As I said groundhog 3.0…
Neither side will convince the other.
Neither side will convince the other.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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!