Why American aces had lower scores than anybody else (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

FLYBOYJ said:
"I am not familiar with how the claims in that list were verified" Your words - and again, the folks who did this research bounced the claims against British records. I can direct you to the individuals who did this research
Click to expand...

Christopher Shores in Mediterranean Air War arrives at '100 or more shot down, crashlanded, or at least seriously damaged' DAF aircraft by Marseille, in itself pretty good accuracy . MAW is a day-by-day account of air combat and claims are also compared to the respective sides known losses. So if the 135 in that list is correct, then Shores must be missing some Britsih losses.
 
I think what is not identified with regards to Marseille and the information shown was his claims prior to arriving in North Africa - I'll go back to the source and see what they indicated

EDIT: Marseille claimed 7 kills before joining JG 27
 
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ said:
I think what is not identified with regards to Marseille and the information shown was his claims prior to arriving in North Africa - I'll go back to the source and see what they indicated
Click to expand...

He had 7 vics, prior to North Africa, total 158.
 
Yes - that is why I posted these conformation letters. Showing a possible reason for Hartmann's 289 confirmed kills by the air-ministry and 307 in total being filed, plus another ca. 50 awaiting filing and confirmation.
If Hartmann's kill claims would deviate between 20-30%, it would still be considered as Normal - Average by me.

As for Soviet records and trustworthiness one example:
In 1942 Luftwaffe night claims on the Eastern front, were only awarded/confirmed if the respective Soviet wreck could be found.

Soviet night-fighter claims were claimed/recorded throughout every single mission - however present research shows that there is only a single Luftwaffe aircraft confirmed by the Luftwaffe and it's records. So I have reasons to question the reliability of Soviet stats in general.
An acquaintance of mine who has already published two volumes in regards to the Flight-training and flight-schools of the Luftwaffe will hopefully be able to get his present work
onto the Soviet Nightfighter/claims/history published by years end. And I am really looking forward to it.

Regards
Jagdflieger
 

Just because records of claims are inaccurate does not mean all records are inaccurate. Soviet night fighter claims may well be grossly inaccurate, indeed I'd be surprised if they weren't given that night fighting was a new concept. However, you can't draw an inference that Soviet loss records were equally inaccurate.

There seems to be this perception that Soviet forces withheld losses from Moscow...but if you do that, you won't get replacement aircraft or pilots (or tanks or soldiers), which means you stop fighting very quickly. Eisenhower's conversations with Zhukov about mine clearing are illustrative. Maintaining momentum was far more important within Soviet doctrine to keep up the pressure on the adversary than fear of losses by crossing minefields. According to Zhukov, the losses sustained proceeding across a minefield were likely no worse than those inflicted by German forces in areas that were better defended. Given the mindset that losses were expected, indeed necessary, in order to achieve an objective, why would there be any concern about reporting aircraft losses?
 
buffnut453 said:
.....There seems to be this perception that Soviet forces withheld losses from Moscow..
Click to expand...
I was not into suggesting that Soviet losses were "withheld" on purpose - even though it certainly can't be out-ruled. Everyone knows what Stalin and the NKWD did with Commanders that lost battles or simply did not perform to expectations (which includes also the performance of Air-units) That the Soviet military commanders couldn't be much bothered about loosing men is also known but irrelevant in this matter. That victories in whatever way documented were of utmost importance to Soviet commanders is undeniable - which would (did) include horrendous over-claiming not just in regards to aerial victories.

In regards to those Soviet loss-records:
I had shown that aerial victories on the Luftwaffe side took 10-14 month to be verified. (loss of paperwork due to the war and the bureaucratic system- which also applies to the Soviet-union, especially on the bureaucratic side. As such also Soviet loss-records might never have arrived on time and after the war no-one cared?

Regards
Jagdflieger
 
Jagdflieger said:
I was not into suggesting that Soviet losses were "withheld" on purpose.
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying that you did. However, it's a common refrain on this and other forums that "We can't trust the records of Germany/USSR/Japan (delete as appropriate) because they can't be correct/don't agree with other claim records/blatantly lied about reporting losses (again, delete as appropriate)." One only has to look at the brouhaha that Dan Ford stirred up when he first published his book on the Flying Tigers by stating, categorically, that the AVG never actually fought against the Mitsubishi Zero and that the AVG's claims significantly exceeded records of Japanese losses. This wasn't a dig at you. I was simply recognizing a tendency in some quarters to disregard evidence that doesn't track with the individual's perceptions.

My post was driven in part by your statement that "So I have reasons to question the reliability of Soviet stats in general." That goes beyond the accuracy of claims and would include Soviet losses, hence why I made the point that we should review each dataset as discrete, with its own set of accuracy issues. We can't lump all Soviet records into the "unreliable/inaccurate" bucket, just as we can't put all the US/British/German records into the "reliable/accurate" bucket.
 
Last edited:
Well since Soviet night fighter claims were mentioned, I'll bring up a top Luftwaffe night fighter ace...

This was researched from Nick Hector and was taken from his FB site:

I find this item quite interesting not only because of the amount of 4-engine bombers claimed, but the amount of missions flown and the accuracy of the claims when researched. I put the full report on a PDF doc so I don't clutter this thread.

Major Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer was the top-scoring Nachtjäger of World War 2. He was credited with 121 victories at night, recorded in 164 combat missions. His victory total includes 114 four-engine bombers.
Victory Claim Confirmation Research provided by researcher Nick Hector

123 Total Claims
113 verified
10 overclaims
91.8% Claiming Accuracy
 

Attachments

  • Schnaufer.pdf
    241.1 KB · Views: 45
No problem, we can discuss or argue about everything - why not?

E.g. the Flying Tigers IIRC were not an official part of the USAAF - so even if they did over-claim it would not be under the supervision of the USA MoD but rather the KMT.
RAF pilots did claim aerial victories till 1941 in regards to having downed He 113's - an aircraft as you know which never crossed their path. So I think that mistaking an
aircraft for a Zero or a He 113 - doesn't out-rule they they have shot down some other aircraft. The malicious intend of simply lying isn't necessarily given IMO.

As for Hartmann - deviating 60% of his claims can't be IMO just be explained by "human errors" on his side - but it would to a large extend imply malicious intend.
I have never met the man, but I have also not heard of such "rumors" cruising around him in general at the new Luftwaffe - aside from the Capito fellow who had held such
speeches at the Airbase cantina. But the general view from ex. WW2 pilots, that Luftwaffe air-victory claims deviate 20-30% from reality especially in regards to propaganda
favorites is known to me since the late 70's.

As such if I would come up upon a list that would lead to the conclusion of someones claims deviating by 60% - I would rather make damn sure that this list is absolutely profound excluding the realistic possibility that these records or record doesn't reflect the truth either.
Before making a person/pilot look like a malicious liar. The same goes for the forwarding of this acquaintance of mine who "discovered" that Soviet night-fighter claims (aerial victories) are 99.7% fantasy. But I have to wait for his book - in order to get a maybe very different opinion in that matter.

Quote: His spectacular rate of kills raised a few eyebrows even in the Luftwaffe Command his claims were double- and triple-checked, and his performance closely monitored by an observer flying in his formation.
Quote: I must say that during the war I never disobeyed an order, but when General Seidemann ordered Graf and me to fly to the British sector and surrender to avoid the Soviets, with the rest of the wing to surrender to the Soviets, I could not leave my men. That would have been bad leadership

This and other showings of his character (including never bowing to Soviet/NKWD coercion) just doesn't add up to a person who supposedly lied his way through kill claims in such
an extend.

E.g. maybe you are aware of this already:

Soviet historian, Dimitri Khazanov, has attempted to prove that Hartmann did not score anywhere near 352 victories. Khazanov quoted Hartmann having shot down 70-80 Soviet aircraft. However, Khazanov has been heavily criticised by aviation historians such as Jean-Yves Lorant and Hans Ring for faulty research. Ring and Lorant both point out that the missions that Khazanov tried to use to prove Hartmann's claims as false were riddled with false and misleading information. For example, Khazanov claimed that on a mission on 20 August 1943, Hartmann claimed two victories west of Millerovo but not a single Soviet aircraft was lost. German records show not a single claim was made in that area. Hartmann's victories were recorded east of Kuteinikowo, some 160 kilometres away. On 29 May 1944, Khazanov claimed Hartmann reported three La-5s shot down over Roman. This was also false. Hartmann claimed a single P-39 over Lasi. Hans Ring said that Khazanov's only goal in compiling his article was to discredit Hartmann and his record.

So to me it all comes back to checking upon the validity of stats (no matter from which side and source) - before publishing such "headline making" statements which in turn only
serve in majority one obvious purpose. $$$

Regards
Jagdflieger
 
It doesn't matter how many of the enemy you shoot down.
If his planes are still overhead the next day - he's won.

The Germans never really got that basic truth.
 
Stig1207 said:
Hartmann's overclaiming doesn't necessarily make him a liar; it could be he was just overly optimistic, like many other fighter pilots that overclaimed at a similar rate to Hartmann.
Click to expand...

Entirely agree. It's very easy, sitting in our 21st Century armchairs, to criticize men who, 75-80 years ago in the heat of combat, made a mistaken split-second assessment because they genuinely thought they'd hit an adversary aircraft. A puff of smoke followed by a violent downward manoeuvre could be interpreted as an aircraft being damaged and out of control when it may simply reflect that the enemy pilot firewalled the throttle (which, on some aircraft, did cause a puff of smoke) and dived away from the threat.

Now, it's clear that some pilots were more adept at detecting actual damage to an adversary than others. Some of that can be put down to stress in that moment. To cite a rather trite personal example, we did an exercise a few years ago where we had to brief senior leaders on the status of a particular activity. The briefing was in PowerPoint and had traffic lights to show status of the activities. We were three-quarters of the way through the 2-week exercise, and were all feeling pretty tired having been on the go non-stop since STARTEX. We relieved the night shift one morning, reviewed the status slide and changed a number of yellow boxes to red, and duly briefed that to the senior leaders. It was only in the post-exercise review that we realized NOTHING had changed in the scenario to change that assessment...we were just more tired and feeling punch-drunk.
 
Snautzer01 said:
An other reason Bribery of senior Wehrmacht officers
Click to expand...

Does your post refer to differences in claim/loss reporting or to CM's point about understanding how badly the war was going? If it's the former, I don't think that dog hunts at the action officer level. Yes, Goering et al may have been unwilling to share bad news with Hitler but that doesn't mean that Goering's staff didn't make him fully aware of the current status. Even if it didn't reach Goering himself, it must have gone up to the 1-3 star rank levels.

Again, if misreporting is endemic, then units don't get replacement people or aircraft, and they rapidly cease to be operational...and that becomes increasingly impossible to explain. A squadron commander whose unit is non-combat capable either must maintain the pretense of continued ops by faking the sorties flown or he must report the factual status up the chain. I very much doubt the former happened very much. Even if such deliberate misreporting did happen, it surely couldn't be maintained for long, and the end result would still be the same....the squadron CO would be "removed".

Maintaining such long-term, deliberate misreporting also requires every step in the command chain to be a knowing part of the conspiracy. Again, I just don't see that. The Gruppe commander isn't going to accept lies if the squadron commander can't do his job. The whole "they lied all the way up the command chain" just doesn't work for me and, AFAIK, it isn't reflected in the archives.
 
Stig1207 said:
Hartmann's overclaiming doesn't necessarily make him a liar; it could be he was just overly optimistic, like many other fighter pilots that overclaimed at a similar rate to Hartmann.
Click to expand...
IMO that's just using another word for the same thing. Hartmann's high score rate (as described in the book, by himself and other sources and witnesses) was due to him not firing
his weapons before reaching 50-70m (not just in regards to IL2's). He also wasn't a dog-fighter were one easily looses oversight of a previously hit target. He was a cold calculating
fighterpilot who crept up at non suspecting pilots/aircraft's. At that distance watching an aircraft being hit and wrongly judging it to be out of action can't be explained or "excused"
by being overly optimistic.
It again comes simply back to the issue as to what validity those discovered Soviet records behold.

Regards
Jagdflieger
 
Some points (and some repetitive)

The research I posted with regards to Hartman was a "snapshot" of his claims - that snapshot showed a rather poor verifiable claim rate. The same records were used to verify other ace's claims who faired way better than Hartman. If ALL Hartman's claims were available for research (I know several of his logbooks went missing) we can further verify his claims. I believe this 44% number would have been better.

As mentioned earlier and mentioned in Nick's research, "German archives are themselves contradictory. Indeed only 289 of Hartmann's 'victories' were in fact 'officially confirmed' before the German claims system broke down in early 1945. Secondly, only 307 of his supposed claims had even been 'officially' filed before the end of the war."

So in reality 289 of Hartman's claims were recognized by the Luftwaffe, 307 were officially filed. The rest were based on Hartman's word, eye witnesses or other sources.

Hartman was tried for war crimes - The Soviets charged him with destroying 345 aircraft, so his accusers (whether it was a kangaroo court or not) recognized 98% of his claims.

This should ALL be considered
 
Very much this. The only real "victory" in a war is surviving. And for him to have also been fighting on the losing side against increasingly experienced pilots with increasingly worse logistics, while still not losing a wingman, is simply astounding. Now that's what I call having a devil in your corner
 
Alleid aces actually had better scoring rates than the german aces
When soviets put hartmann on trial for 345 kills did not had at their disposal the mysterious documents that were relieved in 1991? Why lost their time with an unimportant pilot?
Hartmann ,later in his carrer, as a staffelkapitaen and then gruppekommandeur, was overclaiming by 60% and NOBODY noticed anything?
Kazanov claims have been ansewered by lw researchers. Besides that he knows which aircraft was hartman s in each battle even in the presence of dozens fighters!
According to soviets records they won the war by themselfs...
All pilots overclaimed, some more than average, a few intentionally
Hartmann survived the war and his character can be judged by his actions
In my opinion he still pays his actions in the f 104 scandal....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

WWI Aces Flying WWII Planes
Replies
17
Views
1K
Admiral Beez
A
T
Why were U.S. pursuit fighters at the start of WW2 of lower performance than European fighters?
4 5 6
Replies
110
Views
10K
z42
Z
D
About strafing Aces
2 3
Replies
55
Views
4K
Reluctant Poster
R
H
Why was the Barracuda so much slower than the Avenger?
3 4 5
Replies
92
Views
9K
EwenS
E
A
Why Luftwaffe and Kreigsmarine diesels but petrol Wehrmacht?
2 3
Replies
45
Views
4K
EwenS
E
Menu
Log in
Register