Erich Hartmann and his victories and overclaims over Hungary

[CHen10]

Erich Hartmann was officially credited with 352 kills. We all know this, however primary Soviet sources prove that many of his victims never actually crashed and were repaired.

So...

Are the Soviet archives reliable?

Yes people have found the serial number of multiple aircraft that were listed as lost, and then they found the wreckage in real life and the wreckage had the same serial number, so the archives are accurate. Of course, we can't find every single wreck, however since we have multiple cases of the serial numbers in the wreckage matching the serial numbers in the archives, we can conclude that these archives are accurate.

If you still think that Soviet archives are unreliable, then there is no point ever discussing Soviet aviation. For all we know the information could be made up!

Why did the Soviets put him on trial for destroying 345 aircraft when their archives proved he didn't?

Hartmann was in Soviet captivity and the Soviets would have interrogated Hartmann and learnt about the fact he was credited with 352 kills. The Soviets, most likely angry, put him on trial for destroying Soviet planes which damaged the economy. They were bitter because in their mind, there's this person who was officially credited with 352 kills and so they would want to convict based on anything. Russian Federation pardoned Hartmann posthumously and admitted the trial was all wrong.

Is Hartmann a liar?

No way. Hartmann's success raised suspicion in the Luftwaffe and so observers flew alongside him. The observers concluded that every single victory Hartmann claimed was real and genuine. The Luftwaffe double and triple checked his kills and confirmed them. Everyone involved thought Hartmann got 352.

If Hartmann claimed 352 kills and the Luftwaffe agreed and confirmed his claims, why are there so many overclaims?

Hartmann, his comrades, observers and everyone who was a witness to Hartmann's kills would have seen this scenario:

Hartmann fires at a plane. He hits the plane and damages it. The plane spirals down with what looks like critical damage. Explosions from the battles would be mistaken as the aircraft exploding. Of course Hartmann did destroy planes. He destroyed a large amount but also just damaged some too.

How do we know Hartmann hit his opponents?

We can see that Soviet aircraft were damaged and repaired and they were attacked the same time Hartmann claimed them.

Do Soviet aircraft often appear critically damaged when they're not?

Yes Yakovlev aircraft with metal frames and canvas can look critically damaged but actually aren't. Hartmann engaged many Yak fighters.

Hartmann's accuracy over Hungary during 1944-45 was about 20-30% at most. From the victories I've looked at on the eastern front from 1942-44 his accuracy was more like 50-60%.

Why did his accuracy decrease?

From 1942-44 Hartmann engaged with these fighters:

Yaks, Lavochkins, LaGGs, P-39s and possibly P-40s

From 1944-45 over Hungary he engaged these fighters only:

Yaks and Lavochkins

Why would this cause a drop off in his accuracy?

Well the Yak aircraft with the metal frames and canvas can appear critically damaged. From 1942-44 he would have engaged with Yaks but he also would have engaged with Lavochkins, LaGGs, P-39s and P-40s this means he can encounter many different types of fighters. Over Hungary he only would have engaged with Yaks and Lavochkins. So everytime he claimed a fighter there was a much higher chance it would be a Yak. This would mean there was more opportunity to engage with a Yak and inflict the damage that looked critical.

Ok but how do we know that Hartmann only engaged Yaks and Lavochkins from 1944-45 over Hungary?

The Soviet 5 and 17 VAs were the only VAs involved in Hungary from 1944-45. These two VAs only used Yaks and Lavochkins as their fighters at this time of the war. No P-39s, P-40s, LaGGs or any other kind of fighter.

Can we 100% determine if a victory is real or an overclaim?

Not always. Sometimes there isn't enough information to conclusively say if it's a victory or not. We have to call these victories potential victories. The person looking at the information can come to their own conclusion about whether or not it's a victory based on the facts.

This is why there are only estimates to a pilot's real score because you can't always be 100% certain. If I had to guess about Hartmann I would give him roughly 190 real victories that resulted in the destruction of an aircraft based on what I've seen

But is there any evidence for all this?

Yes of course

The first two images show proof that serial numbers in Soviet archives match with serial numbers found on real wreckage. This makes the archives reliable.

The next two images show the Yaks phenomenon. Both of the Yaks in the pictures were NOT written off. As you can see they suffered what looks like critical damage. If I was Hartmann and I saw an aircraft damaged like that as well as nose diving and trailing smoke and then saw explosions from the battles near where I last my damaged victim, I would assume it's a victory too!

The rest of the images show some of Hartmann's victory claims over Hungary and conclude with either a Full victory, a potential victory or an overclaim. Under each day, the author provides an explanation for the conclusions he comes to. It's explained why it's a victory or overclaim.

Are the tables shown in the pictures, which show aircraft losses on a certain day, reliable and accurate?

Yes they are taken from a primary source in the form of Soviet archives which has been shown to be reliable. There are references to also show where in the Soviet archives they're located.

All of these pictures are from Gábor Horváth's excellent book Verified Victories. He also provided the images of the real life wreckages and their serial numbers. All credit goes to him.

So is Hartmann a good pilot?

More than that. Hartmann is an excellent pilot who hit the aircraft he claimed. Due to the heat of battle and being in a warzone, he sometimes made mistakes in his conclusions, but they were reliable claims since everyone who was with him confirmed the victories. Everyone with him confirmed the victories showing he wasn't a liar and that nobody realised the aircraft was actually repaired. Is it 352 kills? Absolutely not, but it's still around 180-190 mark which is a fantastic score.

Oh and finally if a secondary source only uses primary sources for the information, then yes the secondary source is still secondary, but it's easier to just refer to it as a primary source since it only contains information from primary sources.

Phew! That was long but researching aircraft losses is incredibly fun and it's always satisfying to discover new things. It'd be interesting to see on here what other people have found out researching losses and claims!

 

[Denniss]

Claims and records of all sides were unreliable. Soviets even acknowleged the 352 "kills" in their court documents used to send him to gulag.

 

[rochie]

So you are saying an aircraft hit by fire from an opponent, crash lands and is repaired cannot be counted as a victory by the pilot doing the shooting ?

Only aircraft totally destroyed are counted ?

 

[CHen10]

Claims and records of all sides were unreliable. Soviets even acknowleged the 352 "kills" in their court documents used to send him to gulag.

Yeah you're right Soviets saw his kill claims and convicted him based on that. As you say, everyone had overclaims and had a degree of unreliability

 

[dedalos]

Because some wrecks can be located in the soviets archives is your profe of reliability??? What if 500 more were scraped without mention?
It s amazing how contradictions you have. You say he was 20% reliable , and 3 lines later you write he was excellent pilot and not liar!!!
If in 80% of the cases could not understand what happened he was either useless or lier or both!!!
In Csor was flying along barkhorn lipfert, Sturm etc. NOBODY noticed anything ? Barkhorn as CO, and we know he was a good CO, did not have a clue of extreme overclaiming?
Okay, he was fooled by the smoking , but otherwise healthy, yaks. The others observers that as you say tripled checked him also were fooled?
By that stage of the war, german fighters stayed mainly over their own territory by orders. So in 80% if his claims , according to you, no wreckage was found, neither by his squadron pilots nor by the ground forces and NOBODY had a problem with it?????
You say that you studied the reliable soviet archieves and you give hartmann 180-190 kills. A famous russian researher who also says he studied the soviet archieves ( the same with you? or others?) gives him 70-80 kills.
AT THE VERY LEAST make an agreement between you what you will accuse him of!!!

 

[CHen10]

So you are saying an aircraft hit by fire from an opponent, crash lands and is repaired cannot be counted as a victory by the pilot doing the shooting ?

Only aircraft totally destroyed are counted ?

This is a very good point. The definition of a victory can be argued and debated but the author of that book as well as myself and many others consider this to be a victory:

Someone inflicts damage to an aircraft. As a result, the aircraft crashes or crash lands and is written off. The aircraft is destroyed and no longer available for use.

This definition can be considered strict but it logically it makes sense. If there's a claim, there has to be a corresponding loss where the aircraft is completely destroyed.

There is another view that people have:

Someone inflicts damage to an aircraft. As a result the aircraft crash lands or returns to base and is repaired. Afterwards the aircraft flies again in combat just like before.

With this, people would say that this is a victory because in the dogfight the person shot up another plane and forced the pilot to retreat with his damaged aircraft. In this encounter the pilot who caused the damage was the winner of the fight since he forced his opponent to give up. So people say this victory in the fight is just as good as destroying an enemy aircraft.

If someone believes that forcing your opponent to give up because you damaged their aircraft, counts as a victory regardless of whether or not the aircraft is destroyed, then this person would consider Hartmann to have almost no overclaims. With this definition Hartmann probably had like 340 or so victories.

 

[CHen10]

Because some wrecks can be located in the soviets archives is your profe of reliability??? What if 500 more were scraped without mention?
It s amazing how contradictions you have. You say he was 20% reliable , and 3 lines later you write he was excellent pilot and not liar!!!
If in 80% of the cases could not understand what happened he was either useless or lier or both!!!
In Csor was flying along barkhorn lipfert, Sturm etc. NOBODY noticed anything ? Barkhorn as CO, and we know he was a good CO, did not have a clue of extreme overclaiming?
Okay, he was fooled by the smoking , but otherwise healthy, yaks. The others observers that as you say tripled checked him also were fooled?
By that stage of the war, german fighters stayed mainly over their own territory by orders. So in 80% if his claims , according to you, no wreckage was found, neither by his squadron pilots nor by the ground forces and NOBODY had a problem with it?????
You say that you studied the reliable soviet archieves and you give hartmann 180-190 kills. A famous russian researher who also says he studied the soviet archieves ( the same with you? or others?) gives him 70-80 kills.
AT THE VERY LEAST make an agreement between you what you will accuse him of!!!

Firstly Gábor Horváth is Hungarian not Russian. He would have no agenda against Hartmann. If anything he would be in favour of Hartmann since Hartmann fought alongside Hungarian pilots.

Secondly, do you seriously expect people to find the wrecks of every single Soviet aircraft?

Every single time the wreckage of a Soviet aircraft is found with the serial number still visible, it matches what the archive says. Since the serial number matches every time we find the wreckage, we can assume it matches for all the losses.

Just stop because it's getting embarrassing now. You're being rude and you have no idea what you're talking about.

Normally, I am never rude to people but what do you expect me to do when you constantly attack me?

You're the one constantly contradicting yourself.

Just stop you're being an idiot.

 

[GrauGeist]

So claims can only be substantiated if the serial number on the wreckage matches?

 

[CHen10]

So claims can only be substantiated if the serial number on the wreckage matches?

No the point about the serial numbers matching is just to prove that the archives are reliable. If we see in the archives that a plane was lost and the date, time and location of the crash mostly match the date, time and location of a person's victory claim, then that's enough to confirm a victory.

 

[Snautzer01]

if 500 more were scraped without mention?

That cant be done. Accounting is a thing.
I followed a very long thread over on TORCH were not only this writer but a few others sharded their findings. Not Only Hartmann.
Not only serial numbers of planes but also engines records were kept, as records of units like pilots, places, losses. Crashes. The books of the accountants so to speak. In accountancy there is no room for bias.
What was done was crossing the german claims against these files and conclusions drawn.

Furthermore D dedalos lets try to just make a discussion not an attack.

 

[CHen10]

That cant be done. Accounting is a thing.
I followed a very long thread over on TORCH were not only this writer but a few others sharded their findings. Not Only Hartmann.
Not only serial numbers of planes but also engines records were kept, as records of units like pilots, places, losses. Crashes. The books of the accountants so to speak. In accountancy there is no room for bias.
What was done was crossing the german claims against these files and conclusions drawn.

Furthermore D dedalos lets try to just make a discussion not an attack.

You are spot on!

 

[dedalos]

That cant be done. Accounting is a thing.
I followed a very long thread over on TORCH were not only this writer but a few others sharded their findings. Not Only Hartmann.
Not only serial numbers of planes but also engines records were kept, as records of units like pilots, places, losses. Crashes. The books of the accountants so to speak. In accountancy there is no room for bias.
What was done was crossing the german claims against these files and conclusions drawn.

Furthermore D dedalos lets try to just make a discussion not an attack.

What you mean? I just ask questions that he does not answer He just called me idiot. I dont care
. His arguments are causing only smiles

 

[Snautzer01]

It s amazing how contradictions you have. You say he was 20% reliable , and 3 lines later you write he was excellent pilot and not liar!!!

That is not what O.P. wrote nor intended.
I suggest you read again post 1.

His arguments are causing only smiles

His arguments on the claims are based on very recent book. That book is a solid piece of research.

 

[dedalos]

Firstly Gábor Horváth is Hungarian not Russian. He would have no agenda against Hartmann. If anything he would be in favour of Hartmann since Hartmann fought alongside Hungarian pilots.

I refer to a russian researcher. Kuznersov or something like this. He claims that according to the soviet archieves hartmann had 70-80 kills . You claim that according to soviet archieves hartmann had 180-190 kills. You people make a conferenve to decide. Or there are many different soviet archieves?

Secondly, do you seriously expect people to find the wrecks of every single Soviet aircraft?

Every single time the wreckage of a Soviet aircraft is found with the serial number still visible, it matches what the archive says. Since the serial number matches every time we find the wreckage, we can assume it matches for all the losses.

Just stop because it's getting embarrassing now.

I am afraid is getting embarassing because your arguments have no logic.
You cant give hartmann 20%reliability and immediately after, to call him excellent pilot and not a lier. I am sorry That's beyond common sense

You're being rude and you have no idea what you're talking about.

Not just me . Also LW had not idea and credited him with 352, soviet authorities had not idea and put him on trial for 345, gerhard barkhorn had not idea what fraud had under his command, lipfert had no idea and call him in his memoirs "the best fighter pilot", post war LW had no idea and gave him command of jg1, American trainers in us had no idea and during his retraining considered him as an exceptional pilot

Normally, I am never rude to people but what do you expect me to do when you constantly attack me?

I just ask questions. I never attacked

You're the one constantly contradicting yourself.

Just stop you're being an idiot.

I will try to stop being an idiot . Maybe someone smarter than me can understand how hartmann overclaimed 27/34 and nobody in his unit noticed anything. Obviously barkhorn was also idiot because he approved these claims

 

[dedalos]

That is not what O.P. wrote nor intended.
I suggest you read again post 1.

I have read it very well. It's beyond reasonable .

His arguments on the claims are based on very recent book. That book is a solid piece of research.

Says who?

 

[CHen10]

I refer to a russian researcher. Kuznersov or something like this. He claims that according to the soviet archieves hartmann had 70-80 kills . You claim that according to soviet archieves hartmann had 180-190 kills. You people make a conferenve to decide. Or there are many different soviet archieves?

I am afraid is getting embarassing because your arguments have no logic.
You cant give hartmann 20%reliability and immediately after, to call him excellent pilot and not a lier. I am sorry That's beyond common sense

Not just me . Also LW had not idea and credited him with 352, soviet authorities had not idea and put him on trial for 345, gerhard barkhorn had not idea what fraud had under his command, lipfert had no idea and call him in his memoirs "the best fighter pilot", post war LW had no idea and gave him command of jg1, American trainers in us had no idea and during his retraining considered him as an exceptional pilot

I just ask questions. I never attacked

I will try to stop being an idiot . Maybe someone smarter than me can understand how hartmann overclaimed 27/34 and nobody in his unit noticed anything. Obviously barkhorn was also idiot because he approved these claims

Read my first post again and it answers all your questions.

You attacked because you were being rude please reread your post

It seems your knowledge on this subject is quite poor so maybe just stop commenting on this thread

 

[CHen10]

Says who?

The evidence says it's reliable. Reread my first post because you don't understand

 

[CHen10]

I refer to a russian researcher. Kuznersov or something like this. He claims that according to the soviet archieves hartmann had 70-80 kills . You claim that according to soviet archieves hartmann had 180-190 kills. You people make a conferenve to decide. Or there are many different soviet archieves?

I am afraid is getting embarassing because your arguments have no logic.
You cant give hartmann 20%reliability and immediately after, to call him excellent pilot and not a lier. I am sorry That's beyond common sense

Not just me . Also LW had not idea and credited him with 352, soviet authorities had not idea and put him on trial for 345, gerhard barkhorn had not idea what fraud had under his command, lipfert had no idea and call him in his memoirs "the best fighter pilot", post war LW had no idea and gave him command of jg1, American trainers in us had no idea and during his retraining considered him as an exceptional pilot

I just ask questions. I never attacked

I will try to stop being an idiot . Maybe someone smarter than me can understand how hartmann overclaimed 27/34 and nobody in his unit noticed anything. Obviously barkhorn was also idiot because he approved these claims

Every single person would have approve these claims at the time. From the information they had everyone would have approve these claims.

 

[dedalos]

Read my first post again and it answers all your questions.

You answer nothing.You just repeat your ideas
Again . Gerhard barkhorn , you give him 80%reliability. As CO of hartman approved his claims. So he was reliable for his own claims but approved hartmann s overclaims??

You attacked because you were being rude please reread your post

You called me idiot!

It seems your knowledge on this subject is quite poor so maybe just stop commenting on this thread

You can call me what ever you want , I don't care, but you will not tell not to comment and what nor

 

[CHen10]

You answer nothing.You just repeat your ideas
Again . Gerhard barkhorn , you give him 80%reliability. As CO of hartman approved his claims. So he was reliable for his own claims but approved hartmann s overclaims??


You called me idiot!

You can call me what ever you want , I don't care, but you will not tell not to comment and what nor

Yes I called you that because you were being rude. It's obvious that I only did it because you were rude first.

Of course you can still comment. It just means that you'll keep showing how you don't know what you're talking about. So if you want to keep doing that, then I guess fine.