Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Because it are reports of bean counters. Loss reports on low level. Engine numbers etc. Re enforcement reports. All along the line of repair. Nothing to do with overall view with big bad joe. But look for yourself. I do think in Hartmanns case big overclaiming.That's true. But, then again, how reliable are Soviet records from Stalin's time? They told Papa Joe Stalin what he wanted to hear or sometimes died for telling the truth. He was a big proponent of "shooting the messenger" as well as everyone else he could think of.
Again Greg - I don't believe they have done that. I would somewhat question the validity of some of the Soviet records but the more that's looked into this, the more we see that Hartman's true tally is not accurate by a longshot. There have been other studies regarding other Luftwaffe aces who flew in the east and their claim accuracy is WAY better than Hartman's. I'll post them later todayHi Flyboyj. I think the researchers are making a classic mistake of assuming the Soviet records are 100% accurate. I generally believe U.S., UK and German records, but have never believed much of what came out of the Soviet Union regarding war records. My ex-wife used to do Telcom shows all over the world, and she, along with me, acted as marketing reps for visiting buyers of Telcom equipment for a major Telcom supplier. This was the late 1980s, not too far from when the Soviet Union collapsed. Once, in 1989,we entertained a Russian couple from Moscow, who visited with their son when we lived in Arizona. They were buying SatCom units, Framing Units, etc. - Telcom equipment. He had formerly been a MiG-17 pilot for the VVS and we talked a bit about the times.
He wasn't very complimentary about the accuracy of WWII records when I asked about them. He basically said that if you told Stalin something he didn't want to hear, you very well might not live. It got to the point where nobody wanted to talk with him.
One amusing story from him:
He said that the U.S.A. would broadcast the TV series "The Untouchables" to the Soviet Union. This was a series about Al Capone and his gang in Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s, and there were a lot of scenes where gangsters were gunned down by people with Thompson submachine guns. This guys said that the worst fear his unit had was that war would break out and they would be assigned to capture Chicago! They were all pretty sure that Chicago was better-armed than they were!
None of us think about it much, but TV affect people's views of things.
When I was an engineer with Motorola in Phoenix, AZ, we once had a black engineer from Cameroon work with us. He wanted his girlfriend to come visit, but her parents wouldn't let her. It seems all we sent to Africa were Western stories, and her parents were pretty sure she'd be killed by Indians riding to Phoenix on a stagecoach!
He had to get a video camera and take clips of Phoenix, including some Indians riding in a pickup truck before they'd let her come visit.
I posted a thead about the scores of Hartmann. Comparing soviet files agains claims. Not in his favour to say the least.
It's apparent that Capito and Hartman weren't buddies - at the same time there seems to verification that Capito was downed on 1.03.1945 by Sergey Ivanovich Lazarev while flying on Hartman's wing.There are very particular reasons why many veteran Luftwaffe pilots (not being Aces) but many scoring at average less then 5 kills - throughout the entire war,
are not on good terms with the respective Aces and books written about them. Hartmann or e.g. Marseilles, Galland, etc, etc are no exception to these reasons.
In regards to Hartmann's wing-man issue, this Capito (ex bomber pilot) who had held a higher rank at the time as Hartmann and as such refused to obey Hartmann's directional instruction to evade. (downed as a result) Later in the Bundeswehr Luftwaffe this Capito appears again and seemed to have done his best to get Hartmann into trouble and also
holding "speeches" in the airforce cantina in regards to Hartmann's kills.
Regards
Jagdflieger
Well Greg - I can agree with the majority of what you're saying and there many be some that may have a political motive in their research, but at the same time I think the TRUTH is worth more than acceptance. You said it yourself "Until EVERY victory award is vetted with a specific definition of what a victory IS, we should accept the total awarded during the conflict where the victories were scored." Well isn't this what researchers are doing? And again, as many researchers discover inaccuracies in Hartman's claims, the same researchers are able to validate some of Hartman's peers claims with greater accuracy. I know you dispel the accuracy of Soviet records, but let me remind you, that the Soviet records have no name of the Luftwaffe pilot responsible for the loss (just the date, time, and loss) and as I posted SEVERAL of these lined up with Hartman's claims perfectly (I think there was one line on the post I referenced where he shot down 6 or 7 aircraft, all confirmed with Soviet records), so I don't think it's fair to dispel those records that show overclaims by Hartman...I have no trouble believing in some overclaiming in Hartmann's list and believe that was almost necessarily the case. But, for about the zillionth time, we'd need to agree on what a victory is.
1. If Hartmann (or anybody else for that matter) shot a plane down that was later recovered or partially recovered and flew again in whole or in part, does that count as a victory? If not, why not? It was shot out of the sky.
2. Suppose the pilot bailed out and the plane glided in to a soft landing and was recovered or partly recovered. Does that count as a victory? If not, why not? The pilot departed the airplane and, by doing so, departed combat.
3. What if the plane disappeared into overcast or cloud going down burning. Should that be a victory? Seems like a pretty valid claim. Smoking, maybe not, but burning? Probably yes. But, there are records of these type of fights where the fire went out and the plane landed back at base later. Still, it WAS shot out of the fight. I have a nice, complete list of Hartmann's claims, but no list of his "probables."
4. What circumstances would lead to ranking a claim as a "probable?" Did the Luftwaffe even track probable victories?
There are more such questions and little in the way of general agreement.
Let me just say it like this:
There are some people who feel as if the only valid victory award is one where there was a claim made and the opposing side says they lost one on that day and time in that place. I'm not one of those people. There are circumstances where a plane might well be recovered, but the aircraft was shot out of the fight and departed the engagement as a result of damage sustained in combat, and SHOULD be awarded as a victory.
Up to this point (some 60 years past when I first started getting interested in it in detail), I have seen little agreement on what a victory award should consist of, much less a good analysis of all claims by a single pilot. The thing is, until you look at ALL claims, you can only make statements about what has been analyzed in great detail. The analyses I HAVE seen suggest the researcher has an agenda, usually to diminish the victory awards of some particular pilot.
The guys who first started trying to diminish Pappy Boyington's victory awards were 100% motivated by politics and were just trying to make sure their buddy, Joe Foss, was recognized as the top Marine air Ace when he was running for Governor of South Dakota. I have no doubt that anyone who is analyzing Erich Hartmann's awards is trying to make their own case for overclaiming by Hartmann, without addressing what a victory consists of.
Until EVERY victory award is vetted with a specific definition of what a victory IS, we should accept the total awarded during the conflict where the victories were scored.
We don't have to agree on what a victory is to have everyone agree that Erich Hartmann was a superb combat pilot. SOMEONE has to be the best, and Erich Hartmann is at the top of the heap. So, he is a great big target for people wanting to revise history or just take a shot at making someone else look better. If you can do that, you can sell an article to a magazine or maybe a book if you object long enough, and you can make money or get someone else recognized by the public, which seems to be the biggest two reasons to question a victory total.
Just my opinion. Like your EPA gas mileage estimate for a new car, yours may vary, and it's OK.
The statement was Hartman "never lost a wingman" be it shot down or killed - the fact is his wingman WAS shot down! Now he did live, so I think there's a half-truth there...So, Hartmann had wingman Capito shot down, but not killed?
So, he lost a wingman in one sense and also didn't in another sense. Ain't it great how complicated a simple statement can get?
Let the fun begin!
Just to help fan the flames, here's my list of Hartmann's victory claims attached.
Also, most of Hartmann's claim have a German grid location. Does anybody have a grid location map or know where we can look at one online?
I suggest bouncing that excel spreadsheet against Nick's list. Now keep in mind what I previously posted shows 72 claims researched by Nick, Hartman overclaimed by over 44%.Also, most of Hartmann's claim have a German grid location. Does anybody have a grid location map or know where we can look at one online?
The statement I seen over the years (and not necessarily by anything you posted) was "Hartman never lost a wingman" this in many publications and articles about Hartman -I never heard the statement that he never lost a wingman broken down to "shot down or killed" before. I've seen the statement before, but only in a interview summary with Hartmann, and he didn't elaborate, just made the statement.
Perhaps you have seen the entire article? If so, can you post where I can read it? If not, I fully understand that these things sometimes are not very easy to find after we have read them somewhere. Happens to me all the time.
If someone asks ne if I would recommend a person for a job and I reply, "I can't possible recommend him highly enough," does that mean I recommend him or I do NOT recommend him?
Nothing to add to this discussion at this point, I'd just like to say that I appreciate reading these comments. They've been very informative.
I'm having trouble finding it, got a link? I'd love to read it.
Hartmann: claims vs. victories - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum
Hartmann: claims vs. victories Luftwaffe and Axis Air Forcesforum.12oclockhigh.net
Greg,Hi Flyboyj.
Nice post above. I have to go back and look at your references. Very nice numbers with accuracy percentages. As I stated above, I have no trouble acknowledging overclaiming (for everyone).
It's just that I have a hard time with what the people doing the research acknowledge as a victory. Again, I go back to the basic notion of "what exactly is a victory?" I flat reject that a victory is only what the enemy says they lost.
But, I'd love to read the research and look at their data. Data analysis is a hobby of mine that I used to do in the course of engineering when I wasn't retired. So, I have no trouble with the analysis part of it. The main question for engineers is, "how good is the data?", not "what does it mean?"
There should be a difference between Nigh and day fighters. For i think obvious reasons.Greg,
Agree 100% My background is in Quality Assurance so I studied statistics for many years and it still interest me, but in the case here it's a matter of the validity of the data and defining "what exactly is a victory?" In these cases here I believe it entails "the destruction of the enemy during combat."
If one wants to take this information at face value, statistically Otto Kittel may be the top Luftwaffe pilot in lieu of Hartman. Gunter Rall would be #2.