Re: Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80?
 

I'm sorry, Mikhail, but I don't quite understand this.

Due to Krivosheyev, the USSR lost a total of 46,100 aircraft in combat between 22 June 1941 and 10 May 1945.

Due to Gemeinschaft der Jagdflieger, the German fighter pilots were credited with around 45,000 aerial victories on the Eastern Front 1941 - 1945. Then we have the claims made by AAA and ground troops, who also made overclaims.

Due to the same source, the Luftwaffenflak (AAA) reported its 20,000th victory in October 1944. However, at the same time, the USAAF recorded that 7,821 of its aircraft were shot down by enemy AAA in the European and Mediterranean combat zones 1942 - 1945, and I would guess that at least 5,000 aircraft of other Allied air forces (excluding the Soviet) were lost to German AAA, bringing the total to perhaps at least 12,000. Knowing that a number of Soviet aircraft were also shot down by Army ground fire, let's assume that German ground fire claimed 10,000 Soviet aircraft shot down.

If we add those approximately 10,000 "ground fire victories" to the 45,000 fighter victories, we get a total of 55,000.

Where are the margins for a 1:2 to 1:5...6 overclaims ratio when we know that the Soviets lost 46,100 aircraft (due to Krivosheyev)? Such an overclaims ratio seems to point at an actual number of only something like 16,000 Soviet aircraft shot down by German forces. So which were the reasons to all the other maybe 30,000 Soviet aircraft combat losses?

Also, regarding overclaims made by the Western Allies, I can agree that RAF overclaims generally were high, as often was the case regarding those by the American fighter pilots in the Mediterranean. However, many years of research has led me to conclude that hardly any fighter pilots on average submitted aerial victory claims with greater accuracy than the fighter pilots of the 8th USAAF. The ratio between victory claims and actual Luftwaffe losses is close to 1:1 for the 8th USAAF fighter pilots.

Re: Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80?
 

Any attempt to prove this nonsense?

Re: Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80?
 

note also: losses in combat means in soviet terms, "shot down in aircombat", "shot down by aaa" and "did not return from sortie"!.

Re: Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80?
 

Regarding claims made by fighters of the US 8th AF - just the few samples which my limited time permits (I have much more material upon which my conclusion is based, but neither time nor space allows me to write it all down here) :

German day fighter combat losses in "the West" or over Germany April 1944: 574 (including approximately 70 % to US fighters, an assumption based on extrapolated statistics for a number of selected Geschwader).

Aerial victory claims made by fighters of the US 8th & 9th AF in April 1944: 418

German day fighter combat losses in "the West" or over Germany May 1944: 630 (including approximately 80 % to US fighters, an assumption based on extrapolated statistics for a number of selected Geschwader).

Aerial victory claims made by fighters of US 8th & 9th AF in May 1944: 596

So for those two months, we have approximately 905 German fighters actually shot down by fighters of US 8th and 9th AF, while these US fighters were credited with a total of 1,014 aerial victories. That is an average of 0.9 aircraft actually shot down for every Us fighter claim - close to 1:1, as I said.

Regarding claims made by RAF Fighter Command (from Caldwell's "JG 26 War Diary", Vol. 2) (I have much more material upon which my conclusion is based, but neither time nor space allows me to write it all down here) :

March 1942:
RAF Fighter Command aerial victory claims (admitted as destroyed) : 53
Actual Luftflotte 3 losses: 11

April 1942:
RAF Fighter Command aerial victory claims (admitted as destroyed) : 66
Actual Luftflotte 3 losses: 24

For those two months we have 119 RAF Fighter Command claims versus 35 actual Luftwaffe losses, or a relation of 3.4 : 1.

US overclaims in the Mediterranean: See "Fighters over Tunisia" by Shores, Ring and Hess. (I have much more material upon which my conclusion is based, but neither time nor space allows me to write it all down here.)My time is limited, and I have no tables for comparison like the ones above, only a lot of cases which form a clear tendency. Here are two examples:

10 April 1943: US 1st FG claimed 18 Ju 52s and 8 MC 200s (of which one was claimed as an "Fw 190") while actual Axis losses in that combat were 10 transport planes and 2 MC 200s.

9 October 1943: US 14th FG claimed to have shot down 17 Ju 87s (including 7 by Maj. W. L. Keverette, the highest single-mission score by any US pilot in either the MTO or the MTO) while actual German losses were 8 Ju 87s (from II./StG 3).

For those two cases we have 43 claims against 20 actual losses, i.e. an overclaims ratio of more than 2:1.

While US fighter pilots in the Mediterranean regularly made such overclaims, the fighter pilots of the 8th AF only rarely made such high overclaims. (I have much more material upon which my conclusion is based, but neither time nor space allows me to write it all down here.)

I'm sorry if I don't have time to list more examples, but I can only establish that when I earlier today asked Franek to provide me with examples and sources to his statement about low moral in a certain air unit, he rather rudly told me that he refused to do so (claiming that he had provided me with such information previously, which is not true).

I thus end my discussion with Franek, and offer him the final word which I will not reply. It is not my intention to allow myself to be dragged down into another meaningless head game. I gave the facts above only because I know that other people here find the topic interesting and the facts useful.

Re: Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80?
 

First, let me clarify that Graham quoted me erroneously in his post. It was someone else who stated this.

Second, I tackled the thorny issue of overclaiming in my books in a couple of occasions.

One was in my 'Rumanian Air Force. The Prime Decade (1938-1947)' book, published by Squadron/Signal.
On page 6 I noted: "It is believed that Rumanian pilots and gunners claimed up to three times as many aircraft destroyed [in the 1941 campaign of Bessarabia and South-Western Ukraine] than was actually the case. (This was not a unique occurrence. According to a notable British researcher, RAF flyers filed five claims for one actual Luftwaffe combat loss during June 1941 [about the same time period])."
I must say that I received 'flak' from certain Rumanian researchers by raising this controversial issue for the first time...

Then, I noted in my 'Rumanian Aces of W.W. 2', published by Osprey, the following (page 37): "In the ensuing aerial battles, which peaked in May [1944], both sides [i.e., VVS and Luftwaffe & ARR] claimed an impressive number of victories. That month alone, ARR fighter pilots received credit for 50 Soviet airplanes downed, while another dozen claims remained unconfirmed.
By rigurously comparing loss data of both sides with victory claims, one can draw the conclusion that overclaiming was again widespread on both sides.
Indeed, in a private letter, a noted Russian aviation researcher approximates that during the May offensive alone, Soviet airmen fighting on the Moldavian front filed four times more claims than actual Axis losses, while he approximates that the Axis side overclaimed three times as many claims - a remarkable, albeit unofficial admission."

Very interesting discussion, by the way. I hope it will stay on course, and won't degenerate into flame war and name calling...

Re: Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80?
 

Hello I more or less agreed with Christer on USAAF, but IIRC RAF got its claim procedures more reliable later on.

One detail on 9 October 1943, besides Leverette’s and co claims, the Allied ships (one AA cruiser and 3 destroyers from RN plus one Greek ship) against which the Ju 87s from II./StG 3 were attacking when the Lightnings arrived claimed 3. On the debit side one destroyer was sunk and the AA cruiser Carlisle was very badly damaged. It was towed back to Alexandria but was never repaired.

Juha

Re: Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80?
 

Well, well, well. A typical answer.
Let's see what we have here.
1.
German fighter losses are compared to Allied claims, the latter including other types like bombers, transports, etc.
2.
Two months of operations (out of about two years) of 8 AF are compared to two (different!) months (out of about five and a half years) of RAF operations in Europe and general conclusions are drawn for the whole duration of war.
3.
There is a reference to an old and outdated book (Fighter over Tunisia) which contains plenty of errors and is to be completely rewritten.
4.
'Detailed investigation' of few cases of US overclaim in MTO vs no analysis of any combat on ETO. Of course this allowed the author to draw a general conclusion again.
Still, I see no proof for the thesis, instead I see a lot of incompetence.
I would love to see an explanation what had happenned to the aircraft downed by 56 FG on 22 May 1944 - obviously Mr Prien did a serious error having missed several German losses. Apparently he did so on 7 June 1944 as well. But I do not expect a detailed answer but another apples vs oranges.

Now you are either lying or never bothered to read my arguments. I mentioned discipline problems of 611 ShAP in several discussions with you and referenced to particular documents. Now I am too lazy to check references if you do not care about them.
Oh, one more thing. You claim you never got any sources from me. I have just checked your article, 'The effect of Allied numerical superiority in the air over Normandy in 1944', and saw what you wrote about Weber.
Direct quote is: 'Due to a Polish aviation enthusiast, Weber was shot down in a combat with only four Polish Mustangs, but I have in vain asked to see the source to that claim.'
Well, a lie again, because you know very well that my article 'Jour J+1 – Le grand jour du 133 Wing' does include detailed analysis of the combat as well as detailed sources. The fact that you did not bother to read the article does not mean the reference does not exist. I would only like to remind you that whenever someone asked for yellow 'von Graff's' Fw 190, your only reply was - 'buy my book'. My answer is - buy my article and have balls to call me by my name and not as an anonymous 'Polish aviation enthusiast'.

Re: Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80?
 

ah , now we can see, there were 10 British fighters lost that day.
in your first post there was nothing to read about these 10 ;) .

Re: Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80?
 

Yes, that's a fairly well known phenomenon for those who have studied the topic closely.

As above. However, we have to take into consideration that during the period when RAF Fighter Command saw the bulk of all air combats it was involved in, and when the majority of its claims were made - 1940 - 1942 - RAF Fighter Command made extensive overclaims.

In 1941, RAF Fighter Command was credited with 909 aerial victories while actual German aircraft losses were 183. I have already showed some examples of RAF Fighter Command overclaiming in 1942, and the rate of RAF Fighter Command's overclaims in 1940 is well-known. Overclaiming continued into 1943. Certain RAF units also made multiple overclaims on several occasions during the air war over Normandy in 1944, although I agree that RAF got its claim accuracy more reliable late in the war.

Re: Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80?
 

Well i think that it is not overcredited what german fighter pilots shot down,because i thik for the folloing reasons:

First most of the german fighter pilots flew most of the war and allied pilots where sent to the trainingschools.
Secons allied aces couldnt gain more earialvictories because the germans shot them out of the sky.
and i think that is to much to say that the nearly 100 germans to gain more than 80 earialvictories to question there integrety of claiming that.
Why is it not possible to say that the allies dont wanne give in that the claims are wright,why are they not making up something because in the sky the individual fighter pilot of the germans where much better than what allied fighter pilot ever will be,its the numbers that made the difference................

sorry i am an german,i hated the politics of the war,but not the soldiers who fought them and to say..........aaarrgghhhh what ever

Re: Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80?
 

very simple calculation made by christer.

if we take the claims of the german luftwaffe: 25.000 westallied AC destroyed in combat
add the claims of the flak : 10.0000 ac

= we have a number of 35.000 ac


now lets take the losses of the USAAF for europe/africa ( just first line losses: combat and accident)
25.022 ac


add the british losses of the bombercommand ( same as above)
8963 ac
add the fighter commands losses ( don´t know the exact )nummer
3500 ? ac

(not included the french/ dutch etc. ac´s lost in combat )

we have a number about 37500 ac.


claims made by the germans ( luftwaffe & flak ) 35.000 ,
the westallied lost 37.500 .
does it prove the luftwaffe had no overclaims ?

hell, of course not.
just to show christers calculation above is simple , very simple. ;)

but may i got it extremly wrong .

Re: Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80?
 

Let's note that, as a general rule, accidents made up as many losses as aerial combat. So a simple equation such as Boandlgramer's does not work. This evidence - if taken as gospel, and there seems to be too many assumptions for my taste - would imply something like a 2:1 ratio between claims and kills.

On other matters, there is not surprisingly a difference between claims made after the introduction of effective gun cameras and those made before. There is a difference in "reality" between claims made during times of intense fighting, where multiple units are involved, and where the battle takes place over the other side's territory, as opposed to low-intensity combat with few participants over your own soil. So if you must compare, then compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges, not just picking whichever fruit suits your own arguments.

Re: Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80?
 

graham, it was my intention to show , that it is not possible to do such a simple calculation ( see christer bergström´s post above)

Re: Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80?
 

Boandlgramer, I'm afraid you didn't read my post as close as you perhaps should have done.

You compare "the losses of the USAAF and RAF for europe/africa ( just first line losses: combat and accident)" with "claims of the german luftwaffe and flak".

Then you say that "it is not possible to do such a simple calculation ( see christer bergström´s post above)".

That of course is correct, because of what Graham Boak points out - "accidents made up as many losses".

But my figures for Soviet losses were more precise than your figures for US & RAF losses, and thus more suited for a comparison with German claims. Whereas your figures included "combat and accident" losses, my figures explicitly dealt only with combat losses. I quote my first post:

"the USSR lost a total of 46,100 aircraft in combat between 22 June 1941 and 10 May 1945."

(Due to the same source, Krivosheyev, the Soviets lost 106,400 aircraft between 22 June 1941 and 10 May 1945, of which 46,100 were lost in combat.)

But maybe you didn't misread me? Maybe you mean that it still is not possible to do such a calculation as I did in my post?

I think we can agree that the German overclaims ratio indicated by MB seems to point at an actual number of only something like 16,000 Soviet aircraft shot down by German forces - see my first post. (If you don't agree, then please give me your alternative assumption.)

Boandlgramer, then please explain to us all: Considering the latter, how can it be wrong to ask for the reasons to all the other maybe 30,000 Soviet aircraft combat losses? How come that is not a justified question in your eyes? Please explain how you think when you say that "it is not possible to do such a simple calculation"?

After all, a combat loss is per definition caused by an enemy of flesh and blood. . . You can't have 30,000 combat losses (two-third of all combat losses) without any enemy serviceman being involved in any of those losses.

PS: Due to official USAAF statistics, the USAAF lost 14,621 aircraft in combat - to enemy aircraft or to enemy AAA - in Europe and the Mediterranean during WW II. I think that figure - and not your "all causes loss figure" of 25,022 losses - could be compared with Axis claims. Don't you agree?

Re: Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80?
 

I do not think Graham reffered to your post. ;)
Anyway I suggest another comparison. Several claims of Billy Bishop are put in doubt by historians, so having in mind that US claims in recent Gulf War seem to be very accurate, I think it is correct to conclude US fighters are fare superior comparing to the Britons.

Re: Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80?
 

Dear Christer!

When you write about Soviet combat losses is it combat losses (=recorded expressly as such) or combat losses + "did not return" ?

"Did not return" inevitably contains also noncombat losses.


Regards,
Kari

PS I really would like to know what famous authors do avoid this forum because of the reasons you site? I have always been too plain-language speaking, but would like to think that at least I am not scaring anyone away.

Re: Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80?
 

Krivosheyev's work on Soviet losses isn't that detailed when it deals with all aircraft losses in WW II.

Of course. Krivosheyev's figures probably contain that cathegory as well. Do you find it plausible to assume that 65% of all combat losses during the whole war in fact were accidents which occurred over enemy territory when there was no "friendly witness" to see the circumstances? I don't think so. That was my main point. I think you understood that.

Well, suppose they would not like me to list their names here? Suppose I choose to respect their integrity? Suppose you make your own guesswork?

I think you understand that I was not talking about being frank, but that I was talking about desperate personal attacks on the verge of - and sometimes crossing the border of - slander, with the clear purpose of bringing down the personal reputation of a person as a person. It all stems from envy. I think it is obvious to everyone here that envy plays a certain role in several posts on TOCH, and that some of the most obsessed people here reveal their envy through such desperate posts.

Only a few minutes ago, I again received two e-mails from people who urged me to refrain from talking to people on TOCH because it is a free-fire zone for envious mudslingers, and they think I should not allow myself to become a target to such obsessed people. I think they are right.

Re: Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80?
 

Hej!

My guestion of the Soviet losses stemmed from the fact that the "did not return" category losses are often of the same level as combat losses. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that more than half or so of the "did not return" were caused of loss of orientation, bad weather, loosing instrument in clouds etc.

Juri Rybin has done extensive work of the Northern airwar. Valtonen's book gives numerous examples from late 1944 where German claims well exceed the real Soviet losses. The same is true vice versa and Rybin takes a lot of flak from his Russian colleagues because he has also written so. Mombeek's JG5 book uses (I guess) data from the same source and again there are many cases of german claims without real losses (or "no data found"). Was JG 5 the only Luftwaffe unit overclaiming? If II/JG54 did not overclaim then FinnAF nor Finnish AAA did not shoot down any Soviet plane during the Summer 1944 Soviet offensives. Should I believe that?

IMO there has to be discrepancy of the combined total of Luftwaffe claims Christer gave and the total what was submitted from the unit level. Is the total claims number correct and where is it derived from? Has Luftwaffe higher level corrected the claims to correlate with the real Soviet loss numbers? That would procide a circular reference. You are the expert here and I would like to learn more.

Taking FinnAF as analoque, it seems higher echelons were well aware of overclaiming but did not take measures against that (and why would they? to raise spirit of the corps?). It looks to me that only when the kill race went overboard spring 1943 some action was taken to reduce the overclaiming (with some success). My interpretation is that this was done to avoid unnecessary aircraft/pilot losses because of the "hunting sport".

Cheers,
Kari

PS About the famous authors missing from this forum. You suggest that I make my own guesswork. Frankly, I do not have the faintest idea of what authors you are talking about. That was why I was asking the first place. I was just curious as I would like to know what I am missing. OK with me if you want to keep your secrets.

Re: Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80?
 

I only see some hugely over inflated ego of their own self importance with a rather large insecurity paranoria thrown in for good measure, who does much whinning like a spoilt child.

I don't think someone has to worry about desperate people ruining their reputation for they are doing such a good job of it all by themself. Did such a good job of it on another board he had his name replaced with 'user deleted by request'.

Re: Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80?
 

Kari, you have very good questions, they deserve an answer, and I can give you the answers.

But I'm afraid there are too many trolls here - too many people focused on my person instead of the subject as such - so I will leave the discussion. Drop me an e-mail instead, and I'll send you a personal reply. (But don't expect me to give you any names; I will stick to the WW II related questions.)

Re: Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80?
 

hello Kari
surely the JG 5 wasn't the only JG overclaiming but IMHO it was rather extreme case. On that Finnish AF case, as You know Luukkanen, the CO of LeLv 34, was against the reining of the "hunting" because he was afraid that it would undermain the agressiveness of his pilots. IMHO he rightly thought that the agressiveness was one of the main ingredients of good fighter pilot but in this case the higher echelons were probably right, it wasn't very productive to try to "hunt" I-153s with Bf 109Gs over such a well defended place like Lavansaari. Especially for the FAF which was entirely dependent from Germany for resupply of combat capable fighters.

On claim accuracy, in west one problem are the air-gunners, their claims were heavily inflated but they shot down a lot of planes and one must figure out some sort of estimete of their share before it is possible to begin calculate an estimate on the accuracy of Allied fighter pilots claims.

Juha

Re: Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80?
 

a lot of cross reading in this thead.:)
no reason to become angry , christer .
not everybody is a troll.


maybe another try:
from your post.

German day fighter combat losses in "the West" or over Germany April 1944: 574 (including approximately 70 % to US fighters, an assumption based on extrapolated statistics for a number of selected Geschwader).

were these 574 fighters shot down in the air only and we have to add about the same number lost due accident ?
as graham wrote: accidents made up as many losses as aerial combat

were the german fighter losses in the west in april about 1100 ac ?
or was the accident rate compared to the combat rate even higher than 1: 1 , due the poor training of the new pilots ?

Re: Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80?
 

btw.

these are not MY numbers.
i took them from here:

http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/w...d_pdf/t100.pdf

Re: Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80?
 

Boandlgramer, of course I agree on the troll issue. I am avoiding the irritating kids which use this forum as a playground, and I instead send my replies in personal messages to the serious people here who have asked me questions and not yet received answers. Check your Personal message inbox, Boandlgramer.

MB and other serious people, now I think you understand why I prefer that you send me an e-mail when you have questions.

Re: Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80?
 

I totally agree with Juha: the Reichsverteidigung losses are not as easy. The bomber gunners always shot down significant number of fighters, you must counting it too (and must knowing it), but the serious overclaiming of the US bomber gunners again another problem.

Re: Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80?
 

Csaba, another personal message is going out. Check your inbox.

Re: Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80?
 

I am still awaiting a reply for my questions.

http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/normandy4.htm
I am curious why do you call me a Polish aviation enthusiast while everybody knows that my name is Franek Grabowski. Also, I would like to know, why do you lie about sources? You perfectly know that I have published my findings in a French journal. See http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=1055 for example.
Finally, what is the matter with sources if you cannot quote them properly. Prien/Rodeike mention three Me 109s lost on 7 June 1944!

Re: Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80?
 

I am closing this thread. It has gotten off topic (Hartmann's claims) and is getting personal. If someone wishes to start a new Hartmann claim thread and stick to the subject matter, that's fine. But this thread is way off topic.