says something out of hand and the thread is closed.
i don't think anyone is rubbishing anyone's books

Ding, ding, ding…

Hence why I say more is being made of something than needs to be, and why it is a groundhog. The two sides will never reach an agreement because they cannot agree on what constitutes a victory. Disagreeing with the conclusions does not automatically mean someone's work either.



Edit: I am confusing Dana with Calum, so I removed that part to my post. My apologies.

 

[Luft.4]

Established, peer proven vs an opinion.

^ This.