Erich Hartmann and his victories and overclaims over Hungary

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

352 kills…

…period.

I agree, without, hard evidence there is no way to overturn them. Also, why? What good does it bring. He still would be the highest ace of all time.

 

[Holtzauge]

To make it more interesting - is it a victory if the plane hit returns to it's base and is repaired but the pilot has
injuries which are bad enough to stop him ever flying again ?

Depends on whether victories are over airplanes or pilots. What if they kill a pilot and the plane lands itself?

I never considered that aspect before.

More spice for the discussion.

There is even a case example: IIRC then according to Lipfert's memoirs, Otto Fönnekold was bounced while on final approach in his Bf-109 in August 1944, but still somehow managed to land before dying although hit by a 50-cal in the chest.

 

[CHen10]

I already covered above a situation whereby someone shot a fuel line out of an enemy fighter, it forced-landed, was recovered later and resumed a flying career. That would never be covered in a loss report, but IS a victory for the guy who shot shot down the fighter.

This type of situation was documented in Soviet reports many times. They would often say that an aircraft has been damaged but that it was repaired and returned to service. So even if an aircraft was damaged, crash landed and repaired, the Soviets still documented this. We have evidence that it was repaired as it's stated in the report. The author of that book also mentions this. In the loss tables, it mentions damaged aircraft that were repaired.

 

[CHen10]

Depends on whether victories are over airplanes or pilots. What if they kill a pilot and the plane lands itself?

I never considered that aspect before.

More spice for the discussion.

Here's a great question: Would you consider this a victory?

No. 96, "LaGG" on 19.9.43/1440 over PQ 58614 @ 1200m: Likely a Yak of 812 IAP. Lt Georgiy Pavlovich Churakov KIA (came down Andreyevka, landed safely but found dead in his aircraft by Soviet troops the following day. Best match by location, timing a little out)

So the situation you described actually happened! The aircraft landed and the pilot died after.

 

[bf109xxl]

Consequently, it does not fall on those who accept Hartmann's currently accepted victory count to prove that the Soviet records of the time are either incomplete or lacking in veracity.

The Soviet Air Force's system of accounting for combat losses was much simpler and more transparent than the German one. It was very difficult to hide the loss of a pilot or an airplane, as it was necessary to input incorrect data into a large number of additional accounting documents (e.g., requests for provisions, spare parts, gasoline, etc.), which in the Soviet system could have very serious consequences up to execution. I admit that accounting inaccuracies took place, but their share is unlikely to be much higher than 1-2%. Documents for the years 1944-1945 have mostly survived, but you have to prove that the Soviet records contain errors or deliberately false information. The burden of proof is on the person who made the claim.
The higher level of overclaim can be explained by quite rational factors: the much greater Soviet outnumbering, possibly the increased training of Soviet pilots in the regiments of the mentioned air armies. As a result, German pilots had much less ability to control the outcome of the attack. But in general, I would rather be surprised by an overclaim level below 2 to 1 than above 4 to 1.

 

[CHen10]

The definition of a victory can be argued and debated but the author of Verified Victories 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. We never need to know the serial numbers to confirm a victory with this definition. The serial numbers just show reliability.

This definition can be considered strict but 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 no overclaims.

We have different definitions of what a victory is. So as a result we will have different opinions about a pilot's true score. All of our opinions are valid.

 

[rochie]

surely an aircraft that is damaged to the point of being forced to put down anywhere it could by the actions of opposing aircraft, regardless of being repaired and returned to the fight, cannibalised for spares to repair other aircraft, has to be counted as a victory at that time ?

i do see the point the author of the book and you are making but to me that is a viewpoint using hindsight and establishing numbers of actual aircraft totally lost or destroyed.

another example could be, a tank knocked out by enemy fire and abandoned by the crew, it may be recovered, repaired and re issued, so does that mean it was never knocked out in the first place ?

just my thoughts on what is considered a victory.

 

[CHen10]

surely an aircraft that is damaged to the point of being forced to put down anywhere it could by the actions of opposing aircraft, regardless of being repaired and returned to the fight, cannibalised for spares to repair other aircraft, has to be counted as a victory at that time ?

i do see the point the author of the book and you are making but to me that is a viewpoint using hindsight

another example could be, a tank knocked out by enemy fire and abandoned by the crew, it may be recovered, repaired and re issued, so does that mean it was never knocked out in the first place ?

just my thoughts on what is considered a victory.

You are absolutely correct. It depends on your definition of a victory, and that's why we all have different conclusions. If someone believes that Hartmann got all his victories because they count repaired aircraft, then that's correct. By using the definition that repaired aircraft count as a victory, Hartmann has all his victories.

Myself and other people are being strict and in depth because we are analysing in hindsight. This means our conclusions will be different.

Hartmann is one of my all time favourite pilots. He is a legend and a great pilot.

 

[CHen10]

The Soviet Air Force's system of accounting for combat losses was much simpler and more transparent than the German one. It was very difficult to hide the loss of a pilot or an airplane, as it was necessary to input incorrect data into a large number of additional accounting documents (e.g., requests for provisions, spare parts, gasoline, etc.), which in the Soviet system could have very serious consequences up to execution. I admit that accounting inaccuracies took place, but their share is unlikely to be much higher than 1-2%. Documents for the years 1944-1945 have mostly survived, but you have to prove that the Soviet records contain errors or deliberately false information. The burden of proof is on the person who made the claim.
The higher level of overclaim can be explained by quite rational factors: the much greater Soviet outnumbering, possibly the increased training of Soviet pilots in the regiments of the mentioned air armies. As a result, German pilots had much less ability to control the outcome of the attack. But in general, I would rather be surprised by an overclaim level below 2 to 1 than above 4 to 1.

Agreed. Everything you said here is correct.

 

[bf109xxl]

Here's a great question: Would you consider this a victory?

Depends on where the airplane landed. If out of the airfield and there is confirmation from ground troops/guerrillas/inhabitants, then the Soviet Air Force counted it as an air victory. If on their own airfield (which also happened), then probably not, unless confirmed by intelligence agents/guerrillas.

 

[dedalos]

You are absolutely correct. It depends on your definition of a victory, and that's why we all have different conclusions. If someone believes that Hartmann got all his victories because they count repaired aircraft, then that's correct. By using the definition that repaired aircraft count as a victory, Hartmann has all his victories.

Myself and other people are being strict and in depth because we are analysing in hindsight. This means our conclusions will be different.

Hartmann is one of my all time favourite pilots. He is a legend and a great pilot.

So you have as a favourite pilot someone who supposedly overclaimed 5 to 1?? In the same environment that his comrades were 80-90% accurate?

 

[dedalos]

There is even a case example: IIRC then according to Lipfert's memoirs, Otto Fönnekold was bounced while on final approach in his Bf-109 in August 1944, but still somehow managed to land before dying although hit by a 50-cal in the chest.

Fonnekold was hit almost touching the ground. He was killed instantly and his aircraft just rolled to a stop
Friedrich Geisshardt was on 6/4/43 badly wounded by B17s gunners over holland. He broke contact, landed normally but died next day as a result of his wound. His aircraft was not even severely damaged...
A few years before a greek M2000 made a smooth landing in the sea . It settled at 5-10 m of depth. The pilot could not exit the cocpit and perished.The aircraft had very very little damage and returned to service for many years...

 

[Lucky13]

War is war, shit happens and it hits the fan and then, perhaps, stuff goes down!
Maybe they crash or even manage to fly home, land and get repaired....
Love threads like these, especially on the infamous "Book", you can tell who such and such fan boys are. Say or shock horror correct something and they show up with torches and pitchforks!
Everyone has a favourite pilot, or several, but sometimes you need to ask....are they a fan of X, Y, Z pilot only because the numbers of their kills or everything else surrounding this person, Hans-Joachim Marseille is a perfect example there....
Personally, I don't think that I can really pick an absolute favourite Ace, even though Charles Nungesser from WWI is close to it, I've got my "13" instead!
As for Hartmann, is he favourite, not really, I'm still gonna build (when that f*cking mojo comes back) a couple of his machines, simply because they're colourful....Hans Joachim Marseille, Günther Rall, Heinrich Bartels, Walter Oesau, Heinz Bär, Josef Priller all flew 13's and that's more important to me than their kills, plenty of them out there without any or just a handful, do I care....nope!
People need to accept that kills are never 100% correct, or written in stone, mistaken are done during combat due to stress, fear and whatnot which is understandable....

CHen10, keep doing what you (and your friends and colleagues) are doing....

Come to think about it, didn't Luftwaffe use Damaged, Shared or Ground kills?

 

[Holtzauge]

Fonnekold was hit almost touching the ground. He was killed instantly and his aircraft just rolled to a stop

I suspected it was something like that: From what I've seen of 50-cals hitting things, getting one through the chest would most likely be immediately fatal due to the temporary wound cavity which is horrendous with those things. OTOH, if it was an AP that had gone through the back armour and consequently had spent a major part of its velocity, while certainly fatal, would still maybe have bought you some time.

A few years before a greek M2000 made a smooth landing in the sea . It settled at 5-10 m of depth. The pilot could not exit the cocpit and perished.The aircraft had very very little damage and returned to service for many years...

Now as a former structural engineer (did some work on the JAS39 Gripen's tail section in an earlier life), I would have said that an aircraft that had been submerged in salt water is a complete write-off, so either you Greeks are masterful restorers or mad men!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

If an aircraft is forced down but repaired how is it not a victory? Hind sight or not, it does not matter. The aircraft was downed. Period.

 

[CHen10]

War is war, shit happens and it hits the fan and then, perhaps, stuff goes down!
Maybe they crash or even manage to fly home, land and get repaired....
Love threads like these, especially on the infamous "Book", you can tell who such and such fan boys are. Say or shock horror correct something and they show up with torches and pitchforks!
Everyone has a favourite pilot, or several, but sometimes you need to ask....are they a fan of X, Y, Z pilot only because the numbers of their kills or everything else surrounding this person, Hans-Joachim Marseille is a perfect example there....
Personally, I don't think that I can really pick an absolute favourite Ace, even though Charles Nungesser from WWI is close to it, I've got my "13" instead!
As for Hartmann, is he favourite, not really, I'm still gonna build (when that f*cking mojo comes back) a couple of his machines, simply because they're colourful....Hans Joachim Marseille, Günther Rall, Heinrich Bartels, Walter Oesau, Heinz Bär, Josef Priller all flew 13's and that's more important to me than their kills, plenty of them out there without any or just a handful, do I care....nope!
People need to accept that kills are never 100% correct, or written in stone, mistaken are done during combat due to stress, fear and whatnot which is understandable....

CHen10, keep doing what you (and your friends and colleagues) are doing....

Come to think about it, didn't Luftwaffe use Damaged, Shared or Ground kills?

Thanks! Yes of course I will continue to do what I do.

 

[CHen10]

If an aircraft is forced down but repaired how is it not a victory? Hind sight or not, it does not matter. The aircraft was downed. Period.

It depends on what you consider a victory. My definition is just a bit strict.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It depends on what you consider a victory. My definition is just a bit strict.

Was it shot down? Was it taken out of action? Did one pilot defeat the other? Isn't one pilot defeating another a VICTORY?

Using your "strict definition" Muhammad Ali has zero boxing victories because his opponents healed to fight another day.

 

[tyrodtom]

Some air forces never even officially awarded the victory to the individual pilot, the IJAAF for one.
They were awarded to the squadron. And the only way know how many each pilot got was by their log book.
Some IJAAF squadron commanders discouraged, or even forbit the display of victories on aircraft.

And in many cases aircraft downed was the result of a team effort.
So in that case, who do you award the victory to?
To the last one to fire at the aircraft ? Or debrief everyone for hours until you can determine who did the major damage?
Or just award a partial victory to everyone who participated in the encounter, when you probably can't say for sure who landed hits?
When you look at IJAAF records for squadrons, you see whole numbers, but some squadrons records for a individuals record are fractions.
But the personal records (log books) usually just seem to record whole numbers.

Very confusing policy, and that's just the IJAAF.

Then some of the Balken countries , Romania, Hungary or Bulgaria, awarded more than one victory for multiple engine aircraft.

And all air forces had to have some system as to how victories were apportioned when several aircraft were involved .
Think they were all the same?

We know most air forces had at least a 2 aircraft element, and some had a 3 aircraft element, where the leader took the shots and the others protected him.
But anyone who has read much on aerial combat knows in the confusion of real world combat these elements often lost cohesion.

There's just a infinite number of combinations not easy to sort out what really happened 80 years after the fact.

 

[GregP]

You are welcome, Holtzage. Data about wars should NOT be hard to fid, but it seems to actually be that way, at least detailed data.

Yes, I put in some work to get that file but, if nobody else sees it, how can we discuss it? I have intimately looked at Report 85, and it is NOT something you would normally read extensively since it is just records of victory credits. And it is also not in a format that is friendly to electronic download in readable form. It comes up as a pdf picture file, printed on a dot matrix printer that does not allow OCR.

I applaud your desire to not be a revisionist who tries to whittle away at the accepted victory totals in the absence of what might be construed as decent evidence.

Cheers!