Erich Hartmann and his victories and overclaims over Hungary (1 Viewer)

[Andrew Arthy]

The book covers all the major Jagdgeschwader 52 aces who were operating over Hungary in 1944/1945, namely Barkhorn, Batz, Düttmann, Ewald, Haas, Hartmann, Lipfert and Sturm. The book is not, as you suggest, a deep dive strictly into Hartmann's claims.

It is also the result of extensive research using many primary sources, along with reliable secondary sources. The sources section of the book runs to three pages, with sources consulted in Hungarian, German, English and Russian.

Dan was not trying to lower Hartmann's score. Hartmann was officially credited with 352 aerial victory claims, and no-one is disputing that. However, despite the victory claims credited to him, it does not mean he actually shot down 352 enemy aircraft.

Cheers,
Andrew A.

 

[Nick Beale]

You don't seem to get it.

Horvath may have done very decent research into ONE source; I can't say. There are no reported references to other sources …

If I were as interested in trying to lower Hartmann's score as he is, it might generate enough interest to look at other primary sources. As it happens, I am satisfied with his 352 credits and have not much use for WWII revisionists who base their revisionist theories on unsound principles. So, I have better things to do than to go try to debunk Horvath trying to revise Hartmann.

Oh, I get it all right.

It's not one source, is it? He is comparing the existing sources for Hartmann's total with Soviet archives and coming up with a different answer. Checking one side's claims against its opponents' losses is pretty basic to establishing, as far as possible, what actually happened. This isn't about being interested in 'trying to lower" anyone's score but about following the evidence in the interests of historical accuracy. Sometimes on that basis you can even upgrade a damaged or a probable to a kill.

Some of the Luftflotte 6 daily operations summaries (which you can download free from the Bundesarchiv) mention that this or that pilot scored his [insert number] victories that day, and this includes Hartmann. This was before any exhasutive verification and certification by the Abschusskommission could possibly have taken place. The same is true of Marseille and others in North Africa (cf. the UK National Archives' ULTRA decrypts from the summer of 1942), the headline total is put out there straightaway. Or take I./JG 2 in Italy in February–April 1944: they were accredited with 52 victories yet Allied losses in the engagements in which the Gruppe took part amounted to only 20–25. Some eighteen individual pilots made claims and of the accredited 52 kills, 19 were claimed by one pilot (Lemke), so what are the odds that he overclaimed?

No apologies for quoting from my own research into I./JG 2:

'Ostensibly rigorous wartime victory confirmation procedures were far from infallible, as the comparison of both sides' records shows. Many of the "confirmed victories" in the league tables so dear to some enthusiasts did not represent an aircraft shot down but rather gaining the upper hand in combat, perhaps by achieving a good position and opening fire. Some victories were "on points" rather than a "knockout."'

Have you ever done a translation from English to Russian, to German, and back to English?

No, but I have translated a hell of a lot of German into English, including about 80,000 words for Theo Boiten's Nachtjagd Combat Archive Series, so if you want to check out my efforts you'll find a representative sample there.

 

[GregP]

If YOU are doing the translating since you speak English and German, that is way different from using Google Translate.
I specifically mentioned ME looking into Japanese or Russian records using a translation program.

So, good for you. I wish I spoke and read German, Russian, and Japanese well enough to do my own translations from primary sources.

 

[GregP]

The book covers all the major Jagdgeschwader 52 aces who were operating over Hungary in 1944/1945, namely Barkhorn, Batz, Düttmann, Ewald, Haas, Hartmann, Lipfert and Sturm. The book is not, as you suggest, a deep dive strictly into Hartmann's claims.

It is also the result of extensive research using many primary sources, along with reliable secondary sources. The sources section of the book runs to three pages, with sources consulted in Hungarian, German, English and Russian.

Dan was not trying to lower Hartmann's score. Hartmann was officially credited with 352 aerial victory claims, and no-one is disputing that. However, despite the victory claims credited to him, it does not mean he actually shot down 352 enemy aircraft.

Cheers,
Andrew A.

True.

He might have more in real life.

He might have less in real life.

But, he is credited with 352.

 

[Snautzer01]

Uhmm gents.


Both Beale and Arthy are way.. way ..above most pay grades concerning ww2 luftwaffe stuff.

They know stuff and have eons if intrest, writing and collecting. I know. Been following but also checking if i can.

They really know their stuff. Period.

I do hope this community will give them a place.
It will be enriched.
Both are level Wurger drgondog and a tiny few of others.
Thats a thing. It is.

They know stuff so be a polite.
It does not mean you can not asked questions or debate.
But please respect their knowledge.

 

[Snautzer01]

But, he is credited

Now that your problem right there. Buy the ff book then talk. Or share your thrawl through the archives and put claim against the pencil pushers.
You can share your research here or in a book.

 

[CHen10]

If YOU are doing the translating since you speak English and German, that is way different from using Google Translate.
I specifically mentioned ME looking into Japanese or Russian records using a translation program.

I just to want to say to anyone wanting to research sources in a foreign language that Google Translate is actually reliable.

Google Translate has this feature where it translates images with text into another language. Soviet archives are available online and the documents are presented through images. Select an image and drag it into the appropriate area on Google Translate and the AI will translate the image. If Google Translate was unreliable then the translation would be nonsense and gibberish. Instead the translations are very accurate and this is because the translated text describes combat situations in clear detail. This is accurate because we are obviously looking at reports with combat situations. It clearly states the times of the missions, which pilots and what aircraft were involved and also the combat results. We can only get this information if the text is translated correctly. Of course Google Translate is AI so it can struggle to read REALLY messy writing, but as long as it's readable, the AI can translate it.

 

[CHen10]

Okay, you haven't researched Hartmann but you twice reiterate that his count is "about 190 at most".

Did you research all the aircraft that failed to return by battle or patrol area and correlate them to enemy patrols to figure out who shot someone down but didn't get credit for it?

The confidence you have in your conclusion smacks of many things the least of which is smug arrogance.

Why would I research something that people have already researched?

I would be wasting my time since other people have already done it before me. I would just get the same results as them.

All I need to do is look at other people's in depth research and analysis because they've done the work already. That's why I've closed the case on Hartmann. Everybody knows the truth, and that he got at max 30% accuracy over Hungary.

 

[pbehn]

Why would I research something that people have already researched?

I would be wasting my time since other people have already done it before me. I would just get the same results as them.

All I need to do is look at other people's in depth research and analysis because they've done the work already. That's why I've closed the case on Hartmann. Everybody knows the truth, and that he got at max 30% accuracy over Hungary.

There is no "truth". If you change the measurement criteria in any field you change the result. Apply the same criteria to each and every WW2 pilot and Hartmann is elevated in standing not reduced. Inn that era a warplane had a life somewhere between that of a loaf of bread and a fruitcake. Most airplanes were used, worn out, damaged, destroyed or just struck off by their own side.

 

[CHen10]

There is no "truth". If you change the measurement criteria in any field you change the result. Apply the same criteria to each and every WW2 pilot and Hartmann is elevated in standing not reduced. Inn that era a warplane had a life somewhere between that of a loaf of bread and a fruitcake. Most airplanes were used, worn out, damaged, destroyed or just struck off by their own side.

If you consider a damaged aircraft to be a victory then sure Hartmann's accuracy is probably around 90%

However, it is a fact that if you only consider destroyed aircraft to be a victory then Hartmann's accuracy over Hungary is 30% at most.

 

[GrauGeist]

Why would I research something that people have already researched?

Because you may uncover an error or discover an overlooked bit of information.

 

[pbehn]

If you consider a damaged aircraft to be a victory then sure Hartmann's accuracy is probably around 90%

However, it is a fact that if you only consider destroyed aircraft to be a victory then Hartmann's accuracy over Hungary is 30% at most.

That is slightly worse than the whole of the RAF during the whole of the battle of Britain but much better than the whole of the RAF over France in 1941. When the same criteria, diligence and method is used on every WW2 pilot then we can discuss where Hartmann stands.

 

[CHen10]

Because you may uncover an error or discover an overlooked bit of information.

This is true and I did look over Horvath's conclusions and there are no issues at all.

There is only one error I could find in the whole book

 

[CHen10]

That is slightly worse than the whole of the RAF during the whole of the battle of Britain but much better than the whole of the RAF over France in 1941. When the same criteria, diligence and method is used on every WW2 pilot then we can discuss where Hartmann stands.

Verified Victories does look at other German pilots over Hungary such as Lipfert, Barkhorn, Ewald, Düttmann etc. Of course using this criteria on every single pilot is too much, but we can compare Hartmann to other pilots during this time in Hungary. Since we can compare Hartmann to others we can discuss where he stands.

 

[CHen10]

It is also the result of extensive research using many primary sources, along with reliable secondary sources. The sources section of the book runs to three pages, with sources consulted in Hungarian, German, English and Russian.

It's not one source, is it? He is comparing the existing sources for Hartmann's total with Soviet archives and coming up with a different answer.

Yup, exactly. There are loads of different sources in the book. Most of which are primary.

 

[Juha3]

There is no "truth". If you change the measurement criteria in any field you change the result. Apply the same criteria to each and every WW2 pilot and Hartmann is elevated in standing not reduced. Inn that era a warplane had a life somewhere between that of a loaf of bread and a fruitcake. Most airplanes were used, worn out, damaged, destroyed or just struck off by their own side.

Look at Andrew's message #281, Hartmann is not the only one to whom the method has been used and from the results you can see that the claim accuracy of top aces who served in the same formation varies. Even the German air victory confirmation system was not highly reliable. This should not be a surprise to anyone who has studied air warfare a little or does anyone believe that the Germans won the Battle of Britain after shooting down all Fighter Command's planes, or that the FC shot down about 90% of LW's 10 August 1940 combat strength during the BoB. Or that the USAAF malevolently destroyed about half of the papers of the heavy bombers and their crews they lost over Germany to make it appear that about ½ of the air victories accepted to German pilots were not true, even though the air battles were fought over the territory controlled by Germany. Overclaiming was a rule with some exceptions due to the nature of dogfights, perhaps also because of people's psyches. And the Germans were certainly not the worst overclaimers. For example, in North Africa, their claims were more accurate than those of RAF and Commonwealth pilots in 1941-42 but still they also overclaimed.

 

[CHen10]

I think I know why people get so sensitive about this. Hartmann has this amazing aura because of his 352 kills, and to put it simply, he sounds really cool. People like believing the idea of his 352 kills, and if you count damaged aircraft then sure it's 352, but if we only count destroyed aircraft, then he has at the very most 180-190. People don't like this fact because it ruins the image they have in their head about his 352 kills, which is crazy because 180-190 destroyed aircraft is really good. People seem to think that saying Hartmann has overclaims means you're being disrespectful to him, which is absolutely wrong. Everybody who investigates Hartmann's claims says he's a skilled pilot who had a good hit accuracy but just didn't finish off his victims.

Verified Victories has many different primary sources and the book is incredibly detailed. If you want the full analysis of German Aces over Hungary from 1944-45, then it's perfect.

 

[GregP]

I thought you were done participating in this thread.

People aren't sensitive about it at all.

You seem obsessed with lowering the credits of the top German aces by using your own standards, which weren't used in the war for awards. His awarded credit list has stood for 79 years. You think everyone should jump on board and simply go with your standard for credit awards because you read a book or because YOU disagree with how awards were made?

Not bloody likely.

You weren't IN the war and there isn't any decent reason for people to abandon the awards and go with your definition because someone wrote a book that disagrees with the awards list. It isn't sensitivity at all. It is a resistance to someone wanting to change history to suit his own agenda.

As was said in an earlier post, make your own list and be happy with it. Very few people will agree with you, but at least you'll have it for cocktail conversations.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think I know why people get so sensitive about this. Hartmann has this amazing aura because of his 352 kills, and to put it simply, he sounds really cool. People like believing the idea of his 352 kills, and if you count damaged aircraft then sure it's 352, but if we only count destroyed aircraft, then he has at the very most 180-190. People don't like this fact because it ruins the image they have in their head about his 352 kills, which is crazy because 180-190 destroyed aircraft is really good. People seem to think that saying Hartmann has overclaims means you're being disrespectful to him, which is absolutely wrong. Everybody who investigates Hartmann's claims says he's a skilled pilot who had a good hit accuracy but just didn't finish off his victims.

Verified Victories has many different primary sources and the book is incredibly detailed. If you want the full analysis of German Aces over Hungary from 1944-45, then it's perfect.

This is a subtle but perceptible ad homineim attack. Perhaps make your point without making assumptions about people who don't agree with your point.

To be clear, I do think he like all other pilots overclaimed, though I'm not sure to the extent you claim.

 

[CHen10]

I thought you were done participating in this thread.

People aren't sensitive about it at all.

You seem obsessed with lowering the credits of the top German aces by using your own standards, which weren't used in the war for awards. His awarded credit list has stood for 79 years. You think everyone should jump on board and simply go with your standard for credit awards because you read a book or because YOU disagree with how award were made?

Not bloody likely.

You weren't IN the war and there isn't any decent reason for people to abandon the awards and go with your definition because someone wrote a book that disagrees with the awards list. It isn't sensitivity at all. It is a resistance to someone wanting to change history to suit his own agenda.

As was said in an earlier post, make your won list and be happy with it. Very few people will agree with you, but at least you'll have it for cocktail conversations.

I was done but the thread started being reasonable so I came back.

People get really defensive so it looks like they're sensitive. They throw insults and get confrontational so maybe I'm wrong and you're not sensitive to it but it's a fair assumption to make.

I don't want to lower German scores I simply want to find out the truth about what happened to the pilots' victims. There have been loads of instances where I have actually increased a pilot's score because their unconfirmed victories actually turned out to be real. I increase and decrease scores based on what is found.

I'm not saying everyone has to agree with my definition, but if you do agree with my definition then Hartmann has much less than 352 victories. Not once have I said that everyone has to believe my definition.

Why would Horváth have an agenda? He is Hungarian and since they were allies with Germany he is more likely to actually be in favour of the Germans.

Hartmann was credited with 352

If you count damaged planes then it is 352

If you only count destroyed aircraft it's much less than 352.

That's fine, I'm not forcing anyone to agree with my definition and many people do agree with it and many people don't.