Erich Hartmann and his victories and overclaims over Hungary

[CHen10]

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.

People on here have been making assumptions and comments about me quite a lot so I have every right to do the same back. If people are making assumptions about me do you expect me to just accept it? I'm obviously going to respond. In fact it was those assumptions and comments that made me leave the thread for a bit. I came back though since it appears sensible again.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

People on here have been making assumptions and comments about me quite a lot so I have every right to do the same back. If people are making assumptions about me do you expect me to just accept it? I'm obviously going to respond. In fact it was those assumptions and comments that made me leave the thread for a bit. I came back though since it appears sensible again.

If you don't like folks making assumptions about you, then why is replying in kind useful?

"We don't take the devil as our example", and all that. The high road is a good route in most all cases.

 

[GrauGeist]

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.

Even Hartmann himself stated that he used just enough ammunition to damage his opponent, forcing them out of the fight.

It is quite common in the wargaming community to follow an enemy down, while holding down the trigger.

In the real world, an aerial confrontation was fast an furious. You only fired long enough to force your enemy out of the fight. Fixating on a target presented two immediate consequences:
First is a limited ammunition supply.
Second is that while your fixated on your target, you run the risk of becoming a target as well.

Hartmann was able to get in more victories per sortie on average, because he used his weapons sparingly and with as much accuracy as possible. "Fill your gunsight with your enemy and then get closer..."

Taking the time to go "finish off" an adversary, when they are no longer in the fight, costs precious time and fuel and makes little sense.

 

[CHen10]

When some amateur claims that Hartmann's total tally is actually 20-30% or later "magnanimously" allows maybe 50%

I'm not saying that Chen10 is what during the Soviet was referred to as a "useful idiot" or running errands for history revanchists: I'm just asking questions!

I think this is rather easily settled by saying we are all glad you, CHen10, are not sitting on our review board when we submit for a victory credit. It's not Earth-shaking.

So, you need to understand that we simply do NOT agree. Why can't YOU understand that? It is easy. You need to find a way to accept that. There will be less confusion and arguments in your life.

No, whats annoying is someone believing their opinion is fact.

You came in here with a opinion, and ran it off as some superior fact/point of view.

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

Yeah, there's some sloppy thinking happening there. I might be weird or crazy, but if I haven't researched a particular topic, I hold an open mind. Even if I have done a deep dive, intellectual honesty demands that I should stand liable to correction with sufficient evidence and change my mind accordingly.

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?

Well...

These are all examples of people either being sensitive, confrontational or making assumptions about me. Usually all three at once. So that's why I respond back with the assumptions I've made and if you look at what people have said, then it's pretty clear to see why I've made those assumptions.

This is also a reason why I left this thread for a while. People are pretty hostile and I can't be bothered. Hopefully it won't happen here anymore and that's why I'm here again.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Sigh…

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well...

These are all examples of people either being sensitive, confrontational or making assumptions about me. Usually all three at once. So that's why I respond back with the assumptions I've made and if you look at what people have said, then it's pretty clear to see why I've made those assumptions.

This is also a reason why I left this thread for a while. People are pretty hostile and I can't be bothered. Hopefully it won't happen here anymore and that's why I'm here again.

I'm neither sensitive nor confrontational about this. I don't have a dog in the fight and while I think you have perhaps some baseless assumptions I've been polite to you. I would suggest that if you regard my disagreement as "confrontational" then perhaps you're being a mite sensitive yourself.

For my money, this is a simple discussion devoid of emotional content.

As for making assumptions about you, I'm only responding to what you actually type. In case you didn't notice, I somewhat agree with you that Soviet records should be questioned.

In no post have I been "hostile" to you.

I'd simply say to you that when you posit an opinion online, you should not expect full agreement, nor should you interpret disagreement as "hostility" or "confrontation" unless those qualities are actually carried in the replies. I have not done so in my replies to you, and I reject your insinuations of that to me.

But if you cannot stomach disagreement of any sort, fine. I'll chalk it up and leave off the conversation rather than having my replies mischaracterized in such an egregious and unfair manner.

 

[GregP]

Maybe it has something to do with nose armor?

 

[pbehn]

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.

Yes, he stands right at the top, never shot down, never lost a wing man. It is too much to do it on every single pilot, so lets start with Germans eh? The ones with the most claims which is obviously the most work. Why not start with the guys who have one claim and remove half from the claims list completely?

 

[Marcel]

I'm inclined to stop the thread as I don't think the discussion is really useful and I can see it suddenly going bad on a wimp.

I basically don't see the point of discussing the exact numbers anyway as it's a well known fact that victory numbers are inaccurate to various degrees for good reasons.

So stop calling people dumb because they have another opinion on this matter. Sarcasm also will not help swaying someone's mind. What is a victory is a matter of definition.

Oh and one more thing: amount of kills is a very unreliable measurement of pilot skill.

 

[pbehn]

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.

I, myself dont get "sensitive" whatever that means. I hold no belief in the number 352, other than that was the number Hartmann is credited with using the system at the time. First achievement is he survived the war. Second achievement is he was never shot down. Third is he never lost a wing man. Fourth is he made "ace" which most didnt and exceeded what was required to be an ace many times. Whether the number is 180 or 352 makes no difference to me. If every pilot in an air force survives 1000+ sorties and is not shot down, doesnt lose a wing man with minimum 5 confirmed victories that air force wins the air war at least. If you are looking for sensitive people, a good place to start may be those who spend days weeks and months poring over figures and records with the specific aim of reducing a number that never meant anything to start with. No one knows to the nearest thousand how many planes Russia lost during Barbarossa, and it didnt make a difference because they still won in 1945.

 

[pbehn]

Even Hartmann himself stated that he used just enough ammunition to damage his opponent, forcing them out of the fight.

It is quite common in the wargaming community to follow an enemy down, while holding down the trigger.

In the real world, an aerial confrontation was fast an furious. You only fired long enough to force your enemy out of the fight. Fixating on a target presented two immediate consequences:
First is a limited ammunition supply.
Second is that while your fixated on your target, you run the risk of becoming a target as well.

Hartmann was able to get in more victories per sortie on average, because he used his weapons sparingly and with as much accuracy as possible. "Fill your gunsight with your enemy and then get closer..."

Taking the time to go "finish off" an adversary, when they are no longer in the fight, costs precious time and fuel and makes little sense.

Additionally, using MGs with a high RoF mounted in a wing meant the temperature shot up quickly, more than 2 seconds continuous firing could damage the guns.

 

[rochie]

I'm inclined to stop the thread as I don't think the discussion is really useful and I can see it suddenly going bad on a wimp.

I basically don't see the point of discussing the exact numbers anyway as it's a well known fact that victory numbers are inaccurate to various degrees for good reasons.

So stop calling people dumb because they have another opinion on this matter. Sarcasm also will not help saying someone's mind. What is a victory is a matter of definition.

Oh and one more thing: amount of kills is a very unreliable measurement of pilot skill.

i have been thinking the same thing myself !

 

[Nick Beale]

His awarded credit list has stood for 79 years.

So is it your position no account of anything at any point in human history can be re-examined in the light of new evidence?

You weren't IN the war …

And the people who were rarely had access to the range of information from all sides that we now have. What they knew that very few of us can know is how it felt.

It is a resistance to someone wanting to change history to suit his own agenda.

The only "agenda" here is trying to find out what happened.

I'm not sure if you feel similarly invested in upholding the reputation of the Luftwaffe's torpedo airmen but consider their action against convoy UGS-40 (9–11 May 1944, Mediterranean) when Luftflotte 3's after-action report claimed:

(III./KG 26) 3 cargo vessels 21,000 t sunk; 2 cargo vessels 14,000 t probably sunk; 1 cargo vessel 7,000 t damaged; 1 transport 9,000 t damaged; 1 tanker 4,000 t damaged; 1 light cruiser — damaged, 6 cargo vessels (42,000 tones) and 2 destroyers attacked with observed results. (I./KG 77) 1 cargo vessel 7000 t severely damaged; 1 destroyer — severely damaged. (III./KG 77) 3 cargo vessels 21,000 t sunk; 2 cargo vessels 14,000 t severely damaged; 1 destroyer — severely damaged; 2 destroyers hit without results being observed (and 1 escort vessel?).

Am I "changing history to suit my own agenda" by citing the Royal Navy's report that "no damage was caused to the convoy"?

 

[CHen10]

I'm neither sensitive nor confrontational about this. I don't have a dog in the fight and while I think you have perhaps some baseless assumptions I've been polite to you. I would suggest that if you regard my disagreement as "confrontational" then perhaps you're being a mite sensitive yourself.

For my money, this is a simple discussion devoid of emotional content.

As for making assumptions about you, I'm only responding to what you actually type. In case you didn't notice, I somewhat agree with you that Soviet records should be questioned.

In no post have I been "hostile" to you.

I'd simply say to you that when you posit an opinion online, you should not expect full agreement, nor should you interpret disagreement as "hostility" or "confrontation" unless those qualities are actually carried in the replies. I have not done so in my replies to you, and I reject your insinuations of that to me.

But if you cannot stomach disagreement of any sort, fine. I'll chalk it up and leave off the conversation rather than having my replies mischaracterized in such an egregious and unfair manner.

Ok maybe I misjudged your comment in that thread I included. However look at the other comments people said. They are 100% being confrontational and they aren't just disagreeing. I've got no problem with people disagreeing, but look at how they do it. It's just attacks on me.

 

[CHen10]

When some amateur claims that Hartmann's total tally is actually 20-30% or later "magnanimously" allows maybe 50%

I'm not saying that Chen10 is what during the Soviet was referred to as a "useful idiot" or running errands for history revanchists: I'm just asking questions!

I think this is rather easily settled by saying we are all glad you, CHen10, are not sitting on our review board when we submit for a victory credit. It's not Earth-shaking.

So, you need to understand that we simply do NOT agree. Why can't YOU understand that? It is easy. You need to find a way to accept that. There will be less confusion and arguments in your life.

No, whats annoying is someone believing their opinion is fact.

You came in here with a opinion, and ran it off as some superior fact/point of view.

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

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?

To anyone seeing this, look at what people have said. Of course they're being confrontational and it does appear like people are sensitive. They are clearly attacking me.

I'm neither sensitive nor confrontational about this. I don't have a dog in the fight and while I think you have perhaps some baseless assumptions I've been polite to you. I would suggest that if you regard my disagreement as "confrontational" then perhaps you're being a mite sensitive yourself.

For my money, this is a simple discussion devoid of emotional content.

As for making assumptions about you, I'm only responding to what you actually type. In case you didn't notice, I somewhat agree with you that Soviet records should be questioned.

In no post have I been "hostile" to you.

I'd simply say to you that when you posit an opinion online, you should not expect full agreement, nor should you interpret disagreement as "hostility" or "confrontation" unless those qualities are actually carried in the replies. I have not done so in my replies to you, and I reject your insinuations of that to me.

But if you cannot stomach disagreement of any sort, fine. I'll chalk it up and leave off the conversation rather than having my replies mischaracterized in such an egregious and unfair manner.

I have removed your comment in that chain since I misjudged it but just look at the others.

 

[CHen10]

The only "agenda" here is trying to find out what happened.

Exactly. We want to find out what happened and it may reveal new things.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Ok maybe I misjudged your comment in that thread I included. However look at the other comments people said. They are 100% being confrontational and they aren't just disagreeing. I've got no problem with people disagreeing, but look at how they do it. It's just attacks on me.

No you misjudge everyone. Literally E V E R Y O N E. To you anyone who holds a different opinion than yours, and debates your opinion, is being "CONFRONTATIONAL." That sir, is your problem, not ours. Its a message board to discuss different ideas of views. Get over it.

 

[Snautzer01]

amount of kills is a very unreliable measurement of pilot skill.

Interesting stand. Why do you think that ?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Interesting stand. Why do you think that ?

I happen to disagree somewhat with Marcel (which is ok, neither of us finds this "confrontational").

I think kills are an important part of judging a fighter pilots skill. It is their main purpose, right? It!/ not the only part though. There are lots of factors including not being shot down at all, or never losing a wing man.

Conversely, a good pilot will not automatically have a lot of kills.

Surviving is probably the most important skill…

 

[Snautzer01]

Surviving is probably the most important skill…

Now even more cost and lenght of training.