Erich Hartmann - several questions

[kennethklee]

Hello-

I'm curious about several aspects of Erich Hartmann's career as a fighter pilot:

1. I've read several unverified accounts that the Russians offered a sizable reward (10,000-20,000 rubles) for Hartmann's capture or death. Does this scenario have any basis in truth?

2. Hartmann's primary biography to date, The Blond Knight of Germany, mentions Carl Junger as one of Hartmann's JG-52 comrades and as an "ace in his own right", IIRC. Was Junger an ace (5 or more victories)? Was Junger a real JG-52 pilot or is his name a pseudonym?

Thanks for reading and any information.

Ken

[mars]

The question to your first question is No

[Johannes]

Hi

I think that almost certainly Junger didn't exist. In fact I would not believe almost anything from your book.
Contrary to belief Hartmann was not popular, in fact there was almost a mutiny within his Staffel over him. He only made high altitude attacks for one thing, I suspect he made fraudulent claims, he was a poor officer.
Forget your books victory list as well........it is well out, also apart from your books hundreds of little mistake and contradictions, there are a lot of non-truths!

Regards

Johannes

[mars]

He was also not popular after he took command of the I/JG 53

[mathieu]

Hi,

Is there any particular reason why he was not that popular? And about his claims, how many can be confirmed with the Russian records that became available after the collapse of the Soviet union?

Regards,

Mathieu.

[Johannes]

Hi

Not all un-popular pilots were fraudsters Friedrich Geisshardt was unpopular because he was arrogant, his claims were good.
Kurt Welter's claims were outragous, and he was hated for it!
With Hartmann, he was known to look after number one, as stated before he took no part in ground attack misions, but if I was to guess I would say that other pilots whether right or wrong suspected false claims.
Regarding false claims his actual claimed (frequency) do suggest fraud, though so do Marseilles and he was honest! Let's say his claims if i had to guess honest or not, I would guess dis-honest. Forget the name but a member has stated 80 actually crashed, if that's 80 from 352 I don't know, in fact the last twenty's dates are not even 100% so how can they be judged?

Hartmann had a said end, after Barkhorn's death he became paronoid, would attend Luftwaffe meetings, or like to leave his house so much, also took to drinking too much and the smoking had aged him, he fell at home and hit his head.
So who actually shot doen the most aircraft is likely to be Rall or Barkhorn, both whose claims look honest, Lipfert is known to have been honest, and list claims suggest so, Nowotny and Rudorffer were frauds, as were Weissenberger and Erhler, Batz and Schuck are thought to be, as is Graf, don't really know about Hafner and Kittel. Schuck's total anyway is based on this statement that Goring had told him that an additional 25 of his claims had just been confirmed! I can find only 176 for him, but it should be 181! and Phillip is a little short of 200! Hackl about 150 but honest, Krupinski honest!

Regards

Johannes

[kaki3152]

Good stuff Johannes. BTW, What do you think about Heinz Baer's victories? I find his claims to be somewhat exagerated, damaged aircraft were counted as victories.
Kurt Buhlingen seems fairly accurate for JG-2, though his identifications were off at times. Heinz Bartels was wayyyy off. Priller and Glunz are accurate,witha few exceptions.

[Rob Romero]

Johannes and Kaki; how were you able to determine the accuracy of these claimants; especially as I believe most of the pilots you cited (or at least most of their claims) were made agains the Soviets; have you been able to compare them to Soviet records?


Thanks

[kaki3152]

With Baer, i'm just going against his Western reported victories in the Western Desert, Malta, Tunisia and Western Europe.
The same thing with Buehilngen. I don't have much insight into claims against the Russians.

[Johannes]

Hi

Regarding Oskar-Heinz Bar

Sometime's his claims are spot on, I should think that about 30% of what a pilot thinks he has got are not crashing, this is not fraudulency, but just not applying the tough "did you see it crash rule", as with Marseille about three quarters of his claims actually crashed, could be there wingmen who were struggling to keep up, watch there leader's tails, and keep themselves alive. Usually if somebody is making false claims it's with help, be especially suspicious of two or more guys making huge claims together! Also units Jg2 in the west and Jg5 in the East were particulary bad, with Jg5 it seems they believe they were abandoned with inferior equipment, so seem to work it together especially 6./Jg5. But on the other foot Jg53, Jg26 and Jg27 at least seem honest, then again some Jg2 pilots seem honest Meimberg and seeger string to mind, Mayer i think also. Jg5 seem to get one claim 3 on average, they have been exposed only because they were the only unit in that area! Rudorffer and Nowotny achieved there deception within Jg54, probably using a combination of there rank/position and wingmen to do this, with Rudorffer this was Kurt Tangermann, yet Robert Weiss of Jg54 seems pretty honest , and the pattern of his claims would also suggest so. Also be subspicious of a Geschwader having one staffel or Gruppe that stands out above the others! Night-fighters seem pretty honest as a group, again the did you see it crash might have something to do with this.....they stayed usually within a certain area, the witness was the crew itself, so were not so busy, the bombers often burned....and at night! the attacks were not fleeting like the daytime komrades!, there munitions were devestating! Also during the day on average only one out of ever two heavy bombers actually fell, but there HSS system probably didn't help. Some pilots totals contain u/c, some are just those confirmed, some are based on the points system, some on actual number of confimations. When looking at Walter Dahl, who might very well have been a fraud, his total of confimations is way dow, especially in the West, he only confimed half the heavy bombers he is believed to have got!
But do not dispare many Allied aces were frauds Douglas Bader became a celebrity, even avoided paying tax over his war-time claims, yet was undoubtedly a very big fraud, and a liar, he managed to conceal his fraudulence for all his life, yet his konrades knew or suspected his deception, possible even the MOD knew, but he was good publicity!

Regards

Johannes

P.S Also hard-line party believers seem to be particulary prominant amongst the fraudsters!!!

[kaki3152]

Johannes,

I've always been interested in Herr Bar's victories and I noticed that some of claims were just damaged, i.e., some of his claims over the Desert and Malta. He seemed to think that if he fired at a target, he always shot it down. Obviously, he did shot down some victims with a single volley."Baer always hits what he shoots at" may be true but he didn't always finish the job. Still, you're correct there are many which are correct and verified.
As far as JG-2 personnel, I think Hubert Huppertz, Hohagen and Lemke were "good" claimers with some inevitable overclaiming.
Guenther Rall is another ace whose abilities were verified with no doubt. In his last combat, he shot down two 56th FG P-47Ds but only claimed one.
Yes, I agree some Allied aces were also fraudsters. The amount of oveclaiming in some RAF/Commonwealth squadrons was truly spectacular.

[kaki3152]

One book which which frankly addresses this problem is "Top Secret Bird" by Wolfgang Spaete. In this book, he has admits that this was a probem with some "Aces". Spaete uses pseudonyms for the most egregious cases but one can figure out who he is talking about in some cases.

[mathieu]

Hi

About Bader, is there any information how many of his claims were false?

Regards,

Mathieu

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi.

Could some of you guys please post some new findings regarding these issues, as you have obviously judging by your comments made some groundbraking work here.

´Johannes´s are comments are especially interesting. Judging by the very form of these I would assume that he would be willing to make a post with his research referencing the original sources used on the German and Soviet side?

I assume that the rest of this board would be very interested in this as the the possibilities for studying especially original Soviet records of all involved units in depth is something which is out of reach for most of us due to time limitations, funding issues and/or language problems.

If you are not willing to share your research free of charge, could you please list any books, articles or other publications you have made on the issue?

Regards,
Andreas B

[James A Pratt III]

This Hartmann mess needs to be exmined in detail to show if he was a fraud or not. The claims records vs losses records are available some people need to try and match them up. A posting on this site some years ago noted that VVS combat losses were slightly lower than german claims during the year 1943 so it looks like Hartmanns claims for this year at least may be at least halfway or more right.

[Nokose]

I haven't heard anything bad about Obstlt Hannes Trauloft's record of the Stab/JG54. I was able to find possible matches for three of his claims on the 14 Feb43 14:10-14:30 for three Il-2's. In Ilya G. Prokofev's book "Soviet Aviation In Combat Above Krasnyy Bor and Smerdynya Februray -March 1943" (In Russian). During the Smerdynya offensive Il-2 (#4037) Ml. Lt. Zalya Akmalovich Akmalov, Il-2 (#1194) Ml. Lt. Vladimir Ivanovich Trenev and Il-2(#5605) Ml. Lt. Anatoliy Nikolaevich Kuzovkin and gunner Kapt. Vladimir Ivanovich Sarychev all went MIA in the area and time of the Trauloft's claims. Their unit was the 230 ShAP.

[christian]

Hi

Trautloft fly with Hptm. Kath and Fw. Fobrich freie Jagd in the area Ljuban-Tossno-Mga. They have some fights with some Il-2 with some fighters. Trautloft shot down the three Il-2, Forbig another Il-2 in short time. He was afrait about the firecraft from his new Fw 190.

Greetings Christian

[Nokose]

The three Il-2 that Trautloft got were leaving after the attack and were not seen again. So that know one thinks that it's a overclaim there were two others lost. Uffz Horst Forbrig 3./JG54 made a claim at 14:18 but I can't find another German pilot from JG54 making a claim in that area (Maybe with the next of JFV volume on the Ost Front). 230 ShAP Ml. Lt Grigoriy Grigororevich Koloyarov (KIA) Il-2 (#4037) and Ml. Lt. Nikolai Andreevich Shugaya (KIA) Il-2 (#4121) fell 1.5-2 km NW of Makarevskaya Pustyn.

[DiegoZampini]

[Matheu

Hi,
Is there any particular reason why he was not that popular? And about his claims, how many can be confirmed with the Russian records that became available after the collapse of the Soviet union?


According to Russian historian Dmitriy Khazanov, who matched his claims with Soviet loss records, only 80 out of Hartmann's 352 victories can be confirmed.
Khazanov mention several ocasions when he (and his buddies) claimed a lot of victories, but the VVS suffered few or not losses at all. Such cases were:
* 29.05.1944: During the Soviet air strike against the Romanian airbase of Novela, Erich Hartmann claimed to shot down three "LaGG-7s" (La-5s). In fact, the Soviet 5 VA did suffer losses - three Il-2, but the 302 IAD, which provided escort to the attack and was equipped with La-5FN, did not suffer losses at all.
* 4.06.1944: That day, during the fourth sortie of the day, Hartmann and his wingman Birkner were jumped by two Aircobras, with Hartmann claiming to turn the wits and shooting down both P-39s. Jazanov determined that they were the Aircobras flown by Mayor B. B. Gakhaet and Leytenant Nikolay L. Trofimov of the famous 16 GIAP, and both Aircobras returned home without a single scrach!!
* 4.07.1944: Hartmann claimed three Il-2s north of Yassy, which were attacking German positions of artillery. The formation attacked by Hartmann were 12 Il-2s of the 2 ShAK led by Leytenant Frolov, but they lost only one Shturmovik, which made a force belly-landing on Soviet held territory.
* 24.08.1944: That was the day when Hartmann claimed his victories Nos.299 to 303 over the Soviet beachhead of Sandomierz across the Vistula river - all four were P-39s. The only unit equipped with Aircobras providing cover to Sandomierz were the ones of the elite 9 GIAD led by Polkovnik Aleksandr Pokryshkin - and did not suffer a single loss in air combat that day! There is a P-39 pilot missing after becaming separated of his comrades, which could have been downed by Hartmann. But at most Hartmann could score only one victory that day, never four.

Other example is the combat when he was shot down on 20 August 1943: according his account in his autobiography written by Trevor Constable, he shot down two Il-2s when was hit by flak, belly-landed and captured by a short period of time (later he evaded).
If fact Khazanov could determine, that according to the Soviet records, what Hartmann attacked was a group of Shturmoviks of the 232 ShAP. One of the Il-2 pilots, Leytenat Pavel Evdokimov, saw how a "Messer" jumped his buddy V. Ermakov, and shot at close range a 20-mm burst against the Bf.109, which performed a belly-landing - indeed this was Hartmann's Bf.109G-6. No Il-2 was lost by 232 ShAP that day, even when two were damaged. Once again, Hartmann "kills" were overclaims (even when in this case seem that both were in good faith). And he was not downed by flak, but by Shturmovik pilot Pavel Evdokimov.
Khazanov conceeds that indeed Hartmann was a dangerous opponent, crediting him with at least two victories against Soviet aces: on 16.10.1943 he shot down the La-5 of Starshiy Leytenant Ivan Nikitovich Sytov (30 victories, 5 GIAP), and on 1.03.1945 the Yak-9 of Kapitan Sergey Ivanovich Lazarev (728 IAP, 256 IAD), but not before Lazarev shot down his the Bf.109G-14 of Hartmann's wingman G. Kapito (Lazarev's victory No.26)
I hope you found this information usefull.
Kind regards.
Diego

[Johannes]

Regarding matching claims:-
Personnally I can check only those in the West, so I rely on other people's checking for the East. However I do have complex biographies on 2500 + aces, and anopther 5000 scoring non-aces, and those that I know to be fraudulent in the West all show the same pattern to there claims, Hartmann shows this pattern, Rall does not, however as with Marseille it doesn't mean so it must be, but shows that he probably is! Also when somebody is reaching a significant number i.e 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300 they seem to have more big days, seems that all the pace setters(expect Molders) seem to be dodgy i.e Gollob, Graf, Nowotny, Hartmann, especially when you get one ace Schwarm(think of Nowotny), or even Staffel(think of 6./Jg5) also Hartmann did join the Karaya Staffel(think of Graf). Gollob made huge daily claims to reached 150, yet when he flew for a day with another Geschwadeder and wingman(Petermann) he makes just a single claim, I would guess because he didn't know Petermann, so I would guess this one is honest. Look at Galland and Priller, just two or three for there best day, then look at the fraudster, Rudorffer, Wick,Wurmheller, Buhligen, all have big days in the West!
Also the same person who stated "80" for Hartman, states that Lipfert's were very accurate/honest...............and you've guessed it Lipfert's claim pattern would suggest he was honest.

So to summerise, Hartmann's pattern of claims suggest that he only should be a fraud, plus his two years of teriffic claiming seem to have be examined against Russian losses and we are told "80", I would think this excludes his first few earlier claims, and those in 1945!, which would actaully still bring him upto "100+), in fact those for 1945 could not have been included in the scrutiny, as the actually dates/time/place and aircraft type are very uncertain!

Johannes

[krichter33]

As far as Dmitriy Khazanov is concerned, his "research" has already been shown to be faulty by Jean-Yves Lorant and Hans Ring.

[Ruy Horta]

Hartmann bashing is popular nowadays.

I find it questionable that people like Rall, Backhorn, Krupinski, Steinhoff etc would have encouraged Hartmann to rejoin the post war Bundesluftwaffe, have supported his career (to the best of their ability) and have allowed him to lead the premier fighter squadron if his character was as flawed as some make out to believe.

These were all men of character, some stronger some weaker. The war was long, those that survived prolonged combat were good, smart and lucky.

What does enter in the whole "right or wrong" includes the cliques that were already established pre- during and to some extend post war. The spaniards, the fighters vs bombers, the east vs west, party vs "non-party" etcetera.

Some who were more popular were able to present and make sure their version of events became history as we know it, others who were less popular or less prolific in writing were often discredited.

With Hartmann the truth will likely be somewhere in the middle. Fact is that the Soviets held him long enough to give at least some credence to his wartime reputation on both sides of the line.

Hartmann might have looked like a Bube, but was probably tough as nails as a CO, marked by war and captivity he probably didn't mellow with age. Not an endearing character like Rall or Galland, but that doesn't mean that he was a fraud.

Hell, wonder how most of us would deal with prolonged and extensive combat, followed by c. 10 years as a POW under a system like Stalin's Soviet Union.

I'd love to see someone like Kurt Braatz take up the challenge. He's got extensive JG 52 material, that combined with the work by Barbas and Prien, might go a long way in re-establishing a picture of Erich Hartmann, regardless if he did or did not shoot down 352 aircraft.

...actually if it were proven that he shot down less than a third, that would still show that we arm chair generals have no right to judge these men of character who fought and survived a war we can't even start to imagine.

[Andreas Brekken]

Hello, all.

I just realized that I am using time better spent on my own research trying to get other people which I do not know to be as cautios with regards to facts about this period of time as I try to be myself.

Of course, from past experience, I should know this to be futile.

The main problem here is that you can not take information, any information, from two of the most extreme dictatorships the world has known at face value.

You have to go to the sources that are least likely to be tainted by propaganda, fear of reprisals or both. On the German side for example GenQu 6 Abt records (not perfect but for a system before the computer with databases suite good), the British have excellent records, the Americans also - most of it openly accessible for researchers that bother to go to the source and do not rely on second or third or whateverhand information.

And the Soviets/Russians? I wouldn't use 'openness' as the best fitting word when describing their practice on military historic records...

Khatyn or Chernobyl ring a bell? The leader of the reactor at Chernobyl asked his staff what level of radiation they measured. The answer was that the main devices was broken, and the handheld devices had the readings at their max level. The next question was if they could then prove positively that the real values really were higher. Of course they could not even if they knew it. The reading reported to Moscow was the handheld devices max reading, multitudes lower than the real values. This was in 1986 - 33 years after Stalin died - but in the system he was central in creating.

I personally think one should use caution before characterizing named persons or indistinguished groups as fraudsters, dishonest or liars - even if the internet has made this possible for any anonymous selfclaimed expert to do so. This of course goes for combattants of all sides.

In my opinion - try to do something more useful. If you are close to whatever archive or historic site - go there - try to find some new information and post that as a piece of info for the enligthenment of the community.

If not (and I guess as an invitation for a flame war) - in my not so polite version - just stop posting (in my local language Hold kjeft). What Johannes of course could do was to publish his thousands of ace biographies for scrutiny at this site or another one. Would be nice as reference!

Everyone is of course allowed to post whatever (almost) they want here - but a general progression in quality would be nice. Agree with James, and sadly discussions on this topic has looked the same on this board for a decade...

Regards,
Andreas B




Regards,
Andreas B

[Dénes Bernád]

It has already been demonstrated that Khazanov's findings in regards of Hartmann's claims in East can be forgotten, as they are sloppy and possibly motivated by politics. So any references to his 'study' should be discarded outright.

My opinion, based on several decades of activity in the aviation history field, is that one cannot have a fair enough picture unless goes to primary sources, untainted by day-by-day politics or fading memory. Even with these primary data there are many-many contradictions and ambiguous situation that need to be solved.

As for the amount of primary data available in the Soviet archives, I was shown samples from 1943 that appear to be more detailed and precise than the Luftwaffe's own system of tracking losses. As known, victory claims are many (most?) times uncertain, but losses almost always accurate (even if the cause of loss being misgiven). Therefore, there is hope that our Russian speaking colleagues will come up one day with accurate loss records (one should only live long enough to see this coming to print).

Therefore, bashing certain prominent pilots, regardless of their nationality, without having a strong evidence that can be shared, is nothing more than hearsay and should thus be discredited.

P.S. A final point, claims of anti-aircraft artillery crews and ground fire are usually overlooked in trying to assess one certain pilot's claims, even though about half of all shotdowns and damages to aircraft were caused by this branch.

[JoeB]

It has already been demonstrated that Khazanov's findings in regards of Hartmann's claims in East can be forgotten, as they are sloppy and possibly motivated by politics. So any references to his 'study' should be discarded outright.

This is what I have heard from other credible people besides yourself, though I have not studied it in detail myself.

But OTOH and from examples I know of, German fighter claiming in the second half of WWII was often pretty inaccurate, so even if as mentioned 80 covers only a portion of Hartmann's career and his total 'real' score were say in the low 100's (purely to give an example) that would not be a particularly poor ratio by the standards of all WWII fighter claiming, if the 'real' score is intended to represent distinct (from other 'friendly' claims) actual losses of the enemy.

Politics and national feelings sometimes enter into such discussions in a crude and obvious way. But even when they don't, there's still the question of 'standard of proof' and 'benefit of doubt'.

The two related questions, it seems, are:
1. whether competing claims on the ace's side, in the same combat, are considered
2. what's the standard of evidence for determining that enemy losses occurred in the same combat the ace described
Of course the difficulty in determining those two things varies enormously depending on the circumstances of combat and level of detail of each side's surviving records. In small theaters it's often obvious which units met in which combats even if the records are very sketchy, and the judgement of the researcher is only a matter of whether to consider the aces' comrades claims and consider the stated cause of loss (other than air combat) of opposing a/c. In a large theater it might be pratically impossible to disambiguate various engagements reported on each side and more claims and losses might have to be lumped together, or alternatively it gives a more distorted picture in a more complex theater to just consider the ace's claims and all possibly corresponding losses and call that 'verification'. But it isn't necessarily dishonest. Or, an author might just give all the enemy losses without saying whether he thinks they were all caused by the ace or what the probability is, so throwing the judgement call to the reader. Other authors adopt devices like calling it a 'victory' if one pilot drove another from the combat perhaps damaged, as he determined in his research, though not destroyed as the claiming pilot believed. IMHO that's not a 'verification' of a destroyed claim, though useful detail.

It's hard to evaluate a researcher's standards in these regards without oneself viewing the same source material that he used. But, though I know (have been told often!) that commercial considerations weigh against a lot of 'hemming and hawing' and talking about sources in a book or having footnotes, I still really prefer books or articles where at least in footnotes you get some hint of the strength and weakness of the sources, and thus strength of the conclusions about claim veracity (of individual pilots or units) that appear to be reached in the narrative.

Joe

[Johannes]

To answer Huy Horta

My friend Bernd Barbas knows more about Jg52 than anybody dead or alive i should think. Personally he doesn't believe the Hartmann fraud stories, and knew Hartmann himself very well. However he has spoken to many Jg52 pilots who were not happy with Hartmann(but not in a fraud way). I should imagine that apart from anything else prestige was a good reason to encourage Hartmann into the Bundesluftwaffe!
I have wondered why though that Hartmann didn't dispell the mythe about his Mustang claims, surely somebody asked him, or he talked about it? Bernd Barbas questioned Fritz Obleser about his U.S claims ten years ago, so for 55 years we all believed nine U.S aircraft, yet when I pressed Bernd to ask him as none were on the micro Films he(Obleser) stated " Oh, mr Barbas I have no details the American's stole my log-book, but I did shoot down nine U.S aircraft, but I never submitted the claims, as I was too busy trying to stay alive to watch them crash"
So does anybody have details of Erich recollection of the Mustang's?, yet these would have been the easiest of his claims to dis-credit........yet nobody could! Don't know how hard it would be for Eastern claims, but very hard I should think, unit overlapped, not like Jg5 which was isolated.
I would look forward to seeing his name cleared in the future!
But regarding Dmitriy Khazanov, if it was political why dis-credit some and not others.
From the Luftwaffe point of view, in the West they recorded and examined the crash sites of pilots claims, but in the East it was usually in enemy territory, so not possible to prove one way or other whether in general claims were accurate!
I guess Hartmann's last claim over Brunn, i.e it crashed into the central platz, should be provable!

Regards

Johannes

[DiegoZampini]

Johannes:

Personnally I can check only those in the West, so I rely on other people's checking for the East. However I do have complex biographies on 2500 + aces, and anopther 5000 scoring non-aces, and those that I know to be fraudulent in the West all show the same pattern to there claims, Hartmann shows this pattern, Rall does not, however as with Marseille it doesn't mean so it must be, but shows that he probably is!

What you say is very interesting...
According to your experience and research: What is that pattern? What pattern shows a pilot which is fraudulent regarding his claims for aerial victories?
Diego

[krichter33]

It's really sad that such terms such as "fraudster" are thrown about without any direct evidence to support it. It's my belief that the vast majority of successful fighter aces, from ALL SIDES, overclaimed. Some, of course, more than others. But I believe only a very small percentage would have actively engage in outright fraud. The suggestions stipulated here about a whole range of different aces as being "fraudsters" I find disturbing. Is it possible some of them did exaggerate and lie about particular claims, yes it is. But unless you have absolute proof that they did, all you have are personal suspicions. I find it hard to believe that so many of these top aces were all outright frauds and liars. This implies a conspiracy of so many different elements. Not just wingmen, but also any other fighter pilot in the unit, commanders and other pilots in the combat zone, would all have to be involved. This sounds extremely far fetched to me. Yes, it some isolated instances it is possible, but not to such a vast degree that is being suggested. As far as their "shooting patterns" are concerned, this again, doesn't prove anything. Studying loss records is very historically viable and important, and does show the type of overclaiming that can occur, but it does not prove fraud. I wish this same level of interest would be focused on the top Allied aces and their overclaiming. Of course, I'm sure, most would be adamant not to call them "fraudsters."

[Johannes]

Hi Patterns for frauds are:-

Huge claimly claims, huge number in short time, sudden excelleration in claims. However Maeseille showed this pattern, but was very honest.

Honest pilots with large overall claims seemed to do this over a long period, with relatively small maximum daily totals.

Also fraudsters seemed to make a big jump whilst approaching a significant number(look at Nowotny, Rudorffer e.t.c).

Again case against Hartmann has yet to be proved one way or other, but he fulfils all the criterior, again as did Marseille.

Also the unit they are with is an indication, Jg2 in the West, and Jg5 in the East. Jg5 pilots believed they were exiled/under equiped.

Rall, Barkhorn,Lipfert fall into the honest pattern, and our Russian friend has stated that Lipfert was honest. Point is that looking at there claims pattern I would have guessed Lipfert was honest, so presume(to be proved one way or other) that Rall and Barkhorn would be the same, though Khazanov states that Barkhorn's record is less reliable as he approached "300"=Brillanten! Barkhorn was also a special case, his claims did not need a witness, as he was so honest!!!!!! Rall had only a couple of high scoring days, and then only five was the max, and he didn't have these to get to a significant number.........Hartmann did!

Hope this helps.

Glory be to the honest guy.

Johannes

[krichter33]

Once again it is just speculation. Yes, it is interesting, but without evidence that they actually committed fraud, you should stop referring to them as such. You stated Marseille had strange patterns as well, but as many as 3/4 of his claims are confirmed, and therefore he is "honest." All this shows is that these patterns don't necessarily mean a particular ace is an outright fraud or liar. It is speculation.

[Pilot]

but I never submitted the claims, as I was too busy trying to stay alive to watch them crash

This is very important to point as well this is not only case that records was not made at all (or in some cases intentionally made incorrect)

Any overall opinion about Hartmann total score? Over 300, under 300, near his claim... ?

[JoeB]

Once again it is just speculation. Yes, it is interesting, but without evidence that they actually committed fraud, you should stop referring to them as such. You stated Marseille had strange patterns as well, but as many as 3/4 of his claims are confirmed, and therefore he is "honest." All this shows is that these patterns don't necessarily mean a particular ace is an outright fraud or liar. It is speculation.
I basically agree with you, but the other problem I see is when the issue is stated in terms of 'fraud' or 'honesty', then the tendency can be to 'over verify' ace claims.

When the issue is stated in terms of a man's personal integrity, it's only fair to say his integrity is supported if he claimed 2, his comrades claimed another 3, and the opponent really lost 2. He *might* have downed both. But such an evaluation tends to distort the actual picture of claim accuracy. This is why IMO it's usually best to de-emphasize the issue of personal honesty when it comes to evaluating claim accuracy. The best estimate of the ace's score in that combat is 0.4, IMO.

We're focusing on the Germans here, but some air arms had typically low claim accuracies (well, German claims were pretty inaccurate too in some periods). Does this mean the typical claiming pilot in those low accuracy air arms was a 'fraudster'? Any such suggestion tends to make the discussion emotional, nationalistic and non-objective. So it's best to just stay away from that aspect, IMHO. OTOH quantifying actual claim accuracy, at least for whole units and air arms, is key to understanding fighter combat history.

Joe

[Nokose]

I took a look through Christer Bergstroem's book "Bagration to Berlin" and saw these claims that he wrote down. 18Sep43 812 IAP lost 3 Yak-1 of which Hartmann claimed 2, Friedrich Obleser 1 and Johannes Bunzek 1. Who's to say that Obleser or Bunzek's Yak-1 didn't go down. 29Sep43 Hartmann possibly ended the life of Mayor Vladimir Semenishin in a Airacobra of the 104 GIAP (15 victory & 11 shared ace). He lists that Hartmann on the 20Aug43 was possibly shot down by the rear gunner of Lt. P. Yevdokimov's Il-2 of the 232 ShAP. That was the day he was captured by the Russians and escaped.
I don't have any problem with Hartmann's score. It may not be 352 and only 80 but it hasn't been proved either way by someone who is UNBIAS. Dmitriy Khazanov might be bias. I have several of his books that have some good facts if you "pick" through what he has to say. I have seen only praise by him for one German pilot of JG51. Maybe Bernd Barbas should write a book on Erich Hartmann but with a co-author from Russia like Vitaliy Gorbach. He's fair and could provide the Russian losses and point of view on many of the dogfigths.
I have respect for what Hermann Graf and Hartmann did at the end of the war. They stayed with their men and were captured. They could have flew out with the rest of the pilots and left everyone else to get away on their own. How many of the people out there who have a wife and family would do that?

[Johannes]

With regards to Marseille actually downing abouth three quartres of his claims, he was such an egoist like Wurmheller that I would have bet money on him making fraudulent claims like Wurmheller, but the fact is that i believe he thought that he had shot down 152 aircraft(plus six unconfirmed). Now Egon Mayer's claims stand up reasonable well for a Jg2 pilot, and he had huge problem's with Wurmheller, don't know what, but I guess he thought he was on the fiddle.
Regarding Bernd Barbas doing a Hartmann book, he's heavily engrossed in a Gerhard Barkhorn book at the moment(huge numbers of coloured photo's) Whereas Bernd thinks that Hartmann was honest, he seems to think that Barkhorn was the better man, or at lea\st he preferes him. Sad thing is that Barkhorn's medals have all been stolen!
Regarding other nations fraudsters.......the American's overclaimed, but not sure whether it's fraud or everybody shooting at everthing all the time. The "Ace"(or not) Douglas Bader was outragous in claiming, in fact it was his downfall, in his last combat he caught a staffel of Bf109's but instead of attacking, he dove away, only to be mistaken as an escaping 109 and shot dowen by his own side, yet he claimed three 109's........without engaging the enemy!!! He managed to carry off his deception for forty year, made fame and fortune from it as well!!!!
Also I wonder if Khaznov used Hartmann's old list or the Micro Film generated one to get his "80"?

Regards

Johannes

[krichter33]

Johannes, why do you still throw around terms like "fraudster." I don't know if Wurmheller or any of the others you mentioned actually lied, maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Yes, it's obvious they overclaimed, but as I and other posters have already mentioned numerous times, unless you have actual proof they did fabricate claims then stop referring to them as fraudsters. I basically agree with Joe's post. I don't really know how many "kills" the top aces from all sides actually had. Like I said, I believe they pretty much all overclaimed, so their actual "kills" are never accurate. Some pilots overclaimed more than others, and yes, in some isolated instances, some pilots probably lied and fabricated scores. But like I said before I believe those pilots were the minority not the norm. Studying loss records is an important historical undertaking that shows which units and which pilots overclaimed. But as Joe said judging the personal integrity of any of these pilots is beyond the scope of any statistical endeavor. Like has been said, Marseille might have been an "egoist" which I really don't know, and his "shooting patterns" seemed "strange" yet his scores are considered very accurate with not as much overclaiming. This simply shows that anything that can be gathered out of such "facts" are all speculation. No one will ever now the actual scores of the top aces. It is not like readjusting U Boat aces claims, which are quite easy to do. So, myself personally, when I look at the "victory" lists of the top aces, from all nations, I accept the scores credited, with the knowledge that ALL these scores include overclaims and are simply the "victories" credited. Yet, I never challenge the personal integrity of any of these pilots, and neither do most professional aviation historians.

[mars]

Nokose,Regardless whether they choose to stay with their men or not, they would be handed over to Soviet anyway

[DiegoZampini]

Nokose:

I took a look through Christer Bergstroem's book "Bagration to Berlin" and saw these claims that he wrote down. 18Sep43 812 IAP lost 3 Yak-1 of which Hartmann claimed 2, Friedrich Obleser 1 and Johannes Bunzek 1. Who's to say that Obleser or Bunzek's Yak-1 didn't go down. 29Sep43 Hartmann possibly ended the life of Mayor Vladimir Semenishin in a Airacobra of the 104 GIAP (15 victory & 11 shared ace). He lists that Hartmann on the 20Aug43 was possibly shot down by the rear gunner of Lt. P. Yevdokimov's Il-2 of the 232 ShAP. That was the day he was captured by the Russians and escaped.

Well, Khazanov credited to Hartmann two other Soviet aces - Sytov and Lazaryev. Regarding Hartmann being shot down by the rear gunner, I think he is mixing up two different incidents:
5.11.1942: The day when Hartmann claimed his first victim (an Il-2), and asserts that he had to belly land because of debris coming from his prey damaged his aircraft, what in fact happened that it was struck by the machinegun fire from the rear gunner of a 7 GShAP's Il-2. His Bf.109G-2 resulted with a 30% damage.
20.08.1942: Lt. Pavel Yevdokimov (232 ShAP, 7 ShAK) shot down Hartmann's Bf.109G-6 W.Nr. 20485, but using his Il-2 Shturmovik like a fighter - IT WAS NOT the rear gunner.
There were a lot of cases when aggressive Il-2 pilots struck back and shot down the Bf.109s or Fw.190s which were jumping them. If you want I can list them there, and many experten fell that way.
One thing more that I would like to point out, is the fact that only 15 out of Hartmann's 352 claims were Il-2s. Taking into account these two cases when he was shot down by Il-2 (one falling by the rear gunner, and the second by an aggressively flown Shturmovik) one understand why: he learnt to respect the Ilyushins, and became reluctant to attack them, evidently doing so only if absolutely necessary.
Kind regards,
Diego

[krichter33]

I would love a Barkhorn book. He's one of the lesser known aces, despite his high credited score. It should be interesting.

[Nokose]

Mars,
Yes, that was a "shameful" event if what happen to the refugees happen as described in the book.
Diego,
I have another source for the 20Aug43 incident with Hartmann being shot down from "Над Огненной Дугой" by Vitaliy Gorbach. Chapter 5.3 "On 20 August Erich Hartmann will be shot down by the fire of a Shturmovik from the composition of the 8 VA and only good luck will allow the future Luftwaffe star to avoid waiting to the end of the war in a prisoner of war camp". He doesn't say what regiment, pilot or gunner.

[Buz]

This has been an interesting discussion, but alas the want to review a pilot’s score seems to be the "in thing" these days.

I acknowledge that over claiming is a constant in war, especially air side of the conflict, with closure speeds in excess of 700mph, split second the opposition is in the gun sight, the need to keep the head on a swivel stick, the need to keep control of your aircraft, and most importantly the need and want to survive.

Of interest I find the statements in this discussion about Hans-Joachim Marseille's claims as being quite accurate of note, due to my own interest in the Curtiss Kittyhawk Family.

I will firstly state that my belief is that Marseille's score is and always will be 158. I, however, have yet to be able to confirm all his claims against first and second source data for the P-40 aircraft. Does this make him a "fraudster" - certainly not, does it mean that P-40/P-46 claims were miss-identified - possibly (in the case of the P-46 certainly). Could it be that the aircraft although damaged made it back to home plate, the pilot claiming in good faith - certainly (bare in mind just how much damage a P-40 can take - I'll also assume that the Russian aircraft could also take a beating as well).

Does this mean I must review and write to the world that his score was “XX”, being lower than what he claimed - Not at all. I can tell the world with some certainty which of his claims can be tallied with available records, the rest are presently unidentified, or in some cases disputed as other German pilots claimed during the same sorties/timeframes/areas as well as other airforce pilots claiming as well.

Maybe a thought would be post the ones that can be verified through other documentation (sources quoted), and that way others who may have additional data from untapped sources can add or provide further relevant details, so that we as a community can further our knowledge of these airmen.

I believe that people should understand that the scores stand, for right or wrong. Also in many cases the primary source of data is no longer available to be checked - These being the pilots themselves.....most are not here to defend themselves. The written records, both official and unofficial can and are at time in error, with both dates, times and in some cases area.

In many cases this form of historical need for accuracy is a blight to our research as I know personally of pilots not wishing to discuss their operations and experiences because "What's the point, no-one believes us anyhow" (direct quote from one pilot).

Regards

Buz

[Rob Romero]

Diego,

Yes I think we would all be interested in your chart on which Experten were shot down and by whom?

Thanks!

[DiegoZampini]

Mars,
Yes, that was a "shameful" event if what happen to the refugees happen as described in the book.

Yes, if it happened, indeed is shamefull - teenagers and little girls raped and murdered by Soviet soldiers. :( BUT I WANT ALSO TO REMIND YOU, THAT ALSO ACCORDING TO HARTMANN HIMSELF, THOSE MONSTERS WERE IMMEDIATELY EXECUTED THE NEXT DAY, WHEN A RUSSIAN GENERAL ARRIVED TO THE AREA.
I INVESTIGATED THE MATTER, AND MY CONCLUSION IS THAT RAPING WAS NOT NEITHER TOLERATED NOR ENCOURAGED BY SOVIET COMMANDERS - WHEN DISCOVERED, THIS KIND OF CRIME WAS PUNISHED WITH FAST TRIALS AND IMMEDIATE EXECUTION.

Diego,
I have another source for the 20Aug43 incident with Hartmann being shot down from "Над Огненной Дугой" by Vitaliy Gorbach. Chapter 5.3 "On 20 August Erich Hartmann will be shot down by the fire of a Shturmovik from the composition of the 8 VA and only good luck will allow the future Luftwaffe star to avoid waiting to the end of the war in a prisoner of war camp". He doesn't say what regiment, pilot or gunner.

The work of Gorbach is interesting. Thanks for quoting it!! :) In any case, it did not discard that Leytenant Pavel Evdokimov had downed Hartamnn's using his Il-2 Shturmovik like a fighter that day.
BTW, Nokose: I read in several sources that Hartmann was shot down or had to belly land 14 times. But so far I could identify only 3 of them:
5.11.1942 - downed by Il-2 rear gunner of 7 GShAP.
25.05.1943 - was apparently shot down by a LaGG-3 in a "taran" while flying Bf.109G-4 W.Nr. 14997.
20.08.1943 - probably (I have no doubt) by Il-2 pilot Pavel Evdokimov.
Nokose: Did you (or anyone) know when ocurred the remaining 11 times that he crash-landed?
Kind regards to all
Diego

[DiegoZampini]

Dear Rob:

Diego,
Yes I think we would all be interested in your chart on which Experten were shot down and by whom?
Thanks!

Always a pleisure. ;) What follows are some of the cases when Il-2 Shturmovik pilots shot down German aircraft, including fighters (and experten):
-24.08.1942 Grigoriy S. Danilov (807 ShAP) Bf.109F-4/R1 W.Nr.13388 Obltn. Erwin Stracnicky Staffelkapitan 2./JG 3 Experte with 35 victories
-25.08.1942 Grigoriy S. Danilov (807 ShAP) Ju.88A-4 W.Nr.5540 Uffz. Karl Stoll + 3 crewmembers 6./KG 76.
-29.08.1942 Grigoriy S. Danilov (807 ShAP) Bf.110E-2 "S9+BH" Unknown crew 1./ZG 1.
-5.09.1942 Ivan Vovkogon (299 ShAP) Bf.109G-2 W.Nr.14239 Hptm. Hans Oehlschläger Stab I./JG 52.
-5.09.1942 Fiodor Zhigarin (299 ShAP) Bf.109G-2 W.Nr.? Unknown crew (50% damage) 3./JG 52
-9.09.1942 Pavel S. Vinogradov (694 ShAP, 228 ShAD) Bf.109G-2 W.Nr.13442 Ltn. Alfred Franke (KIA) 2./JG 53 Experte with 60 victories
-29.09.1942 Aleksandr Scherbanin (57 ShAP KBF) Bf.109G-2 W.Nr.13613 Ltn. Erwin Leykauf 11./JG 54 Experte with 29 victories then, he would claim a total of 33 Taran Scherbanin KIA.
-21.02.1943 Talgat Y. Begeldinov (144 GShAP, 9 GShAD) Bf.109G-2/R6 W.Nr.13949 Maj. Hans "Assi" Hahn (POW) Gruppenkomandeur II./JG 54 Experte with 108 victories
-20.08.1943 Of course the already mentioned case of Pavel Evdokimov downing Erich Hartmann.
-8.09.1943 Talgat Y. Begeldinov (144 GShAP, 9 GShAD) Ju.87D-5 W.Nr.130845 Unknown crew (30% damage) 8./StG 2.
-14.02.1945 Vasiliy Karaman (806 ShAP, 206 ShAD) Fw.190A-8 W.Nr.960282 Obltn. Otto Kittel (KIA) 2./JG 54 Experte with 267 victories
Those are only same examples (I'm still researching about this matter). But so far it seems that in many cases the Shturmovik fliers were not the preys, but instead became the hunters.
I hope this info helps you, Rob.
Diego

[Johannes]

Hi

Regarding the term "fraudulent", I would use this as an advancement on "overclaim", yes, Wurmheller was such a severe overclaimer that it was more than that. Do you remember the Jg27 ace who crept up behind the unit super Schwarm and found them firing-off there amo over the desert, and retuned to tell his C.O what he had seen, and you know that when they got back, it was all heavy claiming......that's fraudulence. now Jg26 and Jg2 often overlapped, attacking the same formations, when Jg26 claimed alone, it was more than quite accurate, when the wto both claimed the Allied losses simply did not match up to Luftwaffe claims, yet some Jg2 pilots were honest. Assuming that the Russian losses have been calculated correctly then Jg5 were above overclaiming, in fact overclaiming can be acquired by just being mistaking, if you think it went down are you a fraud or just plain mistaken. Another person who made outrageous claims was August Lambert, he was disliked by his C.O, jealousy, or did his C.O suspect somthing?
With Jg5 it would seem that it wasn't just get one claim two, if fact I read somewhere that this units pilots were quite happy to witness more claims than actually occurence, well in the far North anyway!
Strange thing also about Hartmann, only two u/c ever!
Perhaps we need the Russian actual losses so we can scrutinise them!

Regards

Johannes

[DiegoZampini]

Dear Johannes:

Hi
Another person who made outrageous claims was August Lambert, he was disliked by his C.O, jealousy, or did his C.O suspect somthing?

Not surprisingly, both Hartmann and Lambert fought in the same place - Crimea peninsula. I barely researched about this matter, but it seems that the Soviet actual losses of 4 VA and VVS ChF in late 1943-early 1944 were not that serious like the claims of JG 52 and SchG 1 might indicate.

With Jg5 it would seem that it wasn't just get one claim two, if fact I read somewhere that this units pilots were quite happy to witness more claims than actually occurence, well in the far North anyway!

You are talking about the article "Pishem 8, 2 v ume" ("We write 8, but have 2 in mind"): The author clearly shows the huge overclaiming of one of the JG 5 "stars" - Rudolf Müller. Only 37 out of his 92 claims can be corroborated by Soviet records, and so did all his buddies.

Strange thing also about Hartmann, only two u/c ever!
Perhaps we need the Russian actual losses so we can scrutinise them!


It seems that Eduard Morozov (author of Vozdushnaya Bitva na Sevastopole 1941-1942 gg (Air Battle over Sevastopol 1941-42) prepares a new book about the air battles over Crimea 1943-44. It might help a lot to clarify how many losses did the Russians suffer, and to solve this discussion (at least regarding Hartmann and Albert).
Kind regards,
Diego

[Rasmussen]

-29.09.1942 Aleksandr Scherbanin (57 ShAP KBF) Bf.109G-2 W.Nr.13613 Ltn. Erwin Leykauf 11./JG 54 Experte with 29 victories then, he would claim a total of 33 Taran Scherbanin KIA.


Regarding his flightbook he was shot down by light russian AAA ... nothing from "Feindberührung mit IL 2" or taran :confused:.

regards
Rasmussen

[Evgeny Velichko]

...
-21.02.1943 Talgat Y. Begeldinov (144 GShAP, 9 GShAD) Bf.109G-2/R6 W.Nr.13949 Maj. Hans "Assi" Hahn (POW) Gruppenkomandeur II./JG 54 Experte with 108 victories...
Diego

Diego: Talgat is wrong lad here. I will quote a part of research of N.Egorov and M.Bykov (sorry, in russian, have no time now to translate. May be Nokose could help?)

Незадолго до 9.00 утра с аэродрома Рельбицы поднялась шестерка Ме-109, ведомая командиром II/JG54, майором Ханом. Задачей шестерки была свободная охота и поиск советских самолетов атаковавших отступающие от Демянска немецкие колонны. Район охоты обозначен зап. Демянска - Рамушево. Примерно в это же время (плюс два часа по Москве. Разница плюс зимнее время) с аэродрома Заборовье поднялась шестерка Ла-5, 169 ИАП, ведомая капитаном Числовым, с задачей патрулирования района котла.
По докладу ведомого Хана, оберлейтенанта Штотца, контакт с группой 8 Ла-5, состоялся в 9.09 над южной кромкой котла, на высоте 2500 метров. Пара Хан-Штотц отделилась от группы и атаковала советские самолеты с превышения в 200 м. По воспоминаниям Хана, они атаковали группу Аэрокобр, после чего Хан сбил одного, который взорвался в воздухе, а самолет атакованый Штоцем сильно задымил, после чего из него выпрыгнул летчик. По нашим данным в первой атаке был сбит и погиб старший лейтенант Воробьев, а младший лейтенант Баландин сумел покинуть горящую машину с парашютом. После чего обе группы и наша и немецкая рассеялись и бой продолжался в в виде отдельных столкновений. Штотц потерял ведущего и был вовлечен в маневренный бой с лидером советской группы, после чего подбитый самолет Числова вынужден был выйти из боя и тянуть в сторону своего аэродрома. Хан попытался атаковать самолет Гражданинова, но сам подвергся атаке, его ведомого, старшего сержанта Давыдова. Бой Хана наблюдали немцы из оставшейся четверки. После того, как Хан остался один против двух советских самолетов, к нему на помощь поспешила пара Оберфельдфебеля Реппле. По докладу самого Реппле: "Я хотел атаковать Ла-5, летевший чуть ниже. Но увидел, что он уже находится под атакой Ме-109. Я идентифицировал наш самолет, как принадлежавший майору Хану. Тогда я стал набирать высоту. Вскоре после этого заметил два самолета, и понял, что это Ла-5-е. Я стал пикировать на них и заметил, что они преследуют Ме-109." Однако Реппле опоздал, Гражданинов и Давыдов добились попаданий в Ме-109. Реппле успел сделать только длиную заградительную очередь, после чего, оба Ла-5 прекратили атаки и ушли на юг. Подбитый Ме-109 стал снижаться в северо-западном напралении к своей территории. По словам Реппле видимых повреждений на нем не было.
Хан не дотянул до своих. Он последний раз связался со Штотцем и передал следующее: "Штотц, они преподали папе хороший урок. Я должен совершить вынужденную посадку". После чего сел возле дороги из Новой Деревни, юго-западнее Демянска, недалеко от проходящей маршевой колонны.
Хан был доставлен в Заборовье, где встретился с пилотами 32 ГИАП и 169 ИАП.
После чего, он был перевезен в Выползово. Где его допрашивали несколько раз.

Бой воспроизведен по следующим источникам:

ЦАМО. Оперсводки 63 ГИАП.
ЦАМО. Оперсводки 3 ГИАД.
BA/MA. RLM victory rolls.
М. Быков. Списки побед летчиков ВВС РККА 1941-1945 гг.
J. Crandall "Major Hans "Assi" Hahn. The Man and his machines"
H. Hahn "Ich spreche die Wahrheit"
Ф. Полынин "Боевые маршруты"
Ф. Костенко "Корпус крылатой гвардии"

[Nick Beale]

To answer Huy Horta

From the Luftwaffe point of view, in the West they recorded and examined the crash sites of pilots claims …

Johannes

I have found incidents in Italy where they simply can't have done this, even where the claimed aircraft crashed around the Germans' own airfield. Had they searched, there would not have been enough wrecked aircraft for the claims that were allowed. They had a strong formal verification system but such systems are not always operated perfectly.

[DiegoZampini]

Rasmussen:

Regarding his flightbook he was shot down by light russian AAA ... nothing from "Feindberührung mit IL 2" or taran :confused:.

I know, that officially Leykauf himself credited his shootdown to the AAA. About this episode Christer Bergstrom says (Black Cross Red Star. Vol.3, p. 204-205): "Leykauf recalls that HE WAS PURSUING AN IL-2 AT DUBROVKA, his aircraft was severely hit by enemy groundfire, ACCORDING TO LEYKAUF, which forced him to bail out. The corresponding Soviet claim, ACCORDING TO WHICH THE IL-2 (FROM 57 SHAP/VVS KBF) THAT HAD BEEN SET AFIRE BY A BF.109 RAMMED THIS GERMAN FIGHTER, seems to be less credible."
Even I disagree with Bergstrom -I have no reason why do not believe that Scherbanin did not ramm Leyhauf, I CONSIDER THE RUSSIAN VERSION CREDIBLE- the shootdown of Leykauf occurred during a combat against Il-2s. It is not hard for me to think that Leykauf flamed Scherbanin's Il-2, and considering it finished, he then realized that was near the Soviet lines and focused in the AAA fire. Unseen to Leykauf, the wounded Scherbanin decided to ram his Shturmovik against Leykauf's Bf.109G, who in good faith thought that have been downed by flak. Leykauf would not be the first pilot who did not see what struck it, and wrongly assumed that was AAA.
Kind regards,
Diego

[DiegoZampini]

Dear Evgeniy: :)

Diego: Talgat is wrong lad here. I will quote a part of research of N.Egorov and M.Bykov (sorry, in russian, have no time now to translate. May be Nokose could help?)

I know that other version - that Hahn had been shot down by La-5 ace Pavel Grazhdanikov of 169 IAP. But the account of Begeldinov is that vivide, that so far I prefered to credit him with that particular victory.
If you want, I myself can translate later that excrept, that you posted about Grazdanikov's victory, to share it with the other participants. I will also, if you don't mind, translate the account of Talgat Begeldinov, where he describes his battle with Hans Hahn, so we can decide which is more probable to shot down Hahn - Grazhdanikov or Begeldinov.
Unfortunatelly, I will translate both excrepts later. Today will be a very bussy day for me. :( But tomorrow you people of the forum will be able to read both accounts in English.
Kind regards, Evgeniy :)
Diego

[Rasmussen]

Even I disagree with Bergstrom -I have no reason why do not believe that Scherbanin did not ramm Leyhauf, I CONSIDER THE RUSSIAN VERSION CREDIBLE- the shootdown of Leykauf occurred during a combat against Il-2s. It is not hard for me to think that Leykauf flamed Scherbanin's Il-2, and considering it finished, he then realized that was near the Soviet lines and focused in the AAA fire. Unseen to Leykauf, the wounded Scherbanin decided to ram his Shturmovik against Leykauf's Bf.109G, who in good faith thought that have been downed by flak. Leykauf would not be the first pilot who did not see what struck it, and wrongly assumed that was AAA.


Hi Diego,

unfortunately this are assumptions ... and of course it's more heroic to ram the "fascist" before the crash than an simple shot down by the "fascist" (especially for an soviet pilot at this time ... the soviet clerks too). There are eyewitness reports or reports from the mentioned AAA unit known and were cross checked? I'd believe Leykauf was able to distinguish between an ram and AAA fire and to report this correct.

Best regards
Rasmussen

[Nikita Egorov]

:-))

Diego,

The majority of reports from Soviet side with such vivid words as: "exploded into flames, crashed trailing heavy black smoke" etc. usualy have no backgound confirmation from German side. Hahn was surely shot down by pilots of 169 IAP, even if not by Grazhdaninov, then by Bocharov.

Please be careful of the sources you use. Stracnizky was not shot down by Danilov on August 24, 1942 and Lasarev for sure can not be a victim of Hartmann, as he collided with Pe-2 and crashed due to this reason on March 1, 1945.

[Ota Jirovec]

Diego,

Nikita put it very clearly - many cases provided by you do not stand up to closer scrutiny (Hartmann, Hahn, Straznicky...). It would be indeed wiser not to rely on the Soviet/Russian memoir literature, which is notoriously unreliable. Otherwise, you are in risk of reviving some old myths or even creating some new ones.

Ota

[DiegoZampini]

Privet, Nikita :)

:-)) The majority of reports from Soviet side with such vivid words as: "exploded into flames, crashed trailing heavy black smoke" etc. usualy have no backgound confirmation from German side. Hahn was surely shot down by pilots of 169 IAP, even if not by Grazhdaninov, then by Bocharov.

My experience with Russian accounts is the opposite: I mistrust when a Soviet pilot says "I shot this aircraft down" and do not give more details. I gave more reliability if the pilot gives a lot of details. Of course I know that, if there is not corresponding loss from the other side, even if the account is vivid, it is likely an overclaim.
Certainly is quite probable that Hahn's victor was Grazhdanikov and not Begeldinov. Wait please till I translate both accounts, and we can discuss about this. Of course, it is quite probable, that you are right :)

Please be careful of the sources you use. Stracnizky was not shot down by Danilov on August 24, 1942

By whom was shot down then? I used Prien as source, who listed Stracnizky downed in "Luftkampf" on 24 August 1942, and Danilov's claim matched quite closely in place and time. There were other Soviet claiminants that day, like for example 296 IAP's Yak-1 pilots Boris Yeromin and Aleksandr Solomatin, but they tangled with Bf.109Gs of I./JG 53.
Furthermore, I distrust the German loss archives. As Dánes Bárnad stated here, the Germans were much less reliable than the Russians to record losses, and that matches my experience with them. Furthermore, the racial prejudices caused that the Germans always prefered credit losses to AAA or "accidents" than to the Soviet "untermeschen" pilots. It varied on unit and period of time, but there is always a huge underestimation of losses causes by Soviet flighters.

and Lasarev for sure can not be a victim of Hartmann, as he collided with Pe-2 and crashed due to this reason on March 1, 1945.

In that case I was only quoting Khazanov, but I have Bykov's book Asy Velikoy Otechestvennoy Voyny, Samye rezultativnye liotchiki 1941-1945 gg of 2008, and of course I know that Lazaryev officially died colliding against a Pe-2.
Kind regards,
Diego

[Nikita Egorov]

Diego,

My experience with Russian accounts is the opposite: I mistrust when a Soviet pilot says "I shot this aircraft down" and do not give more details. I gave more reliability if the pilot gives a lot of details. Of course I know that, if there is not corresponding loss from the other side, even if the account is vivid, it is likely an overclaim.
Certainly is quite probable that Hahn's victor was Grazhdanikov and not Begeldinov. Wait please till I translate both accounts, and we can discuss about this. Of course, it is quite probable, that you are right :)


You do not have to translate this piece of narration, at least for me, because I have written it myself.
No matter whether report is full of details or have none of them, only matching other side records could give any result in real confirmation of a claim. Lots of details in report could have their origins in pilot's imagination.

By whom was shot down then? I used Prien as source, who listed Stracnizky downed in "Luftkampf" on 24 August 1942, and Danilov's claim matched quite closely in place and time. There were other Soviet claiminants that day, like for example 296 IAP's Yak-1 pilots Boris Yeromin and Aleksandr Solomatin, but they tangled with Bf.109Gs of I./JG 53.
Furthermore, I distrust the German loss archives. As Dánes Bárnad stated here, the Germans were much less reliable than the Russians to record losses, and that matches my experience with them. Furthermore, the racial prejudices caused that the Germans always prefered credit losses to AAA or "accidents" than to the Soviet "untermeschen" pilots. It varied on unit and period of time, but there is always a huge underestimation of losses causes by Soviet flighters.


Could I ask you a question: where did you find exact time of Stracnizky's crash and Danilov's claim? Another question is how did you get to conclusion that Yeryomin and Solomatin clashed with I/JG53, instead of JG3. And the last question could you please list other Soviet fighters claims against Bf-109s in this area this day (I could give you a hint, in general there were nine of them)
As regards to loss records, I believe you have got Denes in a wrong way, how you can compare this if you do not see original records from one side and you know that the majority of orginal files from another side has been lost?

[ruspren]

Hi

Do you remember the Jg27 ace who crept up behind the unit super Schwarm and found them firing-off there amo over the desert, and retuned to tell his C.O what he had seen, and you know that when they got back, it was all heavy claiming......that's fraudulence.
Regards

Johannes

It was "Fifi" Stahlschmidt of 2.JG/27 who "crept up on" that Schwarm. They were making fraudulent claims and yet you don't name them!
Vogel,Sawallisch,Bendert and Stigler of 4.JG27. They got away with it despite a going over from the Gruppenkommandeur (Gustav Roedel). They were however "seperated".
Russ.

[Dénes Bernád]

As Dánes Bárnad stated here, the Germans were much less reliable than the Russians to record losses...
This is not what I've said. I was only pointing out that the sample of VVS loss records I was shown are even more complete than the Luftwaffe ones. Nothing else.

If, on ideological grounds you distrust the Luftwaffe loss records compiled for INTERNAL use, not intended for publicity, then you're left with virtually nothing to rely on from the German (or Axis) side.
With the same logic, you have to distrust the Soviet loss records, too, as ideologically, the two totalitarian regimes were not that far apart...

[VtwinVince]

Regarding the JG 27 incident, my uncle was 'Abschussoffizier' with JG 27 at the time, and I knew Stigler quite well. This story was not the most popular topic, and was not enthusiastically discussed. Didn't Sawallisch commit suicide over this?

[DiegoZampini]

unfortunately this are assumptions ... and of course it's more heroic to ram the "fascist" before the crash than an simple shot down by the "fascist" (especially for an soviet pilot at this time ... the soviet clerks too). There are eyewitness reports or reports from the mentioned AAA unit known and were cross checked? I'd believe Leykauf was able to distinguish between an ram and AAA fire and to report this correct.

Yes, of course it is more heroic if the Soviet flier rammed the "fascist". And I do not discard the chance that there is an embelishment of the event to give other Soviet pilots "an example to follow", or an attempt to cover excesive losses with an "heroic act". But that is also an assumption.
In the other hand, it seems to me that you consider that such event (intentional ramming) is immediately unlikely, like if a Russian airmen would be unable to perform such a deed, and if it would be always preferable to believe a German account than a Russian one. If it is the case, I disagree. And if it is not (if you give the same reliability to the Russians than the Germans), I apologyze for missunderstanding you.
Regarding Leykauf being able to distinguish between a ramming and AAA fire: How could he for sure distinguish between a ram and AAA? Unless he had been hit by flak or rammed before. But so far the German loss records do not show that such a thing had happened. Of course I might be wrong.
Kind regards
Diego

[DiegoZampini]

Hi, guys:
For the ones who don't speak Russian, I translate into English the text kindly posted by Evgeniy, accounting the air combat where likely the La-5 ace Pavel Grazhdanikov (169 IAP) shot down Bf.109G ace Hans "Assi" Hahn on 21 February 1943.

Shortly before 9:00 hs from Rebiltsy airodrome took off six Bf.109Gs, led by Gruppenkomandeur II./JG 54, Major [Hans] Hahn. The mission of the 6-planes group was freie jagd (free hunt) and to seach for Soviet aircraft attacking the German columns retreating from Demyansk. The area asigned for hunting was at the west of Demyansk-Ramushevo. About that same time (+ 2 hs Moskow time, the time difference in Winter) from aerodrome Zaborove scrambled six fighters La-5 of 169 IAP, led by Kapitan Chislov, with the mission of patrolling the area of the cauldron.
According to the report of Hahn's wingman, Oberleutnant [Max] Stotz, kontakt with the group of 8 La-5 took place at 9:09 hs, in the southern end of the cauldron, at an altitude of 2500 meters. The pair Hahn-Stotz separated of the group and jumped the Soviet aircraft with an altitude advantage of 200 meters. According to the memories of Hahn, they attacked a group of Aircobras, after what Hahn shot down one, which blew up in mid-air, and the aircraft attacked by Stotz smoked heavily, and the pilot bailed out. According to our data, in the first attack was downed and died Starshiy Leytenant Vorovyev, and Mladshiy Leytenant Balandin could abandon his flaming aircraft in parachute. After that both groups, our and German ones, scattered and the combat continued. Stotz lost track of his leader and was dragged to maneuvering dogfight with the Russian leader, after what to the damaged Chislov's airplane was necessary disengage to return to his aerodrome. Hahn attacked Grazhdanikov, but doing so he himself exposed to the attack of Grazhdanikov's wingman, Starzhyy Serzhant Davydov. Hahn's fight was observed by the remaining four German fighters. When they saw that Hahn fought alone against two Soviet airplanes, to help him rushed pair of Oberfeldwebel Repple. According to the report of Repple himself: "I wanted to atack the La-5 who flew higher. But I saw that already was under attack of a Bf.109. I identified this aircraft, like the one belonging to Major Hahn. Then I began to climb/gain altitude. Soon after that I spotted two airplanes, and realized that they were La-5s. I dived towards them and realized that they pursued a Bf.109." However Repple was late, Grazhdanikov and Davydov managed to struck the Bf.109. Repple could fire a long barrier burst, after what the two La-5s evaded attack and went to the south. The damaged Bf.109 began to set the course in north-western direction. According to Repple it had not visible damage.
Hahn could not reach his base. For the last time linked up with Stotz and radioed the following: "Stotz, they taught dad a good lesson. I must perform a emergency landing." After that he landed near the road from Novaya Derevnya, south-west of Demyansk, not far from a passing columns of reinforcements.
Hahn was brought to Zaborovye, where he met pilots of 32 GIAP and 169 IAP.
After that was transfered to Vypolzovo, where he was interrogated several times."

Tomorrow will be very bussy, but in the night I will reply all remaining posts, specially the ones to Nikita Egorov and Dénes Bernád (Mr. Bernád, I apologyze that I misspelled your name earlier).
Kind regards,
Diego

[kennethklee]

I totally forgot I initiated this thread and have not been back until now--I'm amazed and gratified at the large number of responses and active discussion, and even more so with the new information about Hartmann and other Luftwaffe aces.

Johannes--I had no idea Hartmann had such a poor reputation among his comrades and that he is suspected of being a prominent overclaimer. You are right, The Blond Knight of Germany has long been my primary source of information about Hartmann and it certainly idealizes him. Interestingly, although I certainly can't explain, when I read the uncredited interview w/Hartmann 1-2 days before my initial post, which was motivated by the interview, I sensed for the 1st time that the real Hartmann was different from the character portrayed in Blond Knight, just not sure how at the time. My vague impression was Hartmann was a harder and less charitable and compassionate person than Blond Knight had led me to believe.

I am perhaps an "ugly American" who is not fluent in languages besides English--and perhaps some could dispute I am fluent in English! :p Hence, growing up in the late 1970's and early 1980's, the primary books about Luftwaffe fighter pilots accessible to me were the much-maligned and discredited Toliver/Constable Luftwaffe fighter aces book and the Hartmann biography Blond Knight of Germany. Only recently over the past 10 years have I become aware of more detailed and creditable information on Luftwaffe fighter pilots in general and Hartmann in particular. I know the hard-core enthusiast may scoff at and refute my comments by pointing out I could have taught myself sufficient rudimentary German to read the German-language references, or at least pored over them with a German-English dictionary in hand. I can't say such an enthusiast would be wrong, I can just say for various reasons, mainly a busy career with a heavy night/weekend call schedule and perhaps insufficient moral fiber and motivation, I did not do so.

I am happy Bernd Barbas is writing a Barkhorn biography. Not being critical, just making an observation--in a way, it's a shame that the Barkhorn and other biographies are being written well after most Luftwaffe veterans have passed away. Hindsight is 20/20, of course, and I also realize that writing about Luftwaffe and Axis personnel and histories was not looked upon favorably for many years after WWII. I know the Toliver/Constable tomes had little documentation or rigid research basis, but they served one valuable service--being the first substantial English-language books to cover Luftwaffe fighter pilots. These tomes further developed my burgeoning interest in the Luftwaffe. I recall Galland, in his foreword for the Blond Knight book, thanked the authors and acknowledged the role played by the authors' Fighter Aces of the Luftwaffe in edifying much of the English-speaking world about and negating to an extent their negative images about Luftwaffe fighter pilots.

Reading the new information that provide glimpses about Hartmann's true and perhaps discredited reputation and character, I am very curious about one stat attributed to Hartmann--did he truly lose only one wingman (bomber pilot Capito, who parachuted to safety) in his 1400+ flight career, or is this another myth?

I apologize if my comment about contemporary biographies was construed as unjustly critical--that was not my intent at all, I was simply bemoaning the fact that few Luftwaffe veterans are alive and fewer still can/will contribute to these books. Thanks much to all who responded for a very lively and informative discussion containing much interesting new information and speculation.

Ken

[ruspren]

Regarding the JG 27 incident, my uncle was 'Abschussoffizier' with JG 27 at the time, and I knew Stigler quite well. This story was not the most popular topic, and was not enthusiastically discussed. Didn't Sawallisch commit suicide over this?

I know he disapeared on a test flight shortly afterwards. I believe it was over the sea and his body washed up sometime later. I'm at work and can't check but I hadn't heard that this was a suicide. He was the highest claimer of the four.
Russ

[VtwinVince]

Russ, I can't remember where I read that this was a suicide. Certainly the whole episode demands more intense study IMO.

[Nokose]

On a previous thread Erwin Sawallisch's name was listed but his victories up through Russia were verified. I noticed that while he was serving there with Stab/JG77 (listed in JFV 6/II) he shot down a MiG-3 on the 15Jul41 for his 7th victory (no other information of time and location). He was the only one in the German units in the south claiming a MiG-3 that day. In Denes Bernad's book "From Barbarossa to Odessa Volume 1" it has St.Lt. Alexander Pokrishkin of the 55 IAP going down after a reconn. mission into the swamp 3km N. of Grozeshti. Wondered if this was possibly Sawallisch's MiG-3. Maybe Denes can give us his opinion since his research was in that area.

[krichter33]

I don't know what Hartmann's real character was like. Of course I'm sure it was much more complex than portrayed in "The Blond Knight of Germany." However his reputation has not been discredited by any hard facts; only rumors, speculation, suspicions, and faulty research (Khazanov). I, for one, welcome any new proven evidence, from a historical perspective, to better understand who these pilots were. Whomever the "true" Hartmann was, until speculations and rumors can be backed by actual facts, calling him, or any other historical figure, a fraudster or questioning his character is intellectually and morally dishonest.

[John Beaman]

I don't know what Hartmann's real character was like. Of course I'm sure it was much more complex than portrayed in "The Blond Knight of Germany." However his reputation has not been discredited by any hard facts; only rumors, speculation, suspicions, and faulty research (Khazanov). I, for one, welcome any new proven evidence, from a historical perspective, to better understand who these pilots were. Whomever the "true" Hartmann was, until speculations and rumors can be backed by actual facts, calling him, or any other historical figure, a fraudster or questioning his character is intellectually and morally dishonest.


Amen! documented proof, proof, proof, ad infinitum!

[Nefiakoff]

I know he disapeared on a test flight shortly afterwards. I believe it was over the sea and his body washed up sometime later. I'm at work and can't check but I hadn't heard that this was a suicide. He was the highest claimer of the four.So called "Experten-Schwarm" was active frauding quite short, 1-2 weeks of August 42 I suppose. Name of group's leader was Oblt. Vögl, he was staka 4./JG 27 and the only officer among them. However, Fiffi Stahlschmidt spotted 5 Bf 109s shooting into the sand, additional pilot was Uffz. Just (he became POW at end of that month).

I've met three opinions connected with death of Sawallisch - suicide, Bf 109 failure during check-out flight or even mechanics' revenge after wasting their work. His body was washed ashore next day.

Regards,
Nef

[Nick Beale]

Furthermore, I distrust the German loss archives. As Dánes Bárnad stated here, the Germans were much less reliable than the Russians to record losses, and that matches my experience with them.

Anyone's archives may be incomplete or inaccurate for all the usual reasons of human fallibility. I know little about the Eastern Front but please bear in mind that it was important in ANY air force to report losses because that was the only way a unit could get replacement aircraft. I have seen several messages from higher Luftwaffe commands to units demanding explanations for day-to-day discrepancies in teir strength and serviceability figures. I would infer from this that the matter was taken very seriously in the Luftwaffe.

[Nikita Egorov]

On a previous thread Erwin Sawallisch's name was listed but his victories up through Russia were verified. I noticed that while he was serving there with Stab/JG77 (listed in JFV 6/II) he shot down a MiG-3 on the 15Jul41 for his 7th victory (no other information of time and location). He was the only one in the German units in the south claiming a MiG-3 that day. In Denes Bernad's book "From Barbarossa to Odessa Volume 1" it has St.Lt. Alexander Pokrishkin of the 55 IAP going down after a reconn. mission into the swamp 3km N. of Grozeshti. Wondered if this was possibly Sawallisch's MiG-3. Maybe Denes can give us his opinion since his research was in that area.

Michael,

According to documents of 20 SAD this was belly landing due to orientation lost and fuel shortage.

[Nikita Egorov]

I don't know what Hartmann's real character was like. Of course I'm sure it was much more complex than portrayed in "The Blond Knight of Germany." However his reputation has not been discredited by any hard facts; only rumors, speculation, suspicions, and faulty research (Khazanov). I, for one, welcome any new proven evidence, from a historical perspective, to better understand who these pilots were. Whomever the "true" Hartmann was, until speculations and rumors can be backed by actual facts, calling him, or any other historical figure, a fraudster or questioning his character is intellectually and morally dishonest.

Hartmann is a contradictory person. From one side it is evident that he overclaimed to a certain extent. The reason for that is unclear for the moment, was it personal ambitions or he simply did not care to observe the results of his attacks, due to speed disengagement. I saw some of the reports from our side of clashes with what was supposed to be Hartmann's Me-109. Everywhere reports say: immediate attack from above at high speed and immediate disengage without starting combat. This is a common tactics for almost all German aces and in this case real success is in marksmanship. Many of the attacked planes were not shot down but shot up, hit by one or several bullets without serious damage inflicted. Many were not hit at all. The majority of such claims were credited to Hartmann as confirmed, though the counterpart was not destoryed completely or in some cases not hit either. He prefered to attack only fighters, vulnerable to sudden interception, enjoying the superiority against ill-trained Soviet fighter pilots and inferior Soviet tactics. Thus, we have only 23 bombers and close-support planes on his account that is only 6,5 % of his score...
From another side his impeccable conduct in captivity. Many personalities were broken and somehow sided with Soviets. Hartmann never accepted any deals. I have not seen his POW dossier (It is closed for general access) but I spoke to the person, who works with POWs documents and he confirmed that almost all that written in "Blond Knight" regarding his experience in camps is more or less true, except strongly exaggerated images of the surrounding people.

[Nokose]

Nikita, Thanks for the answer on the above question on Pokrishkin.

I believe Hartmann stated he was a bad shot in "The Blond Knight of Germany" which is why he bore in close to fire. If your a bad shot a prolong dogfight might not be to your advantage.

In Valeny Romanenko's book "Airacobras enter Combat" he stated that he thought that Hartmann might have shot down on 15Apr43 (he listed a time of 19:00?) one of the two P-39's flown by St.Lt M. Petrov and Serz. Bezbabnov of the 45 IAP (100 GIAP). No location and the time 19:00 seems to be way off from the German times. He also gave two other P-39's same unit shot down at 13:00. Tony Wood's list has the following.

Hartmann 15:33 85192
Mato Dukovac 15/JG52 14:50 Krimskaya
Josef Zwernemann III/JG52 12:52 85753
Lt. Wolf Ettel 4/JG3 15:30 86834
Lt Hans Reiff 8/JG3 14:48 3km SE of Neledshskaya
Lt. Helmut Haberda 5/JG52 uk hrs 85152

Is Hartmann's one of these? And was this a overclaim day for P-39's?

[Nikita Egorov]

Michael,

Well, I have not yet researched this day in details, too many fault claims. First of all St. Bezbabnov was shot down on P-40 and evidently by Waldemar Eyrich of II/JG3. Valery, in his book, it was one of the first books with an attempt to match some two sided info, apparantly omitted damaged Aircobras. In general 216 IAD suffered the following losses: 16 GIAP two were shot up and belly landed, including Maj. Kryukov chief navigator of the regiment, 45 IAP two Aircobras were shot down of S/L Petrov and St. Sapyan and two more made emergency landings due to battle damage, by S/L Dmitry Glinka and St. Popov plus P-40 of Bezbabnov was shot down. From that List Petrov's P-39 was attaked twice, first it was damaged and left the combat, then finished off by another Me-109...So, we have 7 lost Aircobras (2 irrevocably+5 damaged to different extent) and 9 German claims on them. I will check if 298 IAP had any more losses that day.

[Dénes Bernád]

So, we have 7 lost Aircobras (2 irrevocably+5 damaged to different extent) and 9 German claims on them.
Nikita, I also have the same approach when studying a particular air combat: list all aircraft of all sides, no matter if destroyed, damaged, or broke combat due to technical fault, as often the real cause is improperly listed.

If a pilot claimed a victory and the damaged enemy aircraft crept back to own territory, that can still be regarded as a justified claim, as at least the target was hit and a certain amount of damage caused (N.B. this total number added individually is often higher than the official statistics released for that day or certain time period!).
And, of course, not forgetting claims by flak crews, too, if it was the case.

[JoeB]

Nikita, I also have the same approach when studying a particular air combat: list all aircraft of all sides, no matter if destroyed, damaged, or broke combat due to technical fault, as often the real cause is improperly listed.

If a pilot claimed a victory and the damaged enemy aircraft crept back to own territory, that can still be regarded as a justified claim, as at least the target was hit and a certain amount of damage caused (N.B. this total number added individually is often higher than the official statistics released for that day or certain time period!).
And, of course, not forgetting claims by flak crews, too, if it was the case.
To me, more information is better than less, so if the author tells me about damaged a/c and mechanical losses so much the better. Also, I agree that damaged (but repaired) a/c provide an *explanation* for overclaims of a/c destroyed, but are not IMO a 'confirmation'. Anyway as long as the author provides the info for the reader to make the decision himself, it's fine.

But I am most curious about this quote:
"as often the real cause is improperly listed. "
This relates to earlier exchange about 'distrust' of German archives, where you seemed to say your statement about them had been mischaracterized, but then this statement seems to somewhat support 'distrust'. Can you explain more, perhaps with examples, causes being mistated, and how we know this is true?

I've seen almost verbatim statements, by the same person actually! that US records in Korea are to be 'distrusted' because, among other reasons, loss causes were often mistated, it is alleged. But in fairly extensive research in those records with close comparison to detailed MiG claims from Soviet records, I have not found that. Both sides virtually always agree when and where the air combats of the day occurred and which general type of UN a/c was involved (swept or straight wing jet or prop; these broad categories were almost never mistaken for one another, it seems). And, losses of similar a/c type on the UN side attiributed to non-air combat causes were usually of different units than the ones involved in the air combat, at different times of day, and usually documented with additional details that would seem preposterous to compile in secret if just made up....why bother? (and I'm speaking strictly of then-secret records, not contemporary press releases). Also, I'm not speaking of cases where a/c were lost in known contact with enemy a/c but the cause was positively stated as something else: that's also rare, 'unk' losses in contact with enemy a/c were generally grouped with known air combat losses. As with any rule there are exceptions to the above, mechanical cases where it's not possible to absolutely determine whether there was also contact w/ enemy a/c by that particular flight, etc. but it's a pretty small %. Yet it's often stated, it's even 'internet conventional wisdom' that the loss causes were 'often' or even usually or systematically mistated in that case.

Can you compare and contrast this to the situations you are speaking of? wrt 'real cause improperly listed'. It's a pretty far from Hartmann, but loss record debates tend to be interconnected, because proof that such fudging of loss causes was done in one case makes it more plausible that it was done in other cases.

Joe

[klemchen]

Hi everybody,

could it not be that most cases of overclaiming were in fact cases of over-self-confidence? I imagine that the experts were quite convinced they could tell when an opponent was finished (cf. Obleser's assertion above), particularly when they saw pieces coming off their target or smoke and fire developing. I have read of several occasions when a later expert was shot down while watching his victim crash, so from then on he abandoned that habit and also told young pilots not to indulge in it.
I suspect the weakest point in Luftwaffe claims is that probably in most cases they were confirmed by the wingmen. These were mostly subordinates of their leaders, and it must have taken some courage to contradict those, all the more when the wingman did not know for sure that it was not a victory he was supposed to confirm.

Regards,
klemchen

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi.

I think that we also have to try to find a common and relatively broad definition of what to call a 'kill'.

If an aircraft return to an airfield controlled by own forces, damaged beyond repair and scrapped, I know that especially on the US side when considering the bomber forces this would not be defined as a 'kill'.

If a German fighter shot up and bellylanding in France under German occupation, this would be a 'kill' as seen from the western allies side.

In the first example, if the attack by fighters or even Flak damage, happened before the bomber reached it's intended target, it was forces to jettison it's bombload and try to make it back to base... still not a 'kill' I guess?

There are countless similar situations that could be discussed on all sides.

I believe that the approach to try to gather information on all aspects of given operations and dates, taking into account all possibilities with regards to misidentifications, misunderstandings and the fact that the people involved were in extreme situations, is the correct one.

We must also in my opinion stop trying to win the war again and again, there were atrocities and horrible acts commited on all sides, none of the combattants involved have an unblemished moral track record, not before the second world war, and not after. It seems that a lot of people forget that war is about destruction of the enemies resources, both human and material, in the most effective way possible. And a major point that most people living in the western democraties today seems to forget is that the information available, and possibility to make a 'morally' correct decision in the beginning of the 1940ies were limited. Refusing to obey an order in wartime usually has a severe reaction from the establishment, in the US, in the UK, in Soviet federation, Germany or my native Norway for that case - death sentence.

Hopefully some food for thought.

Regards,
Andreas B

[Russell]

Nikita, Thanks for the answer on the above question on Pokrishkin.

I believe Hartmann stated he was a bad shot in "The Blond Knight of Germany" which is why he bore in close to fire. If your a bad shot a prolong dogfight might not be to your advantage.

In Valeny Romanenko's book "Airacobras enter Combat" he stated that he thought that Hartmann might have shot down on 15Apr43 (he listed a time of 19:00?) one of the two P-39's flown by St.Lt M. Petrov and Serz. Bezbabnov of the 45 IAP (100 GIAP). No location and the time 19:00 seems to be way off from the German times. He also gave two other P-39's same unit shot down at 13:00. Tony Wood's list has the following.

Hartmann 15:33 85192
Mato Dukovac 15/JG52 14:50 Krimskaya
Josef Zwernemann III/JG52 12:52 85753
Lt. Wolf Ettel 4/JG3 15:30 86834
Lt Hans Reiff 8/JG3 14:48 3km SE of Neledshskaya
Lt. Helmut Haberda 5/JG52 uk hrs 85152

Is Hartmann's one of these? And was this a overclaim day for P-39's?


On page 91 and 92 of Kurt Braatz's biog of Walter Krupinski, there is a commentary on the circumstances of Hartmanns' claim, near Taman and a single P-39, which Krupinski coached Hartmann to shoot down.

Regards

Russell

[DiegoZampini]

Hi again, guys:
I apologyze for not replying your posts sooner. I was extremely bussy, much more than I anticipated. Now I reply your posts.
Dear Dénes:

This is not what I've said. I was only pointing out that the sample of VVS loss records I was shown are even more complete than the Luftwaffe ones. Nothing else.

Even when this is only retoric, I ask you: if Luftwaffe's loss records are less complete than the VVS ones, It does not mean you cannot fully trust (RELY) on them?
I know that you that there is a difference between to say that a set of archives are uncomplete, and to say that one cannot rely on them. But unreliability is a logic comsequence of uncompleteness - if they are so uncomplete, How can one to be sure that there are no more losses than the ones mentioned in such archives, or even that the cause of loss mentioned there is the actual one?

If, on ideological grounds you distrust the Luftwaffe loss records compiled for INTERNAL use, not intended for publicity, then you're left with virtually nothing to rely on from the German (or Axis) side.
With the same logic, you have to distrust the Soviet loss records, too, as ideologically, the two totalitarian regimes were not that far apart...

Assuming that Comunism is a totalitarian regime, COMUNISM IS NOT IN THE SAME LEVEL THAN NAZISM. WHY? BECAUSE THERE IS SOMETHING THAT COMMUNISM NEVER HAD, BUT NAZISM HAD FROM ITS SAME ROOTS: RACISM. THIS IS THE IDIOLOGICAL COMPONENT OF NAZISM (AND NONE ELSE), WHICH MAKES ME SKEPTIC OF THE GERMAN LOSS RECORDS.
Most of the German war actions in the East were led right from the start by the premise that the "Russians" were untermeschen and they did not deserve any respect. And many of the Luftwaffe members were known by sharing that point of view. Many of them changed their mind (e.g. Trautloft and Lutzow) but many others stubbornly kept loyal to Nazism and its racism - the top example was Hans-Ulrich Rudel, who in his biograhy After all repeated over and over again the same slogans about the Russians being masses from the East (even when sometimes conceded some merits to them, like to admitt the aiming skills of the Russian women operating the AAA batteries in Stalingrad). Hartmann himself was an example. Initially he understimated his Soviet opponents, and his mentor Alfred Grislawski many times reprimend him saying: "Do you think the Russians doesn't know how to shoot?" Summarizing: Racism and understimation of the Slavs (and comsequently the Soviet military capabilities) remained at all levels of the Whermacht along the whole war, even when they were already extremely evident. ARE YOU ABSOLUTELY SURE, THAT SUCH UNDERESTIMATION DID NOT AFFECT GERMAN LOSS RECORDS? CAN YOU ASSURE THAT THE GERMANS DID NOT PREFER TO CREDIT LOSSES TO ACCIDENTS THAN TO SOVIET PILOTS BECAUSE OF SUCH RACISM?
If your experience dealing with Luftwaffe loss records is that racism did not affect them, that in them there is not an understimation of Soviet fighter pilots, please share it with us. In my case perhaps might change my skepticism ;)
Kind regards, always a pleasure to discuss with you :)
Diego

[DiegoZampini]

Nikita:
Once again, I apologyze for replying to your posts that later. The scholar year began shortly before here in Argentina, and I have my hands full with my work as teacher. Furthermore, I am organizing the visit of my Russian girlfriend to my country (she will meet my family) and I want that everything will be allright. But tonight and tomorrow I'll have some free time and answer your replies:

Diego,
You do not have to translate this piece of narration, at least for me, because I have written it myself.

Ponyal (Understood). No ya sdelal dlya vsex chitatelyax, kotoryx ne mogut ponimat' russkiy yazyk ;) (But I did for all readers, that cannot understand Russian ;) )

No matter whether report is full of details or have none of them, only matching other side records could give any result in real confirmation of a claim. Lots of details in report could have their origins in pilot's imagination.

But how can you fully match on the other side's records are that uncomplete as German ones? I fully agree with you that to research the opponent's loss records give the real confirmation (or ultimate discarding) of a certain claim, and I also know that veterans' memories can fool even themselves (assuming good faith).
But when one finds that many gaps as one can find in Luftwaffe loss records, that a loss is not mentioned there it does not mean it did not occur. Furthermore, even knowing that veterans' memoirs can be very unaccurate (and knowing that is always better to back them up with official documents), Why to discard veterans' testimonies that quickly? After all, THEY WERE THERE, not you, neither I nor most of researchers.

Could I ask you a question: where did you find exact time of Stracnizky's crash and Danilov's claim? Another question is how did you get to conclusion that Yeryomin and Solomatin clashed with I/JG53, instead of JG3. And the last question could you please list other Soviet fighters claims against Bf-109s in this area this day (I could give you a hint, in general there were nine of them)

Regarding Stracnizky-Danilov: I admitt that time I did not find, but Prien place Stracnizky in Pl.Q. 49161, which is (if I did not misplaced it) over Stalingrad outskirts, N of the city. Bergstrom indicates that most of 265 Soviet sorties that day (specially Shturmoviks) were N-NW of the city to cut supplies to General Hube's 16th Pazerdivision. The place matched.
Regarding Yeryomin and Solomatin: they scored victories in the same combat, and it was logical to assume that they scored them against aircraft of the same unit. There were no two losses in JG 3, but there were two in I./JG 53:
-Bf.109G-2 W.Nr. 14161 Uffz. Gustav Perl (MIA, Experte with 12 victories)
-Bf.109G-2 W.Nr. 13552 Uffz. Heinz Seig (WIA, Experte with 15 victories) (Engine failure?)
Other Soviet claims that day that I know (all over the city itself):
-Ivan P. Motornyy Yak-1 512 IAP, 220 IAD Ju.88 (probably Ju.88D-1 W.Nr.1680 4 KIAs 3.(F)/121)
-Grigoriy K. Gultyayev Yak-1 788 IAP, 102 IAD PVO Ju.87 (probably Ju.87D W.Nr.2432 Crew Unknown 75% written off 1./StG 77) (Accident?)
-Ivan M. Dzyuba Yak-1 12 IAP, 288 IAD Bf.109 (probably Bf.109E-7 W.Nr.6392 Fw. Hans Beruwka MIA 3./SchG 1) (Cause unknown)
That makes 6 identified claims. Evidently there are 3 additional claims that I ignore. Please, if I wrongly cross-referenced German losses with Soviet claiminants, correct my mistakes, and if you want share with us your findings. I am willing to learn from my mistakes and correct them.

As regards to loss records, I believe you have got Denes in a wrong way, how you can compare this if you do not see original records from one side and you know that the majority of orginal files from another side has been lost?

PROBABLY YOU ARE RIGHT ON THAT, NIKITA.
BTW, Yevgeny Velichko told me that you are working on a book about the Air Battle of Stalingrad. Congratulations!! :D It is already in the Russian book stores? I want to buy it! :)
Kind regards,
Diego

PS: I will repeat this post in a new thread "Soviet air victories over Stalingrad" in the "Soviet and Allied air forces" forum, to do not desvirtuate the original topic (Hartmann's). If you consider that this is the right thing to do, reply there.

[DiegoZampini]

Nikita:
One more reason for me to assume that Straznicky was Danilov's victim is the fact that Straznicky flew a Bf.109F-4/R1, that is an gondola-armed Messerschmitt, usually tasked with the mission to intercept and destroy the heavily armoured Il-2s.
Kind regards
Diego

[Dénes Bernád]

Dear Dénes:
Diego, a few general notes on your previous post before returning to aviation:
1, when I meant the sample of VVS loss records I saw are more complete than the Luftwaffe's, I actually meant that there were more information given on a certain loss (e.g., the engine serial number). Nothing else. I trust the Luftwaffe loss records compiled for internal purpose exactly the same way I trust the similar VVS records. If you mix ideology with facts, it's a dead end.
2, it is not up to one's assumption, or belief if Communism was a totalitarian regime (like Nazism) or not. It was. This is a historical fact. There are many specialist books dealing with this issue, check them out.
3, the Germans, Slavs (and Jews) all belong to the same human race. Therefore, anti-Slavism (certainly existing in Nazi circles) cannot be called racism.
4, Finally, everyone visiting this forum can read and understand English. Please do not use capitals when trying to emphasize a certain detail, as it amounts to shouting and this behaviour is not encouraged.

I don't intend to go off topic any further on this interesting thread, so let's not highjack it. If you wish to continue this, please open a new topic in the General section.

[DiegoZampini]

Dear Dénes:

Diego, a few general notes on your previous post before returning to aviation:
1, when I meant the sample of VVS loss records I saw are more complete than the Luftwaffe's, I actually meant that there were more information given on a certain loss (e.g., the engine serial number). Nothing else. I trust the Luftwaffe loss records compiled for internal purpose exactly the same way I trust the similar VVS records. If you mix ideology with facts, it's a dead end.

I agree. And I did not mix ideology with facts. But my question is: Did the Luftwaffe mixed ideology with facts in their loss records during WWII? I have the suspicion that they did, but of course I might be wrong on this matter. You already made it clear that you think that Luftwaffe did not.
More on this topic in the next post, and I will only speak about aviation.

3, the Germans, Slavs (and Jews) all belong to the same human race. Therefore, anti-Slavism (certainly existing in Nazi circles) cannot be called racism.

You are talking about the modern antropological and biological point view - to consider that there is only one human race, and we all belong to it, no matter whatever our color of skin, hair, eyes, shapes, etc. And I agree with such point of view.
But for common people the old concept of "race" still exists (a point that our respective scholar systems should correct). And the discrimination and subestimation of a person due to its color skin, or mother language/cultural roots/country of origin (as is the case of anti-Slavism) is known still coloqually as "Racism." Furthermore, it was the term used at the time of WWII, and that why I used the term.

4, Finally, everyone visiting this forum can read and understand English. Please do not use capitals when trying to emphasize a certain detail, as it amounts to shouting and this behaviour is not encouraged.

Understood. I apologyze. I will not use capitals again.

I don't intend to go off topic any further on this interesting thread, so let's not highjack it. If you wish to continue this, please open a new topic in the General section.

Understood too. I don't wish to go off topic, our respective points of view are very clear. My next posts on this matter will be only about aviation.
Kind regards, Dénes
Diego

[DiegoZampini]

We have discussing about how uncomplete and reliable/unreliable are the German loss records are. I will show some examples:
o In Osprey’s book P-39 Aircobra Aces of World War 2, written by George Mellinger and John Stanaway, it is included the account of the famous German ace Walter Nowotny about how he claimed to shot down three Soviet P-39s, but also his Fw.190 was seriosuly damaged by one of the Russian-flown Aircobras. Nowotny own’s testimony: “The whole fight had lasted exactly 45 minutes. After a successful landing, I climbed out of my machine dreched in sweat. I examined the damage in silence. It was worse than I realised. Half the rudder is missing and one aleiron shot to pieces. My main undercarriage tyres are bullet-holed and one cylinder and cylinder head completely shot away. More damage to the engine, bullet-riddled wings…” No exact date is given for this combat, but occurred indeed in 1943, when Nowotny began to fly the Focke-Wulf fighter. The only ocasions on that year when Nowotny claimed to shot down three P-39s in one combat occurred on 19 August and 9 October 1943. The extension of the damage mentioned by Nowotny in his Fw.190 indicates that this loss should be obligatorly recorded in German loss records, at least as damaged in a 40%-50%. However, in the available list of JG 54 losses, Nowotny appears only shot down once (on 19 July 1941, flying Bf.109E-7 WkNr 1137) and forced to belly land a second time (on 11 August 1942, also in a Messerschmitt - his Bf.109F-4 WkNr 10360 was scrapped). No trace of this shot-up Focke-Wulf nowhere the more complete list of JG 54 losses available so far , which is fully admitted by Nowotny himself. Neither on 19.08.1943 nor on 9.10.1943. On such dates there are other Fw.190s admitted lost, but they were flown by other pilots, and in the cases where no pilot’s name is given, none belong to the 1./JG 54 (where Nowotny served at that time).
o In Christer Bergstrom’s work Black Cross – Red Star, Volume 3, it is stated that “[Major Joachim] Müncheberg, holder of the Knight Cross with Oak Leaves, had been one of the most outstanding German fighter pilots on the western Front in 1941-42 and had been posted to Stab/JG 51 to be tutored in the role of Geschwaderkommodore under Major Karl-Gottfired Nordmann’s supervision. Muncheberg had the concept of air war over Russia as did most German fighter pilots on other fronts, that it was something of an ‘easy game’. After getting shot down by Soviet fighters twice within two weeks, he reconsidered his opinion.” . Bergstrom referes to the aerial battles around the Rzhev salient in July-August 1942. But to look for these two times that Joachim Müncheberg was shot down in Jochen Prien’s meticulous book (which cover the period May 1942 to early February 1943) proved to be infrunctuos – they simply are not there.
o Also in Bergstrom’s work is mentioned an audaceous raid carried out by Soviet paratroopers against the German aerodrome at Maykop at 22:00 hs on 23 October 1942. “Hans Ellendt clearly remembers that the paratroopers wreaked havoc on II./JG 52 before withdrawing. According to the official German report, only one of the II./JG 52’s Bf.109s and two Ju.52s were destroyed, […]. But according to Ellendt, the Soviet paratroopers had run along the nicely parked Bf.109s, shooting them up or heaving hand greades into their open cockpits in a quick and skillfully coducted raid. In this manner, they destroyed at least a dozen Bf.109s.” . So, there are at least 11 Messerschmitt fighters which were actually lost but did not appear in official Luftwaffe loss records.
o On the night of 25-26 October 1942 the night bombers Po-2 of the 588 NBAP flown by female pilots made a very succesful raid against Armavir, taking out most of II./KG 51 Edelweiss: “The flames spread rapidly and caught fuelled and bomb laden aircraft. Since the airfield had several units on it having a total of more than 100 Ju.88 and He.111s, there was no lack of combustible of combustible material. Only one of the II.Gruppe aircraft survived without damage. Ther unit was hastily withdrawn to Bagerovo on the Kerch Peninsula to acquire new aircraft.” A Gruppe of a German KG (Bomber Wing) consisted in about 15-20 aircraft. If only one of II./KG 51’s aircraft survived the air strike, that indicates that no less than fourteen Junkers and Heinkels were destroyed in the raid. However the official loss records mention specifically the complete destruction of only four aircraft (He.111H-6 WkNr 2948, Ju.88A-14 WkNrs 144231 and 144232, and Ju.88C-6 WkNr 460013), one written off because of a 60% damage (Ju.88A-4 WkNr 4018) and a sixth bomber damaged in a 25% (Ju.88A-4 WkNr 2256). Again, there are no less than eight more aircraft “missing” in Luftwaffe’s loss statistics.

[Rasmussen]

We have discussing about how uncomplete and reliable/unreliable are the German loss records are. I will show some examples:
o However, in the available list of JG 54 losses, Nowotny appears only shot down once (on 19 July 1941, flying Bf.109E-7 WkNr 1137) and forced to belly land a second time (on 11 August 1942, also in a Messerschmitt - his Bf.109F-4 WkNr 10360 was scrapped).

Maybe we have to discuss how reliable/complete are your secondary sources and not the German loss records. Only one example:
- W.Nr. 10360 wasn't an F-4 but an G-2
- the a/c wasn't scrapped but used by Stab/ JG 54 and in January 1943 searched by Lz.4/108 and send to Erla VII in Antwerpen

Best regards
Rasmussen

[robert]

Hi Diego,

perhaps you can find in these "accurate" Russian losses 2 SB-2 bombers that had been shot down by Polish fighter in the early afternoon of 17.9.39 by railway station Nadworna? Killed Russians were buried and two were captured wounded and admitted to the hospital. But still no trace could be found in these "accurate" Russian documents.

Robert

[DiegoZampini]

Robert:

Hi Diego,
Perhaps you can find in these "accurate" Russian losses 2 SB-2 bombers that had been shot down by Polish fighter in the early afternoon of 17.9.39 by railway station Nadworna? Killed Russians were buried and two were captured wounded and admitted to the hospital. But still no trace could be found in these "accurate" Russian documents.
Robert

I admitt that I did not research the Russian invasion to Poland in September 1939, so I have no data on this issue. I'll see if any of my friends have researched or have books about this matter. If they have some info, no problem to share it with you.
Kind regards
Diego

[DiegoZampini]

Rasmussen:

Maybe we have to discuss how reliable/complete are your secondary sources and not the German loss records. Only one example:
- W.Nr. 10360 wasn't an F-4 but an G-2

You are fully right. It was a G-2. My mistake. But it is not a problem of my sources, they are reliable. It is just that I made a typo.

- the a/c wasn't scrapped but used by Stab/ JG 54 and in January 1943 searched by Lz.4/108 and send to Erla VII in Antwerpen

In fact my source says that the aircraft was damaged in a 50% - a serious damage but still not a writte-off, which seems to match with your data. But that contradicts the account of Nowotny's wingman, Karl "Quax" Schnörrer:
' "The Russians have had me shot up! I've got 'blisters' on my wings!" Nowotny cried over the radio: We desperately shook off the enemy and made a quick escape at low level. With smoke pouring out of the hit engine, Nowotny's Messerschmitt 109 made a hastily landing at Tulebya airfield. Rushing on the landing strip at 100 mph, the engine suddenly burst into flames. At a speed of 60 mph, Nowotny blew off his and left his plane in a true do-or-die jump. The burning Messerschmitt continued rolling another 30 meters, and then exploded.'
If I did not misinterpreted this account, this Bf.109 was destroyed in the explosion. Or is Schnörrer refering to another different incident? If it is the case, once again it is not mentioned in loss records either. If somebody have more info, it would be very good to discuss it.
Best regards to you too, Rasmussen. I apologyze for my earlier typo. Thank you very much for correcting it.
Diego

[Leo Etgen]

Hi guys

Here is the loss list entry that Prien has for the incident in question concerning Nowotny on 11 August 1942:

11 August 1942: Bf 109 G-2 "Black 1" (W.Nr. 10 360) flown by Leutnant Walter Nowotny of 3./JG 54, obstacle contact, crash-landing at Rjelbitzi, 50%

The aircraft did not explode as can be seen in the following photographs.

http://img252.imagevenue.com/loc102/th_677318463_nowotny_122_102lo.jpg (http://img252.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=677318463_nowotny_122_102lo.jpg) http://img228.imagevenue.com/loc501/th_067732278_nowotny2_122_501lo.jpg (http://img228.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=067732278_nowotny2_122_501lo.jpg)

It should be kept in mind that losses below 10% damage were not reported. Regarding the claim that Major Joachim Müncheberg was shot down twice on the Eastern Front while serving with the Geschwaderstab of JG 51 this apparently is based upon a dairy entry made by Feldwebel Günther Schack but there is no documented evidence that this occurred. Concerning the 23 October 1942 incident involving JG 52 only one loss appears in the loss list by Prien:

23 October 1942: Bf 109 G-2 (W.Nr. 13 846) of 4./JG 52, burned by commando squad at Maikop, 100%

It is my personal opinion that primary sources should always be used rather than secondary sources or those based upon recollections or memoirs which can often be faulty. I believe that the majority of researchers would agree with this approach.

Horrido!

Leo

[DiegoZampini]

Leo:
Thank you very much for the pictures and the information :)
Regarding the event accounted by Schnörrer, it seems to me that he is refering to another incident, which indeed is not documented in JG 54 loss records (Nowotny is not mentioned again, excluding the two cases I mentioned).
I agree with you, Leo, that it is always preferable a primary source, and that veteran's memories can be faulty - it is evident that they can mix up if an event occurred before or after a certain date, or can exaggerate, or plainly to lie.
But in the case of Schnörrer's account, or Ellendt's account of the commando raid against Maikop on 23.10.1942, I tend to believe that they described events which actually took place, but the records of those losses were lost.Why they would fabricate such events, when they meant to admitt more losses than the ones admitted?
I would like to know your oppinion, guys.
Again, thank you very much, Leo :)
Diego

[Nikita Egorov]

Diego,

Your conclusions are all premature. Besides GQ there are some more German documents on losses that can correct and supply GQ loss list with some extra details. Talking about German and Soviet side one can not be absolutely sure that losses are incomplete or twisted deliberately for one reason, both sides suffered major setbacks, Russians in 1941-42, Germans in 1944-45. Thus, vast ammount of first hand documents were destroyed or disappeared without trace. I wont give a dime in terms of completeness for any research describing the events of 1941 from Soviet side or 1944 from German side...Especially it concerns rapid retreats, encirclements etc. In Stalingrad Soviets examined many planes that were captured on the airfields, some of them are abcent in GQ loss lists because of the impossibility of reporting them and general chaos around.
Please be carefull when you state something, you can be questioned on the credibility of your sources, as per Rasmussen's justified remark.

perhaps you can find in these "accurate" Russian losses 2 SB-2 bombers that had been shot down by Polish fighter in the early afternoon of 17.9.39 by railway station Nadworna? Killed Russians were buried and two were captured wounded and admitted to the hospital. But still no trace could be found in these "accurate" Russian documents.


Robert, have you seen operational documents of the units, that may have been involved, in RGVA?

[Andreas Brekken]

Hello, all

I have reread mr Zampinis messages and moderated myself a bit here... originally I was going to be quite harsh but I realize that this would be uncalled for, but

I realize that you have no experience in researching the Luftwaffe loss records first hand.

Two important points:

1. If an aircraft sustained what the inspection of the damaged aircraft by technical personnel deemed as below 10% damage - in most cases this ment that the aircraft could be restored to operational status by the technical personnel and facilities available to the 'halter' (meaning unit it was assigned to) - this loss would not be recorded. (I wonder when people will start understanding this VERY simple concept)

2. If the people inside the aircraft - the so-called crew members for those not yet familiar with the concept... - where not injured, killed or reported as missing - you will not have their name recorded in conjunction to a loss at all - if you do not for some reason or another have access to for example diaries or other secondary sources were this is noted.

Judging that Nowotny's loss is not recorded by a list (even if it was very well researched) is not conclusive.

I have recorded close to 270 individual FW 190 losses for JG 54 in 1943 - and we would have to thoroughly research all of these + the ones that occured so late in 1943 that they are listed in the records for 1944 that are missing before we can conclude.

Also - regarding your angle with regards to politics and the loss records:

The loss records we usually refer to was never part of the propaganda machine. The unit responsible for it was a data collections unit that put together and analyzed reported losses from all units in order to feed statistics of the command chain at high level, to make them able to make decisions based on the situation as reported by their subordinated units. In addition they kept tabs on personnell losses - and assisted with regards to have correct forms produced in order to get information sent on to the next of kin when a person was killed in action or went missing (forms still kept at the WASt today). I have put a long article on this unit (of which I have large parts of their remaining records as a unit - not what they produced) on hold, but I see that it is necessary to finish and publish it.

I am sure that there are gaps, as is natural! Looking at for example the situation on the eastern front where we have examples of loss records for aircraft destroyed by tanks and infantry while the flying personnel were trying to evacuate, it was probably not necessarily to write down the Werknummer of the unservicable Bf 109 parked in a blast pen that was on your mind!

But to draw a line between that situation on the ground and the conclusion that the Luftwaffe Generalquartiermeister 'doctored' the records for political reasons is nonsence. If records are missing - fine - they never reached their intended recipient - the people that should deliver it were killed, the records destroyed because a train or aircraft were blown to pieces... in stead of trying to discredit the 'Luftwaffe' or 'the German people' as a whole, try to add to research by producing additional evidence with regards to a specific incident. And evidence is in my opinion not something read in a softcover book produced using other books as sources...

I have for some time believed that it will be possible, communicating with people on this board like Dénes, Nikita and a lot of others (none mentioned none forgotten), to get to the point were the research of the second world war will be about facts and trying to establish them as close as we can get without being there with cameras and notebooks (of course embedded in a nondestructible body armor that will allow us to observe without being harmed) - and not about winning some political discussion about it. Other times I stop believing...

I believe that this thread has started to swing towards what I believe to be the correct direction, but the board as a whole has a way to go.

Regards and keep up the good work all of you - and mr. Zampini do not get me wrong - keep up asking questions - maybe the most important part of this work - as long as one is willing to accept the answers with an open mind.

Regards,
Andreas B

[Ruy Horta]

I believe that this thread has started to swing towards what I believe to be the correct direction, but the board as a whole has a way to go.

Regards,
Andreas B

First I can only be thankful for the well balanced points you put forward.

With that behind me I'd like to address the quoted bit.

Since TOCH! is both open for all kind of members and community driven I am afraid you'll never see this forum reach the standard you are referring to.

You could only achieve such a level of objective high end historical debate and research if you limited membership. That might be enough, but you'd probably need to have clear rules / guidelines to follow and enforce them.

This would end up being a scientific and restricted forum, membership on invitation (peer or otherwise) and far different from the open type we see on the internet. It would be a tool for a number of researchers and or historians only.

But as I am not a researcher / historian myself it is not my primary aim to provide such a restricted tool.

I'd be willing to provide (restricted or not) sub-forums for special projects, but I won't change this forum into something it wasn't intended to be.

I think the openness allows for a fresh influx.

Anyone who has an idea for a special (research) project can ask me to create a specialist sub forum, and such can be set with many special requirements (membership, moderators, passwords etc).

[Andreas Brekken]

Dear Ruy!

I totally agree with you with regards to your comments - and I see now that I should have rephrased this sentence.

The board shouldn't be limited and it should be open for all - and I have had my share of quite heavy debates with other members over the years - maybe my problem is that I am getting old and a little bit wiser?

What I do believe however, is that we should try to refrain from attacks on specific persons, living or dead. I do not believe I will stop trying to push such discussions in a different direction.

One example springs to mind - a soviet aviator of some repute went into what could be called uncontrolled spin after the war - alcohol, sexual assaults and several other acts not becoming an officer so to speak - indicating a personality of limited moral stature.

Should this affect my research with regards to his wartime efforts? Should I use this knowledge to discredit his name publicly on a discussion board on the internet?

I think the answer is obvious.

Regards,
Andreas B

[Nick Beale]

My message to Diego would be to approach the whole business calmly, spend more time with primary sources and question every account that depends on a person's memory. Like other researchers I have heard stories from veterans that are impossible to reconcile exactly with the historical record — times and places become confused, loss or success is exaggerated and so on. Even so such memories can often be related to an actual event, even when the description is not accurate. A typical example would be something like "we lost a lot of people in landing accidents", when the record tells of one such accident. But if the man telling the story lost a good friend, that accident grows in significance in his memory.

[Broncazonk]

To the experts on this list, honest question: How did star pilots get away with massive overclaiming with gun cameras mounted in their aircraft? When a star pilot landed and claimed six, seven, ten aircraft on a single mission EVERYBODY would have wanted to see that film. "The camera must have been broken" excuse would have worked about once. "The camera must have ran out of film" excuse would also have worked about once.

How did they get away with it??

Bronc

[Leo Etgen]

Hi guys

The times that I have seen the description given by Gefreiter Karl Schnörrer it is always given in relation to the incident of 11 August 1942. Regarding the account by Hans Ellendt it is not known, at least by me, when he wrote or recalled this event. It is stated is that he "clearly remembers" which would indicate this recollection happened some time after the event described. Concerning the 25-26 October 1942 raid I do not know what was the number of II./KG 51 aircraft stationed on the field nor the proportion of losses. It is interesting to note that II./KG 51 was a Ju 88 equipped unit as per the strength returns and thus it was impossible for the Gruppe to have suffered losses of He 111 bombers. According to the strength returns the Gruppe began October 1942 with 38 Ju 88 A-4 bombers and 20 of these were lost to strength through enemy action as well as three lost due to other causes other than enemy action and one through overhaul through the month. In turn the unit received 16 bombers as replacements as well as one Ju 88 C-6 through the month to finish October 1942 with 31 aircraft. Without knowing the number of bombers the unit had on strength at the time of the raid and the exact losses it would be difficult to draw conclusions. Unfortunately my DVD disk containing the QM 6 returns has chosen this very moment to inexplicably go bad and I can not access the relevant files to determine the number of aircraft lost by II./KG 51 in this attack. As concerns the incident described by Nowotny it may well be that we will have to wait until Prein releases his loss list for the time period to know the details of the event especially in light of the fact that not even the date is known with certainty. In regards to gun cameras it is my understanding that it was not usual for Luftwaffe fighters to be fitted with these until somewhat later in the war.

Horrido!

Leo

[Broncazonk]

Leo wrote: "In regards to gun cameras it is my understanding that it was not usual for Luftwaffe fighters to be fitted with these until somewhat later in the war."

Emmm... Gun cameras were fitted by mid-1942?

A lot of very big multiple claims were made in late-1942, all of 1943 and 1944 when gun cameras were certainly in use. And when a star pilot returned to base claiming five, six or ten kills on a single mission, EVERYONE in that unit (and of-course in higher headquarters) would want to see that film. (Not to mention all the other pilots for moral and celebration if nothing else.)

How could a star pilot continue to make huge single mission or weekly mission claims when the evidence was never appearing on his gun camera??

I don't have a dog in this fight: I just want to know.

Bronc

[udf_00]

Perhaps, in harsh, chaotic and hectic situations, the supply, loading, unloading and processing of films was not the main concern of the involved people.

[Andreas Brekken]

Hello.

Some gun cameras in use, but very few.

In fact the inclusion of a gun-camera in the Bf 109 of Robert Müller was such a special event that they photographed the entire installation procedure. This is available from the Bundesarchiv in Koblenz.

I have seen some of the footage in private ownership - and sadly for the conspirators - several claims can be verified - at least to the level when you see smoke, fire and parts (like wings) flying off the target. The fighter does not follow his prey down of course but breaks off for a new target.

Additional footage should be available as part of a series of instruction films afaik at the IWM.

One should however be aware that according to all information I have, the inclusion of gun cameras where far between in the Luftwaffe.

Look at for example the immense number of Bf 109 photographs available - how many have you seen with a gun cam installed??

(I guess your next message Broncazonk or whatever your real name is that this is the conspiracy... the Luftwaffe did not equip their aircraft with gun cameras because that would compromise the Experten's tales of their exploits - I believe it is just a question of WHY do it? In the first part of the war especially on the eastern front the results were quite easy to find - as the front evolved they could count the downed aircraft on the ground... afterwards when the battles took place behind German lines the same applied - a lot of claims were not approved because they could not find a likely match on the ground.)

And as far as movie screenings goes - I don't think the main interest of the other parts of a unit was just that in 1942 in North Africa or in the East. The pilots I have spoken to were more interested in food, drink, a sigarette and most of all decent rest.

Regards,
Andreas B

[Leo Etgen]

Hi guys

Here are a couple of photographs of the installation of the gun cameras in the fighter of Oberfeldwebel Rudolf Müller that Andreas alluded to in his post.

http://img285.imagevenue.com/loc163/th_806361187_muller_122_163lo.jpg (http://img285.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=806361187_muller_122_163lo.jpg) http://img166.imagevenue.com/loc346/th_806368810_muller2_122_346lo.jpg (http://img166.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=806368810_muller2_122_346lo.jpg)

The majority of Luftwaffe fighters that I have seen fitted with gun cameras are Fw 190 types and the majority of the footage from these that I have seen concern USAAF four-engined bombers. Only occasionally have I seen footage from the Eastern Front. I do know that USAAF fighters appear to have generally been fitted with these instruments but on Luftwaffe fighters it does not appear to have been commonplace.

Horrido!

Leo

[Broncazonk]

Andreas wrote, "Look at for example the immense number of Bf 109 photographs available - how many have you seen with a gun cam installed?"

That is a very good point--I actually looked last night. Very few gun cameras could be seen on Bf-109's, and quite honestly, very few could be seen on Fw-190's in photographs from late-1943 and 1944.

Bronc

[JoeB]

How could a star pilot continue to make huge single mission or weekly mission claims when the evidence was never appearing on his gun camera??

The experts on the Lufrwaffe can answer better in aspects specific to the Luftwaffe, but in general the answer, AFAIK, is:
1. gun camera would generally reduce crediting for completely made up claims, but the great majority of over claims, by any evidence I know in other situations with which I'm more familiar, were not made up by dishonest individuals, within an otherwise *actually* (not just on paper) strict claim verification process.

2. dramatic gun camera images published in books often show obvious destruction of the target a/c, but victories were credited based on gc images which were less than fully conclusive as to the target's destruction, often much less, in every case I know of specifically.

3. gun camera images often don't rule out the possiblity more than one pilot contributed to the destruction of the target, and duplicated claims of actual destruction of enemy a/c were a major source of over claims.

4. a key factor, perhaps the key factor, in over claims was the 'culture' of the air arm toward claim accuracy. I *don't* mean culture as in 'yeah, Englishmen are like this and Japanese are like that', not national characteristics, or not them alone, and not politics per se. But it's clear that various air arms in various wars had organizational approachs to claim verification that differed markedly in practice, even when the *theoretical* process on paper was similar. It could differ a lot even in the same air arm in different periods. It gets back to point 1: focusing on differing levels of personal honesty among pilots in a particular unit at a particular time is mainly barking up the wrong tree to explain general over claim rates. Clearly it was more socially accepted, for everyone, to play faster and looser with claims in some air arms/units/periods than others. The theoretical process of confirmation, or a particular device like a gun camera, was only part of the picture.

Joe

[Nokose]

There seems to have been some Luftwaffe pilots that liked to have gun camera aircraft. I know that Wolfgang Spaete had clips from his gun camera in his book "Top Secret Bird" but now that I've read these posts it could have been from when he was CO of IV/JG54 because two of the three shown are the eastern front. Spaete also qoutes a letter he wrote in the book "Since we last spoke, I've been stuck at 92 victories. Actually, I've had three more. I had to withdraw the first claim because of a lack of witnesses. But I got the next one confirmed without any problems. I was already looking for my 94th when the RLM department responsible for the recognition of aircraft victories discovered I had been credited for one kill in 1941 and another in 1942 that they could not officially recognize. I still don't know why. So I'm back at 92 confirmed victories again. For the third time!" This was in 1944.
I was told by someone on the board that the RLM didn't use camera footage to credit victories but only for the purpose of pilot training, Is that true?

[Ruy Horta]

Do we completely rule out the fact that a lot of the air fighting (due to its "fire fighting nature of 42-45) took place near the HKL and in view of German ground forces?

Often Eastern Front memoires mention confirmation by ground forces.

Before we rule out a "multi kill" event, you might check where exactly the claims were made and if they were near the front line.

[Nokose]

Nikita,
Did you find out anything about the Airacobra losses for the 15 APr43? I looked back over TW's list for the ones that I missed (Mato Dukovac 15/JG52 wasn't on there but I believe it's correct).

Lt. Ernst-Heinz Loehr 6/JG3 No time, location and height
Lt. Helmut Haberda 5/JG52 85152 100 m ?hrs

Lt Lothar Myrrhe 5/JG3 No location 3000 m 08:30
Oblt. Karl Ritzenberger 6/JG52 85163 7000 m 10:50
Lt Josef Zwernermann 9/JG52 85141 5000 m 12:52
Lt Helmut Haberda 5/JG52 85753 3000 m 13:14
FW Hans Reiff 8/JG3 3km SE Neledshskaya 3500 m 14:48
Mato Dukovac 15/JG52 Krimskaya ? m 14:50
Lt Wolf Ettel 4/JG3 86834 3500 m 15:30
Lt Erich Hartmann 7/JG52 85192 200 m 15:33

[Rob Romero]

I was told by someone on the board that the RLM didn't use camera footage to credit victories but only for the purpose of pilot training, Is that true?

The paucity of GC installations on fighters already cited would seem to confirm that GCs were installed only in special circumstances such as examples for gunnery instruction. It also seems to have been employed in some instances for Propaganda-Kompanie (PK) useage -a specific example would be Hans Philipp (206) shooting down a couple of Sov AC which was used in Die Deutche Wochenschaw newsreels.
The extra weight -though not significant- would have been an unwelcome drag on performance (esp. to the likes of Prof Willi Messerschmidt) when the overstretched Jagdwaffe was doing everything in its power to survive a multi-front war against superpowers. Also devoting scarce resources to producing tens of thousands of cameras and film/processing/analysis was a luxury the 3rd Reich could not afford.

[Nikita Egorov]

Michael,

Look above on the thread, I have answered your question. It seems that Hartmann could in reality obtain this kill.

Nikita,
Did you find out anything about the Airacobra losses for the 15 APr43? I looked back over TW's list for the ones that I missed (Mato Dukovac 15/JG52 wasn't on there but I believe it's correct).

Lt. Ernst-Heinz Loehr 6/JG3 No time, location and height
Lt. Helmut Haberda 5/JG52 85152 100 m ?hrs

Lt Lothar Myrrhe 5/JG3 No location 3000 m 08:30
Oblt. Karl Ritzenberger 6/JG52 85163 7000 m 10:50
Lt Josef Zwernermann 9/JG52 85141 5000 m 12:52
Lt Helmut Haberda 5/JG52 85753 3000 m 13:14
FW Hans Reiff 8/JG3 3km SE Neledshskaya 3500 m 14:48
Mato Dukovac 15/JG52 Krimskaya ? m 14:50
Lt Wolf Ettel 4/JG3 86834 3500 m 15:30
Lt Erich Hartmann 7/JG52 85192 200 m 15:33

[Nokose]

Okay, I misunderstood. I thought that you were looking into further losses of the 298 IAP for it. So Lt Wolf Ettel of the 4/JG3 damaged St.Lt. Petrov's airacobra and he ran the misfortune of getting shot down by Hartmann going to the deck to leave the "field". Thanks again.

[Nikita Egorov]

Okay, I misunderstood. I thought that you were looking into further losses of the 298 IAP for it. So Lt Wolf Ettel of the 4/JG3 damaged St.Lt. Petrov's airacobra and he ran the misfortune of getting shot down by Hartmann going to the deck to leave the "field". Thanks again.

Sorry, I forgot to add this. 298 IAP had no losses for that day. BTW, I have not written that Petrov was damaged by Ettel and finished by Hartmann. Simply I have not got the exact time of losses yet, to match them correctly with German claims. Judging by number of claims and losses of Aircobras one could possibly go to Hartmann. I have put this day aside because there are some uncertain moments in terms of losses of other VVS units. Other Hartmann's claims on Aircobras look more suspicious than this one.

[Nokose]

Okay. I should have put a "?" there. Rob, Thanks for the answer on the camera aircraft.

[Nikita Egorov]

Okay. I should have put a "?" there. Rob, Thanks for the answer on the camera aircraft.

I suppose yes, at least for the time being.

[kennethklee]

I apologize if this question was already addressed and I missed it--is Hartmann's record of having lost only one wingman (Capito who bailed out and survived) in combat true, or at least as best can be established by documentation?

Thanks,
Ken

[Nick Beale]

Another reason for the shortage of gun cameras in the Luftwaffe was that the German armed forces were generally "poor" compared to the Anglo-Americans. Germany simply did not have the industrial capacity to provide all the technical aids that were available to the Western Allies.

[Pilot]

[Matheu


Other example is the combat when he was shot down on 20 August 1943: according his account in his autobiography written by Trevor Constable, he shot down two Il-2s when was hit by flak, belly-landed and captured by a short period of time (later he evaded).
If fact Khazanov could determine, that according to the Soviet records, what Hartmann attacked was a group of Shturmoviks of the 232 ShAP. One of the Il-2 pilots, Leytenat Pavel Evdokimov, saw how a "Messer" jumped his buddy V. Ermakov, and shot at close range a 20-mm burst against the Bf.109, which performed a belly-landing - indeed this was Hartmann's Bf.109G-6. No Il-2 was lost by 232 ShAP that day, even when two were damaged. Once again, Hartmann "kills" were overclaims (even when in this case seem that both were in good faith). And he was not downed by flak, but by Shturmovik pilot Pavel Evdokimov.

Diego

This is very interesting- any additional info about the Leytenat Pavel Evdokimov as well Hartmann machine which was shot down?

P.S. sorry for re start old topic, hope this is not problem

[ahafan]

As in the film-(the blue Max) stachel tells krupp-I saw him crash.
krupp'' says- sorry -No wittnesses No Claim.;
RULE's..
but I did see him CRASH''!!
Maybe'' Fabian saw it;
IT WAS A KILL !!
then you have great satisfaction that you served your fatherland..
-
sorry im laughin very hard..70 years ago- and a debate!!
--------
try the Red Barons..score..see if you can get the full facts.
I can't and im related to him..by my mums side of the family';

sharon

[kaki3152]

BTW,the best book on MAnfred von Richtofen is Norman Franks "Under the Guns of the Red Baron". It is the complete record of Von Richtofen's victories and victims.

[ahafan]

BTW,the best book on MAnfred von Richtofen is Norman Franks "Under the Guns of the Red Baron". It is the complete record of Von Richtofen's victories and victims.
Hello'
ermm. how do i know that franks book.his correct? when you have this debate.;WW2 luftwaffe pilots scores been fraud;
I guess the red barons his too..
just a joke thanks all the same.
sharon

[ahafan]

My Father just made a point? say he was playing for his local soccar match-, and who gets the last goal.gets the £10.000 reward..
durin the game my dad shoots hits the Cross bar, the ball goes down on the line-and looks down in despair, ,then the refaree whistles -GOAL) were his the wittness-;-? -who says its a goal?
if no cameras are there ..who can dispute it.
my dad has to say it his. by the refarees, decision made..but feels a little beleted; a fraud..then says No keep the money'''
Now-that his honesty'''

Ask Maradonna.1986-if he his lying.

sharon

[Rob Romero]

Not only was Richthofen a reliable claimer, he made sure his unit was as well! A true ace of aces, tactician, and leader of men.

Jasta 11 Victory Claim Analysis: Adjusted Preliminary Conlcusions
% of Verified Victories (Pilot Identified) % of Verified Victories (Pilot or Unit Identified)
186 of 214 (86.9%) Claims with MvR at Front 194 of 214 (90.7%) Claims with MvR at Front
41 of 53 (77.4%) Claims with MvR on Leave 45 of 53 (84.9%) Claims with MvR on Leave
227 of 267 (85.0%) Claims with MvR as CO 239 of 267 (89.5%) Claims with MvR as CO



Richthofen’s Jasta 11 “Bloody April” Gang (1917)
33 of 33 Claims (100.0%) Kurt Wolff*
30 of 30 Claims (100.0%) Karl Allmenröder*
74 of 80 Claims ( 92.5%) Manfred von Richthofen
11 of 12 Claims ( 91.7%) Sebastien Festner KIA 25 Apr 1917
25 of 30 Claims ( 83.3%) Karl-Emil Schäfer
33 of 40 Claims ( 82.5%) Lothar von Richthofen
206 of 225 Claims ( 91.6%) EXCEPTIONAL CLAIM VERACITY!

[krichter33]

Wonderful post Rob!

[ahafan]

Not only was Richthofen a reliable claimer, he made sure his unit was as well! A true ace of aces, tactician, and leader of men.

Jasta 11 Victory Claim Analysis: Adjusted Preliminary Conlcusions
% of Verified Victories (Pilot Identified) % of Verified Victories (Pilot or Unit Identified)
186 of 214 (86.9%) Claims with MvR at Front 194 of 214 (90.7%) Claims with MvR at Front
41 of 53 (77.4%) Claims with MvR on Leave 45 of 53 (84.9%) Claims with MvR on Leave
227 of 267 (85.0%) Claims with MvR as CO 239 of 267 (89.5%) Claims with MvR as CO



Richthofen’s Jasta 11 “Bloody April” Gang (1917)
33 of 33 Claims (100.0%) Kurt Wolff*
30 of 30 Claims (100.0%) Karl Allmenröder*
74 of 80 Claims ( 92.5%) Manfred von Richthofen
11 of 12 Claims ( 91.7%) Sebastien Festner KIA 25 Apr 1917
25 of 30 Claims ( 83.3%) Karl-Emil Schäfer
33 of 40 Claims ( 82.5%) Lothar von Richthofen

206 of 225 Claims ( 91.6%) EXCEPTIONAL CLAIM VERACITY!

not bad for a relative of him..ME
sharon