Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
You assume we have questions this book will answer and that may or may not be the case, but that doesn't stop me from wanting to see and peruse the book. From the few pages posted above, it was rather obviously written by a person with a bias against German WWII pilots with big scores. A bias which is that openly displayed does not bode well for objective writing / conclusions. Having said that, I have not yet read the book that sentence may or may not be very relevant with regard to Verified Victories. The only way to tell for sure is read it and see if it generates a desire to look at some of the references cited in the book.
Well technically they didn't sink her indeed. Which is not a very useful technicality, apart from maybe propaganda purposes. But they were victorious over the Bismarck, which actually is the only thing that matters in the end.Mate there's people claiming that the RN didn't sink the Bismarck because the sea cocks were opened before the crew abandoned her.
Bismark was pummelled from pillar to post and ceased to be functioning warship, a sound hull may be stretching things a little.Regarding Bismarck the British forced the Germans into scuttling by inflicting overwhelming damage to the rudder and superstructure. Opening the watertight doors and igniting the scuttling charges resulted in a fast sinking of the otherwise sound (minus 1-2 earlier torps hits) hull.
I'm a big TR fan myself.Yes, you would be awarded a kill.
This thread is bordering on madness. And I'm only on page 8 as I write this. It's beyond Ground Hog part 3.
CHen10,
I have been in exercises where the kills, friendly losses, battle damage, personel losses, weapons expenditures were all mis-tracked. As a matter of fact we were graded on how we did the mundane tracking of this and more. And you think the that any military force, in a literal battle for survival, is going to get all its facts straight? And you want us to rely on your opinion having read someone else's opinion? How many times have you risked your life in combat? Been shot at? Feared for your life or that of your fellow soldier?
Your willingness to pass judgment so handily on those who walked the floor of the arena is truly mind boggling. I ask that you take a minute to reflect on what these gentlemen are so desperately trying to explain to you. You are way off base here.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
Theodore Roosevelt
Paris, France
23 April 1910
Biff out
First of all, the concept of blindly trusting Soviet era records is naïve at best: Soviet records also claimed that the Katyn massacre of Polish Officers was done by the Germans and not by Russians themselves, and that the 1939 war with Finland was instigated by the Finns repeatedly shelling towns on the Russian side thus "forcing" the Soviets to "respond".Having read the book I don't see the authors (father and son) as biased , and it's a number of eksperten's scores that are analysed not just the one with big scores. I agree that the criteria for when a victory is verified is very strict, but I think perhaps that is to better compare the reliability of the pilots in claiming kills. There is a very big difference between the most and the least reliable., and Hartmann wasn't the worst in this period over Hungary.
That is an apt description. I'm ticked off that, as an English speaker, I didn't think of phrasing it that way.Well technically they didn't sink her indeed. Which is not a very useful technicality, apart from maybe propaganda purposes. But they were victorious over the Bismarck, which actually is the only thing that matters in the end.
Hartmann was as optimistic as most Second World War fighter pilots - two aircraft actually destroyed or badly damaged for three victory claims is a typical ratio for any Second World War fighter pilot. Some pilots and units were more optimistic than others, the astronomical Soviet claims above being a very good example - the Luftwaffe lost a dozen or so aircraft on that sector of the front on that day, but 3.VA claimed 52 victories!
You've teased us with "this is my final post before."I understand what they're trying to say. However, my opinion is not going to change on this subject. Many people including myself have already closed the case when it comes to Hartmann and we have already made our minds up. I haven't researched Hartmann that much but other people have and I've seen their analysis in detail, which results in his victory tally being far less than 352. I'd give him 190 at the very most.
I've never criticised Hartmann personally. I have only praised him. I have repeatedly said he was an excellent pilot and humble as well. I am just simply saying his score is far less than 352.
This is my final post on the matter.
You say 352.
I say at most 190.
Let's leave it at that
I believe I've posted this on the forum previously, but the Soviet records are available online, free to access. You can use Google Translate on this site: Память народа::Документы частей, and type in the search bar "1-я воздушная армия" for 1st Air Army, "2-я воздушная армия" for 2nd Air Army, etc. Use a transcription program like Google Keep, then a translation program, and you can get a decent idea of what has been written.
Having researched both sides of aerial combat over the central and northern sectors of the Eastern Front in 1944 and 1945, I can confirm that the Soviets very carefully recorded the fates of their aircraft in combat. As previously stated in this thread, if you don't report your losses up the chain to your higher headquarters, you very quickly run out of aircraft.
Below is a transcription from the records of 3.VA (3rd Air Army) for a single day in August 1944, kindly translated and transcribed by a colleague of mine. You can access the relevant Corps, Division and Regiment records to get further details on the missions and losses. The section in black is from the 3.VA War Diary, and the section in red is from the 3.VA Operations Report.
View attachment 781665
Below are some Division records from that same day, from the 5th Guards Fighter Division. The subordinate Regiment records have even more detail.
View attachment 781666
Hartmann was as optimistic as most Second World War fighter pilots - two aircraft actually destroyed or badly damaged for three victory claims is a typical ratio for any Second World War fighter pilot. Some pilots and units were more optimistic than others, the astronomical Soviet claims above being a very good example - the Luftwaffe lost a dozen or so aircraft on that sector of the front on that day, but 3.VA claimed 52 victories!
Cheers,
Andrew A.
An Hartmann has 352 awarded credits. Nobody except you talks about his "real kills." His awarded credits stand at 352.
Out of curiosity, has it ever occurred to you that very many pilots have more actual real kills than their credits indicate? Many times a victory ws NOT awarded because there were no witnesses or an enemy went into a cloud while going down and on fire, etc.
Okay, you haven't researched Hartmann but you twice reiterate that his count is "about 190 at most".I understand what they're trying to say. However, my opinion is not going to change on this subject. Many people including myself have already closed the case when it comes to Hartmann and we have already made our minds up. I haven't researched Hartmann that much but other people have and I've seen their analysis in detail, which results in his victory tally being far less than 352. I'd give him 190 at the very most.
I've never criticised Hartmann personally. I have only praised him. I have repeatedly said he was an excellent pilot and humble as well. I am just simply saying his score is far less than 352.
This is my final post on the matter.
You say 352.
I say at most 190.
Let's leave it at that
That is overclaiming by less than 2 to 1. So it is less less than all of the RAF and all of the Luftwaffe, on average during the whole of the Battle of Britain which had a special force of observers The Royal Observer Corps armed with binoculars and note pads to record things like planes dropping from the sky. However here is the "rub". When you apply the same criteria to all other pilots in all other services Hartmann becomes more remarkable not less. Half of those with one credit get none. Much more than half of pilots who "made ace" have that taken from them, only those with more than ten credits can be reasonably (based on that stat) called a WW2 ace. Hartmann did 1425 combat missions, he was never shot down, but returned to his home airfield 16 times with a damaged or malfunctioning plane. He survived the war and never lost a wing man. If he didnt have one victory credit that is still a great feat of airmanship, in peace time I would say anyone flying ww2 warbirds 1425 times without a crash has had a charmed life. Apply the same criteria to everyone else and who did better? As I understand it he claimed not losing a wing man was his greatest achievement but that must be ignoring the fact that he survived the war, not actually being shot down must rank pretty high too.You say 352.
I say at most 190.
Let's leave it at that
First of all, the concept of blindly trusting Soviet era records is naïve at best: Soviet records also claimed that the Katyn massacre of Polish Officers was done by the Germans and not by Russians themselves, and that the 1939 war with Finland was instigated by the Finns repeatedly shelling towns on the Russian side thus "forcing" the Soviets to "respond".
In addition, the pages of the book posted here do not talk of possible or probable overclaims but the authors boldly use capital letters formatted in bold and repeatedly proclaim "Hartmann's 332nd: OVERCLAIM, Yak-9" etc. as in these suppositions by the authors being undisputable facts. So here the author tells us we are dealing with a repeat offender, who just keeps on filing these overclaims on and on. And IMHO this is pure defamation because they include no caveats at all: They simply present their suppositions as facts. But these are not fact: Because all they have done is to shown that some of Hartmann's claims are not found in the Soviet archives they looked at. And first of all, these may not even be complete, and even if they were, I already pointed out how naïve it would be to take them at face value and use them as the sole source to discredit Hartmann.
I could go on but what's the point? I said it before and I'll say it again: Hartmann is credited with 352 victories. If Soviet records of the time do not tally with this then it's up to the persons who vouch for those records to convince the rest of the world of their completeness and veracity. It's not the rest of us that have to prove that they're not true. That's not how this works.
You are again making the assumption that a victory is only valid if there is a corresponding loss. That is simply not the case.
Total destruction of an enemy aircraft is not required for a victory to be awarded. No military make loss reports with an eye toward confirming enemy victory claims. If a squadron pilot causes an enemy to force-land for mechanical or fuel starvation reasons (think a shot fuel line) and that aircraft is later recovered and flies again, that squadron pilot is awarded a victory credit.
Why is this so hard to understand?