SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I thought he meant that all those "thousands" of F-86s the U.S. produced. Which is why, whatever the Communist air forces were calling themselves, were able to shoot down so many.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I believe those F-86 losses were attributed to combat, IIRC I believe a total of ~130 Sabers were lost to all causes, some were unknown and "might" have been attributed to combat but still no where near what the Soviets claimed.Not sure what you meant, but USAF lost 146 - all types, of which were 76 F-86s - to USSR claims of 1,100. The Chinese admitted 379 and NKAF admitted 750.
It was an attempt of mixing sarcasm with a joke. - guess I failed miserablyNot sure what you meant, but USAF lost 146 - all types, of which were 76 F-86s - to USSR claims of 1,100. The Chinese admitted 379 and NKAF admitted 750.
Again, welcome to my world.It was an attempt of mixing sarcasm with a joke. - guess I failed miserably
Regards
Jagdflieger
It was an attempt of mixing sarcasm with a joke. - guess I failed miserably
Regards
Jagdflieger
And some are dirtier than others…Humor is like underwear, everyone's pair is a little different.
A couple of points here:
One is that lying to others, especially for propaganda, is quite different from lying to oneself. The two are not mutually exclusive, e.g., US tobacco companies' internal memoranda regarding nicotine's addictiveness and cigarettes' health effects vs their public testimony (under oath, even!) and advertising (propaganda) and fossil fuel companies' internal memoranda on global warming vs their public pronouncements.
The other is that memories, especially long after an incident aren't particularly reliable. Indeed, quite a bit of scientific research has shown that eyewitness testimony is, in general, not reliable.
A third is that autobiographies are frequently mis-shelved in the non-fiction sections of libraries.
I agree fully with what you wrote - for the last part, because since I never flew RC planes, I wouldn't know.About memories, I agree ... to a point. I have spoken with maybe 100 WWII pilots who gave presentations at the Planes of Fame. I absolutely believe their memories of how their planes flew, but distrust their recollections of which airplanes were "best" unless they flew multiple types. A great pilot in a P-40 will likely beat an average one in a P-51. But, their recollections of which side was more numerous, what missions were hairy, and the like are pretty good. One guy recalled the gear speeds, flap speeds, cruise speeds, and the max speed he ever saw in a dive. When I checked the first three later, they were spot on.
Some guys build themselves up and some talk like they are lucky to be alive after aerial combat. The first type are unreliable. The second type seem to have much better memories because they aren't consumed with perpetuating specific lies. It isn't all that difficult to pick out which ones are telling it like it was.
One of them said that his P-51D was great fighter with respect to the Bf 109 but, if the Bf 109 was several thousand feet above him and attacking, then somehow it seemed to get a whole lot better at fighting and his trusty P-51D seemed to get somehow not quite as good.
That reminded me of teaching others to fly radio control airplanes. The airplanes seemed to fly fine up in the air but flew worse and worse as they got closer to the ground. It wasn't the case, but seemed that way to someone who wasn't a seasoned RC pilot. The airplane didn't fly any differently when it got near the ground, but the consequences of poor piloting were much quicker to see when the ground reached up to grab at the airplane ... or, at least, it seemed that way to the neophyte RC pilot.
If my memory serves, Gunter Raul said in a video he was shot down five times. Apparently someone received "kill/victory" credits and yet he survived. In fact he credits his last shoot down with his remaining alive because he was recovering from wounds when the war ended.
Another incidence which may have some faulty memory details (the article is in a giant reference stack) occurred at a west coast fighter pilots assn meet where other Pacific flyers were invited. The particular year in the article was the first time Japanese flyers had been invited. During various discussions and chatter, a Japanese fighter pilot (may have been Ki-43) discovered that he and a B-24 had been in the same combat. The tail gunner claimed the fighter as it was last seen going down burning through the clouds and the Japanese pilot claimed the B-24 as he left it burning with an engine out. The best part, very memorable, was the photo of a large American and a short Japanese arms on each others shoulders with the caption from the tail gunner, "I'm very glad I didn't kill such a fine man."
If you shoot someone down, you SHOULD receive a victory credit. That's why you're up there in a fighter ... to shoot attacking aircraft down. If the enemy pilot survives, it doesn't change the fact that you shot him out of the fight.
Again, what is an aerial victory? To me, it is shooting another aircraft out of the fight in flames or major pieces flying off so it is unflyable going down or at LEAST going down in any case, making the opposing pilot abandon his aircraft (assumes a single-seater) whether or not it lands safely and is recovered, or shooting out his engine(s) so the aircraft loses power and must make an emergency landing. The enemy does not necessarily have to acknowledge a loss for you to have a valid victory claim, and the enemy pilot does not have to die ... he has to be "out of the fight" to be considered a victory. It is a valid a victory if the enemy pilot parachutes to safety.
Have you seen overall stats for certain periods that would confirm a discrepancy of 100-200%? I guess you meant to say 20-30%?In WWII air combat victory claims were probably an average of 2 or 3 times greater than actual losses.....
In the list I posted, a segment of the ace's claims were analyzed and compared against allied records so you're only looking at a snapshot. If you look at some of the other aces, they faired way better while flying in the east. The research shown shows Gunter Rall at 86% accuracy, Steinhoff's was found to be 91% so Hartman's ratio was rather poor when compared to at least 2 of his contemporaries.In WWII air combat victory claims were probably an average of 2 or 3 times greater than actual losses, for all air forces, Axis and Allied. So if Hartmann had a 44% claim accuracy (that is only for about a fifth of his claims; his overall accuracy could be worse) that would pretty much match the overall overclaiming going on. Seen in that light, Hartmann was perhaps not that bad, or at least not worse than many others when it comes to accuracy.
The claims shown in Hartman's book (written many years ago) as well as records from III./JG 52 were never compared to Soviet losses until those records became available when the Soviet Union fell, that's where these "sudden" Soviet documents came from. As mentioned earlier, the losses shown in these records had no indication on who brought down the listed aircraft. The people who researched Hartman (as well as other aces) were just as surprised to see this disparity as they were to see the accuracy of other aces researched. If the 44% inaccuracy was applied to all of Hartman's claims, it would show he had 197.2 kills. At 20% as you mention, it would put him at 281. Bottom line, it's clear that Hartman overclaimed substantially, Now we can discuss the reasons behind this but considering what Hartman went through during and after the war, I don't believe there was any malicious intent.In the case of Erich Hartmann and his book, there is a (kill) documentation that is well covered until December 1943 (totaling 150 kills in 391 missions) - then he himself said that
he has no records available from that time onward. Further kill claims had been added by the authors researching the files of III./JG 52 and letters to his to be and wife. It is correct however that Hartmann never disputed himself the overall claim with 352 kills in the book.
What I find strange about these "sudden" Soviet documents is that during Hartmann's POW imprisonment time (11 years) and countless attempts by the NKDW to paint him as a war-criminal, and in general the NKDW policy of destabilizing/discrediting popular known German's and their fame, not a single attempt was made towards Hartmann (at least not in the book or in public in West-Germany) to uncover him as a fraud. Also not during his Bundeswehr Luftwaffe times. What better propaganda could the Soviets get then to discriminate him and others based on records reviewing his or others claims? Surely the NKWD had access to these stats. But a proofen deviation of e.g. 20% wouldn't make this matter a worthy sensation.
Regards
Jagdflieger
Lot's to consider - first when comparing, consider where a certain country is fighting. For the US - Pacific? ETO? MTO? CBI? For the Luftwaffe - east? west? Africa? Some environments were "combat rich," others had rare fighter to fighter contact. A former neighbor Col. Mike Alba had 2 aerial kills, one on the ground and one damaged while flying over Europe, and he told me during his tour he only seen an enemy aircraft in the air about 4 or 5 times, yet other 8th AF units had air to air encounters almost daily (Bill M. could probably comment on this with his father's experiences). This "being at the right place at the right time."Kills would be a product of:
1-pilot ability (including group training and tactics)
2-number of enemy planes faced in a typical sortie
3-total number of combat sorties flown (where the enemy was engaged and shots were exchanged).
Looking only at 2 and 3, how did American and British "opportunities" compare to German, Japanese, and Finnish opportunities? Is that information easily accessible in detail? In general? How many total sorties, and sorties that included combat, did Hartmann fly? How many for Bong?