Erich Hartmann - how did his comrades regard him?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Hello Parsifal
Looking your attachment, it states that in it only those a/c that went missing are counted, Chorley incl. also those which crashed in GB. But also Chorley seems to have changed his criteria, because in his introduction in Vol 5 (1944) he writes:"followed by target detail or an appropriate term describing a non-operational loss…" The latter seemed to have been rather insignificant, during a randomly chosen timeframe 14 Jun – 22 Jun 44 there were appr 120 losses of which only 4 were non-operational, (2 training, one air-testing and one ferrying) rest happened during operations. Of course that was at summer, wintertime non-oper would probably have had greater share.

Juha
 
Last edited:

Hello Stona
that is also my understanding, but there were exeptions, for ex. the only He 162 claim, a Tempest or Typhoon, I cannot remember which, in early May 45 was officially given to a nearby AA battery so He 162 pilots don't have any confirmed victory.

Juha
 
Well I personally don't think it was a case of claims 'petering out', the LW still shot down alot of enemy a/c right up until the end. I think it was a simple matter that RLM's priority shifted during this time frame. Thanks for the responses guys.
 
Ratsel it was October/November 44 where victory credits were no longer recognized "officially". only in the JG and NJG KTB's will you find them listed and in private Pilot/crews Flugbuchs
 
Ratsel said:
Well I personally don't think it was a case of claims 'petering out', the LW still shot down alot of enemy a/c right up until the end. I think it was a simple matter that RLM's priority shifted during this time frame. Thanks for the responses guys.
Click to expand...
As Stona wrote it was the confirmation system that just "petering out" not claims.

Juha
 


I have to disagree with your reading of Varleys graphs. He does give figures for the total number of sorties, from the official History and harris' report, and these add up to about 2.2%, and they do say aircraft missing. That much is true. However the graphs on pages 21-2 of Varleys paper give a loss rate of 2.7% (or thereabouts, when you add up the total losses and the total sorties, and divide the losses by the sorties. The graphs on losses given in the excerpt is based on the official history, but from the figures he has added in losses both operational and crashes (including return to base crashes). The table shows operational losses (in red, which for the RAF means all losses that relate to the combat mission, not just those shot down) and losses from crashes (in blue). Further, earlier in the paper he spends a considerable amount of time analysing personnel and materiel losses, including losses to ground personnel. I am quite confident that graph that he has presented includes both aircraft missing and aircraft crashed, but I doubt it includes aircraft that were written off due to excessive damage. That might account for the difference with Chorley.

What in fact he actually states a few paragraphs after that table is

The average loss rate, missing aircraft only, on sorties over the
whole war period was about 2.0% whereas if 'crashed' aircraft are
included the rate increases to 2.7%. As a substantial number of
aircraft crashing did so as a result of damage sustained on
operations it would not seem unreasonable in making any
analysis, at least as far as risk is concerned, to include them as
operational losses, nevertheless often this is not done.


It does NOT state that his presentation of loss data in his graphs, which was the basis of my presentation) makes that error. he merely states that many sources do. Since the table is based on official history losses and crashes, and he has in fact noted the error, i would find it very strange that he would then go ahead and present his graphs with the same mistake built in as well. I think your claim is basically incorrect, unless you can direct me to a specific statement that states otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Ratsel said:
Well I personally don't think it was a case of claims 'petering out', the LW still shot down alot of enemy a/c right up until the end. I think it was a simple matter that RLM's priority shifted during this time frame. Thanks for the responses guys.
Click to expand...

Not the claims,the claims system,i.e.the verification system. I wrote "...as the date when the claims system was abandoned or collapsed. I'm guessing it just petered out."
Cheers
Steve

Edit. Sorry Juha,I missed your post making the same point above....cheers.
 
Last edited:
it did not peter out as you guys state, it was official the OKL did not go through the processing of any victory claims anymore there was not time as other issues were more important.
 
Erich I was just suggesting,as noone seems to have a specific date,that the system could have been abandoned as a matter of fact rather than policy. I was guessing that the system just ceased to work rather than was officially closed down. Maybe the staff were diverted to more pressing matters.
The organisation of the OKL deserves a thread all of its own!
It doesn't really matter,we all agree that claims ceased to be processed in late 1944.
Cheers
Steve
 
Hello Parsifal
I'd say that he is then a bit unclear in his grap. red=operational losses, blue=crashes. Now IMHO a/c damaged by enemy fire while on oper. sortie that crashed on return is a oper. loss, especially those shot down by LW long-range night fighters over GB while returning from a sortie. Those which crashed while on training flight etc were IMHO non-operational losses. But if he clarify his criterias in his text, that's OK. But something is still amiss, because of Chorley doesn't incl. those KIA and DOW whose a/c was not destroyed or written off, so if the personnel losses are about the same, Chorley's data incl. losses that were not incl. in official histories, a bit same as in BoB, later research had found 10%+ more losses than are incl. in official BoB histories.

Juha
 
Juha

Its very late her, but i will tabulate the losses from the entire war, based on the graph values tomorrow night. If we get 2.7% (as I have done previously) then we should be able to conclude that we have a reasonably accurate figure for operational losses, including crashes on return. I agree that we would need to add about 10% to that figure, but not for the reasons you are saying. I think the losses need to be adjusted to account for post action scrappings, which are not included in the official histories data
 
are you going to cross check with actual LW figures like say Ron Putz has? thats the only real way to do it. the only way to get an accurate asessment. its time consuming and takes years. Unlike some websites/books that just copy what info they happen to google.
 
Hello Parsifal
why bother, BCWD by Middlebrook and Everitt is very highly regarded and they have made the counting already, IIRC.

Juha
 
Wouldn't it fair to say that the German war effort petered out in all respects towards the end of WW2?
Surely counting losses (whoever caused) was the last thing on the LW or armies mind as they were gradually defeated by the allies.
Just a thought chaps
Cheers
John
 
Most Luftwaffe pilots knew the war was lost in late 43/early 44. Anyways, LW pilots recorded there claims in their flight journals.. Right until the end. Theres no debate there. For what planes/fuel was left in 1945, they fought just as hard as any time frame during the war. Only on their terms.. Not to what the fatman said they should do or how to fight.
 
as to the records for the completeness of LW claims and losses there are none, burned up in at least two trucks outside of Berlin and vaporized during spring of 45. Many KTb's of JG's and especially the LW NJG's do not even exist. As to lost time element I would say late summer of 44 not before.
 

Why fight a lost cause though? You have referred to 'saving what was left of Germany', surely to carry on fighting was ultimately self destructive?
Or,was it a refusal to accept the inevitable?
As we weren't there maybe we'll never know for sure.
 

The only debate of course is the link between logbook claim to LW review process to LW victory credit/award process to nearly 60-100% over credits when comparing Tony Woods Lists of LW Credits to USAAF actual losses plus supplemental awards extracted from LW squadron histories.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

When did Erich Hartmann lose his only wingman Günther Capito?
Replies
9
Views
1K
CHen10
Erich Hartmann and his victories and overclaims over Hungary
15 16 17
Replies
326
Views
17K
DerAdlerIstGelandet
A
How did B-17 and B-24 formations avoid shooting each other?
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
5K
Peter Gunn
Why did the U.S. navy reject the F6U Pirate?
Replies
11
Views
752
Jabberwocky
J
G
How many Night Fighters did Bomber Command shoot down?
Replies
2
Views
2K
mig2830
M
Menu
Log in
Register