A look at German fighter Ace kill claims

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

A while back someone created an account here to attack Calum and his book. This was a very personal attack as well, very nasty. Calum was upset, rightfully so.

We moderators defended Calum and his book. This poster who was attacking him was way out of line. At one point, the poster accused us moderators of some things, and said we would delete one his posts to censor him. We decided to not delete it because it really showed how deranged he was. Everyone knew this attacker was full of it.

Anyhow, after everything was done Calum changed his profile picture to say "Leaving the Forum" and sadly asked the moderator staff to delete all his posts. We told him we would not do that because it would mess the flow of threads up. He then sadly asked to have his account deleted, which we complied with as we cannot force anyone to remain here.

It was a very unfortunate situation.

Click to expand...

I see. It's sad because in a way the attacker got what he wanted as Calum ended up leaving. The fact the attacks were very personal makes it worse.

CHen10 said:

I see. It's sad because in a way the attacker got what he wanted as Calum ended up leaving. The fact the attacks were very personal makes it worse.

Click to expand...

I agree.

Now were there other reasons Calum chose to leave, and this incident was just the straw that broke the camel's back? I do not know.

Nick Beale said:

Surviving German victory claims files are downloadable from the Bundesarchiv (file RL 5/1451 for example), RAF Squadrons' Operations Record Books are downloadable from the UK National Archives, USAAF Missing Air Crew Reports are available on Fold3.com (and elsewhere, I think). This will give you what you need to compare a sample of German accredited victories with losses by the Western Allies.

If you find, as you almost certainly will, cases where more German victories were accredited than Allied aircraft were lost or even damaged then logically it would seem that you should accept that accredited totals are not wholly reliable.

I've actually done this exercise, for example with I./JG 2's deployment to Italy from February to April 1944. They claimed 52 victories against actual Allied losses of 20–25 in the combats concerned.

Click to expand...

As another source i would suggest Verliesregister 1939-1945 Alle militaire vliegtuigverliezen in Nederland tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog (2008) – Studiegroep Luchtoorlog 1939-1945

These are crashes registrered for the air war over Holland, both allies and german losses.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

Please do not insult me. I'm well aware of the meaning of the two words.

If I moderate someone because of their opinion it's defacto censorship. Its not my job to moderate someone's opinion.

Click to expand...

What you have done again is failed to show I asked for any censorship. I asked to mod the smearing:
Post 38
"Primary source, CHen10. And I can write that stuff, too, and have." Then "If that's the best you have, you don't have much."
Post 78 "You have a pet theory"
Post 84 "Get real."
Post 91 "suspicions of an author with a motive to sell books" and "modern revisionist"

Luft.4 said:

What you have done again is failed to show I asked for any censorship. I asked to mod the smearing:
Post 38
"Primary source, CHen10. And I can write that stuff, too, and have." Then "If that's the best you have, you don't have much."
Post 78 "You have a pet theory"
Post 84 "Get real."
Post 91 "suspicions of an author with a motive to sell books" and "modern revisionist"

Click to expand...

And I told him to stop. When those posts were written, everyone was going back and forth with snide comments. Hence why I did not single out a single person, but made general warnings to all. Did you not see those posts.

Post 91: I'll admit, I missed somehow. I would have addressed that. I'm human.

After three general warnings, I began to call out individuals. If Greg were to continue with snide comments after the warnings I would step in.

Believe me, my honest intent is to remain impartial. Hence why I have stayed out of the discussion.

I would like to apologize to everyone here. I started to lose my cool. I started to take some things personally. It was a rough day, but thats no excuse. Sorry…

I apologies from my curt responses as well. As you succinctly put it, we indeed are all human.

Thumpalumpacus said:

If you cannot admit the possibility of error, why is there any discussion? In the words of that great Missing Persons song, "What are words for / if no one listens anymore? / If no one listens there's no use talking at all."

Note that nowhere have I written that you are yourself completely wrong. The same can be said about my comments to L Luft.4 , @bf109xxl, or CHen10 . I think you all have good points to make in this discussion. But if it's your way or the highway, I see enough problems with your way that I'll stick out my thumb. Claims ain't everything -- see Pappy Boyington.

It's dismaying that you should take the stance that anyone who disagrees with you at any level is simply wrong, but hey, nuance can be hard to grasp at times, I get it.

Thanks in advance for letting me know I shouldn't waste my time when you won't listen to anything but complete agreement. Good luck finding it.

Click to expand...

Nobody is wrong because they disagree with me.

But finding some Soviet unit that was flying when Hartmann made a claim and saying his claim had to have been against them is not proof that is was. All it amounts to is a theory.

I sort of like the theory myself, but liking it and considering it as proven are two wildly different things. The theory is a very good place to start looking for some proof, if it exists.

Considering the nature of aerial warfare over the Russian steppes when Hartmann was flying, obtaining proof may be a VERY difficult thing to do.

We have the data over Hungary.
Over the country of Hungary we have all the Soviet losses. It took about a decade to get them from the archives but we now have them. Down to the individual air frame serial number, pilot, crew, even down the engine number(s). Never before had so much materiel been extracted for the country. Why did we need this extreme detail? Because our database was originally created for military professionals to exhume remains and repatriate them. They needed to be certain that the bones found in a wreckage's could be linked to a plane then to a unit, then from the location to a loss and from the loss to the loss report stating a name. Multiple nations worked together on this project. It was no Micky Mouse hobbyist undertaking.
The story of this data is in the book.

We have the mission times, we have the targets, and we have the units. One day we realized that we could compare the losses with any claims, and the book was born. The book reviewed all active units at the appropriate time at the appropriate place. A quick search in the database and you can locate the units active that day. No need to look at 8 VA losses when an action took place deep within the 17 VA. After you collect all that data, you can begin to assess the situation/claim.

With this organized data, gaining proof is much easier than expected. It is shockingly efficient and accurate, only downside is you need about 10 years to pull it together.. and that is for a little country like Hungary.

A point to wards to non-biasness (if that is even a word) of the book, we were even able to verify claims pilots made but could not write down owing to their death (Sturm), or claims they wrote about but did not file (Lipfert on multiple occasions). Verification goes both ways, not only against a pilot's claimed score but also for it. From memory I believe the book verified about 5 such claims for the pilots.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

^ This all you want…

Moderators will still not "moderate" or "censor" someone's "opinion." It's not our job.

Nor is someone's opinion automatically trashing or disrespecting someones work.

So debate each other until your ears fall off, but do it without the pointed jabs and insults at the other side as I have politely asked on numerous occasions, and now a 2nd moderator has asked as well. This goes for GregP and CHen10 , and anyone else in the conversation as well.

Click to expand...

Disagreement need not be disagreeable, a rule of Thump {) that seems to be honored in the breach here in this thread.

Luft.4 said:

What you have done again is failed to show I asked for any censorship. I asked to mod the smearing:
Post 38
"Primary source, CHen10. And I can write that stuff, too, and have." Then "If that's the best you have, you don't have much."
Post 78 "You have a pet theory"
Post 84 "Get real."
Post 91 "suspicions of an author with a motive to sell books" and "modern revisionist"

Click to expand...

Bud, some of the best advice is from the noted American philosopher Dr Seuss (and no, that is not a snipe): Those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind.

Speak what you know and don't let the callous sarcasm sandbag you. Never let someone else take you out of your groove.

I think on Chris's (MilitaryAviationHistory's) recommendation, I'll be buying your book -- not because I agree or disagree, but because I think I will learn details I didn't know before. If for no other reason, I'm okay with this thread, even as ugly as it has turned out.

Again, I just hope that you take both honest criticism on board, and at the same time don't let unfair criticism get under your skin. And really, leave the moderation alone and let your points stand on their own, and do not reply to rudeness with rudeness.

Never let anyone take you out of your groove.

GregP said:

Considering the nature of aerial warfare over the Russian steppes when Hartmann was flying, obtaining proof may be a VERY difficult thing to do.

Click to expand...

Right -- that's exactly what I've been saying all along, and I even made plain that it not only applies to all fronts but different (land, air, and sea) services.

Often enough the truth simply cannot be known. I'm sure that credited claims are in most cases off by a bit, because war kinda has that effect.

I just hope this thread cools down so that the information/argumentation ratio leans back to the former.

Thumpalumpacus said:

If you cannot admit the possibility of error, why is there any discussion? In the words of that great Missing Persons song, "What are words for / if no one listens anymore? / If no one listens there's no use talking at all."

Note that nowhere have I written that you are yourself completely wrong. The same can be said about my comments to L Luft.4 , @bf109xxl, or CHen10 . I think you all have good points to make in this discussion. But if it's your way or the highway, I see enough problems with your way that I'll stick out my thumb. Claims ain't everything -- see Pappy Boyington.

It's dismaying that you should take the stance that anyone who disagrees with you at any level is simply wrong, but hey, nuance can be hard to grasp at times, I get it.

Thanks in advance for letting me know I shouldn't waste my time when you won't listen to anything but complete agreement. Good luck finding it.

Click to expand...

I DO NOT take the stance that anyone who doesn't agree with me is wrong.

I am absolutely open to the fact that Hartmann scored less than 352.

But, and here's the entire point ... PROVE IT beyond a shadow of a doubt before you try to take away even one victory from the man.

So far, nobody can ties ANY Soviet airplane that escaped damaged or undamaged to Erich Hartmann. What they have is some statistics (that absolutely do NOT address individual outcomes in any way) that show some unit was in the air near where Erich was claiming and they all got back, some of which needed to be repaired before flying again. That is good data. But there were many small units based very close to one another, and any Soviet fighter could be 100 miles away in 20 minutes at 300 mph. There were quite a few units within a 100-mile circle, any one of which might have been engaged by Hartmann.

You can say anything you want, but there is nobody alive today we know who can tie any of those airplanes to Hartmann or a Hartmann claim.

Do I think he scored less than 352? Yes.

Can I prove it? No.

So, his total is 352, as awarded in WWII, until we CAN prove it. That's the way it works. Prove it or accept history as-written.

Personally, I LIKE the theory in Verified Victories and think it is reasonable. It just doesn't prove anything ... while still remaining an interesting possibility.

GregP said:

I am absolutely open to the fact that Hartmann scored less than 352.

Click to expand...

GregP said:

Do I think he scored less than 352? Yes.

Click to expand...

GregP said:

But, and here's the entire point ... PROVE IT beyond a shadow of a doubt before you try to take away even one victory from the man.

Click to expand...

So you're fine with taking away some of his kills in your own thinking, but you only insist on "proof" when someone else does that same, exact thing. There's a double-standard here.

Why do you think his score is less than 352, even as you say that his claims should be taken at face value? Be specific.

GregP said:

So, his total is 352, as awarded in WWII, until we CAN prove it. That's the way it works. Prove it or accept history as-written.

Click to expand...

After reading your posts I'm really not clear what you would accept as proof. Let's look at a really straightforward, localised action and you can let us know which of the following you would accept and which you would not.

80 years ago last Sunday, the US 8th Air Force flew Operation Cadillac, a major supply drop to French resistance fighters on the Vercors plateau. The Bf 109s of Jagdgruppe 200 intercepted the B-17s and their escort close to the target area. No other German fighter units were based in southern France at the time (Primary source: Jagdfliegerführer Südfrankreich unit strength and disposition returns deciphered by the British), no other Allied forces were operating over the Grenoble-Valence-Vercors area that morning (primary source: Medirerranean Allied Tactical Air Forces Daily Intelligence/Operations Summary).

German primary sources in the Bundesarchiv accredit four claims by pilots of 2./JGr. 200:

Lt. Heinz Moschke Stirling 09.17 Romans-sur-Isère
Ofw. Eduard Isken B-17 09.17 Valence
Ofw. Tchrer B-17 09.18 Valence (shot out of formation)
Ofw. Läbe B-17 09.25 Valence (shot out of formation)

British primary sources in the National Archives (deciphered German signals) include a mission report showing that 21 Bf 109s operated and had initially claimed a Fortress shot down, two shot out of formation and one damaged plus a Stirling probable and a Mustang probable.

(This was an American daylight operation in which no Stirlings took part, so it seems that a B-17 was wrongly identified by Moschke).

An American primary source, the 8th AF Mission Report, records no B-17s shot down. The 94th Bomb Group was the only one to report any damge. It had eight aircraft category A (repairable within 36 hours) and category AC (repairable in over 36 hours). Some were attributed to Flak or other causes while four were by "fighter alone" and two by "fighter and other." Two of the bombers involved in Cadillac landed on strips in the Normandy beach head with their crews safe.

Turning to another German primary source, a pilot's Flugbuch, the Mustang "probable" may have been that claimed by Uffz. Ohmert in the area Valence–Grenoble–Lyon: he noted it as "Accredited (eyewitnesses). 1 point" but there is no surviving victory credit. The 357th FG did however record one of its aircraft as damaged "Cat. AC."

American fighter escorts claimed four Bf 109s and one Fw 190, bomber gunners claimed 5-2-2 (primary source: 8th AF Mission Report). German losses were: six Bf 109s total loss; two pilots dead, one missing and three injured (primary source: deciphered JGr. 200 report).

My reading of all that is NOBODY on either side made accurate claims. The Germans even accredited two four-engined bombers shot down over their territory for which they could not possibly have found corresponding wrecks because the USAAF lost none.

This is from the same sample I showed previously

Hartmann's 321st: La-5 at 1145 hours south east of Hatvan

On this day:
La-5FN flown by V. A. Kovrigin shot down by 2 Bf-109s at 1150 hours at Hatvan

Hartmann claims fighter plane and fighter plane is lost
Both times roughly the same
Both same location

Clearly this was Hartmann's victory. By looking at the losses, this has to be Hartmann's victory.

If we can confirm this was Hartmann's victory then we can also confirm he had overclaims because there isn't a matching loss.

Thumpalumpacus said:

So you're fine with taking away some of his kills in your own thinking, but you only insist on "proof" when someone else does that same, exact thing. There's a double-standard here.

Why do you think his score is less than 352, even as you say that his claims should be taken at face value? Be specific.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, Thump.

History should be written as two three or more sections.

1) What is known beyond s shadow of a doubt.
2) What is accepted.
3) What is suspected and why.

a) I suspect Hartmann had less than 352 victories.
b) Right now, Hartmann has 352 official victories.
c) I suspect he has less because research says that there are units in the vicinity of his awarded victories that didn't lose any airplanes on that day. Of course, some of them had to be repaired before they could fly again and thus were force-landed as a result of combat. This could, conceivably, be counted as a legitimate victory, and we can't definitely tie his victory to any single airplane that was damaged or not damaged. So, we THINK this particular victory was an overclaim.

The topic is potential discrepancies between official tallies and actual kills. I know what his official score is. To use an algebraic term, we're trying to solve the unknown variable.

Well, yes. Unknown. You'd have to show that no Soviet unit with, say, 240 km of Hartmann's awarded victories on that day and approximate time, lost an airplane in combat. That's a tall order, as it SHOULD be. If you want to change accepted history, you can't just write it up, say its true, and expect everyone to jump onboard. You have to show that, beyond a reasonable doubt, your theory is true.

I haven't read the book, but the excerpt I read above shows that ONE UNIT, near the approximate location of a Hartmann victory award, didn't lose an airplane that day, near that time. Some planes had to be repaired to fly again, so they EASILY could have been that victory as a shoot-down. There is no way to tie any of them to Hartmann. There is no mention of other units within, say, 240 km that might have lost an aircraft, though that scenario could be covered in the book ... as I said, I haven't read it.

So, we have ONE UNIT that may or may not be the target of Hartmann's victory claim, and that unit DID have some airplanes that needed repair to fly again. So, even that one unit MIGHT have been the unit that resulted in a legitimate claim.

As I've stated many time above, you do NOT have to have a reported loss for a legitimate claim to be awarded.

My guess is that there were MANY units within 200 - 250 km who might have been the unit that Hartmann's claim addressed. Allied bases on the way to Berlin were often within just a few miles of one another because that's were the roads went and there were convenient fields along those roads suitable for airplanes. Do we think the Russians were any different? Did they go build roads many miles long to separate airfields or did they put the fields along the existing roads in whatever fields proved to be suitable for takeoff and landing airplanes?

So, as stated above, it is a good theory, but not good enough to alter Hartmann's official awarded victories. Just because something MIGHT be true, doesn't mean it IS true. It may mean it is reasonable and even likely ... but it is just likely, NOT proof beyond doubt.

This is NOT going to degenerate into drama or name calling in my posts, but you need to do more to change history than come up with a good and even interesting theory. Finding out that Hartmann might have overclaimed is not the same as showing it beyond a doubt.

I'll make everybody in here happy and abandon this thread, right now.

Finis.

Oh, and ... Cheers to all.