Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

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.

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

Dear Dénes:

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.

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.

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

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

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

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.

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

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

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

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

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

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

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

Rasmussen:

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.

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

Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

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/..._122_102lo.jpg http://img228.imagevenue.com/loc501/..._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

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

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

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

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.

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

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

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

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

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).

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

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

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

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.

Over Claiming and Gun Camera Evidence / Confirmation
 

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

Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

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

Gun Camera Evidence / Conformation - Huge Claims
 

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

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

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

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

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

Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

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/..._122_163lo.jpg http://img166.imagevenue.com/loc346/..._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

Gun Camera Evidence / Conformation
 

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

Re: Gun Camera Evidence / Conformation - Huge Claims
 

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

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

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?

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

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.

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

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

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

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.

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

Michael,

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

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

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.

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

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.

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

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

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

I suppose yes, at least for the time being.

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

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

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

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.

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

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

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

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

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

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.

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

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

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

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

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

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

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

Wonderful post Rob!