Erich Hartmann - how did his comrades regard him?

Ratsel · Sep 1, 2011

56th P-47 Encounter Reports. specifically 23.12.44 encounter reports SW of Bonn Germany or Bonn vicinity (havn't look at the P-51 encounters for Hartmann yet). Those clearly stated as NW of Bonn I ignored. I should have been more specific. My appologies.

Erich · Sep 1, 2011

you mean the 56th fg ? check the web-site out I offered for the P-47 units of the 8th AF- maybe you are meaning the US 9th AF TAF ...............good luck in finding any encounter reports as they are sketchy to say the least, the best resource is finding the old fighter group histories of the 9th operating the T-Bolt, far and few between as most were written in the lat 1950's and are therefore OOP some redone by Schiffer pubs.

by thew ay the 56th fg encountered JG 4 on the date you have selected.

Ratsel · Sep 1, 2011

isn't this one an encounter with JG 27? It matches the area/time where Bartels was shot down, and to a lesser degree the circumstances.

drgondog · Sep 1, 2011

Ratsel said:
well in searching.. which surprisingly didn't take to long, the one thing about USAAF docs. some I noticed is that they can never seem to agree on anything. So as far as those USAAF ones that I've seen go, I'll have to deem them as unreliable, and LW docs. reliable.

on 12 o'clock high there are some wonderful examples on how meticulous the LW pilots were on the details on there claim, as opposed to Allied docs. about the same.

So with extreme and reliable LW claims, presumably with location and times for claims - why are the LW Credits (theoretically reduced from Claims) 2:1 versus recorded USAAF losses for the same missions - when they had every advantage including wrecks and debris to confirm the 'meticulous records"??

Or maybe I'm missing something in the definition of 'Reliable"?

Erich · Sep 1, 2011

approx 1210 hrs, ok so this means the engagement started or ended ? the JG 's overlapped continuously, this was also the case of JG 300 and sister JG 301 Fw 190's, giving me nothing but a pain in the A** to sort out and re-check for my book for late December mid-January 45 operations.

JG 4 after a more thorough examination was NOT involved with the 56th but the gruppen of JG 11, 27 and 54 were shot to pieces so yes your report could be a 109 from JG 27 or JG 11. JG 54 was flying the Fw 190A-8

Ratsel · Sep 1, 2011

book? well I must put that on my 'to buy' list when its done. theres another report too that listed the engagment right at 11:45 hours. Bartels took off at aprox. 11:00 hours, but it just states the 47 pilots observed strikes all over the fuse/cockpit, and the 109 pilot peeled off too the left.. hmmm.. he didn't claim that one. Also, I thought JG 11 was also using Fw 190's in the area also(?).

Erich · Sep 1, 2011

II./JG 11 had 109G-14 and G-14/AS

would suggest purchasing drgndog's 355th fg book when completed, hopefully in the final stages, mine is just plugging along and back to Bill's notation about LW claims/credits for too long we have depended on T. Williams supreme efforts of the Freiburg Archiv translations which of course are needed as a base but are at times grossly inflated. I have made several references to the 26 Nov 44 op over Misburg as one in particular.

Kryten · Sep 2, 2011

It seems to me taking individual claims as even remotely correct is a fallacy , when you compare numerous losses to claims its plainly obvious what a pilot "sees" in the heat of battle is often completely incorrect,an aircraft attacked by several enemy, all claiming individual kills, a pilots evasive action seen as spiralling out of controll, a smoking aircraft? is that damage or exhaust smoke from a firewalled throttle? did the plane going down smoking actually pull out once clear of the fight and get home? it goes on and on, what really matters and in the end and decides the issue is who controlls the battlespace at the end of the campaign!

Ratsel · Sep 2, 2011

Bartels four P-38 claims on 15.11.43 were imo true. Now as to what happened to those P-38's. On 15.11.43 it was a very heavy overcast, so Bartels would not have likely seen what happened to the P-38s after he shot them up and they went down through the heavy overcast. Mitchells pilots reported four P-38s got 'holed'. One went down and crashed near Kalamaki (found), apparently the other 3 all made it back to their home base in Foggia, Italy, but, all three crashed when they landed do to Hydraulic / Brake / Control surfaces problems. It dosn't say if those P-38s were repaired or replaced. So I would call all of those kills. Other people may not.

drgondog · Sep 2, 2011

Ratsel said:
Bartels four P-38 claims on 15.11.43 were imo true. Now as to what happened to those P-38's. On 15.11.43 it was a very heavy overcast, so Bartels would not have likely seen what happened to the P-38s after he shot them up and they went down through the heavy overcast. Mitchells pilots reported four P-38s got 'holed'. One went down and crashed near Kalamaki (found), apparently the other 3 all made it back to their home base in Foggia, Italy, but, all three crashed when they landed do to Hydraulic / Brake / Control surfaces problems. It dosn't say if those P-38s were repaired or replaced. So I would call all of those kills. Other people may not.

What is your source for the crash landing/battle damage data? Absent the official Battle Damage or Accident reports as well as the Mission Summary there would be no fact based derivative for cause/effect?

Second, the LW did not count a shot up/crash landed 109 as a 'loss' because it was not salvaged. Why would you count a returned P-38 w/Battle damage as a 'loss" if it also was not written off?

Have you thought that you may be biased to Bartels and trying to explain discrepancies in his credits without all the facts in hand?

As 'to not seeing what happened" - in the USAAF most of those were awarded 'Damaged" or "Probable" versus "Destroyed". They made mistakes as all Air Forces did. But the official criteria for credit evaluation as Destroyed were a.) seen to blow up, b.) lost a major structural component rendering the a/c unflyable, c.) seen to crash, d.) pilot/crew seen to bail out, e.) seen to be on fire and/or out of control.

The last criteria was usually subjective and resulted in most variances of claim to credit. LW pilots were known to put an Fw 190 into a spin - which was recoverable more often than a Mustang or Me 109.

This is a list of all MACR's for USAAF 15 November 1943. Looks like (1) P-38 from the 1st FG failed to return, for which a Macr 1306 was created

431115 B-24 42-7617 6AF CARIBBEAN 1091
431115 F-5 42-13275 5 ADRIATIC 1121
431115 P-40 42-105509 8 NEW GUINEA 1191
431115 P-47 42-8413 355 FRANCE 1289
431115 P-47 42-8408 155 FRANCE 1290
431115 P-38 43-2184 1 GREECE 1306
431115 B-24 42-40409 308 CHINA 12394

drgondog · Sep 2, 2011

Ratsel said:
Bartels four P-38 claims on 15.11.43 were imo true. Now as to what happened to those P-38's. On 15.11.43 it was a very heavy overcast, so Bartels would not have likely seen what happened to the P-38s after he shot them up and they went down through the heavy overcast. Mitchells pilots reported four P-38s got 'holed'. One went down and crashed near Kalamaki (found), apparently the other 3 all made it back to their home base in Foggia, Italy, but, all three crashed when they landed do to Hydraulic / Brake / Control surfaces problems. It dosn't say if those P-38s were repaired or replaced. So I would call all of those kills. Other people may not.

The missing aircrew report 1306 for McClure states CAVU at 1115 when McClure's 71stFS P-38F 43-2184 was hit by flak - lost and engine and disappeared below, behind, the B-24 formation, heard to say "looks like this is it". Crashed with his airplane near Thebes. No enemy fighters in the area. No cloud cover, no aircraft spinning into undercast.

No record of a claim by Bartels in Woods List - in fact no claims in MTO for LW on 15 November.

Ratsel · Sep 2, 2011

What is your source for the crash landing/battle damage data? Absent the official Battle Damage or Accident reports as well as the Mission Summary there would be no fact based derivative for cause/effect?

history of the 488th.

Second, the LW did not count a shot up/crash landed 109 as a 'loss' because it was not salvaged. Why would you count a returned P-38 w/Battle damage as a 'loss" if it also was not written off?

becouse we don't know what happened to them after crash landing. so barring some other evidence, I consider those as lost.

Have you thought that you may be biased to Bartels and trying to explain discrepancies in his credits without all the facts in hand?

of coursed I'm biased to Bartels. With the available facts in hand, I came to a resonable conclusion imo. but on the other hand, if the claim was bogus, I'll accept that too.

As 'to not seeing what happened" - in the USAAF most of those were awarded 'Damaged" or "Probable" versus "Destroyed". They made mistakes as all Air Forces did. But the official criteria for credit evaluation as Destroyed were a.) seen to blow up, b.) lost a major structural component rendering the a/c unflyable, c.) seen to crash, d.) pilot/crew seen to bail out, e.) seen to be on fire and/or out of control.

so? the Luftwaffe didn't. Shared/damaged/probables were awarded to the Staffel. and yes mistakes were made. no doubt.
a) yes.
b) loss of an engine, aileron, rudder, elevator, wingtip, hydraulics, etc., etc., etc. dosn't nessesarily mean its not flyable. Perhaps they chose to replace rather then repair sited wear/tear as the cause.
c) yes.
d) if the pilot isn't seen to bail its either:
- he's dead
- he feels the plane is still controllable
- the other a/c pilot did not see him bail
e) smoking and on fire would be a resonable asumption of the a/c destroyed. even if the fire/smoke went out and somehow it landed.

The last criteria was usually subjective and resulted in most variances of claim to credit. LW pilots were known to put an Fw 190 into a spin - which was recoverable more often than a Mustang or Me 109.

so did Bf 109's. Mendl is a great example, at around 1000ft no less.

This is a list of all MACR's for USAAF 15 November 1943. Looks like (1) P-38 from the 1st FG failed to return, for which a Macr 1306 was created

one confirmed P-38, as I stated above.

The missing aircrew report 1306 for McClure states CAVU at 1115 when McClure's 71stFS P-38F 43-2184 was hit by flak - lost and engine and disappeared below, behind, the B-24 formation, heard to say "looks like this is it". Crashed with his airplane near Thebes. No enemy fighters in the area. No cloud cover, no aircraft spinning into undercast.

No record of a claim by Bartels in Woods List - in fact no claims in MTO for LW on 15 November.

thanks drgondog for conflicting data on the part of the USAAF. Bartels [P-38] claims are in woods list.

Erich · Sep 2, 2011

first off anyone have an updated URL for tony woods claims listing, and let me be very clear these are anot all officially confirmed especially after October 1944 as they were not even counted and logged through official sources.

drgondog · Sep 2, 2011

Ratsel said:
history of the 488th.

Why do you accept a bomb broup narrative over an official 1st FG Mission Summary, or a Macr?

becouse we don't know what happened to them after crash landing. so barring some other evidence, I consider those as lost.

There is no record of any crash landings, there is no battle damage report for the 1st FG, the only Accident Report is on 43-2432 Lt Martin, CL on takeoff Cat 3 damage- the ONLY accident in Italy on 43-11-15 for all USAAF MTO.

of coursed I'm biased to Bartels. With the available facts in hand, I came to a resonable conclusion imo. but on the other hand, if the claim was bogus, I'll accept that too.

What facts have you presented? the official facts so far are 1. Macr 1306, crash site Thebes, last seen with one engine due to flak at low altitude in clear sky - no enemy fighters sighted - no bombers down - and your supposition was 'cloud cover' where Bartels claimed his victories?? 2. Accident report for another P-38F at Lecce, It.

one confirmed P-38, as I stated above.

Confirmed how? Time of Bartels Credit? Encounter description of catching a P-38 at low altitude with one engine? Specificity please regarding your fact base?

thanks drgondog for conflicting data on the part of the USAAF. Bartels [P-38] claims are in woods list.

I now am looking at Woods List for 1943. Between 13 November and 16 November are one entry for a Mosquito (Glunz JG26) near Lilleon the 14, and a Halifax near Calvados on the night of 15-16. Tow entries - both ETO, no entries Ost or Sud.

There are zero claims/awards for 15 November 1943. Could you extract your entry for that date. My copy of Woods lists is 2005 while contained on Caldwell's JG 26 website - yours?

Erich · Sep 2, 2011

Bill does the woods listing still exist on the JG 26 site, all I am getting via the net links is porno

Erich · Sep 2, 2011

found the site and bookmarked it now .......

weirdness galore ~ besides Bartels 4 claims there are another 10 P-38's claimed by IV./JG 27 on 15 November 1943.

stona · Sep 2, 2011

'loss of an engine, aileron, rudder, elevator, wingtip, hydraulics, etc., etc., etc. dosn't nessesarily mean its not flyable.'

Yes it does hence the criterion. Lost means seperated from the rest of the aircraft,not failing to function as in engine failiure. It also says MAJOR component. You lose one of those,an aileron,elevator,rudder and you lose control.
Some aircraft,typically heavier ones like the B-17 or even the P-47 could absorb surprising amounts of damage but we are talking about Luftwaffe,primarily single engined,fighters which don't fall into that category
Cheers
Steve

drgondog · Sep 2, 2011

stona said:
'loss of an engine, aileron, rudder, elevator, wingtip, hydraulics, etc., etc., etc. dosn't nessesarily mean its not flyable.'

Lol - usually the loss of the Merlin or P&W R2800 in a 51 or 47 means the war is over for you.

Yes it does hence the criterion. Lost means seperated from the rest of the aircraft,not failing to function as in engine failiure. It also says MAJOR component. You lose one of those,an aileron,elevator,rudder and you lose control.
Some aircraft,typically heavier ones like the B-17 or even the P-47 could absorb surprising amounts of damage but we are talking about Luftwaffe,primarily single engined,fighters which don't fall into that category
Cheers
Steve

The criteria as you noted is loss on major component like wing, eppenage. not rudder or partial elevator or one aileron

Ratsel · Sep 2, 2011

Stona,
I had this conversation with a Luftwaffe Pilot friend of mine that flew survived Bodenplatte in his Me 109 where he got his first aerial kill, a P-47 at Y-29. He lost his rudder part of his port side elevator from a German flak hit. I'll quote him:

' Er versteht nicht, oder nie flog ein Me 109. '

Erich · Sep 2, 2011

A Pilot in II./JG 11 I see ...........

Erich Hartmann - how did his comrades regard him?

Banned

the old Sage

Banned

Major

the old Sage

Banned

the old Sage

Senior Airman

Banned

Major

Major

Banned

the old Sage

Major

the old Sage

the old Sage

Major

Major

Banned

the old Sage

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads