Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

If the people actively contributing data to those threads would like them merged, let me know. Otherwise, I’ll leave you to continue the good work.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Craig addressed some important issues.
It is impossible to assess individual performance by statistics, indeed, because it is against the rules of statistics.
Plenty of German data comes from highest levels of command, hence they are prone to errors, passed by various chains of command. There are no combat reports, which should perhaps be considered most accurate, though not necessarily could be. Pilots could not remember the exact details, or the person filing them could misunderstand them, or even the pilots did not assess the situation accurately. BTW I understand that Russell's data are coming from germandocsinrussia site, and several daily reports held there.

It is not possible to assess results of air combats by simple correlation of time and place.
It is a necessity to compare detailed information from both sides to draw accurate conclusions, and even if fully documented, it is often not possible to recreate events.
It is always worth to remember that claims and credited victories are two different things, the latter being the effect of activity of a bureaucratic machinery, rather than pilots themselves. Neither claim nor credited victory is equal to actual loss.

Thus perhaps it is easier to discuss such issues on a unit level rather than individual level.
My personal observation is, that the German units on the western front overclaimed to a much higher degree, that widely thought. It is believed that the victories credited to JG 26 are highly accurate. It looks like the number of credited victories matches to the number of aircraft lost. The problem is, that accurate scrutiny of allied losses show, that plenty of those losses were to various different reasons, but not necessarily German action. Thus the one may assume that there was a preliminary selection of claims, which were then reduced to the number of wrecks found with no available paper record. Without the initial claim list it is not possible to properly assess the issue. The otherproblem is, that available victory lists are highly inaccurate, missing important details, or obviously erroneous, this becoming obvious after careful scrutiny of each combat. In the effect, it is often not possible to say, that one victory is valid, and the other is not.
Finally, about Marseille. I do not know, how accurately allied losses in Africa were recorded. This is a common problem for overseas units, that the paperwork was not kept accordingly, and they often were not very attractive for researchers, thus available information might not be the best to say the least. Such massive projects like Fighters over the Desert are often not accurate because of numbers of data involved, not possible to verify by a limited number of researchers. So the rule of the limited trust is always valid. The additional problem is, that most of Marseille's combats were not on equal terms. He always had a technical edge, and also the tactics of the Desert Air Force was not much to expectations. As soon as Spitfires appeared in the theatre, flown by experienced pilots aimed at scoring victories, the joy has ended. I presume, that Marseille would not last long on the ETO, where things were much more equal. Thus he was a highest scoring pilot, perhaps, but not necessarily the best one.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Folks, just to make things a bit more complicated. Picture this:

Let's say Hartmann hits the Yak-1B and claims a similar looking Yak-9 victory. Yak-1B does not crash, but rather returns to base and lands safely. Pilot unhurt. Soviet mechanics start to repair the plane. After some days and nights, while 'frequently wishing all the best to the mother of the German pilot', they finally give up. Not worth to repair. HQ writes off the plane as 'wear and tear'. ('износ') Not to mention that this is the time of re-arming the regiment with newer Yak models. Yak-9M and/or Yak-3. The old and used Yak-1s are almost scrap metal anyways.

Now: was this a victory, or not? If Hartmann does not hit the plane, it is still in service. But he did not destroy it either. The date of the write-off is completely independent from the date of the battle. No link between the two.

Few examples of wear-and-tear 'losses' of the 5 VA, 331 IAD in late, 1944:

Yak-1B, S/N: 16180 - December 21, 1944
Yak-9T, S/N: 0715378 - December 22, 1944
Yak-1B, S/N: 23160 - December 23, 1944
Yak-1B, S/N: 41177 - December 23, 1944

The majority of these 'losses' was simply age related, I am sure.
But still - a small chance of the prev. described story... Impossible to trace and investigate.

Gabor

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Absolutely! Let's get for example the Me 109E at the RAF Museum. It was credited as a destroyed to the victorious pilot. Nonetheless it flew for quite a while under new management, and you can still see it in one piece. If landed on the other side of the Channel it would probably be listed with minor damage. On the other hand you can see eg. Spitfires, obviously write offs being repaired early in the war, and slightly damaged aircraft being written off late in the war.
Hence it is more important to find out who was on the receiving end, rather than to look for destroyed aircraft only.
Aside, Hartmann's victories were of no importance. Luftwaffe just los the war in the air in general.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

...Indeed. You've hit the nail on the head. Its becoming obvious that many of Hartmann's 'claims' were 'wishful thinking' at best. But everyone knows that he achieved '352' victories even today. Only ONE writer has come out and said 'no he probably didn't' - and he's been dismissed because he's Russian. Same thing with Rudel's 1500 tanks destroyed (or whatever..). These guys are 'heroes' - or had to become so during the Cold War because by then they were on our side..

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

And it would be easy to lose sight of the reality that even if he "only" got 70 or 100 that was a fantastic achievement in a war where most fighter pilots probably only ever scored something between zero and one.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Agree.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

I find it funny, that defence of Hartmann's score, when the same people are quite eager to claim that Allied fighters overclaimed heavilly.
That said, the scores of the WWII pilots should remain as they were officially credited. The verification against losses is just too prone to errors and not official, so it is more a historical information rather than a fact.
That said, we all suffer from the Cold War PR some of the German aces get. They neither deserve more glory nor attention than the Allied pilots, who saved the world from the tyranny.

Of course 70-100 victories is an achievement. Nonetheless, score is a result of opportunity, and do not say much about quality of a pilot. The large discrepancy between scores on ETO and MTO and against Soviet Union strongly suggests that this was a result of technical factor. Hence glorification seems out of place. Otherwise it would be interesting to compare scores during combats on isolated areas and on equal terms. I am afraid, however, that with the scarcy data it would not be possible. It is not only th problem of establishing exact circumstances of victory, but also finding f it was actually shared or not. Diferent critera make such comparisons unjust or rather false.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

I quite agree. There was a big discrepancy in German attrition rates between the different theatres, too. I have some figures somewhere from a conference in early 1944.

Stephen Bungay's book "Alamein" has some sceptical comments on Marseille — piling up scores against fighters while ignoring the bombers devastating Panzerarmee Afrika. But that's what you get when you promote the ethos of the duelling warrior-hero …

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Thanks Nick. I deleted my follow-up comment as I don't want to 'bash' Hartmann. He did what he had to do - and voluntarily accepted 10 years of Soviet captivity.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Usaaf did just that. Killing every fighter, even leaving the bombers. I do not see much difference. Marseille did it quite well and a fighter down is one less for the rest to worrie about. Can i ask what Bungay's point is?

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Ignoring the bombers that really inflict the damage on ground forces, tanks etc - like Hartmann. Not a war-winning approach. Hartmann only made around 15 Il-2 claims..far fewer than other Eastern Front aces..

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

1. I see a big difference: (a) the USAAF in the ETO and MTO faced no significant threat from German day bombers; (b) it was the job of USAAF escorts to destroy fighters so that US strategic bombers could bomb their targets. US ground forces in the field could be defended by the Tactical Air Forces.

2. So, in North Africa you shoot down a RAF fighters (which the RAF can afford to lose) while the RAF bombers slaughter your ground troops and burn out your supply dumps (which you really cannot afford to lose).

3. Bungay's point is that in pursuing individual glory through a series of duels the Luftwaffe fighters failed to counter the main air threat to German forces in North Africa.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

I would note that Bungay's point was first made by Chris Shores back in 1969 in Fighters Over the Desert.

Enjoy!

Frank.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Loss details of 5 VA, 331 IAD, 513 IAP Yak-9, S/N: 2515338 on October 27, 1944 on Debrecen airfield:

This day early morning 8 Bf 109 and 6 Fw 190 were strafing the Debrecen airfield in Eastern-Hungary. The attack immediately damaged 4 Yak-1s (on readiness) and killed, or wounded several personnel, including Yak-9 pilot, Ml.Lt. Alexandr Pavlovich Kutuzov, who later died of his wounds. His plane, Yak-9, S/N: 2515338 burned on the ground. It was written off by November 2, 1944.

The attack also destroyed 3 Po-2 night-bomber biplanes of 5 VA, 312 NBAD, 930 NBAP (S/N: 127107, 167109, 8257) and damaged 7 others. From 451 ShAP 2 IL-2, from 18 TAP (training unit) another 3 planes were damaged on the ground. From the fighters (on readiness) only one Yak-1B could take off, without any significant result, the others were completely supressed by the surprise attack. The other lost 513 IAP Yak-1B on the ground was No.20150 - without the pilot.

Only one 5 VA Yak-3 (Knut, 150 GvIAP, S/N: 3929212, ‘39’ - in dogfight) and a La-5FN (Gukov, 192 IAP, S/N: 39213433, ‘33’ - due to flak) was lost in the air this day, but none of them was related to Hartmann’s claim.

Gabor

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Duly cited in Bungay's end notes for the passages concerned.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

But it were RAF fighter-bombers, not a few light bombers (how many of them, a couple of Wings by the summer of 1942?), who inflicted most of the damage to Axis ground troops in daylight hours

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Of course, there were fighter bombers in Africa but they also performed purely fighter duties, not dedicated 'Jabo' units. Also a number of bombers operated, Marylands, Baltimores, Blenheims or Bostons.
In general, Luftwaffe had a major problem in preventing Allied operations. There were few successes, but in general targets were bombed without any problems but weather. Of course, Allied strategy, rotation of aircrew as well as lack of targets prevented massive scores by Allied pilots. Plenty of them simply had no chance to see enemy aircraft or just like R. S. Johnson or Gabreski were to be send home after achieving 28 kills. Judging by the score of J. Johnson of 34+7 - 3 - 10 for a total of 54 victories, this becomes quite close to the results of top German aces in the ETO. Most of the pilots had no such chance, however.
Anyway, we are drifting away from the main topic - Hartmann's score.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

They flew more bomber sorties and dropped more bombs than light bombers (in daylight). I'm not discarding contribution of light bombers and only pointing out, that "[someone] piled up scores against fighters for glory and thus prevented Germany from winning WW2" statement is wrong at its core

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

I know this is my answer to everything, but I recommend reading the DEFE 3 series ULTRA (it’s all online) for, say, July to November 1942. You will find numerous reports of the damage inflicted by bombing on troops and supplies. The night bombing of Tobruk and other ports did, on occasion, inflict massive damage and the Axis supply situation was on a knife-edge throughout the period. There was talk of getting JG 27 pilots to fly at night in defence of the ports but that went nowhere. You will also find much about the critical loss of the tanker Tergestea off Tobruk, in the opening stages of Second Alamein. She was bombed and torpedoed within sight of shore and in daylight. The Navy complained that fighter escort would have prevented this (a couple of LG 1 Ju 88s were assigned instead).

On the other hand, the HW 5 series ULTRA (not online) includes regular updates on the latest scores of JG 27’s pilots and their cumulative totals. It is also clear just how much the Germans had invested in Marseille’s prowess, presumably as an inspiring example to others.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Nick

I specifically mentioned "in daylight" both times. I know of night bombing of North African ports which LW fighter pilots were in no position to prevent

Beside the fact, that Marseille was dead by this time, I./J.G. 27 was based more that 500 km to the east from Tobruk. How its pilots were able to prevent her loss is beyond comprehension. Withdrawal of fighter units from the frontline for point defence of the ports meant robbing ground troops of air cover. So it is naturally that those talks led to nothing. It was a problem which had no solution. And it was certainly beyond the grasp of Marseille or whoever else of LW fighter pilots to alter strategical situation

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

The point is not about the pilots' choices or individual capabilities, it is about how Göring, Kesselring and Flifü Afrika set priorities and deployed their forces. (And Rommel's fault for pursuing objectives that his supporting air forces could not meet).

It's not about Marseille personally or the pilots or I./JG 27 as a unit; no one can blame fighter pilots for pursuing individual glory if they are officially encouraged to do so. It's about the Luftwaffe's (and Regia Aeronautica's) failure or inability to secure the very supply chain on which their presence in Africa depended. Equally, without functioning ports the ground forces couldn't be sustained in Africa either, so air cover at the front was, in that sense, a secondary issue.

We are, incidentally going way off-topic as regards Hartmann's career.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

They were correct in their assesment. There was no question of effective night fighter activity, no matter how much units involved, without adequate ground organisation and ground control, non-existent in the theatre. It is not coincidence that I./N.J.G. 2, "Intruder" unit, least dependent from GC, was sent to the Mediterranean. Decision to rely on Flak units was sound.

I'm completely agree with you.


I think this is wrong dilemma. With the limited forces at their disposal the Axis only faced the choise of where their supplies would be lost - at sea, during unloading from ships (or MFP's at Mersa Matruh), in M/T convoys on a road to the frontline or at supply dumps in the vicinity of the frontline.

Agree

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Did Erich Hartmann claim any victories over Hungary AFTER December 9, 1944? If so, exact details (date, location, local time) plz?
Thanks,
Gabor

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Hi Guys

With "over-claimers" something else appears, that being "huge daily claims", yet even something else, that being big numbers e.i "100" "200" "300" days this meaning that on the day they get their "200th" it's a big day i.e Hartmann 193-202, 291-301, Rudorffer is another notable "big score claimer", the most notable high scoring pilots not having "huge daily claims" would be Günther Rall and Helmut Lipfert…….. it's very noticeable indeed, in fact with the purely honest guys they hardily every achieve 5+ in a day(except night-fighter pilots)

The greatest 5+ daily claimers were:- Nowotny, Hartmann, Rudorffer and Emil Lang.

Hans-Joachim Marseille it contrary to any patterns the other pilots show, and contrary to the theory that "big daily scorers" were all "over-claimers"

Kind Regards

Johannes

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

I./JG 53 was in Veszprem until 15 March 45. Hartmann was Kommandeur. His Rottenflieger Sommavilla has left an account of his 337th on February 4.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

An interesting and very intense day. Too bad, not much details on his claim, only as 'Yak-9'.

337 4.2.1945 - Yak-9 Stab I./JG 53 - OVERCLAIM? - in Veszprém area?

This day the 17 VA (3rd Ukrainian Front), which was operating in the Veszprém - Székesfehérvár - Lake Balaton area lost:

1 A-20G-36-DO 'Boston', downed by Hungarian Bf 109 fighters (17 VA, 244 BAD, 861 BAP, S/N: 43-10075, Lt. Shuvaev crew) near Sárkeresztes, but crashlanded at Zsámbék, Budapest-W.
2 IL-2m3 (951, 989 ShAP, plus a 3rd IL-2m3: No.1874886 was badly damaged, but repaired in 17 VA, 306 ShAD, 672 ShAP.)
3 La-5FNs (two 848 IAP La-5FN in dogfight, one 116 IAP La-5FN in accident, plus two 194 IAD La-5Fs written off (No.39215033, 39215251) as a result of PREV. DAYS'(!) actions.
NO Yak loss this day in 17 VA!!!

(Very intense tank-battle in the Székesfehérvár-N area for the city, dozens of soviet M4A2(76)W Shermans lost in the 3 UF, 1st Guards Mech. Corps to Panther Ausf. Gs of I./Pz.Rgt 24. Desperate street fights in Buda, in the Western, hilly side of Budapest - Citadella and the Royal Castle area.)

17 VA, despite of the very heavy dogfights (eg. on February 4, 1945) in the Székesfehérvár-Csór-Sárkeresztes area, lost only 1 (Tbilisi-built) 659 IAP Yak-3 in dogfight (S/N: 310137) on February 20, 1945 near Baracska in the whole month!!!!! Several Bf 109, Fw 190 claims, but only a single Yak-3 loss in dogfights in the entire month of February... Another Tbilisi-built Yak-3 (also from 659 IAP) went missing (MIA) near Esztergom the day before on a recce. mission on February 19, 1945 due to engine problem. (S/N: 310155, not combat related)


5 VA (2nd Ukrainian Front) was focusing on the Budapest area. On February 4, 1945 they lost:

3 IL-2m3 (130 and 131 GvShAP)
2 La-5FN (92 IAP, 178 GvIAP)
1 La-7FN (179 GvIAP)
2 Yak-9 (31 GvIAP)

Same list by cause:
Flak: 1 IL-2, 2 La-5
Fighter: 1 IL-2, 1 Yak-9
Unknown (MIA): 1 IL-2, 1 Yak-9

(List missed the single La-7 loss, but it was due to flak. La-7FN, S/N: 45210566, hit by flak over Buda, disintegrated in air, while dive-bombing and strafing German defence positions. Gv.Ml.Lt. Lebedev was KIA.)

5 VA, 6 GvIAD, 31 GvIAP Yak-9, S/N: 1515321, lost at 12:50 local at 4500 m, while patrolling at Budapest-W, 5 km. 6 Yaks vs. 8 Bf 109 near Csepel-island, crashlanded at Rákoscsaba. Pilot, Gv.Lt. Ivan Andreevich Yangaev, injured, taken to field-hospital in Isaszeg. His leader, Vidanov was MIA.

5 VA, 6 GvIAD, 31 GvIAP Yak-9, S/N: 2015350, lost at 12:50 local. 6 Yak, supporting soviet troops in Buda, combat with Bf 109. Pilot, Gv.Ml.Lt. Petr Yakovlevich Vidanov was MIA. His wingman, Yangaev crashlanded and got injured.

Without the details of Hartmann's late claims, it is very difficult to compare records.

Gabor

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

17 VA fighters and ground attack plane(s) lost in dogfight on February 4, 1945:

17 VA, 194 IAD, 848 IAP, La-5FN, S/N: 39215046, '46', lost in the Sárkeresztes-W area at 16:00 local at 2000 m, 6 La-5s in combat with Bf 109s, flak. Pilot, Ml.Lt. Vladimir Zacharovich Voronov was MIA.

17 VA, 194 IAD, 848 IAP, La-5FN, S/N: 39212754, '54', lost in the Sárkeresztes-W area at 16:00 local at 2000 m, 6 La-5s in combat with Bf 109s, flak. Pilot, Ml.Lt. Boris Petrovich Lazarev was MIA.

17 VA, 136 ShAD, 989 ShAP, IL-2m3, S/N: 11532, '27', lost in surprise fighter attack of 2 'Fw 190's from the sun over their own airfield at Kiskunlacháza, Budapest-S. Ml.Lt. Ivan Alexeevich Dzhanaev - Sgt. Angilenko crashlanded at airfield, gunner badly injured. Engine was later re-used in another plane, so only AC frame was written off, engine serial not mentioned.

Probably none of these dogfight losses was lost to Hartmann as 'Yak-9'.

(By the way, famous Spanish IL-2 pilot, Lt. Celestino Martínez Fierros (№19353, KIA) flew in the same, '3-stripes' IL-2 regiment (989 ShAP) and was lost to flak on March 9, 1945 in the Káloz area in his IL-2, S/N: 10586, fuselage No.'19'. He joined the soviet AF after the Spanish civil war, and was killed in Hungary in the spring of 1945 in the 3rd Ukrainian Front, 17 VA, 989 ShAP. See tail markings of their unit.)

Gabor

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Other claims over Hungary
No details as to type or time, but this is what the Luftflotte 4 Tagesmeldung contained in the 6th Army records (found at Information from German Documents in Russia 500
Inventory 12472 - Army Nos. 1-10, 1937 - 1945 Case 382. Documents of the operational department of the headquarters of the 6th Army: the magazine ...
Case 382. Documents of the operations department of the headquarters of the 6th Army: military journal, Case A, vol. 29: daily reports for 05. - 12/31/1944 - reports on the situation of the operational and reconnaissance units of the Fretter-Pico army group)

summarize as what the claims were on the following days

23 Dec 44
Luftlage Frame Number 430/579
Sorties 287 of which 146 FW 190 ground attack, 26 tank attack, 6 Me 210, 91 fighter, 18 recce
Success 1 tank, 8Lkw, 36 besp Fahrzeuge,
8 aircraft shot down, 2 damaged
6 aircraft lost.
Comment
II/JG 52 a/c
Yak-9 1048
III/SG 10 IL-2 1230, 1233, 1455
3 short. Probably all II JG 52.

24 Dec 44
Luftlage 447/579
Sorties not listed
Success 14 tanks 10 Lkw, 9 besp. Fahrzeuge
8 aircraft shot down
Special Mentions. On 23 December 1944 achieved Hptm Hartmann his 328th aerial victory, OberstLtn Rudel his 2400 sortie.
Nachmeldung Luftlage 471/579
Sorties 179 ground attack, 12 tank attack, 4 Panzerschreck, 142 fighter 16 destroyer, 20 recce
Success Add 17 tanks 100 vehicles destroyed
Add 19 aircraft shot down, plus 2 with out witnesses and 7 damaged. Hptm Hartmann his 331 aerial victory. Possible total of 19 aircraft shot down
Comment Total claims, either 19 or 27 aircraft shot down, it is unclear whether the later report included the previous 8 claims in the total, or the late reports claims were in addition to the previous 8 claims.
II/JG 52 IL-2 1425
a/c 329th, 330th, 331st by Hptm Hartmann
I/JG 53 Il-2 0908, 1103, 1358, 1401, 1405, 1405,
La-5 0926, 0932, 1410
III/SG 10 IL-2 1105

5 or 13 short, also dependent on whether Barkhorn made claims on the 24th or 25th.

25 Dec 44
Luftlage 472/579
Sorties 164 assault, 99 fighter, 18 recce.
Success 2 T-34, 76Lkw destroyed
23 aircraft shot down with witnesses, 2 without witnesses, 2 damaged.
Lost 1 fighter and 2 a/c missing.
Special mention Hptm Hartmann 5 victories, 336 victory. Major Barkhorn 4 victories, 289 victory.
Comment
II/JG 52 Yak-9 1208, 1215
a/c 9 by Hartmann/Barkhorn (unless Barkhorns includes 2 supposedly on the 24th.)
I/JG 53 IL-2 1155, 1433
La-5 1346, 1347, 1433, 1435

I/SG 10 R-5 1220
IL-2 1510
Leaves 4 or 6 short.
Nothing for the rest of the year presumably bad weather hindered operations.

Regarding the 4th Feb 45

The source for Hartman's claim is Erich Somavilla who was his NO 2 on the mission. His flight log may indicate the time of the action. I have a vague memory it has been sold on E Bay

Otherwise, all I have is Tubel of I/JG 53 made two claims, a IL-2 and a La 5 at 1645 and 1650, Ewald claimed two La-5 and Elias Kuhlein of 5/JG 51 a Yak 9. What else II/JG 51 may have claimed is unknown to me. I have not looked for any Tagesmeldung for 1945 as yet.

Generally for Nov Dec 44 the daily totals mention are more than the known Luftwaffe claims, what I have yet to do is see if the difference is what the Hungarians were up to.

Regards

Russell

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

More excellent work,

Is anything known about the famous VE Day victory claim?

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Russell,

Thankyou for posting this.

As I suggested in my previous post, we need to firm up on the claims data that are not in the Claim's Microfilms. The claims for II./JG 52 in the claims microfilm end on 21 Dec 1944 yet has been supplemented with several claims for Hartmann (& Barkhorn) in November (see my previous post). I believe these additional claims occurred after 21 Dec 1944 and this seems to support this. I also still believe the additional Il-2 claims are not correct - it was not Hartmann's style

Regards,

Craig...

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Thanks Russell, very interesting. Just briefly, this is what we have info for - here without the details, as it would be waaaaay too long... I'd consider everything else as overclaims for these days:

December 23, 1944:
17 VA:

2 La-5F - 1 fighter, 1 lost orientation, couldn't find base, crashlanded (no fuel?)
1 Yak-9D - fighter (Bf 109)
1 Yak-9M - fighter (Bf 109)
4 IL-2m3 - 4 to flak

5 VA:

6 IL-2m3, plus 1 seriously damaged, repaired (131 GvShAP, S/N: 19355)
1 La-5F - engine problem, repaired after crashlanding
1 Yak-1B (331 IAD, wear and tear, scrapped. S/N: 41177)

(In 5 VA list: 2 IL-2 combat losses to fighters)


December 24, 1944:
17 VA:

12 IL-2m3 - At least 5 to flak, 1 to accident, rest probably to fighters
5 La-5F - 2 accidents, rest fighters?
2 La-5FN - 1 scrapped after dogfight,
1 Yak-9D - 1 MIA
1 Yak-1B - 1 MIA

5 VA:

8 IL-2m3 - at least 3 to flak, 1 engine problem, rest to fighters?
3 Yak-1B - MIA and fighter

Contradicting 5 VA list: 1 Yak-9 MIA, 2 IL-2 to fighters, 2 IL-2 to flak.

VVS HQ:
1 Pe-2 (48 Гв.ОРАП, S/N: 19/296) - fighter, crashlanded

Night of December 24/25, 1944:

17 VA:
2 IL-2m3 (989 ShAP) in air-raid on ground: S/N: 10687 and 18744102 without crews.

December 25, 1944:

17 VA:

3 La-5 - 1 accident, 2 to fighters
4 Yak-1B - 3 to fighters, 1 MIA
2 Yak-9D - MIA
1 Yak-9T - fighter
3 Yak-9M - fighter
3 IL-2m3 - 1 flak, 1 fighter, 1 accident
1 Po-2 biplane (282 ОАПС, S/N: 14821) - fighter (Oblt. Norbert Schmitt (3./SG 10 as 'R-5')

5 VA:

1 Yak-1B - ground collision
1 Yak-9M - ground collision
1 IL-2m3 - training flight accident

No combat loss.
Gabor

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Russell, just some 17 VA losses to fighters on December 24, 1944:

17 VA, 189 ShAD, 707 ShAP, IL-2m3, S/N: 10270, lost at 11:07 local, after attacking German tanks in the Söréd-Bodajk-Mór area went missing, not seen again by their comrades. Pilot, Ml.lt. Nikolai Ivanovich Punkevich MIA, gunner, Vladimir Alexandrovich Zimin KIA. ~MATCHING III./SG.10 IL-2 claim at 11:05, - if German time is local!

17 VA, 189 ShAD, 707 ShAP, 2nd Sq., IL-2m3, S/N: 11350, ‘23’, lost at 11:03 local, in Bodajk-Mór area. Combat with Bf 109. Gunner, Semen Mihailovich Voronin killed, pilot, Ml.Lt. Anatolii Nikolaevich Denisenko head-injured, crashlanded at Szekszárd en route home. MATCHING I./JG.53 IL-2 claim at 11:03 - 100%!!!!, - if German time is local.

17 VA, 306 ShAD, 672 ShAP, IL-2m3, S/N: 1889801, fell at Bodajk-NE, 3 km at 8:30 local, from 600 m. Group of 20 IL-2s, plane burned. Hit by Bf 109. Pilot, 3rd Sq. commander, Nikita Nikolaevich Dyakonov (HSU!!!) and gunner, Alexandr Pavlovich Pogrebnikov were KIA. Confusing story, - some say they crashlanded and burned back at Szabadszállás airbase, buried there, etc.

17 VA, 189 ShAD, 707 ShAP, IL-2m3, S/N: 11368, lost at Fehérvárcsurgó-W, between 16:05-16:20 local. Attacked by fighters over the target area of Bodajk-Mór. Never seen again. Pilot, Genadii Vasilevich Valuev and gunner, Yurii Ivanovich Kasitsin were MIA.

17 VA, 295 IAD, 31 IAP, La-5FN, S/N: 39210807 was hit by fighter near Bicske at 13:25 (11:25 local), crashlanded back at the Kiskunlacháza airbase. Frame written off, engine handed over for repair, pilot, Ml.Lt. Nikolai Semenovich Bordyugov was injured.

17 VA, 295 IAD, 31 IAP, La-5FN, S/N: 39214036, lost while supporting their troops at the city of Székesfehérvár (in German: Stuhlweissenburg) At 13:25 (11:25 local), on their way, 8 La-5, led by Yakubovskii in combat with fighters (Bf 109s?) and Ju 87 Stukas near Bicske. Pilot, Lt. Anatolii Alexandrovich Lyubimov was MIA, probably downed by Bf 109.

17 VA, 295 IAD, 164 IAP, La-5FN, S/N: 3810413, or 39214355, or 41210113. At 15:20 (13:20 local) 4 La-5, led by Volodin covering 8 IL-2 at 600 m over Zali??? Combat with a pair of Bf 109s. Pilot, Nikolai Stepanovich Lyadov was MIA.

Cheers,
Gabor

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Hartmann's 352nd:

352. 8.5.1945 8:30-9:20 Yak-9 - OVERCLAIM - Stab I./JG 52 Brünn area: at 4000 m

Eric Hartmann's probably most symbolic, 352nd victory claim on May 8, 1945 was a soviet Yak-9 fighter in the Brünn (Brno) area at 4000 m. This area was taken by the 2nd Ukrainian Front, covered by their 5th Air Army. Checking all air activity of the 3 GvIAK (fighter command of the 5 VA: 6, 13, 14 GvIADs) we can conclude, that this claim was an overclaim.

The 3 GvIAK reported neither dogfights, nor losses on May 8, 1945. The only event was a brief encounter of recce. planes and 2 Bf 109s in the Znojmo (Brünn-SW) area. But no dogfight, no losses reported. Perhaps it was just a coincidence, but Yak-3 fighter, S/N: 45(292)35 of 5 VA, 3 GvIAK, 6 GvIAD, 85 GvIAP, 1st Sq. was repaired after mission due to radiator damage. But 85 GvIAP report clearly states that they had no combat losses in the entire month of May, 1945, plus Yak-3 No.4529235 was repaired in only 40 minutes at the base.

2nd Ukr. Front, 5 VA (90 GvShAP) lost only 3 IL-2s this day (S/N: 9884, 12854, 12888)

4th Ukr. Front, 8 VA, 565 ShAP lost 2 IL-2 (S/N: 9816, 10529), 996 ShAP 1 IL-2 (S/N: 18845111), 571 ShAP 3 new IL-10s (S/N: 1892604, 1890604, 1893203) over Czech. (Not all combat losses.)

Gabor

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Gabor,

Exceptional!!

...As usual.

Do you have anything else on the final victories. No.350 is also of course, very interesting

Nick

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Thanks Nick,

Hartmann's 350th claim was also a soviet Yak-9 fighter on April 17, 1945. Unfortunately no further details are known about it. Anyways, the 5 VA this day had a Yak-9 combat loss indeed, its details are known, but due to the lack of information on Hartmann's side, they cannot be compared. But let's be nice, and let's say this was a potential/legitimate victory for him:

350: 17.4.1945 - Yak-9 - POTENTIAL VICTORY - Stab I./JG 52 -

On April 17, 1945 the 5 VA, 13 GvIAD, 151 GvIAP lost a brand new Yak-9U fighter, the newest model of the Yak-9 family at that time, built in the Omsk-factory. (Zavod 166.)

5 VA, 13 GvIAD, 151 GvIAP, Yak-9U (S/N: 42166074), lost in a dogfight near Rapovice. Pilot, Gv.Capt. Egor Vasilevich Vasilevskii, (25+2 victories ace, HSU - Hero of Soviet Union) was unhurt. Between 18:00-18:30 local, he led his Yak flight against Bf 109s and Fw 190s and downed two of them. At the moment of his 2nd victory of the day, his plane was hit by (report says) flak. (But it could be fighter attack too from back, below.) He quit combat and returned to his side where he belly landed successfully.

Other fighter 'losses' in 5 VA on April 17, 1945:

5 VA, 3 GvIAK, 6 GvIAD, 85 GvIAP, 1st Sq. has written-off a Yak-1B (S/N: 29173) due to wear and tear.

5 VA, 279 IAD, 486 IAP, La-7FN (S/N: 45210925) was lost to flak. While escorting IL-2 Sturmoviks, plane was hit by small calibre flak and belly landed at Mutenice(?). Pilot, 1Lt. Constantin Pavlovich Burikinun was unhurt, plane later repaired.

Additional info for Hartmann's 352nd claim on May 8, 1945: Beside 5 VA, 3 GvIAK, neither 5 VA, 331 IAD, nor 5 VA, 279 IAD suffered fighter losses! Missions flown by 5 VA on May 8, 1945:

142 IL-2 flew 188 missions
116 Yaks flew 180 missions
90 La-5,-7 flew 126 missions
47 Po-2 flew 129 missions
11 (511 ORAP) recce. Pe-2 flew 11 missions (one each)
9 (218 BAD) A-20G Bostons flew 9 missions (one each)
.................................................. ...........................
No fighter losses!

Cheers,
Gabor

Sorties
 

"Missions flown by 5 VA on May 8, 1945:

142 IL-2 flew 188 missions
116 Yaks flew 180 missions
90 La-5,-7 flew 126 missions
47 Po-2 flew 129 missions
11 (511 ORAP) recce. Pe-2 flew 11 missions (one each)
9 (218 BAD) A-20G Bostons flew 9 missions (one each)"

I guess you mean sorties.

One sortie = one flight performed by one aircraft. 9 sorties = one flight each performed by 9 AC.

An unlimited number of AC can take part in a mission (or raid, or air attack), even more than 1,000 bombers and 700 fighters (like 1944 over Germany).

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Hartmann's other late claims...

345: 11.3.1945 - Yak-9 Stab I./JG 52 -
On March 11, 1945 the 17 VA lost 1 Yak-9D, 1 Yak-9M, 1 Yak-3.
5 VA lost 1 Yak-1B. This time Hartmann was stationing at Weidengut with Stab I./JG 52. From there, I think, the distance is too big to the op. area of the 5 & 17 VA, and unfortunately I have no records for others, - never researched.

349: 11.4.1945 - Yak-3 Stab I./JG 52 -
On April 11, 1945 17 VA lost 1 Yak-9M at Muraszombat (Murska Sobota, Slovenia). This time Hartmann was stationing at Raudnitz with Stab I./JG 52. From there, I think, the distance is too big to the op. area of the 5 & 17 VA, and I have no records for others, - never researched.

351: 25.4.1945 - P-39 Stab I./JG 52 -
Neither the 5th, nor the 17th Air Army that I have detailed records for used this model. What I know is that on April 25, 1945 2nd Belarus Front, 329 IAD, 66 IAP lost at least 2 Aerocobras: S/N: 44-3419 at Statgard (SIC!) and 42-18568 at Merkis-Fridland (SIC!). Both planes required new engines and radiators. Repairs were performed by 858 BAO, 13 RAB. This time Hartmann was stationing at Altkemnitz with Stab I./JG 52. I am not familiar with that region, not sure if any of these could match, or their distance was too big. No idea.

Gabor

Re: Sorties
 

Correct, sorry.
Gabor

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Gabor,

Are there any losses near Brno (Brunn) on the 7th May 1945?

In all the writings I’ve seen on Hartmann’s last claim, they state that Hartmann made the claim at about 8.30am on the morning of the 8th May and soon after landing, JG52 received the news of the German surrender. Reportedly they destroyed their aircraft, organised columns and moved out from their base at Deutsch-Brod by 2.00pm and encountered a US Army Tank unit on the evening (presumably around 6pm) of the 8th May at Pizek – 120km away. They move a further 25km to Strakonitz an held there before being handed over to the Russians on the 14th May or 24th May or after 8 days in American captivity – depending on source?

However, the events described above, to me are questionable, as the original unconditional surrender document was signed at 2.41am on the morning of 7th May and under the terms:

“The German High Command will at once issue orders to all German military, naval and air authorities and to all forces under German control to cease active operations at 23.01 hours Central European time on 8 May 1945, to remain in all positions occupied at that time and to disarm completely, handing over their weapons and equipment to the local allied commanders or officers designated by Representatives of the Allied Supreme Commands. “

The Germans wanted 48hrs to be able to notify the more remote units time of the cessation of hostilities but Eisenhower would only give 48hrs from the time of the beginning of discussions, believing the Germans were using delaying tactics, thus setting the deadline of 23.01hrs 8th May (midnight British time). The Russians insisted that a second signing to occur in Berlin at the surrender time (23.01 hrs 8 May) but this was not actually signed until the early hours of the 9th May – thus differing VE days. I’m not going to go further into the politics of the surrender but just to highlight the time difference of signing to surrender which is relevant to when units would have been notified.

Anyway, the order “to cease active operations” as part of the unconditional surrender would have been sent out on the morning of the 7th May (“at once issue orders”). Most units would have been notified on the 7th and those units that were notified on the 8th May were typically the units that could not be contacted by signal, thus couriers were sent to deliver the message with the last unit reportedly ceasing combat on the Eastern Front on 13th May.

Though it’s possible that JG52 didn’t receive the order until the 8th May, in my opinion this is unlikely as they were still in communication with higher command - having also received signals for Graf and Hartmann to fly out and surrender to the British – a signal mentioned as being hidden during his captivity.

Also, Gerhard Thyben made his last claim at about 7.54am on 8th May while he was evacuating the Courland Pocket (with his mechanic as passenger) – So Thyben already knew that the war was about to be over – likely getting notified the day before (7th May) – but soon after Hartmann was on an offensive patrol, thus reportedly didn’t know the war was about to be over – this doesn’t add up to me.

Could this be another case of Tolliver/Constables dramatic writing? Fighting to the end - last victory in Europe etc.? Whatever the reasoning, this is the earliest source that I know of, that detailed the case of Hartmann’s last victory and subsequent surrender. It seems this version is what is constantly being retold!

Anyway, I believe this claim occurred on the morning of 7th May, on an offensive patrol prior to getting the surrender instruction and that the date confusion was from the fog of war, thus my question about losses on 7th May.

Regards,

Craig…