Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Just to put a little perspective on this, the suggested ratio of about 1 genuine to 3 claims is reasonably close to the overall values quoted for different air forces at different times. The majority of which is simple confusion in the complexity and rush of battle, rather than any deliberate falsity. With, as suggested above several times, a good dash of wishful thinking.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

BenFolk,
Thank you for your comment. Accidentally I overlooked the 104 GvIAP, which lost an Airacobra indeed, piloted by Gv.Ml.Lt. Ivan Pavlovich Buzdin. Buzdin flew P-39 white '37' and was lost during the afternoon mission between 17:10-18:05. Eight 5 VA, 9 GvIAD, 104 GvIAP Airacobras were covering own troops in the Zahora area at 2300 m, as follows:

P-39 #38 - Gv.Capt. Mikhail Sergeevich Komelkov
P-39 #40 - Gv.Ml.Lt. Ivan Ivanovich Richazkov
P-39 #37 - Gv.Ml.Lt. Ivan Pavlovich Buzdin (MIA)
P-39 #42 - Gv.Lt. Yurii Borisovich Maltsev
P-39 #35 - Gv.Ml.Lt. Nikolai Nikolaevich Klimov
P-39 #36 - Gv.Lt. Yakov Yakovlevich Shevchenko
P-39 #43 - Gv.Ml.Lt. Vladimir Timofeevich Chichev
P-39 #20 - Gv.Ml.Lt. Vladimir Grigorevich Stepanov

Combat with Bf 109s. The other reported 5 VA Airacobra loss this day -as previously discussed- was Gv.Ml.Lt. Vladimir Vasilevich Dushanin from 5 VA, 9 GvIAD, 16 GvIAP. He force landed at Probota-E, 500 m and returned to his unit. These were the 2 reported Airacobra losses of the 5th Air Army on June 4, 1944. If Hartmann downed both, then his 'P-39' balance this day was 2 victories vs. 4 overclaims. (~30%)

Do you know which mechanical report removed Dushanin's plane from combat duty?
Thanks,
Gabor

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Sorry Graham, but having compared losses to claims for a long time, 2 genuine to 3 claims seems more accurate. Two thirds instead of one third accuracy. Quite a lot of German pilots were even better than that, striking greater than 75% accuracy

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Hi Nick

Yes, it's hard when ones childhood heroes are questioned, but they were questioned way before the evidence supported the accusations.

Especially hard for Bernd who knew almost all the JG52 aces....and others, but there were good honest guys, who were still accused before the evidence has proved them honest, so in that respect it makes those "crashed" a little easier to live with. I guess most dis-honest claimers met with grief during the war, Hartmann's only grief was his fame brought ten years of imprisonment with it.

With Nowotny he was Austrian, perhaps he was getting back at the establishment who removed his homelands independence status?

As mentioned before Hartmann was not a popular officer, or indeed even a good one, I would guess that his little game may have been suspected, if not even known to some of his komrades?, perhaps publicity/fame saved him from any punishment. What is fact is that he took the most "kills" to get his Ritterkreuz.....I wonder why, fact he was moving very quickly in the scoring game at this time, but still I wonder if his Kommandeur suspected something and delays recommendation, also Hartmann again took the most claims to get the Eichenlaub, ..but then quickly gets the next decorations........the .propaganda machine would be loving him by then. But with the mentioned JG27 schwarm caught in a lie, just because another pilot reported their blatant "fake claims".....so whistle blowers were at least sometimes listened to, perhaps Hartmann/Nowotny became too big to be brought down!

Kind Regards

Johannes

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

With Nowotny he was Austrian, perhaps he was getting back at the establishment who removed his homelands independence status?

I think it was because his puppy dog died when he was 5 and he just wanted to be loved. Given that neither of us has any real evidence for motivation, my interpretation is just as good as yours, ie we do not know

Given the kudos that goes with being a top scorer I would suggest there are more likely motivations and rewards

Martin

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

I have to go with Graham here, 1genuine to 3 claims, as an overall average. With variations according to time period, theatre etc.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

And what do you actually base that on?
I've frequently shared my findings here on the forum. Happy to be corrected, happy to be updated.

...But let's see yours.

You're basically saying that only one in three Luftwaffe claims was a legitimate victory with the other two as overclaims. Let's see you and/or Graham actually back that up.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Actually I took Graham's comment to be for WWII as a whole, all airforces involved, not just for the Luftwaffe. Sorry if I misunderstood.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

I used to love Hartmann when I was young and believed everything I read. Now my favorites are Marseille, Bar, Rall, Galland, Molders, and a bunch of lower scoring "Defense of the Reich" aces.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

The myth of German fighter pilots was created in 1950s, when West Germany was about to join NATO, and some positive PR was necessary. Hence the stress on a high scores against Soviets. Actually, German pilots overclaimed, sometimes heavily, but due to loss of paperwork it is not possible to make a proper assessment. This applies to ETO, where no proper scrutiny was ever made.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Imperial Germany was selling postcards of fighter pilots during the Great War; the NSDAP was fixated on the idea of the warrior-hero and arranged press coverage accordingly.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Is it possible, that if Hartmann knew the truth, he could not reveal it later because of the political pressure of the NATO...?

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Very possibly, and in any case, the need to lie was taken care of by Toliver and Constable's constantly repeated assertion that the German claims verification system was super-effective, a myth that persists to this day as it seems

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Perhaps another silly question....

Did the Germans ever develop/use gun cameras?
Not even they were (are) 100% reliable, but when taken in use by the Allies must have gotten rid of all sorts of fancy claims

Cheers
Stig

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Nick, the fact that Germans were pursuing careers of their aces does not mean the world should follow. In fact there was an explosion of stories about German superheroes just when the enemy known of mass murders and concentration camps had to become the key ally in Europe.
Re Toliver, I recall to read that he was a CIA's employee or at least an associate. That said, I am fairly certain of that, but cannot find any source just at the moment.
I bet there is plenty of paperwork in that, still classified.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Franek, when you have had the opportunity to read my post with a little more care, you will see that nowhere did I suggest that anyone should do anything of the kind. I simply pointed out that the talking-up of “aces” for public consumption had being going on since the Great War.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Yes, sure. I was replying to other posts as well, and referring to a post war worldwide myth.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

I ask always, how it happend, so many generals of after war bundesluftwaffe come from JG52: Rall, Barkhorn, Obleser, Krupinski, Hrabak, Steinhoff, someone else??? I don't know if this was special politic of US and BRD "HR" departments and such books as Toliver & Constable should help to position the people in the right light

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Yes gun cameras were used by the Germans but they were too resource poor to stick gun cameras in each and every aircraft.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Thanks

Thus it begs the question, who used them?
Not much point in putting them inside the rookies aircraft....

Cheers
Stig

Gun cameras: who?
 

Adolf Galland was one of them, at least from a certain date on. There is a well-known frame from one of his combat footages shot on November 1, 1940: it clearly shows the shooting down of a "Spitfire", Galland's fiftieth victim. Thanks to the tracers giving continuous (thick) straight lines on the picture you even can see the difference between the flight paths of the missiles fired by the two machine-guns mounted on the engine (close to each other) and by the right wing cannon, the distance between the two being (of course) exactly the right one. The tracers from the left cannon left a trace too but it is much less straightforward: it's undulating behind and below the "Spitfire". You can see this phenomenon on numerous pictures of this kind (the camera jumped or vibrated because of the powerful recoil of the cannon). The German press reported this event profusely and most probably reproduced one or several frames. See "Der Adler", "Signal" and also the German dailies etc.

(Galland was the CO of JG 26.)

Certainly some other German fighter pilots got a gun camera too, especially Mölders, probably Wick, and others.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

One in three doesn't sound correct, during the Battle of Britain it was two to one, the British no better. Luftwaffe night fighters were much more accurate, should I say very honest claimers in general, don't know why exactly, basically your witness would be your crew......usually a set crew, so plenty of opportunity for cheater there, but then their claims are likely to be over Wenrmacht held territory, and unlike in the East the crash-sites would be investigated, guess this would explain the higher number of unconfirmed claims compared to the East. JG2 operated in an area where combat was often over the sea !. In the East JG5 believed themselves in some kind of exile, and received less superior equipment.......often secondhand, so resentment could play a part here, their claims pattern is rather like that of JG54 in the North, III./JG64 were far more accurate in their claiming to the rest of the Geschwader.

Rank plays a part, Kommandeur claiming seems less than honest......but only certain pliots, seems if you were that way inclined then being a Kommandeur was a way........I would guess you could chose your own wingman......dodgy wingman ?

Kind Regards

Johannes

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Reading Theo Boiten's Nachtjagd Combat Archive series it becomes clear that night fighter crews were usually operating in close cooperation with a ground station which was itself linked in with other defences. So, if a bomber was claimed and the target disappeared from radar then that was one source of confirmation but the Flak and searchlights could also be contacted in case they had seen (say) a burning aircraft falling, or an explosion on the ground.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Right! You would stick the cameras in the planes of a real 'Tiger': one who would no doubt get kills but also come home.

Re: Gun cameras: who?
 

Off hand can you provide a link to this image of Galland's gun camera? The vid or shot might be well known but it doesn't 'ring any bells' with me. When I was going thru Caldwell's JG 26 materials, the only gun camera still I saw of Gottfried Dietz's gun camera footage of him shooting up a Spitfire...Interestingly enough, not only had I seen Dietz's clip of film before, in various documentaries but He was actually lucky enough to have a GC in his aircraft for this, his very first aerial victory--which kind of goes against my opinion that only 'Tigers' get the camera in their planes.

Galland's 50th victory - Picture
 

Wel, I'll try to make the picture visible here but don't know if I will succeed in it. I found it in the French translation of Galland's book "Les premiers et les derniers" (The First and the Last - Die Ersten und die Letzten), 2nd set of photographs after page 207, photograph N° 65 (they are all numbered from 1 through 135; many were supplied by Galland himself). Published 1985 by "Éditions Yves Michelet" (Paris and Normandie).

This book can be found very easily on the Internet including at abebooks, for prices ranging from about 35 to 150 euros/£/$.

The picture is much better in the book but my scanner refuses to do a better job.

Later: and it proved impossible to upload the picture even as a file ending with bmp, doc, gif, jpeg. Perhaps I'll try later.

Perhaps somebody has got a copy of the relevant issue of "Signal" or "Der Adler" or of some other German publication or film footage. The German propaganda stuff of all kinds including films was spread all over the world: in all occupied countries and to all neutral ones, in particular Sweden. Japan and the USA (before PH on December 7, 1941), and other countries.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

https://www.military-stuff.org/spitf...ncamera-video/

Galland is seen at the end of the film

Whether it is his gun camera footage is another matter

Martin

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

thx;

And I've seen those clips before, thanks for refreshing my memory. I think one clip might even be the one for Gottfried Dietz, if I'm not mistaken (*and I might certainly be...)

Combat frame of Adolf Galland on November 1st, 1940
 

Let's try again (I rarely give up but THIS could be the unique opportunity to do so): (later) WHOOPEE, it worked. Now you know it: I can make miracles. It wasn't easy, believe me. Please note: the "original" picture in the book is not really good but much better than here. (Obviously it's strongly enlarged - no fighter pilot flew so close to his victim firing his cannon and machine-guns).

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Having got that picture posted successfully, it's probably time to get back to this thread's original topic, i.e. Erich Hartmann's verifiable claims.

Luftwaffe gun-camera footage might well deserve a thread of its own, though.

Various bits of footage
 

Interesting in any case. His gun footage? Maybe, maybe not but obviously this bit of film contains extracts from several, very different ones:

1. At least twice we can see a Me 109, probably F, with the typical new (large) nose and cowling. Not BoB, Fs started only at the very end of 1940 (with Mölders IIRC).

2. At least twice, too, we can see an aircraft under fire, seen with the eyes of the attacking pilot, but we can see, very clearly, multiple flight paths of tracers typical of BRITISH 1940 fighters armed with 8 light machine-guns. So this could hardly be Galland.

3. We can see several "Spitfires" (under attack) carrying one cannon in each wing. Hardly BoB for only a few Spits from ONE squadron flew with cannon a few times.

4. At the very end we can see Galland leaving his cockpit and walking on the ground. He has just come back from a combat mission, still wearing his inflatable life jacket etc. He is met by numerous, enthusiastic people so I suspect this part was shot at the peak of his success in the BoB, possibly in September or October 1940 (and he was already Wing Leader JG 26), and perhaps all these guys were acting especially for the PK-camera.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Yes - you are perfectly right.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Are there any known surviving combat reports of Hartmann?

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Hi Franek

Not that I know of.

Many of Barkhorn's survive, A.S.M, v.n.e-a.s.m claims for JG52 are completely surviving until mid-1944, but Hartmann's claims rather suspiciously seem all to have been the non-problem type. Actually I have all the JG52 A.S.M claims, and it is very noticeable, you would think with so many claims that there would be a few.

I assume that each pilot was given a copy at the time? Something we can be enlightened on hopefully.

Kind Regards

Johannes

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Johannes
I understand that the German bureaucracy produced a number of reports, certainly no less than the RAF which had an extensive distribution list. I am surprised that so few survived. I would say that they are essential to make assessment of pilot's scoring.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Hi Franek

Thank you for your input.

As stated before I believe that A.S.M claims were treated differently than non-disputed claims, perhaps going to a different department.

Barkhorn's non-disputed claims are interesting, sometimes it mentions the air witness having since being killed, sometimes months afterwards, so it shows that the witness report is likely to have been followed up on.

The A.S.M report evolve into more complex affairs with extensive air-witness reports, claimants report of combat, and an evolved concise sheet recording ammunition spent, how many bullets own aircraft received e.t.c, if enemy crew bailed-out. Many of these A.S.M reports have only ground-witnesses, lots for Wilhelm Batz early on, if he was making fake claims, then I can't see it being early on(early 1943).

Many of Georg-Peter Eder's claims reports also survive, don't know why so many pilots do not have these.

Helmut Mischke(SG2) was killed in the last days of the war, his daughter told me that her Mother buried all his paperwork and decorations in their garden because they feared what would happen to them if the Russian's found these items with them.

The only reason Hartmann has been fingered as an "over-claimer" is we can now due to the mikrofilms compare his exact claims details against Russian losses. Based on nothing, perhaps Hartmann destroyed his reports to keep his claims vague ?

Keep well

Johannes

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

How many of Eder's claims are A.S.M.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Johannes
I think that there is some unclarity about the process of reporting victories.
I understand that pilots following combat mission had to went through a debriefing, either on Staffel or Gruppe level, regardless of claims made. Claims submitted were then doubtless put through a preliminary verification at the same level. Those which passed were then submitted to RLM, no doubt with plenty of associated paperwork.
I guess that the pilots had liberty to keep their copies or not, they were in the unit's records anyway.

The problem is, as I understand, that this paperwork did not survive, except few cases. Nonetheless this paperwork is just essential to try to recreate combats and their results.
Based on time and place of a victory, without getting through the circumstances, I would not risk a definite statement that the claim was a fraud. More so, in several cases, at least in the period of my interest, there are no full details of all victories. Sometimes names are missing, sometimes no place, sometimes no time. In some cases it is possible to verify information provided, like wrong time, presumably typo error at some point. Without this complete data, any assessment of reliability of claims is nearly impossible.
In general there are two main reasons of overclaim. One is combats over sea or any other area, where it is not possible to see the wreck. Another intense dogfights involving numerous aircraft. The overclaim does not mean that the claims filed were frauds, however. I have seen several cases of same aircraft being fired by numerous pilots, neither noticing each other, or misidentification of aircraft going down due to eg. black out. Funny case was a one of a BoB pilot claiming He 111. He attacked the aircraft, scoring critical hits. Nonetheless following a break, he noticed another He 111 going down in the area of his attack, and claimed as his own. In fact, the one attacked crashed as well. Both were attacked by numerous fighters. Had been there no combat report with narrative, this could have been possibly considered a fraud, while it was a mistake in heat of combat.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Hi Guys

Firstly Eder, he had one each A.S.M, E.V, V.N.E-A.S.M AND H.S.S, and in my humble opinion was a honest claimer.

The question of mistakes. We have been over the "didn't follow protocol" reason for an "over-claim", honest but not going by the book, or wingman too overworked to follow the book.

With water it's different, crash-sites were where possible investigated, in the East most claims were over Russian held territory so this was usually impossible to do, in the West it is more likely to be investigated, and in my opinion there are more unconfirmed claims in the west than East. But over water, there is usually no possibility to investigate, or should I say no wreck to investigate. Wilhelm Batz used ships and flak units for some of his earlier claims as witnesses over water..........what motivation is there for any of these to bare false witness?

The most accurate claimers were night-fighters, reasons for this are:-

1, the bombers were likely to burn very visibly.

2, the bombers were not able to escape using maneuvre like diving-away that looked like the aircraft was going down.

3, the night-fighters were in my opinion able to spend more time with a victim...........no swarms of escorting enemy fighters.

4, the calibre of guns was higher, you could say this for ZG units, but they would be more pressured by enemy fighters.

5, regarding witnesses, they would be the crew, the pilots got the majority of credit, therefore there was less incentive to bare false witness.

I think we have established that if two-thirds of a pilots claims actually crashed, then he was a honest, but sometimes mistaken pilot. I would add to this also "opportunity" a pilot would probably be able to make actual "fake claims" for only a limited period...........some pilots took this opportunity, other honest guys did not. I think of it like business men, the cheaters are often the most successful.

Kind Regards

Johannes

Bombers in the night
 

Hello Johannes,

You wrote this:

"2, the bombers were not able to escape using maneuvre like diving-away that looked like the aircraft was going down."

Are you aware of the RAF "corkscrewing" evading manoeuvre created with the help of a Ju 88 night-fighter which had landed in Scotland? I own a copy of an English book on this story but where is the bl... book right now?

Corkscrewing certainly made it possible for dozens, possibly hundreds, of RAF bombers to escape their tormentors (but not Harris), at least provisionally. They bloody needed this help.