mike siggins
Airman
i remember seeing some place about a recoverd p40 not beeing taken off the books for a while by the russian air force i think it was the on found behind a rr in murmansk
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
mike siggins
Airman
that would be why some dates didnt match
That makes two of us.
Erich
the old Sage
welcome Ray to the forums, will be interesting too see the correspondence with Erich and if it shed any pertinent "new" information to his very high score. in all the years have been following this with interest since the 1950's as Neil said more materials have shown the high scorers were not just that, nothing really stands out above 250 kills proven except for a wingman and then possibly if fortunate a late war gun camera installed didn't matter whether day/night fighter aces, ground attack you name them, what has been highly accepted in the 1970's into early 1980's now needs to be re-worked as new light is shed.
fun to research
E ~
fun to research
E ~
Raymond Kemp
Airman
Hello Erich and thank you for the welcome! Yes, it is fun to research!
You mentioned Neil and I assume you would be talking about FalkeEins? I did find his blog on the topic very interesting. I already started to do some checking against the actual documentation that Erich Hartmann sent to my grandfather in the 60's to cross check some dates that were called into dispute from FalkeEins blog about the Russian research from Khazanv. As a result of some of my initial research, I may have discovered the reason why dates and or aircraft claimed are in dispute from Khazanv. I hope to offer some evidence when I return from California in which I will retrieve more hard information as well as an interview I have scheduled with someone on this very subject.
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts!
Ray
meatloaf109
1st Lieutenant
Make it three!
From my own research, which may be found in the book Verified Victories: Top JG 52 Aces Over Hungary 1944-45, of the three 'aces' over 200+ claims assessed, Erich Hartmann is by far the worst performer. Almost embarrassingly so. Pulling his claims from official documents, or books, does not change the situation. These claims are compared against extensive and extremely detailed VVS loss records. These same records overwhelmingly support other very successful pilots so its not a question of the documentation. Aircraft were thoroughly recorded if they were lost. Checking USAAF records shows the exact same thing, so it does not matter which sides information one looks at. As one example, the famous 8th May Yak-9s and P-51s story is just that, a story with no base in reality.
A lot has been written about his claims post-war, and 2 authors writing in the 70s in particular have done a tremendous deal which had muddied the waters unfortunately... they did not let a good story get in the way of the truth as written in documentation.
All the best,
Dan.
A lot has been written about his claims post-war, and 2 authors writing in the 70s in particular have done a tremendous deal which had muddied the waters unfortunately... they did not let a good story get in the way of the truth as written in documentation.
All the best,
Dan.
GregP
Major
The books that purport overclaiming were invariably written by non-pilot people who weren't there and have little concept of actual aerial combat. They generally rely more on admitted enemy losses than anything else. In the case of the Germans, many, many records were lost on the war, and admitted loses were not always accurate. Who wanted to tell Stalin or Hitler the real losses when the consequences were potentially so dire?
Also, who many planes damaged in combat were lost on the way home after combat and were attributed to "operational causes" when, in fact, they were lost due to actual damage incurred in earlier combat.
To me, the culprit of the entire argument is the definition of a victory. There are several definitions, but one of the main errors is saying a plane had to be destroyed to be counted. When a pilot shoots another plane down, he wants his credit. He cannot follow it down to the ground from 20,000 feet or his mission would fail if it is an escort mission. If it is NOT an escort mission, he still cannot follow it down from altitude since he is either an element leader or a wingman and would be leaving his unit while in combat. It isn't reasonable and nobody did that unless they were relatively low to start with. As a result, when an enemy aircraft departed downward in flames, it was and IS quite natural to claim it as a victory, as it should be.
If a pilot shoots an enemy aircraft and it goes down, then he shot if out of the fight and should get a victory credit. If the enemy later recovers it and returns it to service, it was STILL shot down and out of the fight. Whether or not the enemy makes use of a shot down aircraft or parts of same should have no bearing on whether it was shot out of the fight and forced to land / crash. Later use of the aircraft or parts has no bearing on what happened in the fight that resulted in the downing of the aircraft.
Last edited:
Putting too much weight/confidence in soviet records may be dangerous. The intent to lied about bad news (losses) was not invented in the current Russia-Ukraine war, that's basically how a dictatorship operates, no difference between communist and nazi dictatorship.
We may not know the final truth yet but the losses announced to the public are different thing than those reported in internal reports.
There has always been a certain "gray zone" in losses, but in a Air Force, as in other large organizations, it is more difficult to cheat in internal reports. If you have reported that you have lost three aircraft and two pilots, it is a bit difficult to then ask for seven planes and 5 pilots to replace the losses. And if you only ask three planes and two pilots, after a few rounds what you do, informed your superiors that your pilots and planes had disappeared somewhere or you deserted to the enemy's side? A small tweaking can probably be practiced, but if a lot of machines were lost due to technical reasons, then quickly in the Soviet Union there was a charge of sabotage , which was a life-threatening charge there. On the other hand, if you reported too many losses due to poor training or weather, you could easily be investigated for needlessly endangering the lives of your pilots. At least since 1943, for casualties in the fighter units in the Red Air Forces, the squadron leader or regimental commander had to give an assurance that the assigned task was proportionate to the pilots' training and experience.
And then, of course, the fact that the aerial victory claims of some of LW's top aces clearly match the information found in the Soviet archives better than some others. The same phenomenon occurs, for example, with Finnish aces or, for example, with the British in relation to the surviving LW documents. And the archives of the Red Army, Navy and PVO (air defence branch) have been preserved quite well, except for the chaos of the year 1941. And one could research them for a certain time period after the collapse of the SU before they closed again in recent years.
There has always been a certain "gray zone" in losses, but in a Air Force, as in other large organizations, it is more difficult to cheat in internal reports. If you have reported that you have lost three aircraft and two pilots, it is a bit difficult to then ask for seven planes and 5 pilots to replace the losses. And if you only ask three planes and two pilots, after a few rounds what you do, informed your superiors that your pilots and planes had disappeared somewhere or you deserted to the enemy's side? A small tweaking can probably be practiced, but if a lot of machines were lost due to technical reasons, then quickly in the Soviet Union there was a charge of sabotage , which was a life-threatening charge there. On the other hand, if you reported too many losses due to poor training or weather, you could easily be investigated for needlessly endangering the lives of your pilots. At least since 1943, for casualties in the fighter units in the Red Air Forces, the squadron leader or regimental commander had to give an assurance that the assigned task was proportionate to the pilots' training and experience.
And then, of course, the fact that the aerial victory claims of some of LW's top aces clearly match the information found in the Soviet archives better than some others. The same phenomenon occurs, for example, with Finnish aces or, for example, with the British in relation to the surviving LW documents. And the archives of the Red Army, Navy and PVO (air defence branch) have been preserved quite well, except for the chaos of the year 1941. And one could research them for a certain time period after the collapse of the SU before they closed again in recent years.
Last edited:
Relying on losses is a much surer way of understanding what happened than claims, this is why all serious historians use losses as the basis for their books. If one has trouble understanding why using losses is the best option, perhaps they should really double down on reading more high-quality books, perhaps even venture into the realm of archival research which can be partially done online for free.
Verified Victories devote no less than 10 pages on the subject of 'what is a victory'. The RLM's own directives are used. It is quite possibly the most comprehensive text devoted to defining a victory written in the English language, many people would positively benefit from it. And yes, an aircraft does need to be destroyed to be a full victory, otherwise you will have double counting. That is simply basic math.
Those stating they are hesitant towards VVS internal loss records for the latter half of the second world war immediately demonstrate their lack of familiarity with the subject.
Dan.
Verified Victories devote no less than 10 pages on the subject of 'what is a victory'. The RLM's own directives are used. It is quite possibly the most comprehensive text devoted to defining a victory written in the English language, many people would positively benefit from it. And yes, an aircraft does need to be destroyed to be a full victory, otherwise you will have double counting. That is simply basic math.
Those stating they are hesitant towards VVS internal loss records for the latter half of the second world war immediately demonstrate their lack of familiarity with the subject.
Dan.
