A look at German fighter Ace kill claims (3 Viewers)

[CHen10]

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.

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.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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.

I agree.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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.

 

[Snautzer01]

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.

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.

 

[Luft.4]

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.

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"

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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"

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.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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…

 

[Luft.4]

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

 

[GregP]

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.

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.

 

[Luft.4]

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.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

^ 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.

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

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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"

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.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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

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.

 

[GregP]

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.

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.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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

Do I think he scored less than 352? Yes.

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 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.

 

[Nick Beale]

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.

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.