Aces with 200+ victories: how do they stack up in 2012?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
So the British didn't loose any aircraft from combat, just accidents, landings, engines fires and the odd, inflatable life raft. And this was just the LW, right?
Last edited:
IIRC that 3000 incl bomber gunners credits, they truly shot down many British fighters but overclaimed badly as all air gunners tended to do. And even if LW fighter pilots clearly overclaimed, the extent varied, for ex Mölders and Galland were accurate claimers, not 100% but very accurate. Balthasar wasn't and at least late in his career Wick also was optimistic. So it varied case to case, and because many massive air combats with clear overclaiming, absolute truth is not possible to establish but in many cases it is possible to check claims vs true losses and get a general picture of claim accuracy.
Juha
GregP
Major
Hi Juha,
So I sound like Ratsel huh? I can accept that. When someone wants to change the official record that has been accepted since WWII, I naturally want to see the objective evidence that the change is warranted. So far, all I have are opinions that overclaiming was rampant and references to documents perhaps available in the former Soviet Union.
In the US and Great Britain, many WWII reference documents, but not all, are available over the internet. I have even seen some Russian documents available over the internet, too. Unfortunately not many having to do with individual losses or victory claims in the war by land, sea, or air units. Most were losses of troops on the ground summarized.
So I'll say this in response.
One last time before I ignore this subject entirely, make your case without resorting to your opinion. Erich Hartmann's credits for 352 victories are not my opinion; that is the official record. Post objective proof that Herr Hartmann made false claims and, after suitable examination of the evidence, the record may be changed or may not be depending on the evidence. From my perspective, I'd not revise Erich's record unless we look at a lot of other claims, too. However, officially, if it can be shown that certain claims are invalid, then maybe the record can be revised to the satisfaction of historians.
The first thing you'd need to do is to establish the record of Erich Hartmann's claims. I have two sets of them with dates, times, victims, etc. and they don't agree with one another! I think you'd need that before you start trying to invalidate them. Then make sure you have copies of the evidence documents, validated and available to anyone trying to recreate your research. It would help if you published the names and addresses and contact information of places where you got your evidence documents. Most historical researchers have that information available when they want to revise history.
Any document can be incorrect, be it a US, British, Russian, German, or Ukrainian document. That means that not only could Erich Hartmann have been credited wrongly, but also the loss records could be wrong. A typical revisionist forms an opinion and tries to prove he or she is right with circumstantial evidence. The scientific method is to form your opinion (theory) and then try to prove your theory is wrong. If you can't and nobody else can either, then your theory might be right. That's how the laws of Physics and mathematics got made into laws … through inability to be proven wrong.
So you might start with the theory that Erich Hartmann shot down 352 enemy aircraft and try to prove that wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you can that, you might be onto something. Again, good luck.
I'm not trying to fight with you; I'm trying to get to your objective evidence that Erich Hartmann's credits are wrong. So far, I don't see any, starting with lack of Hartmann's credits with dates, times, and victims from other than an internet source.
But you do seem to have the opinion that overclaiming was rampant in the Luftwaffe and rank helped determine claims in the Luftwaffe. I daresay that new pilots were looked upon with some doubt in ALL air forces. Once someone survived the first 10 - 20 combats and became a veteran, I daresay that most air forces would tend to lean toward any claims put forth by a generally known reliable veteran source. The Luftwaffe wasn't alone in that regard.
So I sound like Ratsel huh? I can accept that. When someone wants to change the official record that has been accepted since WWII, I naturally want to see the objective evidence that the change is warranted. So far, all I have are opinions that overclaiming was rampant and references to documents perhaps available in the former Soviet Union.
In the US and Great Britain, many WWII reference documents, but not all, are available over the internet. I have even seen some Russian documents available over the internet, too. Unfortunately not many having to do with individual losses or victory claims in the war by land, sea, or air units. Most were losses of troops on the ground summarized.
So I'll say this in response.
One last time before I ignore this subject entirely, make your case without resorting to your opinion. Erich Hartmann's credits for 352 victories are not my opinion; that is the official record. Post objective proof that Herr Hartmann made false claims and, after suitable examination of the evidence, the record may be changed or may not be depending on the evidence. From my perspective, I'd not revise Erich's record unless we look at a lot of other claims, too. However, officially, if it can be shown that certain claims are invalid, then maybe the record can be revised to the satisfaction of historians.
The first thing you'd need to do is to establish the record of Erich Hartmann's claims. I have two sets of them with dates, times, victims, etc. and they don't agree with one another! I think you'd need that before you start trying to invalidate them. Then make sure you have copies of the evidence documents, validated and available to anyone trying to recreate your research. It would help if you published the names and addresses and contact information of places where you got your evidence documents. Most historical researchers have that information available when they want to revise history.
Any document can be incorrect, be it a US, British, Russian, German, or Ukrainian document. That means that not only could Erich Hartmann have been credited wrongly, but also the loss records could be wrong. A typical revisionist forms an opinion and tries to prove he or she is right with circumstantial evidence. The scientific method is to form your opinion (theory) and then try to prove your theory is wrong. If you can't and nobody else can either, then your theory might be right. That's how the laws of Physics and mathematics got made into laws … through inability to be proven wrong.
So you might start with the theory that Erich Hartmann shot down 352 enemy aircraft and try to prove that wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you can that, you might be onto something. Again, good luck.
I'm not trying to fight with you; I'm trying to get to your objective evidence that Erich Hartmann's credits are wrong. So far, I don't see any, starting with lack of Hartmann's credits with dates, times, and victims from other than an internet source.
But you do seem to have the opinion that overclaiming was rampant in the Luftwaffe and rank helped determine claims in the Luftwaffe. I daresay that new pilots were looked upon with some doubt in ALL air forces. Once someone survived the first 10 - 20 combats and became a veteran, I daresay that most air forces would tend to lean toward any claims put forth by a generally known reliable veteran source. The Luftwaffe wasn't alone in that regard.
Last edited:
i googled so LW awarded her fighters pilot near 2000 Spit/Hurri, the RAF declared around 750 Spit/Hurri shoot downs (include losses from bomber but not the fighter landed too damaged for repair, the raf get 1100 fighters w/o all causes)
Hello Greg
once again, I'm not researching the air war in the southern part of the Eastern Front, I only refer info given by a couple researchers doing that for their books. As the Hartmann's claims, I'd use the Tony Wood's list, which is based on RLM docus.
"But you do seem to have the opinion that overclaiming was rampant in the Luftwaffe" Now where I wrote that kind of text, a typical strawman argument, sorry.
"and rank helped determine claims in the Luftwaffe" Sorry again, one other participian of this thread brought up info on USAAF/USAF study which made that conclusion. I only noted that I had seen before some comments from lowe rank LW pilots, who had claimed that that sort of things happened but also noted that there were high claimer NCOs in LW and also hign claimers who had got many confirmed victories while being NCOs before promoted to officer ranks. So again a strawman argument.
Juha
once again, I'm not researching the air war in the southern part of the Eastern Front, I only refer info given by a couple researchers doing that for their books. As the Hartmann's claims, I'd use the Tony Wood's list, which is based on RLM docus.
"But you do seem to have the opinion that overclaiming was rampant in the Luftwaffe" Now where I wrote that kind of text, a typical strawman argument, sorry.
"and rank helped determine claims in the Luftwaffe" Sorry again, one other participian of this thread brought up info on USAAF/USAF study which made that conclusion. I only noted that I had seen before some comments from lowe rank LW pilots, who had claimed that that sort of things happened but also noted that there were high claimer NCOs in LW and also hign claimers who had got many confirmed victories while being NCOs before promoted to officer ranks. So again a strawman argument.
Juha
Hello Vincenzo
looked only 3 most easily checked sources, BoB Then and Now Mk V FC 1023, incl FC's Blenheims and Defiants, LW 1887, incl 873 109s and 110s. The other two:FC losses, incl damaged beyond repairs 922 1012, LW losses, again incl those dam beyond repairs, 1767 1918. If I recall correctly RAF combat a/c losses were appr 1600, incl BC and CC a/c.
Juha
Addition: bothered to count up the numbers by types from mothly summaries from F. K. Mason's article in The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aviation Vol. 4
that is the fiest of the other two sources 922 vs 1767. FC losses 538 Hurris, 342 Spits, 29 Blenheims and 13 Defiants, LW fighters 591 109s and 261 110s
Last edited:
GregP
Major
OK Juha, so you don't believe overclaiming in the Luftwaffe was rampant. What, then DO you believe? Are Hartmann's credits valid? Was the Luftwaffe system pretty good? At least, up to the point where it collapsed? I wouldn't want to misrepresent your beliefs, just wanted clarification.
Al least SOMEBODY in here wants Hartmann's credits reduced or we would never have gotten here.
All I was asking for was objective evidance of false claims other than Wikipedia-type internet posting, which are proof of nothing.
Al least SOMEBODY in here wants Hartmann's credits reduced or we would never have gotten here.
All I was asking for was objective evidance of false claims other than Wikipedia-type internet posting, which are proof of nothing.
imalko
Chief Master Sergeant
Here's something related to this topic - an excerpt from interview with Slovak top scoring ace Ján Režňak.
After the war Czechoslovak communists were trying to justify participation of Slovak airmen in war in the East by saying that their air victories were made up, that they had evaded combat and sabotaged German aircraft.
Režňák: That is simply not true. Germans had such sophisticated observation system, that if a dog fight occurred somewhere, they knew about it even before our return to the base. For every aircraft claimed we were obligated to write and sign a statement describing in detail a fight in question. It happened on more than one occasion, that while I was still in the air my air victory was already confirmed...
After the war Czechoslovak communists were trying to justify participation of Slovak airmen in war in the East by saying that their air victories were made up, that they had evaded combat and sabotaged German aircraft.
Režňák: That is simply not true. Germans had such sophisticated observation system, that if a dog fight occurred somewhere, they knew about it even before our return to the base. For every aircraft claimed we were obligated to write and sign a statement describing in detail a fight in question. It happened on more than one occasion, that while I was still in the air my air victory was already confirmed...
None want reduced the LW credit to Hartmann, this is impossible.
just i tell, like all others credits, are different of actual enemy planes destroyed so Hartmann destroyes less of 350 planes but this is nothing of strange or is a personal fault of Hartmann.
just i tell, like all others credits, are different of actual enemy planes destroyed so Hartmann destroyes less of 350 planes but this is nothing of strange or is a personal fault of Hartmann.
probably the kill were around 40% of credit (talking only v/s fighters)
LW system was good but overcomplicated, it still allowed fairly wild overclaiming from certain units/individuals. Generally LW fighter pilots claims tended to be more accurate than those of Commonwealth pilots up somewhere in 42 when RAF tightened its procedures. On Hartmann, Soviet researchers have found out that there are clearly more cases in Hartmann's claims to which they didn't have found suitable Soviet losses than for ex in Barkhorn's, Rall's and Lipfert's claims amongst others. Hartmann isn't the only one problematic case, there are many others, there are also many others than the 3 I mentioned, whose claims were accurate.
At TOCH we have had time to time conversations on LW aces.
Juha
The obligation to write a combat report was there in all AFs I have studied, RAF, USAAF, LW and FiAF. At least in FiAF pilot had to write a report from all encounterments, irrespective whether he claimed something or not, LeR 3 was an exception in summer 44, but then its pilots were very hard pressed, trying to give support to army during a major Soviet offensive while badly outnumbered.
Juha
After all 40% wasn't so bad, better than that of FC in 41-42 over France. IIRC LW day fighter claim accuracy against USAAF heavy bombers in Reich defence was about 50%.
Juha
imalko
Chief Master Sergeant
I find more interesting the part where he talks about air victories being noted and confirmed even before pilot's return to base.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Gentlemen, please keep this civil...
Just a comment;
For the past several years there have been several individuals trying to disclaim Hartman's claims and if I remember correctly there was one "researcher" who stated he doubts Hartman had more than 70 confirmed kills. It was a known fact that the Soviet Union had a bounty on Harman's head and when he was tried for "War crimes against the Soviet People" his captors tried him for the destruction of something like 330 Soviet aircraft and the murder or attempted murder of "thousands of Soviet citizens" (they based those charged against his sorties and the amount of ammunition carried in his aircraft, saying each stray round could have killed a Soviet citizen). If his original captors tried and imprisoned him based on his combat claims, why now the disconnect? I think we are all aware of the Soviet propaganda machine but now that the Soviet Union is a thing of the past, it seems the propaganda machine wants to EXTREMELY swing the other way.
also consider the aviation writers Toliver and Constable were one of the first authors who have written about Hartman's combat record based on several sources, mainly his peers and close witnesses. Although never 100% verifiable, I think it's safe to say that these two gentlemen had enough circumstantial evidence to believe that folks like Hartman's claims can be considered "somewhat accurate."
Just my 2 cents - spend it wisely.
Just a comment;
For the past several years there have been several individuals trying to disclaim Hartman's claims and if I remember correctly there was one "researcher" who stated he doubts Hartman had more than 70 confirmed kills. It was a known fact that the Soviet Union had a bounty on Harman's head and when he was tried for "War crimes against the Soviet People" his captors tried him for the destruction of something like 330 Soviet aircraft and the murder or attempted murder of "thousands of Soviet citizens" (they based those charged against his sorties and the amount of ammunition carried in his aircraft, saying each stray round could have killed a Soviet citizen). If his original captors tried and imprisoned him based on his combat claims, why now the disconnect? I think we are all aware of the Soviet propaganda machine but now that the Soviet Union is a thing of the past, it seems the propaganda machine wants to EXTREMELY swing the other way.
also consider the aviation writers Toliver and Constable were one of the first authors who have written about Hartman's combat record based on several sources, mainly his peers and close witnesses. Although never 100% verifiable, I think it's safe to say that these two gentlemen had enough circumstantial evidence to believe that folks like Hartman's claims can be considered "somewhat accurate."
Just my 2 cents - spend it wisely.
Last edited:
GregP
Major
Thanks FlyboJ. I'll stick with 352 for Erich and let it go at that.
Hello FlyboyJ
The Russian researcher was Khazanov and his main error was to use claim list in T's and C's Blond Knight as his source of Hartmann's claims. Because that list is so error-ridden it was easy to show errors in Khazanov's article. That also say much on T's and C's book. Now if prosecuters used number 342 in Hartmann's trial, that in fact proof nothing on Hartmann's claim accuracy, Soviets probably would not have bothered to try to find out the number of H's real victories, that would have needed much hard work, for a show trial. That number would has been only clever move from prosecuters, using German figure would has made it hard to Hartmann to dispute it. On the bounty, was there one or is that just one of the myths made by T C? The fact is that Soviet pilots were paid for accepted kills anyway. IIRC the most realist part of the book is the description of H's life in POW camps, he was very harshly treated but he didn't break.
Juha
Last edited:
Any source for that please?
