Kill ratios.....

Kurfürst said:

Small correction, Erich Hartmann was never shot down by an enemy aircraft. He forced down 14 times, several times because his point-blank firing tactic resulted in debris from enemy plane damaging his own airplane. I presume the others were technical malfunctions, running out of fuel, collisions etc.

Click to expand...

Kurfurst - wouldn't you say, technically speaking, that when he bailed out when being chased by Mustangs, low on fuel, he was 'shot down' or downed by enemy air action - in contrast with running low on fuel and no place to land safely? He certainly was an 'award' on the other side of the equation.

Serious question - not picking on your explanation

I know when I researched 'unkmown' causes for 355th FG losses - I associated flying into debris as an 'air to air combat loss' , or two Mustangs colliding when chasing a 109, rather than a flying accident, or a forced landing 100 miles away from a strafed airfield as 'flak' rather than mechanical.

Maybe a different philosophy about 'cause'. Would your perspective about Hartmann be a common thread among Luftwaffe pilots?

I am not quite sure I am following you, maybe you think there's more about it between my ears when it's actually noting that the term used - 'shot down' - is inaccurate. At least to my best knowledge and memory.

Now to your serious question, I can give you to most typical answer one would expect from my kind : 'depends'. It's a tough question, and I'd look for the cause-and-effect chain.

I didn't dig into Hartmann's combat career too much to be honest, if there was a case when he was chased by Mustangs and run out of fuel.. and he bailed because the Mustangs were out there, sure it's a loss to enemy action, having no other choice, yet without the pilot himself being mastered in air to air combat, it's a bit like alcohol-free beers. I don't think a definiete, good-for-all-situations answer can be given, it's a gray zone that should be judged case-by-case.

In this regard I particularly like some of the terms the LW used during the war, they handle such situations better... Luftsieg, durch/ohne Feindeinw., abschuss, HSS etc... The term aerial victory for example make all those arguements about Hartmann's 'kills' so much redundand... it simply means he was victorious over the foe 352 times... which in cases may simply mean he got behind it and shot it up so the other guy had to leave combat, and thus fail his mission..

drgondog said:

I know when I researched 'unkmown' causes for 355th FG losses - I associated flying into debris as an 'air to air combat loss' , or two Mustangs colliding when chasing a 109, rather than a flying accident, ...

Click to expand...

I agree with your approach, drgondog. If there could be standardized definitions of 'air combat loss' I would vote for something along those lines, and when I quote air combat result totals I've researched I'm doing it along those lines. Of course when possible one can just state case by case, 'two planes collided this day during air combat' and everyone can draw their own conclusion. And some cases are never clear, either the underlying facts aren't clear or are inherent judgement calls, fuel exhaustion can be that way sometimes.

With due respect to Kurfurst's opinion it suggests to me a subjective view from Hartmann's perspective. Would we apply the same to confirming Hartmann's victories in opposing records?, that there was clear evidence the Soviet or Allied pilots had been 'mastered in air combat' according to their own accounts. Or might we more liberally include losses of theirs as verifying Hartmann's claims even if not certainly due to Hartmann's direct action?

I suppose as long as a method is applied completely consistently to both sides sides that's the main thing, but again I'd personally endorse a relatively wide definition of air combat loss. Of course I wouldn't go to the point of counting losses one side said in its records were AA or mechanical as air combat. That's basically making stuff up and is anyway virtually never applied evenly to both sides when it's done (and it has been done).

Joe

JoeB said:

I agree with your approach, drgondog. If there could be standardized definitions of 'air combat loss' I would vote for something along those lines, and when I quote air combat result totals I've researched I'm doing it along those lines. Of course when possible one can just state case by case, 'two planes collided this day during air combat' and everyone can draw their own conclusion. And some cases are never clear, either the underlying facts aren't clear or are inherent judgement calls, fuel exhaustion can be that way sometimes.

With due respect to Kurfurst's opinion it suggests to me a subjective view from Hartmann's perspective. Would we apply the same to confirming Hartmann's victories in opposing records?, that there was clear evidence the Soviet or Allied pilots had been 'mastered in air combat' according to their own accounts. Or might we more liberally include losses of theirs as verifying Hartmann's claims even if not certainly due to Hartmann's direct action?

I suppose as long as a method is applied completely consistently to both sides sides that's the main thing, but again I'd personally endorse a relatively wide definition of air combat loss. Of course I wouldn't go to the point of counting losses one side said in its records were AA or mechanical as air combat. That's basically making stuff up and is anyway virtually never applied evenly to both sides when it's done (and it has been done).

Joe

Click to expand...

Joe - we think alike. I am currently trying to get my arms around a more realistic appraisal of all 8th AF losses, including air to air losses, but find myself struggling with the dreaded 'unknown' cause in the Macrs.

I finally decided to leave 'unknown' as the final assignment ONLY when a.) there is no corresponding mention of enemy air activity or sighting AND b.) there is no corresponding claim by a LW fighter pilot for the area and time. When enemy air mentioned in the Macr I assign 'air' as the category. For my purposes I would rather overstate USAAF air to air combat losses than understate based on conservative approach - I believe you do the same.

Back to Hartmann, by his own account he was boxed by Mustangs (I think he said six, the encounter report on 15th AF side said four - whatever) and he was running low on fuel so he decided to take a chance and bail out rather than run out of fuel (and options).. and was apparently suprised when he wasn't whacked in his chute.

At any rate good to chat Joe

Regards,

Bill

Kurfürst said:

I am not quite sure I am following you, maybe you think there's more about it between my ears when it's actually noting that the term used - 'shot down' - is inaccurate. At least to my best knowledge and memory.

I wasn't tying to be particularly clever and you can see more of my own philosophy with my reply to Joe. Perhaps 'Lost in Aerial Combat' is better phrase than 'Shot Down'. In the context of Bubi he didn't bail out because he just happened to hear his engine failing from fuel starvation - it seemed by his own words the he was desparate, having failed to escape the flight of Mustangs that were really mad at him and he was running out of fuel and options.

Now to your serious question, I can give you to most typical answer one would expect from my kind : 'depends'. It's a tough question, and I'd look for the cause-and-effect chain.

I didn't dig into Hartmann's combat career too much to be honest, if there was a case when he was chased by Mustangs and run out of fuel.. and he bailed because the Mustangs were out there, sure it's a loss to enemy action, having no other choice, yet without the pilot himself being mastered in air to air combat, it's a bit like alcohol-free beers. I don't think a definiete, good-for-all-situations answer can be given, it's a gray zone that should be judged case-by-case.

Your perspective doesn't bother me at all - but if a pilot's a/c is lost in air combat from a.) bailing out of a badly hit airplane, b.) to escape near sure death by pursuing fighters, or c.) make a mistake like a mid air collision with a fellow fighter in a chase, or d.) collision with debris of either friendly or enemy a/c - then all of those are 'lost in air to air combat' for my own research on USAAF fighters - even if his a/c wasn't strictly b.) above?

In this regard I particularly like some of the terms the LW used during the war, they handle such situations better... Luftsieg, durch/ohne Feindeinw., abschuss, HSS etc... The term aerial victory for example make all those arguements about Hartmann's 'kills' so much redundand... it simply means he was victorious over the foe 352 times... which in cases may simply mean he got behind it and shot it up so the other guy had to leave combat, and thus fail his mission..

Click to expand...

That would apply in this case very well to the chasing 15th AF Mustangs who forced him to 'leave' his 109 - at least from my own perspective.

Good to chat Kurfurst

Bill

well cross checking is almost impossible for late LW kills whether on the Ost front MTO or ETO it just is not going to happen even when the higher eschelon started to break down in late 1944 and "kills" were not written down in aaccordanace to the old rules. The Lw concerning HSS or shot out out of formation and the old awarding of points seems to be unique, a shot out of formation gave the LW pilot a kill which is silly but on the other hand the LW crews were never given probables which was the case for USAF crewmen. Also ground kills were not given credit except in certain instances in the overall awarding of a medal odd don't you think.

as to Hartmann it would be lovely if we could some how resource the Soviet air units histories he faced and have a true picture from their perspective to confirm his downings..............not going to ever happen

Erich said:

as to Hartmann it would be lovely if we could some how resource the Soviet air units histories he faced and have a true picture from their perspective to confirm his downings..............not going to ever happen

Click to expand...

The Soviets kept extensive records which still exist and in recent years it hasn't been that hard to access most of them. I can speak personally on that for Soviet Korean War air combat records. Whether that might shift back with recent political developments in Russia...could be. AFAIK the main problems from ca. early 1990's to recently are scale of the actions (to actually match an individual claim with a particular loss in a huge air war) and what you mentioned, incomplete LW records. Plus not a whole lot of people have worked on it.

But Christer Bergstrom (and Russian co-authors) series "Black Cross/Red Star" is a notable example of an English language book making use of Soviet and German WWII records in what's supposed to be eventually a complete history of the Russo-German air war. The translation of Dmitry Loza's "Attack of the Airacobras" is another with many details from Soviet records, though that book doesn't correlate the actions described to German records.

Some writers on web have claimed specifically to correlate Hartmann's claims with Soviet records. The issue there isn't believing they could have done so; it's doubt about particular researchers' objectivity, especially in view of all the judgement calls that arise in verifying one guy's claims in a big air war. Ace X claimed a victory. Somewhere on the other side there's a documented loss that day. What time of day, where and to what cause are losses attributed in the opposing records? what other claims were made on the ace's side? Accountings I've seen have a wide variety of approaches to those questions, if they deal with them at all. Some just say one claim, other side lost some planes that day=verified, as nonsensical as that is on a large front. Others go to the point of actually fudging what the two sides' records say to allow or disallow the claim. I won't belabor the same example link I've given before for Korea showing that.

Joe

Joe yes I know Christer and what he is trying to do, my understanding back in the 1970's between wars I was doing intensive research for late war claims made on the Ost front getting no help with Soviet contacts, as the walls came down obviously there has been an opening up of what seemed very strict information and in fact I know this to some point because what was hidden through private German contracts still under the Russian thumb regarding 262 Kommando Welter. the basic premise is getting a crack open into the walls and what is hidden behind them. as you point out with the term fudging it goes on today through US reported air histories and the levels claimed over the be grudging LW. Bill Marshall knows all about this as he is trying his hardest to makes things quite clear from both aspects in his to be released work on the US 355thfg. Over and over again the old myths of both the US and the LW in the ETO remain constant in books rehashed (wish some weren't) and it is about time the truth be known