Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.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.
Here's a great question: Would you consider this a victory?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.
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.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.
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.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.
Agreed. Everything you said here is correct.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.
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.Here's a great question: Would you consider this a victory?
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?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.
Fonnekold was hit almost touching the ground. He was killed instantly and his aircraft just rolled to a stopThere 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
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...
Thanks! Yes of course I will continue to do what I do.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?
It depends on what you consider a victory. My definition is just a bit strict.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.
Was it shot down? Was it taken out of action? Did one pilot defeat the other? Isn't one pilot defeating another a VICTORY?It depends on what you consider a victory. My definition is just a bit strict.