Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Stig, I can assure you that picking up a belly landed plane by the mechanics was not an issue in Hungary as long as it landed on their own side. The nature of WWII that swept across Hungary did not leave a cm long gap between Soviet ground forces along the front lines, so everything was accessible. OTER, BAO and other mechanic organizations were not made for no reason ;-)

Robert: you'll see it next year ;-)

Gabor

P.S.: RLM LP regulations also had a thing to say about enemy aircraft belly landing on enemy territory [hint, hint, hint ;-) ]

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

No, I agree with that.
That is always a problem when you fight a defensive war and in this case were constantly on the run.

I was just ribbing you a little with regard to the flat tyre....:)

Cheers
Stig

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Hi

for example;

On February 9, 1943, the troops of the Red Army fought for the possession of Timoshevskaya and other points in the Kuban.
Having received the task to attack the Slavyanskaya airfield, the 66th IAP aircraft covered the IL-2. In the ensuing air battle, navigator of the 66th IAP Major Sayfutdinov was shot down. On a downed plane, he made an emergency tree landing in the Red Forest in the territory occupied by the enemy. For three days he hid near the plane and on the fourth day Saifutdinov was found and hid by the forester Novikov. Together with Sayfutdinov, Novikov disguised and kept the Yak-1 plane until the arrival of the Red Army units, after which he handed over the plane to the technical team against receipt.
Hartmann was among the riflemen, so aerial victory, or at least for a few weeks. Or was it not an aerial victory.

During the summer of 1943, 13 OTTR evacuated 42 aircraft from the sites of forced landings. The department cut 26 aircraft into parts. During the offensive period of the 2nd Belorussian Front, Senior Sergeant Zizevsky took part in the evacuation of 27 aircraft from the places of forced landings, in addition, 2 aircraft were evacuated from under enemy fire.


Regards

BenFolk

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

1) Upon what do you base your statement that the book will not be unbiased, given that it has not been published yet? Unless you have seen an advance copy...

2) When will this be published, and by whom? I will be looking to pick up a copy.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Hi John, here it is:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Verified-Vi...6&unfiltered=1

Gabor

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Yeah, next year. That's why I asked Robert how he knew the book 'will not be unbiased'. Waiting for his answer...

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Still waiting for a reply to my post #244 from robert.

Quick to make statements, slow to reply (if at all)...

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Robert, instead of making personal attacks, how about giving a straight answer to a simple question?

If you can't manage that, don't bother posting.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

And of course Mr. Vasco is not doing personal attacks?

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Answer is simple: because the Soviets did not report everything. Polish Campaign 1939 is a good example: some Soviet planes were downed by Polish fighters. Some of the Soviet aircrews were captured and interrogated but there is no trace in Soviet documents.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

This is the kind of discussion I was looking for, robert.

As you know, in recent decades, the Russian files have been opened, and a lot more information has become available. Is your knowledge of the above as a result of consulting those files, or having someone who has access to them.

As we know, robert, reports up the line were for two reasons: 1) to notify losses of/damage to aircraft so that the Quartermaster could provide replacements, and 2) to notify losses/wounding of aircrew so that replacement crew could be allocated.
To not report either of the above could result ultimately in depleted units in both aircraft and men. So this is an interesting point you make with regard to the Polish Campaign.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Robert,

Could you kindly explain us why you chose to name yourself “robert” in this forum ? Just so you don’t get unnecessarily offended by John quoting your forum name in the precise way I see it on my screen as well. John’s meticulous precision is a foremost reason as to why his published works are so appreciated.

Sincerely
Marc

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Your name on this forum has a small 'r'. Take a look if you don't believe me...

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

There is no reason for name calling on this forum. Certain norms should be maintained, we are all here to learn and have fun without belittling each other. Comparing Soviet records from 1939 (then a local conflict) and from 1945 (full swing WWII after several major changes and reorganizations of the Soviet war machine) is a basic mistake. Early records could be lost or destroyed, let alone put on certain websites as of yet and so on. A lot can be said about the Soviet Red Army but that 'they did not report their losses' cannot. Their personnel and material losses were reported in different channels (unlike the American MAC Reports, where both were reported in a common folder), not to mention that their records were overlapping in a network of multiple documents. Regiment, Division, Corps, Army level, etc… These documents these days can be found at TsAMO RF with a portion published online (mostly unit diaries). Aircraft losses and mechanical records are also kept there but most of them are not published online.
But let us get back to Hartmann…June 4, 1944 is interesting to say the least.

Gabor

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

There are only two moderators on 12 OCH and it is not a full time (paid) job. They have been made aware and will no doubt act as they see fit when time permits

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

I've been driven to delete a whole sequence of antagonistic posts from this thread. This should not have become necessary.

As if anyone should need reminding, TOCH is not an arena for conducting personal disputes.

If anyone wants a fight, take it outside — it's not as if there aren't other channels available.

If you are offended by a post, don't respond to it and complain to the moderators afterwards, that only adds fuel to the fire. However much you believe you're in the right, just tell the moderators and let us deal with it.

OK, back to Erich Hartmann's claims and victories …

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Amen, Nick

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

From research by Nikita Ergorov for Hartman on the 20 Sep 43. La-5 of 31 IAP flown by St. Lt. Pavel Korneevich Leonenko during 13:54 - 15:12 (Moscow) was shot down 4 km E. of Derezovatka from the side of the sun. He was listed as KIA.

Lt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG (99) 13:40 59474 at 2000 m.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Hello

On June 8, 1944, the Germans reported the shooting down of 7 Aircobras;

Ltn. Werner Fass 6./SG 2 13.50
Fw. Erich Müller Stab./SG 2 13.50
Fw. Dieter Voight Stab./SG 2 13.55
Obstlt. Dietrich Hrabak Stab./JG 52 19.20
Ltn. Heinz Sachsenberger 6./JG 52 13.13
Ltn. Heinz Sachsenberger 6./JG 52 13.14
Ltn.Heinz Ewald 6./JG 52 17.38

The 5 VA, however, only reported one loss in aerial combat and one Aircobra did not return from the enemy flight. 20 P-39s took part in the aerial battles. 4 of the 104 GvIAP had to fight against Fw190s.
Takeoff at at 1.54 p.m.; Landing at 2:37 p.m. (Information for all 4 aircraft). After that report the loss of Stepanov and Rygamancov's plane was slightly damaged.
The aircraft from mechanic Guard Senior Sergeant Elagin from 104 GvIAP being serviced made an emergency landing in the mountainous terrain in the area of Jassy. Elagin evacuated the aircraft from the front line and restored it, then gave the pilot a chance to take it to his airfield. So not even three returned to the airfield, only two P-39s. The Soviets do not write anything about this in their chronicles, although the forced landing may have looked like a crash.
So I think we will argue for a long time about the aerial victories of the Germans or other nations, as long as not all the documents can really be checked. The ones you see now are not flawless.
Still another example;
During the Yaass operation, mechanic Isagulov's 104 GvIAP aircraft, shot down in aerial combat, made two emergency landings on the front line. Isagulov evacuated the plane to his airfield and put it into operation on time.

Greeting
BenFolk


http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/data:i...UV7WwBRRRQB//Z

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Here is an article about Hartmann published in a peer-reviewed journal. https://uir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/26467

Sad to see that the name of the journal has "science" in it. The authors straightly defined the Bf 109 as superior to all other WW2 aircraft which is an indication that they had no idea about the evolution of technologies during the war. After the introduction, I decided not to read it the rest of the article, except the conclusion section, where the authors concluded to nothing new. Unfortunately, while revealing nothing new, they received their academic points in their institutions for publishing an article in a journal.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Sad, but not surprising. In the past several decades many people were surfing on the waves of Hartmann's '352' - without checking any facts. When I see this number, I cannot read on either... (I mean the claims might be correct, since they were filed indeed, but their actual contents, ie. the victories are only in fragments - and the two are absolutely not the same!)

Gabor

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Definitely a purchase for me next year Gabor, well done to you and your co-author. Long overdue and very much anticipated :)

best regards

Keith

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Thank you Keith, we hope it will meet your expectations.
Gabor

Re: Soviet palnes were downed in 1939...
 

"Answer is simple: because the Soviets did not report everything. Polish Campaign 1939 is a good example: some Soviet planes were downed by Polish fighters. Some of the Soviet aircrews were captured and interrogated but there is no trace in Soviet documents".

I know three such incidents. I wrote about them in detail in my 2008 book on the subject, "Red Stars - an Ally of Black Crosses over Poland", Warsaw 2008. One of these cases is very debatable. The Polish pilot wrote in the documents that he had fought in the air and shot down the "R-5", and years later he wrote in his memoirs that he did not shoot this Soviet plane, but flew around it and did not fire. There are documents - his manual report from 1939, and there are memoirs published years later. Who to believe now? The same person - pilot and diffferent time and place.

In the case of their losses, the Russians did not hide it at all, when they had losses, they would list them in documents; there is only a question of why the loss occurs. It was similar with Germany in 1939 or later. Such cases during the Second World War were not uncommon, the pilots said one thing, and then completely different turned out.

It is much easier and simpler to write: the Russians did not write in the report, the Russians are hiding. It's a regular mambo jumbo.

The plane is too expensive and the pilot and crew are also not ghosts to disappear from official military documentation. There is no such option, the military is a bureaucracy.

Staff - military bureaucracy - must love papers, i.e. writing reports, this is their basis of existence, production of reports, orders, etc.

R.
mirekw

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

I, too am looking forward to purchasing your book, Gabor. I have noted in recent years that many of the new books on WWII are rehashes of prior knowledge. Books that reflect "new" [old knowledge previously unknown] and in-depth research are a joy to find.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Even if it is great fun, worrying about the scores of aces is irrelevant and a fallacy.

It does not matter in the slightest whether Herr X shot down 9 or whether the ninth one force landed and was repaired within 24 hours; he only should be credited with 8 and therefore he is a blaggard for his false claiming

Aces' claims are only that, claims. Some are true and some mistaken and some fraudulent. They do not really matter, other than to the ego and reputation of the person in question

However what does matter in regards to winning a war is can the fighters on one side establish and maintain air superiority to such an extent that the other side cannot function and is thereby prevented from exerting its will on the battlefield or in producing war material.

It does not matter if one side claimed 1000 shot down, it is just a claim and an indication of how successful they feel they have been (rightly or wrongly).
What matters is did they collectively move in a positive direction toward achieving and maintaining air superiority.

There I said it, just waiting for the bolt of lightning and the ground to open up beneath my feet.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

I'd argue that it matters for the researcher/historian to try and work out what actually happened. League tables don't interest me in the slightest and my perspective on Hartmann is that even if he "only" shot down (say) 70 aircraft, he was still a massively successful fighter pilot.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Hi folks,
Believe it or not, the last 5 or so posts I believe are all correct!


@Keith and @kaki3152, I appreciate these comments! Helps us see the light at the end of the tunnel a bit better ;)


@Mirek Wawrzyński: 'In the case of their losses, the Russians did not hide it at all, when they had losses, they would list them in documents' <- exactly! There is a lot of information written at different levels (regiment, division, Air Army...) all describing these losses.


@MW Giles: 'Aces' claims are only that, claims. Some are true and some mistaken and some fraudulent.' <- exactly! Claims and victories are two separate things, and both are important. It must be kept in mind that they represent two different, though related, things. Confusing the two leads to a twisting of history.


@Nick Beale: '...it matters for the researcher/historian to try and work out what actually happened... even if he "only" shot down (say) 70 aircraft, he was still a massively successful fighter pilot.' <- exactly! For historical purposes it may be deemed important, less so otherwise. And if I remember correctly 70>0, so even this is an accomplishment!


Gabor

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

From the research of Nikita Egorov is found these two claims for Lt Erich Hartmann 7/JG 52.

10 Feb 43 Boston (4) 06:15 PlQu. 86 671 at 3200 m
“Four more Bostons claimed by II/JG 52 and III/JG 52 at Kuban on this day. The departure time of the crew is only suitable for Hartmann’s claim. Since there are no circumstances, then in most cases to find Hartmann’s opposition, the hypothetical option.”

Boston B-3 63 BAP St. S-t. Andrey Smolyar and crew listed as MIA

15 Aug 43 LaGG (78). 18:10 PlQu 70 762 at 3000 m
17:55 - 19:20 Moscow) 5 GIAP La-5 # 3810123 flown by Ml. Lt. Samoylenko did not return from the area of Sukhaya Kamenka. The fughter was wrecked in a forced landing in the area of Kun’e. Pilot returned to his unit on the 16th.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Hi

My interest in aviation is just my hobby, so I don't have that much good information. Like many, I believed that the German pilots exaggerated in their reports.
However, the facts show otherwise.
For example;
II./JG 52 was an opponent of 4 VA in February 1944, in PQ 66… and reported over 70 e / a kills that month.
The Russians admit that they lost 15 planes in air combat, 3 never returned from combat missions, and 3 were shot down by a German flak.
In addition, you need to add 2 planes lost in a failure during a combat flight - only 23 planes in total. So the Germans overestimated their successes four times. However, if we add the planes that made the forced landings - 21 planes (13 came back to the units by the end of February), we already have 44 planes that the German pilots might consider having been shot down. Now we are standing 2 to 1. It's not over yet. As many as 47 planes had to be sent to repair shops, which were badly damaged and could not be repaired on site in units - replacement of motors was performed on site in their units and other light repairs.
In March 1944, reported 4 VA combat loss - 22 aircraft (13 in air combat and 9 by Flak). 7 had to land forcibly and by the end of month 5 had returned to units. 40 aircraft were delivered to repair shops. Total 69 aircraft.
A few months earlier, in December 1943, 4 VA reported a combat loss - 80 aircraft (41 in air combat and 39 from Flaku), 16 aircraft did not return from combat tasks. 115 aircraft forcibly landed in the field - 47 of them returned to units by the end of the month. 82 planes went to repair shops.
It didn't get any better after that. In August 1944, 4 VAs lost 42 aircraft in aerial combat and 51 in anti-aircraft guns. 23 did not return from combat missions and 21 were forcibly fielded (11 returned by the end of the month), 71 aircraft went to repair shops.
It was not better in repairing damaged planes. Squadron mechanics 178 GvIAP st.ltn Simonov restore during May 1943 - May 1945 89 aircraft damaged in air combat and did 295 small and current repairs. The mechanics of another squadron 178 GvIAP in the time of 04.43-05.45 they renovated and restore 99 aircraft damaged in aerial combat.
It is a pity that other airline unions did not report at least their losses as 4 VA, then we could better say if the reports coincided with the events in the air.

Greetings and Merry Christmas
BenFolk

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

^while true one much remember that planes were also lost because of operational reasons: mechanical, weather, pilots errors etc. So not all of those which "failed to return" were shot down by Axis forces. Same to forced landings. And one must know to which class of repair shops the plane was sent. You probably meant mobile aircraft repair shops or PARMs. PARM-1s were subordinated to mobile aircraft repair bases for administration, and to the Chief Engineer of the Air Regiment to which they were attached for operations. So planes transferred to PARM-1s were not badly damaged, those went to to PARM-4s or -5s. To my understanding PARM-1s operated at same airfields as the air regiments they were attached, so it was not a big deal to transfer a plane to it.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Very true! Many empty and parking planes were also lost on their own airfields when returning planes with damaged breaks, or hydraulic system lost control at touch down and ran into them along the landing strip! If one checks only the number of the aerial claims and the number of losses on the other side without checking the actual cause of the losses can go down the wrong path with incorrect conclusions.

Gabor

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Departed to the workshop (translation from Russian убыло в мастерскую), so it wasn't about ПАРМ. So these were aircraft that left VA territory and returned after being repaired. The mechanics from the IAP, BAP or SchAP repaired damaged aircraft with PARM-1 and PARM-3 on their own airfields and even on the emergency landing sites. Such matters were mostly not mentioned at all by the employees of the VA - and these were aircraft with as much as 70% damage and sometimes more.

why are the technical losses not in Combat logs, Combat reports and so on?

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

As opposed to the American MAC Reports where the aircraft data, crew data as well as details of the loss were all recorded in one folder, the Soviets used a multi-level style of documentation. They had personnel records, mechanical records, combat records, etc. In order to get a full picture of the events, all of these reports should be reviewed and combined. After a mission they knew what was obvious: how many planes were missing. But this did not necessarily represent the real number of losses.

If a plane landed on another Soviet airfield after the mission due to fuel shortage, combat damage, etc. and returned to its base only the next day or the day after, then for the unit it could be a temporary loss at the end of the day, but was not a permanent loss!

So daily combat reports, VA daily reports are only 'the first impression' after the battles. They knew how many planes did not return and that's what they put in the report. But: if a plane returned and belly landed on its airfield, first the aircraft mechanics had to inspect the plane and decide if it was a write off, or it could be repaired. This inspection usually took a few days. So after a battle, the units did not really know how many planes they permanently lost (this is also why the inventories are different in various levels of reporting). The final number of losses pointing to the proper dates were recorded by the aircraft mechanics in their printed form, called: 'Контрольный список на поступившие, убывшие и потерянные (самолеты, моторы).......за .....194. г. в ....(полка)......' which were filled with ink (hand written) which showed the inventory reduction if a plane was permanently lost. Also, if a belly landed plane was broken, but its engine remained in good condition (which was eg. a common thing with the Il-2 Sturmoviks), then in the loss reports the airframe was written off, but the engine was not - it was salvaged and later could be installed on another plane.

In short: daily unit reports (diaries) are nice, but not necessarily 100% accurate in terms of losses. The final loss numbers are always in the mechanical reports, written after the events in a few days in the forms called: 'Контрольный список на поступившие, убывшие и потерянные (самолеты, моторы).......за .....194. г. в ....(полка)......' These were the aircraft inventory 'in and out' sheets.
Too bad, attaching a sample sheet here is not an option.
I hope this helps.

Gabor

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Hello Ben
thanks for the clarification!

When one thinks about how different society the SU was in early 40s compared to say the UK or the USA, it was not so surprising that the VVS had somewhat different system of documentation. I'd even say that even with the differences the paperworks were surprisingly similar.

Hello Gabor
thanks for the explanation of how the VVS documentation worked.

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Hi Juha, you are most welcome. I must add that what I described was true for the final years of the war. Aircrafts and aircraft engines were all inventoried in separate lists. Certainly there was some level of overlap between the different kind of reports, but generally speaking they were focusing on specific aspects of the operation. Operating an Air Force, or an Air Army was an extremely complex, dynamic process since they were always on the move, etc., and the situation could change in any minute. This certainly required tons of paperwork. For those who are interested in the Soviet mechanical (loss) reports, here is a sample of the forms mentioned previously. Enjoy!

Gabor

https://kepkuldes.com/image/JW3LkR

Re: Hartmann: claims vs. victories
 

Hello Gabor
thanks for the link!

Juha