Erich Hartmann and his victories and overclaims over Hungary

[Lucky13]

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.

Then if damaged etc., it should be counted as a Damaged, Probable, quite simple....
Can you honestly, hand on your heart, on the Bible, the Lord of the Rings, SEARS or the IKEA catalogue, whatever you base your base your life on, say that every single "kill" by Hartmann is an actual kill and not what the USAAF and RAF would've counted as Damaged or a Probable?
Did the Luftwaffe use Damaged or Probable, if they didn't, I'm pretty sure that Hartmann's and many others scoreboards would've looked differently....

 

[bf109xxl]

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

It is a pointless juggling of analogies that cannot be used as evidence. It is a sure way to turn an academic discussion into a wit contest.

 

[Lucky13]

As I was saying, a couple of handsome birds!

 

[GregP]

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.

Actually, I was going to ask you the title and author of the book you scanned above.

And I am not really sure if a "victory" is over the airplane, the pilot, or both. We'd need to answer:

1) What is the exact definition of a victory for the armed force the victor belongs to? This is important before we can begin to count victories.
2) we need agreement on whether or not an aircraft has to be totally destroyed to be awarded a victory. If so, then pilots would likely abandon their mission to pursue damaged aircraft down. If we required them to kill the pilot for the victory to count, would they be a force of murderers fighting for a rogue country?
3) Words matter. We need to consider many situations that arise in combat to produce good definitions of what a victory is.

In the real world, some countries awarded "points" based on number of engine the victim had. That is, they awarded points, not victories.
Bulgaria comes to mind.
The Bulgarian Air Force used a point based system as follows:
individual claim for a four engine bomber destroyed = 3 points.
individual claim for a four engine bomber damaged = 2 points.
individual claim for a fighter aircraft destroyed = 1 point.
individual claim for a two engine bomber damaged = 1 point.
shared claim for a four engine bomber destroyed = 1 point.
shared claim for a four engine bomber damaged = 1 point.
individual claim for a fighter aircraft damaged = 0 points.

France had a different system for WWII. A pilot was given credit for a victory by personally shooting down an enemy aircraft, helping with the shoot down, or by claiming a probable victory. As a result, the brief Battle for France produced a plethora of aces. . Many pilots served not only with the Armee de L'Air, but when France capitulated to the Germans in 1940, many went on to serve with the Vichy Air Force, the RAF, the VVS and even with the Free French forces. Each of these air forces had their own aerial victory criteria, and as such pilots serving with more than one air force may become an ace through their accumulation of claims for each service they flew with.

Germany supposedly used "one pilot, one victory" principle. However, occasions are known, when the German pilots claimed a number of victories much bigger than actual Soviet losses and even bigger than the number of Soviet planes engaged. An example: On 4 July 1943, 7 Soviet planes (2 Hampden, 3 DB-3F of 9GMTAP and 2 Il-2 Shturmovik) attacked German ships. They were intercepted by six Bf109s leaded by commander of 7/JG5 Theodor Weissenberger. One Il-2 was shot down, and one Il-2, two Hampdens and one DB-3F had to ditch on a return route because of the combat damages. Only two torpedo bombers managed to land at an airdrome. German pilots claimed 16 "victories", including 7 "kills" by Weissenberger.

UK and Commonwealth: Used the mathematic principle. A kill divides by the number of pilots claiming it, and each pilot gets a part of a kill (0.25 , 0.33 , 0.5 and so on). There would be no-fractional figures for individual confirmed kills.

Hungary: For the Hungarian aces, individual and shared claims are shown as separate entries. This latest update was from the book, Hungarian Aces of World War 2, Osprey Aircraft of the Aces #50 by Gyorgy Punka. I have found that this book has not done much to clear up the confusion regarding the scores for the Hungarian aces of World War Two.

Italy: Used "collectivist" principle, especially during Spanish Civil War and the begin of WW2. An enemy plane shot down by a group of pilots counted as shared kill (group victory). Individual kills (personal victories unshared) were also awarded. So, the total score of a pilot is a sum of two figures: personal + shared.

Romania: In February 1944, the Romanians implemented a pointing system for victories. Victory points were awarded for confirmed and unconfirmed shoot downs, and for aircraft destroyed on the ground. Points were also awarded for shared victories. This system was retroactively applied to all claims prior to this date and followed these rules: - 3 victories for a 4 or 6 engine aircraft - 2 victories for a 2 or 3 engine aircraft - 1 point for a single engine aircraft With the publication of Dénes Bernád's book, Rumanian Aces of World War Two, a much more complete break down of Romanian ace's claims can be found.

The point is that there is no good way to directly compare the scores from all countries because they were counted differently from one another and going back to consolidate them under one system would be a monumental task at this point, made even more difficult due to there being nobody alive who could answer even basic questions about conflicting data. It would wind up as a "best guess" type of analysis, leaving any conclusions open to serious question quite easily ... so why go to the effort?

I collected a list of world aces and share it here. I make no claim that this is definitive, just the best I could find over many years of trying.

Cheers.

 

[Snautzer01]

Actually, I was going to ask you the title and author of the book you scanned above.

And I am not really sure if a "victory" is over the airplane, the pilot, or both. We'd need to answer:

1) What is the exact definition of a victory for the armed force the victor belongs to? This is important before we can begin to count victories.
2) we need agreement on whether or not an aircraft has to be totally destroyed to be awarded a victory. If so, then pilots would likely abandon their mission to pursue damaged aircraft down. If we required them to kill the pilot for the victory to count, would they be a force of murderers fighting for a rogue country?
3) Words matter. We need to consider many situations that arise in combat to produce good definitions of what a victory is.

In the real world, some countries awarded "points" based on number of engine the victim had. That is, they awarded points, not victories.
Bulgaria comes to mind.
The Bulgarian Air Force used a point based system as follows:
individual claim for a four engine bomber destroyed = 3 points.
individual claim for a four engine bomber damaged = 2 points.
individual claim for a fighter aircraft destroyed = 1 point.
individual claim for a two engine bomber damaged = 1 point.
shared claim for a four engine bomber destroyed = 1 point.
shared claim for a four engine bomber damaged = 1 point.
individual claim for a fighter aircraft damaged = 0 points.

France had a different system for WWII. A pilot was given credit for a victory by personally shooting down an enemy aircraft, helping with the shoot down, or by claiming a probable victory. As a result, the brief Battle for France produced a plethora of aces. . Many pilots served not only with the Armee de L'Air, but when France capitulated to the Germans in 1940, many went on to serve with the Vichy Air Force, the RAF, the VVS and even with the Free French forces. Each of these air forces had their own aerial victory criteria, and as such pilots serving with more than one air force may become an ace through their accumulation of claims for each service they flew with.

Germany supposedly used "one pilot, one victory" principle. However, occasions are known, when the German pilots claimed a number of victories much bigger than actual Soviet losses and even bigger than the number of Soviet planes engaged. An example: On 4 July 1943, 7 Soviet planes (2 Hampden, 3 DB-3F of 9GMTAP and 2 Il-2 Shturmovik) attacked German ships. They were intercepted by six Bf109s leaded by commander of 7/JG5 Theodor Weissenberger. One Il-2 was shot down, and one Il-2, two Hampdens and one DB-3F had to ditch on a return route because of the combat damages. Only two torpedo bombers managed to land at an airdrome. German pilots claimed 16 "victories", including 7 "kills" by Weissenberger.

UK and Commonwealth: Used the mathematic principle. A kill divides by the number of pilots claiming it, and each pilot gets a part of a kill (0.25 , 0.33 , 0.5 and so on). There would be no-fractional figures for individual confirmed kills.

Hungary: For the Hungarian aces, individual and shared claims are shown as separate entries. This latest update was from the book, Hungarian Aces of World War 2, Osprey Aircraft of the Aces #50 by Gyorgy Punka. I have found that this book has not done much to clear up the confusion regarding the scores for the Hungarian aces of World War Two.

Italy: Used "collectivist" principle, especially during Spanish Civil War and the begin of WW2. An enemy plane shot down by a group of pilots counted as shared kill (group victory). Individual kills (personal victories unshared) were also awarded. So, the total score of a pilot is a sum of two figures: personal + shared.

Romania: In February 1944, the Romanians implemented a pointing system for victories. Victory points were awarded for confirmed and unconfirmed shoot downs, and for aircraft destroyed on the ground. Points were also awarded for shared victories. This system was retroactively applied to all claims prior to this date and followed these rules: - 3 victories for a 4 or 6 engine aircraft - 2 victories for a 2 or 3 engine aircraft - 1 point for a single engine aircraft With the publication of Dénes Bernád's book, Rumanian Aces of World War Two, a much more complete break down of Romanian ace's claims can be found.

The point is that there is no good way to directly compare the scores from all countries because they were counted differently from one another and going back to consolidate them under one system would be a monumental task at this point, made even more difficult due to there being nobody alive who could answer even basic questions about conflicting data. It would wind up as a "best guess" type of analysis, leaving any conclusions open to serious question quite easily ... so why go to the effort?

I collected a list of world aces and share it here. I make no claim that this is definitive, just the best I could find over many years of trying.

Cheers.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Then if damaged etc., it should be counted as a Damaged, Probable, quite simple....
Can you honestly, hand on your heart, on the Bible, the Lord of the Rings, SEARS or the IKEA catalogue, whatever you base your base your life on, say that every single "kill" by Hartmann is an actual kill and not what the USAAF and RAF would've counted as Damaged or a Probable?
Did the Luftwaffe use Damaged or Probable, if they didn't, I'm pretty sure that Hartmann's and many others scoreboards would've looked differently....

How would Hartmann or any pilot know a plane was repairable? How would they know it was returned to service? There was no way possible to confirm this. Therefore a kill is a kill.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It is a pointless juggling of analogies that cannot be used as evidence. It is a sure way to turn an academic discussion into a wit contest.

Don't get me started with you…

 

[Lucky13]

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.

....and the Allied never won WWII as Germany still exist to also fight another day....

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

....and the Allied never won WWII as Germany still exist to also fight another day....

Really?

 

[pbehn]

How would Hartmann or any pilot know a plane was repairable? How would they know it was returned to service? There was no way possible to confirm this. Therefore a kill is a kill.

It is a pseudo intellectual rabbit hole. The Spitfire Mk I that I saw looking immaculate at Duxford had spent most of my lifetime and 19 years before I was born under the sand on the beach at Dunkerque. In oil rig terms that is called the splash zone constantly covered in salt water high in oxygen and then exposed to air it is one of the most corrosive environments in the natural world. Th people who restored it said as many components as possible were re used in the aircraft, I suspect that is less than 1% and certainly not anything important. The key is "economical repair" in WW2 they needed a lot of planes quickly to fight, today they can take as much time as they like and spend a disproportionate fortune because it is an iconic aircraft that only needs a makers plate to validate it. On the Schweinfurt Regensburg mission many planes that went to N Africa didnt fly again because there was no facility or spars to repair them, The ones that returned to UK could in some cases be repaired. Is a LW pilot supposed to know that sort of crap when he puts in a report?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It is a pseudo intellectual rabbit hole. The Spitfire Mk I that I saw looking immaculate at Duxford had spent most of my lifetime and 19 years before I was born under the sand on the beach at Dunkerque. In oil rig terms that is called the splash zone constantly covered in salt water high in oxygen and then exposed to air it is one of the most corrosive environments in the natural world. Th people who restored it said as many components as possible were re used in the aircraft, I suspect that is less than 1% and certainly not anything important. The key is "economical repair" in WW2 they needed a lot of planes quickly to fight, today they can take as much time as they like and spend a disproportionate fortune because it is an iconic aircraft that only needs a makers plate to validate it. On the Schweinfurt Regensburg mission many planes that went to N Africa didnt fly again because there was no facility or spars to repair them, The ones that returned to UK could in some cases be repaired. Is a LW pilot supposed to know that sort of crap when he puts in a report?

Exactly, hence why its irrelevant. A kill, is a kill, is a kill…

 

[Snautzer01]

It does not matter what any of you think is a kill.
The streak a Hartmann were German numbers, and what the RAF rewarded or usaaf or ussr, were their numbers. Different.
Even what a kill/victory is, per airforce, different. Or the reward when others involved. Different Or if the plane is in formation or out off that. Or how many engines it had. Different.
Heraus schuss from a usaaf bomber formation was rewarded. Even if it still flew home. Different.

So first look at who you are talking about.

The Ali thing is perhaps funny but in a strange way right.

Can i take a moment to promote above book?
As said before, i followed a lot of discussion on TORCH, debating what. I can give a glimps of how things were at that piece of the war. And give a good feel how things ended up in the archives.
GregP can add i think for western sfeer.

 

[BiffF15]

This reminds me of the Ground Hog threads…

 

[Lucky13]

Either way, with everything else during wartimes, I'm a wee bit surprised that nations didn't agree on how to count victories, besides having 5 makes you an Ace, maybe it was seen as not very important....

Look how many has Kills, Damaged, Probable, Ground Kills some pilots have or had. Didn't also Deutsche Luftstreitkräfte during WWI count when one of their pilots forced an opponent to land behind their lines as Kill, or do I remember wrong?

 

[GregP]

If a pilot is a bit of a sloppy flyer and writes off 5 slightly-damaged airplanes in landing accidents after combat, does he become an ace for the other side?

 

[pbehn]

This reminds me of the Ground Hog threads…

That is because you know nothing about fighter pilots, air fighting or any stuff to do with airplanes an stuff. You should always listen to people quoting "stats". . Coz stats never lie.

 

[Lucky13]

How would they have counted Hartmann's scalps in USAAF, RAF, VVS etc., etc., I'm sure that there would be a few Damaged/Probable on list, or?

 

[Holtzauge]

A SwAF pilot I got to know through work and who flew J-35 Drakens back in the day told us that as a "young gun" he was sometimes shot down on gun cam by his (mainly desk-flying) superiors because they told the ground staff to cut together the gun cam film so that their sequence came first even though they took the shot in the landing pattern, while my friend lamented that his "kill" had been gotten in a fair fight at altitude. Lesson learned? Well that he who has the most stripes on his shoulders always gets the most kills…..

 

[GregP]

That's the military: More is better.

More rank equals better performance ... on paper, anyway.

 

[Holtzauge]

This was of course all done in jest: SwAF policy was, and still is to the best of my knowledge much like the Luftwaffe policy during WW2 was where a lowly Obfw with experience could chew out a Major who flew as his wingman and did not do his job.