Pilots aiming at cockpits? (1 Viewer)

[Thumpalumpacus]

I apologise for this comment I made. Looking back it's quite childish and even though I strongly disapprove of his behaviour I shouldn't have said that. I let my anger take over and it wasn't right what I did.

You're right that it's shocking to read, though. And it is how more than a few veterans of all services felt. The range of human responses to wartime experiences runs from the noble to the damnable. I'm not a combat veteran and therefore don't feel qualified to sit in judgement of one over simple words. There are combat vets who post here, and I'd sure like to read their thoughts.

I find his glee disgusting, but how many of my buddies got killed in combat? Right: Zero-point-zero. If he was happy to have done it, who am I to sit in judgement? I have no earthly clue what he lived through. And if indeed his experiences did imbalance him, well, I think that's understandable too. My stepfather woke up screaming often enough even twenty years after he returned home. That shit can fuck you up forever. Years after Bob's death in 1990, my mom lived with and loved another Vietnam vet, Kevin, who'd done a tour on PBRs in the Mekong. You damned well better not drop anything near him.

In one sense, Beurling, Bob, Kevin, and millions of others -- both combatants and non-combatant survivors of wars -- are, too, casualties of it. I see them whenever I attend an appointment at the VA hospital up in Temple.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

All you, rewriters of history, have to prove the reliability of the soviets archives.

... says the guy who refuses to provide a source for his claim that USAAF ordered pilots to shoot jet pilots in parachutes ...

 

[CHen10]

All you, rewriters of history, have to prove the reliability of the soviets archives. Otherwise you have no case. The general reliability of Soviet books is well known
Furthermore, you did not have the decency to write your theories while hartmann was still alive . So he had a chance to answer.
The No1 ace of LW over claimed by 70% and NOBODY noticed anything.... NOBODY
said anything for 50 years. And the soviets put him on trials on 345 kills .... I guess they did not have access to their archives too...
So in reality he had 70-80 kills... Why then had especially hard captivity, but they also kept him alive even by force feeding?
And the postwar LW gave the command and training of it s 1st FB wing to such a fraud? NATO accepted in staff positions such a liar?
You have to create a believable theory. It s impossible the same person to be both fraud and liar and at the same time trustworthy comrade in captivity, reliable commander and self damaging outspoken officer.
Without proving the soviet archives you have nothing

Hartmann only had 30% accuracy when flying over Hungary from late 1944 to early 1945. Now I mainly research Hungarian fighter claims (overclaims were made by them as well) and so I only analyse a victory made by Hartmann if it occurred the same day as a Hungarian victory but from the small number of Hartmann victories I analysed from 1942 to early 1944 and combined with what other people have found out, Hartmann's accuracy was definitely above 30% from 1942-44. If I had to guess I'd probably say he was about 60% accurate. Again my sample size is small since I only analyse a small number of his victories but that would be my estimate.

Why did his accuracy decrease over Hungary? Well Hartmann encountered a lot of late war Yakovlevs (Yak-3, Yak-9) over Hungary and these late Yak fighters have a habit of suffering what looks like fatal damage only to actually make it back to base. Giant holes from bullets would appear in the fuselage of Yaks and it looks certain as if they'd go down but in reality the damage wasn't that severe. Hartmann, quite understandably, assumed these aircraft would crash, but they didn't. If you want Hartmann's hit accuracy so aircraft he hit regardless of if it was destroyed or not, then his accuracy is probably like 97-99%

Hartmann was not a fraud or anything like that and this is proved by the fact this quote:

"His spectacular rate of success raised a few eyebrows even in the Luftwaffe High Command; his claims were double and triple-checked, and his performance closely monitored by an observer flying in his formation."

Everyone including Hartmann, his comrades and superiors, all agreed that when he claimed a victory, he was telling the truth. Everyone who saw the kill, really believed that the aircraft would crash.

If his accuracy from 1942 to 1944 (only from what I've seen, it could be wrong due to small sample size) was with my information 60% and his accuracy over Hungary from 1944 to 1945 was 30%, then 60+30=90 and divided by 2 is 45, so his accuracy overall was probably 45-55% so roughly 158 - 193 kills. Is this an excellent score? Yes of course but whatever it is it's definitely NOT 352.

Soviet records are also really reliable. They detail every loss that occurred within the specific VA (Air Army) They provide the Soviet pilots name, regiment, aircraft, crash location, time etc. These records also support many German Aces. Barkhorn had about 80% accuracy over Hungary while Lipfert had an outstanding 90+%. This was because Lipfert usually stayed behind to see what would happen to his victims.

 

[CHen10]

Hartmann was one of the best.

The USA did a study of aerial victories after the war called Study 85. I know of no other nation that spent money to study their victories like the U.S.A. did. All we have to go on, in the case of the Luftwaffe and all others are claims.

Personally, I believe Hartmann had less overclaiming than many others. But ... I wasn't there and only have anecdotes and unsubstantiated stories on which to base that belief. Helping my beliefs along is the fact that Erich Hartmann didn't blow his own horn as an aerial combat ace. Instead, he was quiet and went back to quiet civilian life after the military.

That says more about Erich and his attitudes than any article about his wartime exploits as a pilot.

Hartmann, Barkhorn, and Rall were simply superb pilots who had the opportunity to flourish in a target-rich environment at a time when they could not get rotated out of combat. That they survived is, in itself, amazing. We also might remember that, while some of the Soviet pilots were quite good, that didn't mean they all were. I'm sure these three German super-aces ran into good pilots on occasion and simply proved themselves to be better on that day at either attacking or escaping or both.

None of us can speak with any authority to their enjoyment or lack thereof of at being forced to fight in airplanes until they died or the war ended. But we know Hartmann, at least, took several convalescent leaves during his time on the front. He never once indicated he "couldn't wait to get back to the fight."

I'll credit him with 352 until proven otherwise by unbiased studies.

Hartmann was indeed a fantastic pilot with many victories and my other post explains how he was genuine and not a fraud, but the fact does remain that many of his victories don't have a corresponding loss and as a result, his score is much lower than 352. Of his 352 kills, only one is completely made up, this being his 317th kill. This is 110% an overclaim because Hartmann and his unit didn't even fly that day due to bad weather! The reason this appears in his list is probably an error since he didn't even fly that day, with the date most likely being mistyped.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

It should be noted that American pilots sometimes claimed kills over Zeroes in the South Pacific because when a Zero pilot went full-stop on his throttle, the exhaust shot out a plume of smoke and often the pilot was diving as well to escape. To the shooter, it looked like good business, m'boy's going down.

Wadn't no computers back then to track this and back it up. Some cam footage is confirmatory, some ain't, and did the pilot turn the cam on anyway?

 

[PAT303]

It should be noted that American pilots sometimes claimed kills over Zeroes in the South Pacific because when a Zero pilot went full-stop on his throttle, the exhaust shot out a plume of smoke and often the pilot was diving as well to escape. To the shooter, it looked like good business, m'boy's going down.

Wadn't no computers back then to track this and back it up. Some cam footage is confirmatory, some ain't, and did the pilot turn the cam on anyway?

I've read the same thing during the BoB, a Luftwaffe pilot claiming a Spitfire suddenly belched black smoke while being attacked not knowing that was the throttle being pushed through the gate that caused it.

 

[GregP]

Yeah he gives Hartmann about ~30% accuracy over Hungary and his data is solid. I've looked at TsAMO documents myself for my own research and some involve Hartmann's days and sure enough everything he said is true.

"The view shocked Lipfert so much, that he immediately regretted this victory and could not shoot down other Soviet planes for awhile until he was forced to."

Let's see, people reporting bad things to Stalin died occasionally. And you think Soviet-era documents from a Stalinist government are accurate? And more accurate than Luftwaffe clains?

Stand-up comedy at its best!

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I've read the same thing during the BoB, a Luftwaffe pilot claiming a Spitfire suddenly belched black smoke while being attacked not knowing that was the throttle being pushed through the gate that caused it.

Right. Take any hot engine, rapidly dump a bunch of fuel in it, and see how much comes out the backside either sooty or vapory.

 

[CHen10]

Let's see, people reporting bad things to Stalin died occasionally. And you think Soviet-era documents from a Stalinist government are accurate? And more accurate than Luftwaffe clains?

Stand-up comedy at its best!

Explain this

"These records also support many German Aces. Barkhorn had about 80% accuracy over Hungary while Lipfert had an outstanding 90+%. This was because Lipfert usually stayed behind to see what would happen to his victims."

So yeah Luftwaffe claims are accurate and that's why Soviet sources support them when it comes to these two pilots for example

 

[CHen10]

And you think Soviet-era documents from a Stalinist government are accurate?

Of course the USA and UK for example, weren't communist dictatorships but the argument you make is that the Soviets didn't want to upset the government, so for example could we assume that the Americans deliberately didn't mention about many of their losses? Maybe they were trying to make themselves sound better, and so if they lost a plane there's a high chance they wouldn't document it. If this is true, then every single aviation book which analyses victories and losses is completely wrong. For example, Genda's Blade.

28 May 1945
N1K2-Js vs P-47N over Kyushu
N1K2s claim 4 P-47s while P-47s claim 7 N1K2s. Up until now I only found a damaged P-47 and four N1K2s lost but if loss records are unreliable then maybe four P-47s were shot down and they just weren't documented.

5 July 1945
N1K2s were credited with 1 P-51 and even though I can't find a corresponding loss, we can assume that it's real because people lied to government about how many aircraft were being lost?

Of course the USA wasn't ruled by a dictator, but we could say that maybe American military personnel wanted to make themselves sound better for pride so they deliberately left out losses in their reports

The point is that simply just saying one country was reliable and another wasn't is quite silly and I believe I know why people like to say this for Hartmann.

People are often very impressed with Hartmann's "352" because it's a huge number and it sounds cool for someone to be that good. They don't like to hear the facts because it ruins this image of the pilot they have in their head.

 

[CHen10]

It should be noted that American pilots sometimes claimed kills over Zeroes in the South Pacific because when a Zero pilot went full-stop on his throttle, the exhaust shot out a plume of smoke and often the pilot was diving as well to escape. To the shooter, it looked like good business, m'boy's going down.

Wadn't no computers back then to track this and back it up. Some cam footage is confirmatory, some ain't, and did the pilot turn the cam on anyway?

This is definitely a common thing. Sometimes pilots would mistake contrails for fuel leaks and assume that vital damage had been done

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

This is definitely a common thing. Sometimes pilots would mistake contrails for fuel leaks and assume that vital damage had been done

Claims from all aircrew and all nations are sloppy. It's part and parcel of the nature of the battle, running at 250-350 mph in three dimensions.

 

[CHen10]

Let's see, people reporting bad things to Stalin died occasionally. And you think Soviet-era documents from a Stalinist government are accurate? And more accurate than Luftwaffe clains?

Stand-up comedy at its best!

If we use the argument that Soviet records are unreliable, then let's use this example. In this hypothetical scenario, it's possible Kozhedub actually scored 0 victories. Maybe the Soviets wanted to create a hero and so in the action reports, they started assigning victories to Kozhedub to make themselves sound better and please Stalin, while also creating a war hero in the process. How can we trust any victory claimed by a Soviet pilot since they lived under Stalin? Maybe the Soviet aces were all frauds who were lying to please Stalin. Of course not. The Soviet pilots deserve just as much respect as Hartmann and any other nation's pilots

Kozhedub was an excellent pilot who scored many victories. I haven't analysed his victories but there's definitely gonna be overclaims for him too. Maybe his accuracy like Hartmann's is about 55%, who knows?

 

[dedalos]

Hartmann only had 30% accuracy when flying over Hungary from late 1944 to early 1945. Now I mainly research Hungarian fighter claims (overclaims were made by them as well) and so I only analyse a victory made by Hartmann if it occurred the same day as a Hungarian victory but from the small number of Hartmann victories I analysed from 1942 to early 1944 and combined with what other people have found out, Hartmann's accuracy was definitely above 30% from 1942-44. If I had to guess I'd probably say he was about 60% accurate. Again my sample size is small since I only analyse a small number of his victories but that would be my estimate.

Why did his accuracy decrease over Hungary? Well Hartmann encountered a lot of late war Yakovlevs (Yak-3, Yak-9) over Hungary and these late Yak fighters have a habit of suffering what looks like fatal damage only to actually make it back to base. Giant holes from bullets would appear in the fuselage of Yaks and it looks certain as if they'd go down but in reality the damage wasn't that severe. Hartmann, quite understandably, assumed these aircraft would crash, but they didn't. If you want Hartmann's hit accuracy so aircraft he hit regardless of if it was destroyed or not, then his accuracy is probably like 97-99%

So we learn new things!!! The water cooled engined and ultra light yak3&9 were masters of combat damage resistance!

Hartmann was not a fraud or anything like that and this is proved by the fact this quote:

"His spectacular rate of success raised a few eyebrows even in the Luftwaffe High Command; his claims were double and triple-checked, and his performance closely monitored by an observer flying in his formation."

Everyone including Hartmann, his comrades and superiors, all agreed that when he claimed a victory, he was telling the truth. Everyone who saw the kill, really believed that the aircraft would crash.

If his accuracy from 1942 to 1944 (only from what I've seen, it could be wrong due to small sample size) was with my information 60% and his accuracy over Hungary from 1944 to 1945 was 30%, then 60+30=90 and divided by 2 is 45, so his accuracy overall was probably 45-55% so roughly 158 - 193 kills. Is this an excellent score? Yes of course but whatever it is it's definitely NOT 352.

Now you tell both that the LW system was reliable and that their highest scorer had 30% reliability
You also say that his claims were tripled checked but still was 70% overclaimer?
You can't have all the above. Choose your thesis

Soviet records are also really reliable. They detail every loss that occurred within the specific VA (Air Army) They provide the Soviet pilots name, regiment, aircraft, crash location, time etc. These records also support many German Aces. Barkhorn had about 80% accuracy over Hungary while Lipfert had an outstanding 90+%. This was because Lipfert usually stayed behind to see what would happen to his victims.

Since they are very reliable, they put him on trials correctly for 345 aircrafts? Or,they were unreliable to the soviets judges then , but reliable to you 60 years later?

 

[dedalos]

Hartmann was indeed a fantastic pilot with many victories and my other post explains how he was genuine and not a fraud,

....but overclaimed by 70%....But otherwise he was fantastic and genuine! You want to be not angry but you also want your pie intact!

but the fact does remain that many of his victories don't have a corresponding loss and as a result, his score is much lower than 352. Of his 352 kills, only one is completely made up, this being his 317th kill. This is 110% an overclaim because Hartmann and his unit didn't even fly that day due to bad weather! The reason this appears in his list is probably an error since he didn't even fly that day, with the date most likely being mistyped.

So you accuse him that over claimed ,despite the fact that he did not fly! So he was not only fraud but stupid as well!
Then you say that it's probably a date mistyped, but 3 lines earlier you called it a completely made up.. .
Well, English is not my mother language but what you write do not make sense

 

[CHen10]

Now you tell both that the LW system was reliable and that their highest scorer had 30% reliability
You also say that his claims were tripled checked but still was 70% overclaimer?
You can't have all the above. Choose your thesis

As I said his reliability was more like 55% not 30%. The Luftwaffe was reliable and they genuinely believed that Hartmann was 100% accurate. In the heat of combat it can be hard to determine what's going on, and those few times where there was an observer, he confirmed Hartmann's victories. This is probably what happened:

The aircraft were hit and spiralled down and they saw an explosion which they thought was the aircraft crashing, but the explosion was unrelated since the aircraft didn't crash. Understandably everyone involved thought Hartmann scored a victory.

Since they are very reliable, they put him on trials correctly for 345 aircrafts? Or,they were unreliable to the soviets judges then , but reliable to you 60 years later?

Hartmann was famous by the time he went on trial because everyone knew about his 352 score including 345 Soviet planes. He was known as the Black Devil Of The South and had a formidable reputation after the Soviets learnt of his score after the war. The idea that he had 352 was confirmed by the Luftwaffe and everyone including the Soviets assumed it was a fact. The Soviets probably just looked at the Luftwaffe crediting him with 352 victories and used that as their evidence. In court they probably would have gone over every single victory and everyone at the trial, including Hartmann would genuinely believe they were all 100%.

I am not trying to say Hartmann was a fraud. I would estimate his score to be around 190 and even the aircraft he never destroyed were damaged and repaired afterwards meaning his hit accuracy was probably 99%

So we learn new things!!! The water cooled engined and ultra light yak3&9 were masters of combat damage resistance!

I made a mistake it's not Yak-3 but Yak-1B, 7B, 9D, 9DD, 9M, 9T and 9R. All were involved in the late war period. They were built with metal frames covered by sheets of canvas. Even looking at pictures myself the aircraft look like they're gonna crash but they were often repaired.

 

[CHen10]

....but overclaimed by 70%....But otherwise he was fantastic and genuine! You want to be not angry but you also want your pie intact!

So you accuse him that over claimed ,despite the fact that he did not fly! So he was not only fraud but stupid as well!
Then you say that it's probably a date mistyped, but 3 lines earlier you called it a completely made up.. .
Well, English is not my mother language but what you write do not make sense

Not overclaimed by 70% his accuracy was more around 55% Yes he was fantastic his hit accuracy was probably 99% and his assumptions were understandable

I should have been more clear about his 317th kill. He definitely did not fly that day. Luftwaffe sources say this. So in my opinion it was a mistype but it could also be one he made up. I personally don't believe he made it up but I can see why people think he did. That part was my bad writing.

 

[CHen10]

I should add that it was probably the just the Germans that called him "The Black Devil" The Soviets probably wouldn't give an enemy pilot that nickname. What the Soviets would have learnt after the war was Hartmann's 352 score since he was in Soviet captivity and this would create his formidable reputation amongst the Soviets and this probably caused them to put him on trial after finding out about his 352 claim

I think we should continue this discussion because it's interesting, but on another thread because we've completely gone off topic from this thread

 

[PAT303]

If I was at 20,000ft doing 350mph closing in on a He111 I'd aim for the pilot and crew because they sat in the largest part of the plane, center mass.

 

[dedalos]

As I said his reliability was more like 55% not 30%. The Luftwaffe was reliable and they genuinely believed that Hartmann was 100% accurate. In the heat of combat it can be hard to determine what's going on, and those few times where there was an observer, he confirmed Hartmann's victories. This is probably what happened:

The aircraft were hit and spiralled down and they saw an explosion which they thought was the aircraft crashing, but the explosion was unrelated since the aircraft didn't crash. Understandably everyone involved thought Hartmann scored a victory.


Hartmann was famous by the time he went on trial because everyone knew about his 352 score including 345 Soviet planes. He was known as the Black Devil Of The South and had a formidable reputation after the Soviets learnt of his score after the war. The idea that he had 352 was confirmed by the Luftwaffe and everyone including the Soviets assumed it was a fact. The Soviets probably just looked at the Luftwaffe crediting him with 352 victories and used that as their evidence. In court they probably would have gone over every single victory and everyone at the trial, including Hartmann would genuinely believe they were all 100%.

So your conclusion is. The soviets archives were cancelling hartman claims, but their judges put him on trial anyway because LW falsy credit him with 352. They assumed it was correct despite the fact their archives supposedly were canceling hartman s claims??

I am not trying to say Hartmann was a fraud. I would estimate his score to be around 190 and even the aircraft he never destroyed were damaged and repaired afterwards meaning his hit accuracy was probably 99%

But you say that he claimed a victory in a day that did not fly!!!

I made a mistake it's not Yak-3 but Yak-1B, 7B, 9D, 9DD, 9M, 9T and 9R. All were involved in the late war period. They were built with metal frames covered by sheets of canvas. Even looking at pictures myself the aircraft look like they're gonna crash but they were often repaired.

And as we all know these yaks were flying tanks...