Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Agree, but soviet unit diaries are preserved (at least for the later years of WWII), mechanical reports have cross-references in regular AC inventory reports and there are German pilots, whose claims can be verified from the very same Russian diaries for over 90%! Not just for 29%, like Hartmann's, but over 90%! And that's a big difference. This tells me that those diaries are OK, as the soviets had no clue who sat in those German planes in order to manipulate their records accordingly. Don't forget, that these diaries were still written for themselves as top secret records (and if they did not report the losses, they did not receive new planes and pilots!!!), and not in the '50s, (cold war era) when everybody tried to lie to the 'other side'... We cannot paint both WWII and the cold war era with the same brush...

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Really good post. I was on the other side of this for a long time, but no more.

The big question is WHY? Why did it happen?

Bronc

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Let me clarify the, "why" question.

Was this (could this have been) official (sanctioned) over-claiming for morale (press and propaganda) purposes, OR was this personal ambition, OR had Hartmann perfected a "boom and zoom" aerial combat strategy where he engaged the enemy aircraft with a burst of fire and never looked back. In essence, was he claiming engagements as kills?

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Bronc, these are the questions that I cannot answer. I did not know Hartmann personally and never talked to him, so it would not be fair for me to pretend that I have the correct answer(s). The only thing I know, is that his victory-list contradicts the soviet loss records 'beyond all imagination', while others' match them pretty well. I do not know what political pressure was on him, or he really believed his numbers. He was a very skilled and brave pilot, because even if he destroyed 'only' 102 planes, it is still an amazing achievement. I think his preferred tactics of a quick ambush ('hit and run') itself carried the big chance to misunderstand the actual results. Smoke, or even flames were very visual results, but very often not enough to justify an aerial victory. Everything happened in a split of a second and I think the damaged planes still could have a good chance to survive, as Hartmann usually did not turn back for a second strike.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Hi Guys

In my experience the most accurate area of claiming was by the night-fighters whose victims often burned which is very obvious, and second attacks much less risky, so in that respect I agree that Hartmann's method of attack would be much less often fatal, but there still lies the question of formality i.e the crash has to be witnessed. As explained before Fritz Obleser is often credited with claims against the U.S.A.A.F, but none appear on the mikrofilms, fortunately we were able to question him about this before his death, actually we presented him with an abschüßelist, as his flugbuch was stolen during 1945, yet still he stated that though he himself was sure he had shot-down nine American aircraft, but he did not submit the claims as in each case he was too pressured to wait around to witness the actual crash. Perhaps Hartmann was not so adhering to formality. Even so checking his claims against his comrades there does seem to be collusion at times as per back scratching, and other periods where his claims are not explained away but this.
A new angle could be the witnesses, with night-fighter I am guessing that the gunner/radio operators fulfilled this job, which is strange as this would be an obvious opener for false claims, yet then why are they so accurate?....my guess is that the crash-sites were easily open to investigation, can't be that these guys were just all an honest bunch. Now day-time ZG units claims are actually not very accurate, especially earlier on, during the battle of Britain there would be no crash-site available.
In the East usually crash-sites were not available for examination. Also I have noticed that the worst offenders were also Gruppenkommandeur, with Rudorffer he obviously used his wingman Tangermann back scratching wise, but not Hartmann or Nowotny, I don't know, and am looking for an answer as to who signs-off a Kommandeur or Kommodore's claim. Nowotny's earlier claims(prior to being Kommandeur) were obviously achieved with back scratching using Dobele and Loos.
Hartmann was not popular among his comrades, not necessarily because he was suspected by them of false-claims, he was a poor officer, but what of his personality?
Marseille's wingmen had a hard job just keeping-up with recording his claims including the crash-sites, but it was done, so it can be done.
Hartmann records only one claim whilst flying for JG53, in a period when there should really have been more, but his 1945 claims are generally vague anyway and as such cannot really be investigated as in most cases we cannot even really be sure about the dates net alone time or place, or even aircraft type.

An over-claimers pattern of "kills" are usually very obvious, Hartmann, Rudorffer, Nowotny all follows this pattern, whereas Günther Rall, Walter Krupinski and Helmut Lipfert stand out particularly as not following this pattern, but Marseille's does....a one-off ?

Kind Regards

Johannes

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

A very interesting victory analysis from Ivan Lavrinenko for Eric Hartmann's claims in Jassy, in the spring of 1944. Out of his 35 claims about 26% could be potential victories. This is worse percentage than what I found for him over Hungary (I found about 30%), but still not too far from it. Based on these, the number of Hartmann's real victories in WWII could be around 95-100.

https://warspot.ru/3125-hartman-nad-...one-za-mechami

Gabor

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

On February 21, 1945 2nd Belarus Front, 4 VA, 327 BAD, 640 BAP Douglas A-20G-35-DO Boston (S/N: 43-10097), piloted by Ml.Lt. Vasilii Fedorovich Artamonov (+) was shot down by 8-10 enemy fighters over Poland. Navigator-bombardier, Ml.Lt. Andrei Nikiforovich Krivohizha was also killed.

(The other 4 VA, 327 BAD, 640 BAP A-20G-40-DO Boston (S/N: 43-21503) this day, piloted by Ml.Lt. Temeryatnikov was damaged by flak.)

Since no further details are known for Erich Hartmann's 335th Boston III. (or Mitchell?) claim in Jan-Feb, 1945, No.43-10097 is a potential 'candidate' for him, but cannot be verified, until more specific details of Hartmann's claim are revealed.

Gabor

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

hello,

On February 21, 1945 i cant find claims of Hartman...

info of Johannes Mathews:

4,2.45 1./JG 53 Hptm Yak-9 Veszprém area _____ _____ E N 337
20,2.45 I./JG 52 Hptm P-39 _____ _____ E N 338
20,2.45 I./JG 52 Hptm La-5 _____ _____ E N 339
6,3.45 I./JG 52 Hptm La-5 raum Oppeln/Brieg Oppeln/Brieg _____ _____ E KBT N 340
6,3.45 I./JG 52 Hptm Yak-9 raum Oppeln/Brieg Oppeln/Brieg _____ _____ E KBT N 341

regards

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Hi Gabor

It's difficult to arrive at a "total" based on percentages. It must be a fact that in "over-claiming" Hartmann was so inclined, but he also needed the opportunity, though 9./JG52 in particular, and 7./JG52 had fellow "over-claimers" they were not all so inclined, I suspect as a matter of my own opinion that Hartmann's claims before July 1943 were honest, at this point i suspect the opportunity appeared, that's not to say that there were not "over-claimers" already in operation at this time. 9./JG52 had the Hermann Graf schwarm claiming like mad over a year earlier.

Guess we need to workout just for how long he did "over-claim", and did he have periods when he couldn't get away with it, there is at least one period then he was with JG53.

Kind Regards

Johannes

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

I think everything was already mentioned earlier about Hartmann's claims. Calculated average, based on his fall and spring, 1944 claims - researched in details, etc. Most of his claims were max. damaged planes at best for about 70%. But I think eg. his final, May 8, 1945 Yak-9 claim was not just a mistake, or a damaged plane, - simply it was not true. Did not happen at all. (How could I say it nicer?) No combat events between soviet Yaks and the Luftwaffe in the whole region in the entire day. Closest Yak loss was about 240 km north from the reported area of Brno.

Gabor

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Hi Gabor

Agreed, the claim for 8th May 1945 should be easily investigated due to the location be so specific.

However where does this claim come from, Toliver/Constable, this books portrayal of Hartmann is riddled with inaccurate tales, like four Il-2's being bought down due to one shot, all those Mustangs, so much detail was put into it. So did Hartmann tale these tales, or did the authors make it up? We do know that Hartmann made-up official tales if his claims are anything to go by.

I acquired a flugbuch of a pilot taken prisoner during 1940, I had him down with a few "kills" but his flugbuch showed about another ten, unconfirmed? not so.they look like they were added in later i.e this pilot(has motive) or somebody else who had acquired the flugbuch added them in !......strange World isn't it.

All the best

Johannes

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Hi Folks,
Just checking Erich Hartmann’s six P-39 Aerocobra ‘victories’ on June 4, 1944. It is believed (http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showpo...99&postcount=4), that his No.249 and No.250 victories were Maj. B. B. Gakhaet's and Leytenant Nikolay L. Trofimov's planes from the famous 16 GvIAP:

244: 4.6.1944 15:10 P-39 9./JG 52 78 733: at 1.500m
245: 4.6.1944 15:25 LaGG 9./JG 52 78 595: at 200m
246: 4.6.1944 17:13 P-39 9./JG 52 78 596: at 2.000m
247: 4.6.1944 17:23 P-39 9./JG 52 78 591: at 2.500m
248: 4.6.1944 17:53 P-39 9./JG 52 78 590: at 2.000m
249: 4.6.1944 18:15 P-39 9./JG 52 78 565: at 2.000m
250: 4.6.1944 18:18 P-39 9./JG 52 78 560: at 2.000m

Well, reading the combat diary of 16 GvIAP for June 4, 1944 I should slightly disagree with that. In the diary we can found the following info for June 4, 1944:

Single sortie between 11:55-12:15 (Moscow time), 1 Aerocobra (Torbeev), returned OK.

Mission #1 between 12:46-13:38 (Moscow time), 8 Aerocobras in the Larga area, covering soviet ground troops at 1500 m. (Fedorov, Lihachev, Torbeev, Statsenko, Starchikov, Novikov, Nikitin, Belozherov) Combat with 8 Fw 190, 2 Bf 109 - No losses.

3 single (training) sorties between 14:40-15:15 (Moscow time), No losses. (Koryaev 2x, Onishenko 1x)

Mission #2 between 16:25-17:30 (Moscow time), 10 Aerocobras in the Larga area between 1500-2500 m. (Klubov, Ivankov, Trofimov, Ketov, Ivashko, Berezhkin, Sukhov, Dushanin, Glinka, Vahnenko) Combat with 15 Ju 88, 14 Me 109, 12 Fw 190. Capt. Klubov downed an Me 109 at Redich (Dedich?), while Ivashko at Bogonos. 1 Ju 88 and 3 Fw 190s (by Glinka, Trofimov, …) were also claimed. Consumed ammo: 129 37mm, 940 12.7mm, 6529 7.62mm rounds. On the other hand 3 soviet Aerocobras were damaged:

Gv.Ml.Lt. Vladimir Vasilevich Dushanin (1922): damaged and force landed at Probota-E, 500 m
Gv.St.Lt. Alexandr Romanovich Ivashko (1922): got a large hole in left wing.
Gv.Ml.Lt. Petr Vasilevich Ketov (1922): engine & radiator damaged by flak. All repaired, but perhaps a ‘force landing’ can be considered an ‘aerial victory’.

Mission #3 between 18:20-19:15 (Moscow time), 8 Aerocobras in the Larga area. (Starchikov, Novikov, Torbeev, Statsenko, Ivanov, Onishenkov, Nikitin, Belozerov) Combat with 6 Fw 190, 4 Bf 109 at 2500 m. St.Lt. Nikolaii Alexeevich Starchikov downed a Fw 190, which fell at Movileni(?)–SE, 3 km. St.Lt. Grigorii Grigorevich Statsenko got damaged, but hit another one. Consumed ammo: 95 37mm, 950 12.7mm and 1400 7.62mm rounds. No soviet losses!

As you can see, Trofimov is mentioned indeed in the 2nd mission, but not as a victim, but rather a victory claimer! (Interestingly Gakhaet is not mentioned anywhere in the diary, only Gv.Maj. Glinka - so Gakhaet was probably just a typo. But they were NOT shot down by anyone, especially not by Hartmann!)

But beside the 16 GvIAP, the 5 VA, 7 IAK units (having 104 Aerocobras on June 4, 1944) also flew P-39 in the area. Their combat reports are similar to the 16 GvIAP:

205 IAD:
508 IAP – no losses
438 IAP – no losses
129 GvIAP – no losses

304 IAD (only 4 sorties), IAD HQ: 1 sortie
9 IAP – no sorties/no losses
69 GvIAP – no losses, 1 sortie
21 GvIAP – no losses, 2 sorties

At the end of the day, the 5 VA reported the following losses:
Dogfight: 1 Yak-9, 1 IL-2
Flak: 4 IL-2
Missing: 2 IL-2, 9 Yak-9, 2 Aerocobras

Since the detailed combat reports do not reveal permanent Aerocobra losses this day, only the 5 VA summary report (2 P-39s), thus they were probably just two temporary losses (which landed somewhere else, not back at their base) and got repaired later.

Long story in short: Erich Hartmann’s six P-39 ‘victories’ (#244, #246, #247, #248, #249, #250) on June 4, 1944 were most likely just damaged planes (not destroyed ones), which later returned to combat service. If we consider the force landed planes as ‘victories’, then max. 1-2 victories vs. 4 overclaims, - however the times of Hartmann’s claims and the soviet missions are a bit different.

This ratio (again) matches Hartmann’s max. ~30% reliability.

Gabor

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

In my opinion, this latest research supports my, "boom and zoom" hypothesis, that being, Hartmann was claiming one pass, boom and zoom engagements as victories. Visualize Hartmann (and a trusted wingman) diving to engage Russian aircraft, full power, rocketing out of the sky, guns blazing for one pass--one pass only--then zooming clear and away to safety.

As they look back the Russian aircraft is smoking and in a dive: that's a kill.

Going back to confirm the kill or mixing it up with the other Russian guys was a darn good way to die.

Except for his wingman he was outnumbered 3-5-7-10 to 1 most of the time, outnumbered and alone on a free hunt, correct?

How else do you go into combat every single day, and usually multiple times a day, being outnumbered 3-5-7-10 to 1 most of the time and survive? Boom and zoom is the only way--and hanging around to confirm a kill was a sucker's bet.

Thoughts?

Bronc

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

It makes sense; similarly Chris Shores reports on his current volumes of The Med Air War Some vics by Marseilles were probably 'damaged' (given his confidence in his abilities, if he hit it, it must have gone down) with mg fire but then another I/JG27 experte also dove it and got in his licks as well--so they both got credit.

Anyway, per the memoirs of Helmut Lipfert, VERY late in the war, he saw that Hartmann waited 'upstairs' and watched the local fighter patrols flying aircover over a fixed point; when the patrols reached the point they needed to turn and head back the other direction, it was felt the pilots were more concerned about keeping formation and avoiding collisions when making those turns, so that's when he'd dive down to shoot then return to altitude to either wait for another chance or slip away in the ensuing chaos.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Bronc, I think you are correct. With an instant ambush it was next to impossible to verify the results. Even a few 'very visual' hits were not enough to down a plane. This is why about 70% of Hartmann's so called 'victories' turn out to be just damaged ones. Lipfert eg. knew, that just to damage an enemy plane was already a huge achievement in itself. Three 'real' air-to-air victories a day was an extraordinary and unusual success for any pilot. This is why I am still amazed that despite of this, generations truly believed the repeated six or more air-to-air victories for Hartmann... General rule: victories can/should ultimately be confirmed by the verified losses of the opponent side, not by the reported claims of your own. (For any sides, of course.)

Gabor

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

It gets even more confusing when you have a very rugged aircraft (say a Grumman F4F, P40 or P47) vs a lightly armed aircraft (say a Mc202 or a Ki43, or even a early mark of Zero), especially when you're evasive action of choice is dive like hell at full throttle-all the opponent has time to see is an aircraft diving like it's out of control, streaming black smoke (exhausts?) after being hit. I think Lundstrom 'First Team' recounted a Coral Sea dogfight where a F4F pilot got jumped; dove away then climbed back up into the fight several times. He survived but multiple Zero pilots claimed a shot down 'Grumman' in each encounter.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Hi Gabor,

I really appreciate your work and information sharing on this forum! Really good job with lot of information and history.

In your review, there is this info:

Missing: 2 IL-2, 9 Yak-9, 2 Aerocobras

How was these 2 Aerocobras lost and do you have some info about Yak-9?

Can be some of this losses linked to Hartmann victory or other german pilot?

Thanks

FAenor

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

"Boom and Zoom", what you are basically saying is that Hartmann thought he had made a "Kill", but both he and more so his wingmen did not follow protocol regarding making a claim, this dictates that actual witnessing the crash had been made. Friedrich Obleser we(Bernd Barbas) questioned him about the lack of mikrofilm evidence of his USAAF claims he supposedly made, his reply was "I was in such danger myself that I didn't wait around to witness the crash".... therefore he submitted no official claim. Though I cannot really find any evidence that Hartmann had a "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine" thing going whilst famous, or earlier on in his claiming, there is a marked period in mid-1943 that I would say he could have, and probably did employ this method. Mostly during his fame he alone is claiming, therefore this method could not have been employed, well unless some other form of bribery was employed.

With Walter Nowotny the "scratch" method was employed practically throughout his claiming, no thinking they had crashed! As A Kommandeur he just used an old wingman from his previous staffel, not so with Hartmann.

Kind Regards

Johannes

Aerocobras or Airacobras?
 

[quote=Faenor;297776]Hi Gabor,



Missing: 2 IL-2, 9 Yak-9, 2 Aerocobras

How was these 2 Aerocobras lost ...

Hie Faenor, I am not trying to educate you or something. This fighter-type was called Airacobra in the country which produced it but I don't know whether this name was entirely "respected" in the USSR or not: perhaps they did change it a little.

I wrote this because you and other people could have some difficulties when using a search engine in order to get more details, the first syllable not being the same in both cases: Aira vs Aero.

Aerocobras or Airacobras?
 

[quote=Faenor;297776]Hi Gabor,



Missing: 2 IL-2, 9 Yak-9, 2 Aerocobras

How was these 2 Aerocobras lost ...

Hie Faenor, I am not trying to educate you or something. This fighter-type was called Airacobra in the country which produced it but I don't know whether this name was entirely "respected" in the USSR or not: perhaps they did change it a little.

I wrote this because you and other people could have some difficulties when using a search engine in order to get more details, the first syllable not being the same in both cases: Aira vs Aero.

Aerocobras or Airacobras?
 

[quote=Faenor;297776]Hi Gabor,

"Missing: 2 IL-2, 9 Yak-9, 2 Aerocobras

How was these 2 Aerocobras lost ..."

Hie Faenor, I am not trying to educate you or something. This fighter-type was called Airacobra in the country which produced it but I don't know whether this name was entirely "respected" in the USSR or not: perhaps they did change it a little.

I wrote this because you and other people could have some difficulties when using a search engine in order to get more details, the first syllable not being the same in both cases: Aira vs Aero.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

FAenor,
Indeed, on June 4, 1944 the soviet 5th Air Army has reported the following summarized losses, however, the detailed unit reports are a bit different in some minor details:

Dogfight: 1 Yak-9, 1 IL-2
Flak: 4 IL-2
Missing: 2 IL-2, 9 Yak-9, 2 Aero(SIC!)cobras

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

16 GvIAP temporarily lost 3 damaged P-39s during the 2nd daily group mission between 16:25-17:30 (Moscow time) which, I think, is an hour late compared to the local time. Later all 3 planes got repaired. (See details in prev. notes.) Since the 5th Air Army summary-report mentioned 2 missing Airacobras, I assume they were the seriously, but not fatally damaged planes (Gv.Ml.Lt. Vladimir Vasilevich Dushanin and Gv.Ml.Lt. Petr Vasilevich Ketov), which landed somewhere else, not back at their base. These, or some of them could be Hartmann’s claims, however in this timeframe (15:25-16:30, local) he claimed NO P-39s!!! But If you consider both fighters to be Hartmann’s victims, then it’s 2 planes vs. his claimed 6. (Which were later repaired.) So ‘0 vs. 6’, or ‘2 vs. 6’. Still very poor, temporary result!

5 VA, 294 IAD, 427 IAP lost 4 Yak-9 and 3 (of their) pilots from St.Lt. Shamenkov’s flight: Lt. Shakurov, Ml.Lt. Kozlov and Ml.lt. Morozov. Ml.Lt. Pavel Antonovich Ponomarenko and Ml.Lt. Ivan Fedorovich Golovanov (both 427 IAP) were KIA in dogfight with enemy fighters. 8 Yak-9, 12 IL-2 vs. 14 Fw 190, 6 Me 109 in the Larga area between 16:00-17:00 (Moscow time). Ml.Lt. Sergeev’s Yak-9 crashlanded on soviet controlled territory, burned out, but the injured pilot returned to his own unit. 4 Yak-9 vs. 6 Fw 190s in the Larga area after 09:43, Moscow time.

(I think one of these 427 IAP Yak-9s could be Hartmann’s 245., ‘LaGG’ victory.)

Between 09:28-10:00 (Moscow time) two 5 VA, 231 ShAD, 873 ShAP IL-2s (Potapov, Kisterev) took off for a recce. mission in the Tăutești-Horlești area. Over the target the recce. pair had received intense flak fire and Ml.Lt. Nikolai Ignatevich Kisterev‘s IL-2 (S/N: 9341, gunner: Morozov) was shot down. Plane fell in the Tăutești area. Not air combat!

Between 16:27-17:15 (Moscow time) 12, 873 ShAP IL-2s were attacking about 50 enemy tanks and 100 other vehicles in the 173. point area (Iassi-NW, ~13 km). Dogfight with 6-8 Me 109s, plus AA fire. After the attack, IL-2 (S/N: 7707, pilot: Ml.Lt. Tsukerov) failed to return from combat mission. Since in the late 188 GvShAP records this very same plane was mentioned at least twice due to combat damages (February 4 and 29, 1945), this time it had to be only seriously damaged and repaired, but NOT lost. It probably force landed somewhere else and returned to base only after repair. That’s why it is not listed as a permanent loss. (The 873 ShAP was re-organized as 188 GvShAP by October 27, 1944.)

5 VA, 231 ShAD, 568 ShAP IL-2 (pilot: Maj. Mikhail Ivanovich Kasimov, gunner: St.Sgt. Gorelov) was shot down by enemy fighters in the target area.

5 VA, 231 ShAD, 568 ShAP IL-2 (pilot: Ml.Lt. Boris Petrovich Koselev, gunner: Sgt. Starkov) was shot down also by an enemy fighter in the target area.

(In the dogfight two additional air gunners were killed (Ml.Sgt. Alexandr Dmitrievich Gatilov and Ml.Sgt. Mikhail Grigorevich Zelenin), but their planes returned to base OK.)

5 VA, 231 ShAD, 568 ShAP IL-2 (pilot: Lt. Vladimir Ivanovich Pushkarev, gunner: Ml.Sgt. Zenin) was shot down by flak in the target area.

(At 16:20, 12 IL-2s of 568 ShAP were escorted by 6 Yak-9s. Combat with 4 Fw 190, 4 Me 109, - 3 losses.)

Between 19:30-20:38 (Moscow time), 12 5 VA, 7 GvShAD, 130 GvShAP IL-2 attacked targets in the Moimești area. IL-2m3 (S/N: 1878584, pilot: Gv.Ml.Lt. Ivan Petrovich Saharov, gunner: Ml.Sgt. Victor Ivanovich Lesovoi) was hit by flak and crashed in the target area.

Another 130 GvShAP IL-2m3 (S/N: 1878291, white ‘1’, pilot: Kravchenko, gunner: Kulakov) was damaged in a dogfight with 2 Fw 190s. Crew got injured.

Hope this helps.
Gabor


(Rof120: the soviet 5th Air Army document says AEROcobras, not AIRAcobras. Not a big deal, we all know they were P-39s ;-))

Aira, Aerocobras
 

(Rof120: the soviet 5th Air Army document says AEROcobras, not AIRAcobras. Not a big deal, we all know they were P-39s ;-)

- Yes, of course you're right. Nevertheless if you try a search on the (general) Internet better use the original American name, Airacobra, in order to get (any) hits .

3 minutes later: I tried and it worked with Aerocobra too. Don't ask me why but I suspect Putin now controls Google.

Re: Aira, Aerocobras
 

:-) hah, that's good.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Hello!
1) Unfortunately after the emergency landing Gv.Ml.Lt. Vladimir Vasilevich Dushanin returned on foot. His plane was not serviced.

2) Gv ml. Lieutenant Buzdin Ivan Pavlovich
104 GvIAP 9 GvIAD was missing.

So two P-39. Exactly. The Sovjets wrote the truth.

Greeting

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

There is one scenario where Erich Hartmann is relatively "innocent" in all of this and it has everything to do with his wingman.

If I am Erich Hartmann's wingman, the safest thing for ME to say every single time for MY own safety is, "you got him!"

By way of example, Hartmann and his wingman are out on a free hunt. There they are, sitting up high, ducking in and out of the clouds, watching and waiting for something to develop. A Russian bomber formation appears down low in tight formation with fighter cover just a few thousand feet above them. Hartmann power dives, his wingman close behind, and BOOM Hartmann opens up on a victim with machine guns and cannon. Hartmann ZOOMS through the fighter protection and never even looks back, because his wingman who had a really good and very clear view of the engagement says, "you got him! That's a victory."

Hartmann's wingman could have been thinking: (1) I am Erich Hartmann's wingman and I don't want to be the guy that got Erich Hartmann killed. (2) Also, I don't want to die because death is bad and I enjoy being Erich Hartmann's wingman. (3) I saw Erich Hartmann engage a Russian aircraft at close range and saw numerous machine gun and cannon strikes on that aircraft. (4) The aircraft rolled over and headed straight towards the ground right after being hosed with bullets and shells fired by Erich Hartmann. (5) There is no reason whatsoever to go back in there and get mixed up in a furball with a bunch of pissed-off Russians just to see if that aircraft hit the ground: See 1 and 2 above.

I can see this happening A LOT. And this also explains 4 and 5 "victories" in a single mission.

And in my opinion, Hartmann may have honestly believed his wingman, not knowing what he was actually doing.

Bronc

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

QUOTE: I can see this happening A LOT. And this also explains 4 and 5 "victories" in a single mission.

And in my opinion, Hartmann may have honestly believed his wingman, not knowing what he was actually doing.


Great theory. Fantastic theory.
....And then you compare Hartmann's tally of verifiable victories with pilots whose tallies stand up much better to comparison with the enemy's records (Gabor's example of Lipfert being a great case in point). Is the realisation that maybe, just maybe, Hartmann was a line-shooter really too terrible....?

Not having a dig at you, Bronc, but it's just a question worth asking.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

What?? I don't understand any of that.

Bronc

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Meaning that people seem to be finding excuses for a guy who actually looks like a liar.

He seems to be among the bottom 10 percent of guys whose victory tallies stand up to comparison with enemy losses. How many theories can we come up with to excuse that?

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Yeah. No argument here about that. It looks bad. I was just positing the one scenario (that I can think of) that makes Hartmann relatively "innocent."

["There is one scenario where Erich Hartmann is relatively "innocent" in all of this and it has everything to do with his wingman."]

I have Helmut Lipfert's book on my lap as I write this. (I've been looking at the photographs.) There are several photographs of Lipfert with Hartmann, that is, Lipfert talking to Hartmann. To me, it is apparent in the photographs that Hartmann would not look Lipfert in the eyes. And in one photograph it is r-e-a-l-l-y obvious that he wouldn't.

Bronc

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Cheers Bronc,
Sorry if my wording was unclear earlier.
I think you make a good point with Lipfert's photos too

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

I just posted that photo. ** Look at that... **

I've had Helmut Lipfert's book for maybe 10-years. I open it often and I always end up staring at that photograph. Every time I do my stomach feels sick.

Bronc

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Hi BenFolk and HGabor - you have more info about these losses (time, place or how or link them to another pilot claims?

rof120 - seriously? I used a quote from a previous post from Gabor - and yes, I know P-39, I know the name and I know the Soviets used the name AEROCOBRA. So I don't understand your post (3x) - as before, please don't respond to me and don't send me private messages, don't let another topic close due to your annoyance, especially if you have nothing to say - the question was for Gabor, whom I respect (and I mean not only me) as an erudite historian in the area of air battles and losses Hungary 44/45.

Thank you for respecting

Faenor

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

I agree that it looks suspicious, but it also potentially makes a lot of other eksperten and aces look like liars, even though perhaps they were just not very accurate in their claiming.

Btw, fellow forum member Urusut covers this period from the VVS side here https://proza.ru/2019/08/23/427 for claims for Me 109's vs Jg 52 losses.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Who else claimed as badly as this? The majority of Luftwaffe aces achieved far better than 50% accuracy in their claiming. The other big exception is the II./JG 27 Schwarm of Experten: Stigler, Voegl, Bendert and Sawallisch. Known liars.

And the point Gabor makes is that either an aircraft was lost or significantly damaged... ...or it wasn't. By that standard, Lipfert looks good, Hartmann looks bad and guys like Ewald and Duettmann were somewhere in between

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

either an aircraft was lost or significantly damaged … or it wasn't

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

I make it about 19 claims for Airacobras in the same area on 4 June 1944, most by Jg 52, a couple by SG 2. Birkner, Wolfrum, Ewald, Lipfert are among the claimants; I don't have the times for those claims.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Hi Nick

You ask "who claimed worse than that", well there were certain Geschwader where it was endemic JG2 and JG 5 spring to mind, though in reality not everybody within this situation would do such things i.e they had the opportunity, but were basically honest guys.

Other Geschwader had maybe just a Gruppe where it was endemic, sometimes just a staffel. Therefore a pilot might make fake claims for long periods, until a change in company, or transfer elsewhere. Usually the fake claims would be over a short period where a group of guys were working a fiddle, or a Kommandeur with a personal wingman, if fact a huge number of claims in a short period in my opinion is very suspicious i.e Rudorffer, Nowotny, Lang, Stotz, Hans Hahn e.t.c.

I don't have the Russian losses, just Luftwaffe claims, but we a assured by Russian losses experts of the facts, usually the worst offenders were those in the hunt for the Brillianten.....those who were the leaders with totals. Nowotny we are informed was probably the worst offender, he used his schwarm of Anton Dobele, Gerhard Loos and Karl Schnorrer. Rudorffer used his personal wingman Kurt Tangermann, Hans Hahn used Max Stotz, Emil Lang used Reinhold Hoffmann, most of these "helpers" were rewarded with a Ritterkreuz, most did not live to tell any tales.

But we are informed of others who made fake claims that I just cannot link with any helpers Wilhelm Batz springs to mind, and for the greater period Hartmann himself.

So do we actually believe the Russian losses people who accuse these guys. Well we know that Stalin covered-up Russian losses, so perhaps these Russian losses experts don't have the full picture, but that aside, these same guys give many other top luftwaffe aces the thumbs up, like Helmut Lipfert, which would suggest that yes there was something going on.

My good friend Bernd Barbas believes that because the claims system was so stringent that it was impossible to "over-claim", but in my opinion it doesn't take into account human nature.......we are not all honest, and a did-honest group of guys could do it, and once the paperwork is done, well the stringent system must make it fact. It's a bit like the totals of pilots, we believed it because is was repeatedly told to be so i.e Woidich's 110, still don't know where this total came from, even Woidich himself had a abschüßelist with just eighty-two, and may not even known about the 110, other less honest guys could have self proclaimed a higher figure than the truth.

There is the other-side to argue that "they thought the enemy had crashed", now Marseille was a huge egoist, yet he was honest, the fact that he was honest is actually a surprise, his pattern of claiming I find suspicious, but he was honest, the "thought they had crashed" probably well answers this, his wingmen stated "it was a full-time job keeping-up with him, and marking the crash-sites", I suspect that these wingman didn't follow protocol and didn't see some of the actual crashes, not by laziness, but it was just beyond their abilities to keep-up flying with Marseille, and record his claims.

Nowotny was in competition with Günther Rall, no matter what Rall would claim in a legitimate way, Nowotny would claim more.....because he just could, and because of his company Nowotny "just could" for the period covering the majority of his claims.

Kind Regards

Johannes

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Johannes,

Yes, JG 2 and JG 5. You're quite right. Their high-scorers were regularly very bad claimers and it is probably fair to mention them alongside the Stigler Schwarm.

QUOTE: "Well we know that Stalin covered-up Russian losses, so perhaps these Russian losses experts don't have the full picture, but that aside, these same guys give many other top luftwaffe aces the thumbs up, like Helmut Lipfert, which would suggest that yes there was something going on."

He certainly covered up losses to the public, but it seems not within the archives themselves. From there, guys like Gabor, Christer Bergstroem and others get a pretty decent picture of what actually happened. Just as Caldwell, Shores and others give us a very balanced picture of the Western Front.
If anyone has real evidence that TsAMO records have been genuinely "doctored" to hide actual losses by Soviet Regiments and Divisions as inflicted by German aces with a view to discrediting their tallies...

...well then, let's hear it.


QUOTE: My good friend Bernd Barbas believes that because the claims system was so stringent that it was impossible to "over-claim"

Let's be honest. That one flies out the window the moment you compare claims to losses. It's ridiculous that anyone still quotes it anymore. All due respect to Herr Barbas mind you, but it's not the pre-archive age anymore.

Hartmann: just a theory
 

In the matter discussed in this long thread I am just like a new-borne baby: actually I know virtually nothing...

...but I am able to imagine a few things. When Hartmann became a very famous ace the general situation was very bad for Germany, especially on the Eastern front: Stalingrad end of 1942-February '43, the disastrous, giant battle of Kursk July 1943 etc. (Hartmann started scoring in November, 1942, it seems...). Nazi Germany was a terrible dictatorship but at the same time its leaders were very concerned about the people and its reactions and opinions, which they influenced with all possible means like broadcasting, daily and weekly papers, "Signal" and "Der Adler", the weekly reports in cinemas etc. No TV at the time so everybody went to cinemas, in many cases they went there often. The Nazi leaders liked great, popular heroes and they needed them for propaganda purposes to "prove" how immensely superior the "German race" and the German nation were as compared to Russians and other "subhumans".

So I can imagine that Nazi leaders, in particular Göring, who was Luftwaffe's supreme commander and also the regime's N° 2, decided to create some radiant, wonderful heroes or to enhance their reputation if it was there already.

Göring was perfectly able to speak privately to some of these men without any witness and to tell them about this: "You are a very good fighter pilot. I was one myself during WW I and I admire you very much. (Flattering coming from a very famous, very powerful man is often effective with very young persons.) The fatherland needs great men like you so please help me to raise our dear people's morale. Right now we need this. Keep shooting down enemy planes but from now on you should not take any risks for yourself, never ever, for you must stay alive and of course not become a POW. Every victory claim filed by you will be approved (possibly with some exceptions to remain credible) so what you have to do is attacking E/A only when it is perfectly safe for you: hit and run, boom and zoom out of harm's way again. In this way you'll certainly score many hits, and some genuine victories too, but it doesn't matter whether your victims crash or not. I am asking you to do this for the Fatherland's sake. Just stay out of trouble. Of course you should always file victory claims which look credible at first sight."

This trick could have been used with several very good aces, for example Nowotny, Rudorffer, Walter Dahl, Hartmann and a few more. At the end of 1942 Mölders had been dead for over a year, Galland was flying mainly a desk (much to his chagrin) as "General of the Fighter Pilots" and they absolutely wanted him to stay alive because of the public opinion but there were a few others.

Just a theory but knowing the Nazis it could have been true so Hartmann, a very young fellow, would not be the main culprit, the bad guy. No matter how many actual victories he scored, clearly he was a great fighter pilot, "which nobody can deny". As a side-note I can mention that a long time after the war Galland received him, together with other friends including British ones, in his own house at... Oberwinter, now Remagen-Oberwinter, most probably several times. There are some photographs of such meetings. I doubt that Galland would have been so friendly to a phoney.