Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I suppose you have to consider the specific theater where the pilot flew. So, Eastern Front (mostly) for Hartmann, and Southwest Pacific for Bong.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."
Hartman flew just over 1400 missions. Bong 200 missions.
Or you can look at Robert Hanson 25 kills in about 25 missions! Do the math!I suppose you have to consider the specific theater where the pilot flew. So, Eastern Front (mostly) for Hartmann, and Southwest Pacific for Bong.
1400 to 200 is a good start, Simple math lets us extrapolate that Bong could have had seven times as many kills (280) if he had flown seven times as many missions.
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.
I agree Joe. What I meant was the category of air to air. Additionally, as in WWII a battle damaged aircraft that RTB but was salvaged later was not included in air loss category.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.
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."
Hartman flew just over 1400 missions. Bong 200 missions.
The 8th AF FC experienced several phases in which there was a target rich environment The first two phases, namely November 1943 through January 1944 and Big Week through May 1944, were (IMO) characterized by 'surprise' on part of LW by the near sudden leaps in escort fighter range. The twin engine fighters experienced huge losses, dragging s/e escort into the fights. A second phase, namely Big Week through the Oil Campaign, pre D-Day- during which Berlin, Oil, Airframe core industry were attacked for first time and overwhelming pressure applied on LW to go after the bombers. The latter circumstance pitted s/e and t/e day fighters focused on B-17/B-24 as more and more US escorts (P38/P-51) were available to 'atack'.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."
Hartman flew just over 1400 missions. Bong 200 missions.
Sorry but this is just theory - e.g. Bong might have flown another 30 missions without a kill and then getting himself killed during mission 231.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?
Have you seen overall stats for certain periods that would confirm a discrepancy of 100-200%? I guess you meant to say 20-30%?
Even an over-claim exceeding 50% would be difficult for me to follow due to the system implemented by the Luftwaffe in regards to affirming kills.
That this system became questionable or impractical from the end of 1944 onward, would be another issue.
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
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.
No, 100-200 % overclaiming is not exceptional when it come to WWII air combat.
Haven't read the whole thing through so my apologies if others have adressed it. But reading the list at the start of the thread, it struck me: Didn,t the Italians have any aces?
Edit, perhaps more to the point. Did their aces score more than the american?
My post was not an arguement but merely informational. I enjoyed Raul's sense of humor and personality in the videos of him I saw. Describing getting shot down once, he said, "I saw a bullet hit the spinner, then my glass, then my thumb was gone. It was time to get out of there."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.
From various researchers that I have read about, it seems his score is pretty accurate and there may be a case where he had actually more kills than he was credited for. I read one instance where he and Tommy Lynch went on a strafing mission and shot up aircraft on the ground. Someone above Bong in the food chain wanted him to take credit for an aerial kill, He refused to do so.Are any of Major Richard Bong's claims suspect?
Teresio Vittorio Martinoli was their top ace (22 claims and a number of shared victories)Haven't read the whole thing through so my apologies if others have adressed it. But reading the list at the start of the thread, it struck me: Didn,t the Italians have any aces?
Edit, perhaps more to the point. Did their aces score more than the american?
The claims on that list were verified against reported allied losses from the same day. Remember - that list is just a snapshot and Marseille had a pretty good claim percentage based on the sample examined.I am not familiar with how the claims in that list were verified, but one thing stood out for me: if they are correct about Marseille, that 135 of his victories are verified against Allied losses, then Christopher Shores will need to re-write A History of the Mediterranean Air War volumes I & II; or least provide a comprehensive errata
Pattle should be listed as the leading RAF ace, with 50 credited victories. His score may have been higher, but his squadron records were lost when Greece was overrun in early 1941.Fixed. (Possibly)
He did - and this doesn't alleviate the fact that he overclaimed. Again, was there malicious intent? I don't believe so1.Hartmann like all other pilots and the Luftwaffe fighter-Aces was very well aware as to how kills were awarded.
Agree2.Hartmann off-course was aware about the immense pressure from Lw HQ. onto the respective Wing-commanders - down to group Commanders - down to Squadron-leaders
to report kills and produce Aces.
As such many kills from other pilots were attributed to the Aces or the most likely pilot of a unit to reach e.g. 25/50/75/100/150 etc. and favored by the propaganda apparatus.
Another issue was that the wing-man or other new-bees were "miss"- used to provide distraction for the enemy so that the Ace could insure his rising kill claims.
Ok...In regards to over-claiming: e.g. 4 Luftwaffe pilots after their mission, claimed a total of 6 enemy aircraft. I pilot claimed 4 and the remaining three pilots claimed 2 - however e.g. the RAF or Soviet stats record only 1 aircraft lost and 1 returning very badly damaged. Usually because pilots were instructed taught, reminded - swoop in shoot and turn away, do not loiter around to watch the enemy aircraft hitting the ground or pilot bailing out. So in that case how would the respective pilot know that the enemy aircraft that he hit (flying debris/smoke) actually did crash and not continue to land somewhere.
AgreeE.g. those film cameras showing a B-17 being hit all over the place - but (at least me) I have not seen the continuation showing that specific B-17 to actually crash. Especially bomber wrecks were partially easy to be found on German ground - either the pilot who had hit this aircraft had memorized a number or distinction that fitted the wreck - bingo, but even that did not exclude that a badly damaged B-17 was then attacked by e.g. 2 other pilots - so initially 3 pilots claiming a bomber each. The propaganda and the wing commander were both rather interested to report 3 Anglo-American Terror-bombers downed then 1. The funny part is however that in truth that B-17 had already been crippled beyond repair by a Flak unit - before the fighters even came.
Now we got 3 claims by the Luftwaffe fighters and 1 by the Flak. so 4 for actually only 1 B-17 lost.
And I would firmly believe you had that with all combatants in one degree or anotherAnd then you got the cheaters/liars who simply claimed an aircraft - supposedly e.g. Franz von Werra was such a pilot already before his POW and escape history. After he came back
he became a Hitler and propaganda all-time favorite - so which superior would deny him some kills - even if they sounded doubtful? and again supposedly there were quite a few
of these pilot Aces being "slandered" with such comments.
I've read the same and from what I have read about Marseille, he was an excellent shot and did use up a lot of ammunition. Canadian Buzz Buering was also an excellent shot and used his ammunition with great efficiency. Now I don't know if this story was reflective within the research accomplished by Nick Hector. Off the list I posted Marseilles had an 82% accuracy rate (IMO very good) and had 135 of his claims researched, more than anyone on that list. Not only do I think this is accurate, I also think this backs up Marseille's skill as a fighter pilotI remember in this book regarding Marseilles there is an episode were after he had landed and claimed (can't remember) e.g. 8 aircraft's in a single mission and the mechanic inspected the weapons reported that M. had only fired (can't remember) 50 shots. In the book this was used to explain his mastery in aiming skills. so ???
Regards
Jagdflieger
You beat me to the punch on this - From one site - "44 confirmed, with 50 as a possible final total. Of those, 27 were authenticated through Italian and German records."Pattle should be listed as the leading RAF ace, with 50 credited victories. His score may have been higher, but his squadron records were lost when Greece was overrun in early 1941.