Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

Hello-

I'm curious about several aspects of Erich Hartmann's career as a fighter pilot:

1. I've read several unverified accounts that the Russians offered a sizable reward (10,000-20,000 rubles) for Hartmann's capture or death. Does this scenario have any basis in truth?

2. Hartmann's primary biography to date, The Blond Knight of Germany, mentions Carl Junger as one of Hartmann's JG-52 comrades and as an "ace in his own right", IIRC. Was Junger an ace (5 or more victories)? Was Junger a real JG-52 pilot or is his name a pseudonym?

Thanks for reading and any information.

Ken

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

The question to your first question is No

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

Hi

I think that almost certainly Junger didn't exist. In fact I would not believe almost anything from your book.
Contrary to belief Hartmann was not popular, in fact there was almost a mutiny within his Staffel over him. He only made high altitude attacks for one thing, I suspect he made fraudulent claims, he was a poor officer.
Forget your books victory list as well........it is well out, also apart from your books hundreds of little mistake and contradictions, there are a lot of non-truths!

Regards

Johannes

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

He was also not popular after he took command of the I/JG 53

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

Hi,

Is there any particular reason why he was not that popular? And about his claims, how many can be confirmed with the Russian records that became available after the collapse of the Soviet union?

Regards,

Mathieu.

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

Hi

Not all un-popular pilots were fraudsters Friedrich Geisshardt was unpopular because he was arrogant, his claims were good.
Kurt Welter's claims were outragous, and he was hated for it!
With Hartmann, he was known to look after number one, as stated before he took no part in ground attack misions, but if I was to guess I would say that other pilots whether right or wrong suspected false claims.
Regarding false claims his actual claimed (frequency) do suggest fraud, though so do Marseilles and he was honest! Let's say his claims if i had to guess honest or not, I would guess dis-honest. Forget the name but a member has stated 80 actually crashed, if that's 80 from 352 I don't know, in fact the last twenty's dates are not even 100% so how can they be judged?

Hartmann had a said end, after Barkhorn's death he became paronoid, would attend Luftwaffe meetings, or like to leave his house so much, also took to drinking too much and the smoking had aged him, he fell at home and hit his head.
So who actually shot doen the most aircraft is likely to be Rall or Barkhorn, both whose claims look honest, Lipfert is known to have been honest, and list claims suggest so, Nowotny and Rudorffer were frauds, as were Weissenberger and Erhler, Batz and Schuck are thought to be, as is Graf, don't really know about Hafner and Kittel. Schuck's total anyway is based on this statement that Goring had told him that an additional 25 of his claims had just been confirmed! I can find only 176 for him, but it should be 181! and Phillip is a little short of 200! Hackl about 150 but honest, Krupinski honest!

Regards

Johannes

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

Good stuff Johannes. BTW, What do you think about Heinz Baer's victories? I find his claims to be somewhat exagerated, damaged aircraft were counted as victories.
Kurt Buhlingen seems fairly accurate for JG-2, though his identifications were off at times. Heinz Bartels was wayyyy off. Priller and Glunz are accurate,witha few exceptions.

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

Johannes and Kaki; how were you able to determine the accuracy of these claimants; especially as I believe most of the pilots you cited (or at least most of their claims) were made agains the Soviets; have you been able to compare them to Soviet records?


Thanks

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

With Baer, i'm just going against his Western reported victories in the Western Desert, Malta, Tunisia and Western Europe.
The same thing with Buehilngen. I don't have much insight into claims against the Russians.

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

Hi

Regarding Oskar-Heinz Bar

Sometime's his claims are spot on, I should think that about 30% of what a pilot thinks he has got are not crashing, this is not fraudulency, but just not applying the tough "did you see it crash rule", as with Marseille about three quarters of his claims actually crashed, could be there wingmen who were struggling to keep up, watch there leader's tails, and keep themselves alive. Usually if somebody is making false claims it's with help, be especially suspicious of two or more guys making huge claims together! Also units Jg2 in the west and Jg5 in the East were particulary bad, with Jg5 it seems they believe they were abandoned with inferior equipment, so seem to work it together especially 6./Jg5. But on the other foot Jg53, Jg26 and Jg27 at least seem honest, then again some Jg2 pilots seem honest Meimberg and seeger string to mind, Mayer i think also. Jg5 seem to get one claim 3 on average, they have been exposed only because they were the only unit in that area! Rudorffer and Nowotny achieved there deception within Jg54, probably using a combination of there rank/position and wingmen to do this, with Rudorffer this was Kurt Tangermann, yet Robert Weiss of Jg54 seems pretty honest , and the pattern of his claims would also suggest so. Also be subspicious of a Geschwader having one staffel or Gruppe that stands out above the others! Night-fighters seem pretty honest as a group, again the did you see it crash might have something to do with this.....they stayed usually within a certain area, the witness was the crew itself, so were not so busy, the bombers often burned....and at night! the attacks were not fleeting like the daytime komrades!, there munitions were devestating! Also during the day on average only one out of ever two heavy bombers actually fell, but there HSS system probably didn't help. Some pilots totals contain u/c, some are just those confirmed, some are based on the points system, some on actual number of confimations. When looking at Walter Dahl, who might very well have been a fraud, his total of confimations is way dow, especially in the West, he only confimed half the heavy bombers he is believed to have got!
But do not dispare many Allied aces were frauds Douglas Bader became a celebrity, even avoided paying tax over his war-time claims, yet was undoubtedly a very big fraud, and a liar, he managed to conceal his fraudulence for all his life, yet his konrades knew or suspected his deception, possible even the MOD knew, but he was good publicity!

Regards

Johannes

P.S Also hard-line party believers seem to be particulary prominant amongst the fraudsters!!!

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

Johannes,

I've always been interested in Herr Bar's victories and I noticed that some of claims were just damaged, i.e., some of his claims over the Desert and Malta. He seemed to think that if he fired at a target, he always shot it down. Obviously, he did shot down some victims with a single volley."Baer always hits what he shoots at" may be true but he didn't always finish the job. Still, you're correct there are many which are correct and verified.
As far as JG-2 personnel, I think Hubert Huppertz, Hohagen and Lemke were "good" claimers with some inevitable overclaiming.
Guenther Rall is another ace whose abilities were verified with no doubt. In his last combat, he shot down two 56th FG P-47Ds but only claimed one.
Yes, I agree some Allied aces were also fraudsters. The amount of oveclaiming in some RAF/Commonwealth squadrons was truly spectacular.

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

One book which which frankly addresses this problem is "Top Secret Bird" by Wolfgang Spaete. In this book, he has admits that this was a probem with some "Aces". Spaete uses pseudonyms for the most egregious cases but one can figure out who he is talking about in some cases.

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

Hi

About Bader, is there any information how many of his claims were false?

Regards,

Mathieu

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

Hi.

Could some of you guys please post some new findings regarding these issues, as you have obviously judging by your comments made some groundbraking work here.

´Johannes´s are comments are especially interesting. Judging by the very form of these I would assume that he would be willing to make a post with his research referencing the original sources used on the German and Soviet side?

I assume that the rest of this board would be very interested in this as the the possibilities for studying especially original Soviet records of all involved units in depth is something which is out of reach for most of us due to time limitations, funding issues and/or language problems.

If you are not willing to share your research free of charge, could you please list any books, articles or other publications you have made on the issue?

Regards,
Andreas B

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

This Hartmann mess needs to be exmined in detail to show if he was a fraud or not. The claims records vs losses records are available some people need to try and match them up. A posting on this site some years ago noted that VVS combat losses were slightly lower than german claims during the year 1943 so it looks like Hartmanns claims for this year at least may be at least halfway or more right.

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

I haven't heard anything bad about Obstlt Hannes Trauloft's record of the Stab/JG54. I was able to find possible matches for three of his claims on the 14 Feb43 14:10-14:30 for three Il-2's. In Ilya G. Prokofev's book "Soviet Aviation In Combat Above Krasnyy Bor and Smerdynya Februray -March 1943" (In Russian). During the Smerdynya offensive Il-2 (#4037) Ml. Lt. Zalya Akmalovich Akmalov, Il-2 (#1194) Ml. Lt. Vladimir Ivanovich Trenev and Il-2(#5605) Ml. Lt. Anatoliy Nikolaevich Kuzovkin and gunner Kapt. Vladimir Ivanovich Sarychev all went MIA in the area and time of the Trauloft's claims. Their unit was the 230 ShAP.

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

Hi

Trautloft fly with Hptm. Kath and Fw. Fobrich freie Jagd in the area Ljuban-Tossno-Mga. They have some fights with some Il-2 with some fighters. Trautloft shot down the three Il-2, Forbig another Il-2 in short time. He was afrait about the firecraft from his new Fw 190.

Greetings Christian

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

The three Il-2 that Trautloft got were leaving after the attack and were not seen again. So that know one thinks that it's a overclaim there were two others lost. Uffz Horst Forbrig 3./JG54 made a claim at 14:18 but I can't find another German pilot from JG54 making a claim in that area (Maybe with the next of JFV volume on the Ost Front). 230 ShAP Ml. Lt Grigoriy Grigororevich Koloyarov (KIA) Il-2 (#4037) and Ml. Lt. Nikolai Andreevich Shugaya (KIA) Il-2 (#4121) fell 1.5-2 km NW of Makarevskaya Pustyn.

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

[Matheu

According to Russian historian Dmitriy Khazanov, who matched his claims with Soviet loss records, only 80 out of Hartmann's 352 victories can be confirmed.
Khazanov mention several ocasions when he (and his buddies) claimed a lot of victories, but the VVS suffered few or not losses at all. Such cases were:
* 29.05.1944: During the Soviet air strike against the Romanian airbase of Novela, Erich Hartmann claimed to shot down three "LaGG-7s" (La-5s). In fact, the Soviet 5 VA did suffer losses - three Il-2, but the 302 IAD, which provided escort to the attack and was equipped with La-5FN, did not suffer losses at all.
* 4.06.1944: That day, during the fourth sortie of the day, Hartmann and his wingman Birkner were jumped by two Aircobras, with Hartmann claiming to turn the wits and shooting down both P-39s. Jazanov determined that they were the Aircobras flown by Mayor B. B. Gakhaet and Leytenant Nikolay L. Trofimov of the famous 16 GIAP, and both Aircobras returned home without a single scrach!!
* 4.07.1944: Hartmann claimed three Il-2s north of Yassy, which were attacking German positions of artillery. The formation attacked by Hartmann were 12 Il-2s of the 2 ShAK led by Leytenant Frolov, but they lost only one Shturmovik, which made a force belly-landing on Soviet held territory.
* 24.08.1944: That was the day when Hartmann claimed his victories Nos.299 to 303 over the Soviet beachhead of Sandomierz across the Vistula river - all four were P-39s. The only unit equipped with Aircobras providing cover to Sandomierz were the ones of the elite 9 GIAD led by Polkovnik Aleksandr Pokryshkin - and did not suffer a single loss in air combat that day! There is a P-39 pilot missing after becaming separated of his comrades, which could have been downed by Hartmann. But at most Hartmann could score only one victory that day, never four.

Other example is the combat when he was shot down on 20 August 1943: according his account in his autobiography written by Trevor Constable, he shot down two Il-2s when was hit by flak, belly-landed and captured by a short period of time (later he evaded).
If fact Khazanov could determine, that according to the Soviet records, what Hartmann attacked was a group of Shturmoviks of the 232 ShAP. One of the Il-2 pilots, Leytenat Pavel Evdokimov, saw how a "Messer" jumped his buddy V. Ermakov, and shot at close range a 20-mm burst against the Bf.109, which performed a belly-landing - indeed this was Hartmann's Bf.109G-6. No Il-2 was lost by 232 ShAP that day, even when two were damaged. Once again, Hartmann "kills" were overclaims (even when in this case seem that both were in good faith). And he was not downed by flak, but by Shturmovik pilot Pavel Evdokimov.
Khazanov conceeds that indeed Hartmann was a dangerous opponent, crediting him with at least two victories against Soviet aces: on 16.10.1943 he shot down the La-5 of Starshiy Leytenant Ivan Nikitovich Sytov (30 victories, 5 GIAP), and on 1.03.1945 the Yak-9 of Kapitan Sergey Ivanovich Lazarev (728 IAP, 256 IAD), but not before Lazarev shot down his the Bf.109G-14 of Hartmann's wingman G. Kapito (Lazarev's victory No.26)
I hope you found this information usefull.
Kind regards.
Diego

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

Regarding matching claims:-
Personnally I can check only those in the West, so I rely on other people's checking for the East. However I do have complex biographies on 2500 + aces, and anopther 5000 scoring non-aces, and those that I know to be fraudulent in the West all show the same pattern to there claims, Hartmann shows this pattern, Rall does not, however as with Marseille it doesn't mean so it must be, but shows that he probably is! Also when somebody is reaching a significant number i.e 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300 they seem to have more big days, seems that all the pace setters(expect Molders) seem to be dodgy i.e Gollob, Graf, Nowotny, Hartmann, especially when you get one ace Schwarm(think of Nowotny), or even Staffel(think of 6./Jg5) also Hartmann did join the Karaya Staffel(think of Graf). Gollob made huge daily claims to reached 150, yet when he flew for a day with another Geschwadeder and wingman(Petermann) he makes just a single claim, I would guess because he didn't know Petermann, so I would guess this one is honest. Look at Galland and Priller, just two or three for there best day, then look at the fraudster, Rudorffer, Wick,Wurmheller, Buhligen, all have big days in the West!
Also the same person who stated "80" for Hartman, states that Lipfert's were very accurate/honest...............and you've guessed it Lipfert's claim pattern would suggest he was honest.

So to summerise, Hartmann's pattern of claims suggest that he only should be a fraud, plus his two years of teriffic claiming seem to have be examined against Russian losses and we are told "80", I would think this excludes his first few earlier claims, and those in 1945!, which would actaully still bring him upto "100+), in fact those for 1945 could not have been included in the scrutiny, as the actually dates/time/place and aircraft type are very uncertain!

Johannes

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

As far as Dmitriy Khazanov is concerned, his "research" has already been shown to be faulty by Jean-Yves Lorant and Hans Ring.

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

Hartmann bashing is popular nowadays.

I find it questionable that people like Rall, Backhorn, Krupinski, Steinhoff etc would have encouraged Hartmann to rejoin the post war Bundesluftwaffe, have supported his career (to the best of their ability) and have allowed him to lead the premier fighter squadron if his character was as flawed as some make out to believe.

These were all men of character, some stronger some weaker. The war was long, those that survived prolonged combat were good, smart and lucky.

What does enter in the whole "right or wrong" includes the cliques that were already established pre- during and to some extend post war. The spaniards, the fighters vs bombers, the east vs west, party vs "non-party" etcetera.

Some who were more popular were able to present and make sure their version of events became history as we know it, others who were less popular or less prolific in writing were often discredited.

With Hartmann the truth will likely be somewhere in the middle. Fact is that the Soviets held him long enough to give at least some credence to his wartime reputation on both sides of the line.

Hartmann might have looked like a Bube, but was probably tough as nails as a CO, marked by war and captivity he probably didn't mellow with age. Not an endearing character like Rall or Galland, but that doesn't mean that he was a fraud.

Hell, wonder how most of us would deal with prolonged and extensive combat, followed by c. 10 years as a POW under a system like Stalin's Soviet Union.

I'd love to see someone like Kurt Braatz take up the challenge. He's got extensive JG 52 material, that combined with the work by Barbas and Prien, might go a long way in re-establishing a picture of Erich Hartmann, regardless if he did or did not shoot down 352 aircraft.

...actually if it were proven that he shot down less than a third, that would still show that we arm chair generals have no right to judge these men of character who fought and survived a war we can't even start to imagine.

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

Hello, all.

I just realized that I am using time better spent on my own research trying to get other people which I do not know to be as cautios with regards to facts about this period of time as I try to be myself.

Of course, from past experience, I should know this to be futile.

The main problem here is that you can not take information, any information, from two of the most extreme dictatorships the world has known at face value.

You have to go to the sources that are least likely to be tainted by propaganda, fear of reprisals or both. On the German side for example GenQu 6 Abt records (not perfect but for a system before the computer with databases suite good), the British have excellent records, the Americans also - most of it openly accessible for researchers that bother to go to the source and do not rely on second or third or whateverhand information.

And the Soviets/Russians? I wouldn't use 'openness' as the best fitting word when describing their practice on military historic records...

Khatyn or Chernobyl ring a bell? The leader of the reactor at Chernobyl asked his staff what level of radiation they measured. The answer was that the main devices was broken, and the handheld devices had the readings at their max level. The next question was if they could then prove positively that the real values really were higher. Of course they could not even if they knew it. The reading reported to Moscow was the handheld devices max reading, multitudes lower than the real values. This was in 1986 - 33 years after Stalin died - but in the system he was central in creating.

I personally think one should use caution before characterizing named persons or indistinguished groups as fraudsters, dishonest or liars - even if the internet has made this possible for any anonymous selfclaimed expert to do so. This of course goes for combattants of all sides.

In my opinion - try to do something more useful. If you are close to whatever archive or historic site - go there - try to find some new information and post that as a piece of info for the enligthenment of the community.

If not (and I guess as an invitation for a flame war) - in my not so polite version - just stop posting (in my local language Hold kjeft). What Johannes of course could do was to publish his thousands of ace biographies for scrutiny at this site or another one. Would be nice as reference!

Everyone is of course allowed to post whatever (almost) they want here - but a general progression in quality would be nice. Agree with James, and sadly discussions on this topic has looked the same on this board for a decade...

Regards,
Andreas B




Regards,
Andreas B

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

It has already been demonstrated that Khazanov's findings in regards of Hartmann's claims in East can be forgotten, as they are sloppy and possibly motivated by politics. So any references to his 'study' should be discarded outright.

My opinion, based on several decades of activity in the aviation history field, is that one cannot have a fair enough picture unless goes to primary sources, untainted by day-by-day politics or fading memory. Even with these primary data there are many-many contradictions and ambiguous situation that need to be solved.

As for the amount of primary data available in the Soviet archives, I was shown samples from 1943 that appear to be more detailed and precise than the Luftwaffe's own system of tracking losses. As known, victory claims are many (most?) times uncertain, but losses almost always accurate (even if the cause of loss being misgiven). Therefore, there is hope that our Russian speaking colleagues will come up one day with accurate loss records (one should only live long enough to see this coming to print).

Therefore, bashing certain prominent pilots, regardless of their nationality, without having a strong evidence that can be shared, is nothing more than hearsay and should thus be discredited.

P.S. A final point, claims of anti-aircraft artillery crews and ground fire are usually overlooked in trying to assess one certain pilot's claims, even though about half of all shotdowns and damages to aircraft were caused by this branch.

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

This is what I have heard from other credible people besides yourself, though I have not studied it in detail myself.

But OTOH and from examples I know of, German fighter claiming in the second half of WWII was often pretty inaccurate, so even if as mentioned 80 covers only a portion of Hartmann's career and his total 'real' score were say in the low 100's (purely to give an example) that would not be a particularly poor ratio by the standards of all WWII fighter claiming, if the 'real' score is intended to represent distinct (from other 'friendly' claims) actual losses of the enemy.

Politics and national feelings sometimes enter into such discussions in a crude and obvious way. But even when they don't, there's still the question of 'standard of proof' and 'benefit of doubt'.

The two related questions, it seems, are:
1. whether competing claims on the ace's side, in the same combat, are considered
2. what's the standard of evidence for determining that enemy losses occurred in the same combat the ace described
Of course the difficulty in determining those two things varies enormously depending on the circumstances of combat and level of detail of each side's surviving records. In small theaters it's often obvious which units met in which combats even if the records are very sketchy, and the judgement of the researcher is only a matter of whether to consider the aces' comrades claims and consider the stated cause of loss (other than air combat) of opposing a/c. In a large theater it might be pratically impossible to disambiguate various engagements reported on each side and more claims and losses might have to be lumped together, or alternatively it gives a more distorted picture in a more complex theater to just consider the ace's claims and all possibly corresponding losses and call that 'verification'. But it isn't necessarily dishonest. Or, an author might just give all the enemy losses without saying whether he thinks they were all caused by the ace or what the probability is, so throwing the judgement call to the reader. Other authors adopt devices like calling it a 'victory' if one pilot drove another from the combat perhaps damaged, as he determined in his research, though not destroyed as the claiming pilot believed. IMHO that's not a 'verification' of a destroyed claim, though useful detail.

It's hard to evaluate a researcher's standards in these regards without oneself viewing the same source material that he used. But, though I know (have been told often!) that commercial considerations weigh against a lot of 'hemming and hawing' and talking about sources in a book or having footnotes, I still really prefer books or articles where at least in footnotes you get some hint of the strength and weakness of the sources, and thus strength of the conclusions about claim veracity (of individual pilots or units) that appear to be reached in the narrative.

Joe

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

To answer Huy Horta

My friend Bernd Barbas knows more about Jg52 than anybody dead or alive i should think. Personally he doesn't believe the Hartmann fraud stories, and knew Hartmann himself very well. However he has spoken to many Jg52 pilots who were not happy with Hartmann(but not in a fraud way). I should imagine that apart from anything else prestige was a good reason to encourage Hartmann into the Bundesluftwaffe!
I have wondered why though that Hartmann didn't dispell the mythe about his Mustang claims, surely somebody asked him, or he talked about it? Bernd Barbas questioned Fritz Obleser about his U.S claims ten years ago, so for 55 years we all believed nine U.S aircraft, yet when I pressed Bernd to ask him as none were on the micro Films he(Obleser) stated " Oh, mr Barbas I have no details the American's stole my log-book, but I did shoot down nine U.S aircraft, but I never submitted the claims, as I was too busy trying to stay alive to watch them crash"
So does anybody have details of Erich recollection of the Mustang's?, yet these would have been the easiest of his claims to dis-credit........yet nobody could! Don't know how hard it would be for Eastern claims, but very hard I should think, unit overlapped, not like Jg5 which was isolated.
I would look forward to seeing his name cleared in the future!
But regarding Dmitriy Khazanov, if it was political why dis-credit some and not others.
From the Luftwaffe point of view, in the West they recorded and examined the crash sites of pilots claims, but in the East it was usually in enemy territory, so not possible to prove one way or other whether in general claims were accurate!
I guess Hartmann's last claim over Brunn, i.e it crashed into the central platz, should be provable!

Regards

Johannes

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

Johannes:

What you say is very interesting...
According to your experience and research: What is that pattern? What pattern shows a pilot which is fraudulent regarding his claims for aerial victories?
Diego

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

It's really sad that such terms such as "fraudster" are thrown about without any direct evidence to support it. It's my belief that the vast majority of successful fighter aces, from ALL SIDES, overclaimed. Some, of course, more than others. But I believe only a very small percentage would have actively engage in outright fraud. The suggestions stipulated here about a whole range of different aces as being "fraudsters" I find disturbing. Is it possible some of them did exaggerate and lie about particular claims, yes it is. But unless you have absolute proof that they did, all you have are personal suspicions. I find it hard to believe that so many of these top aces were all outright frauds and liars. This implies a conspiracy of so many different elements. Not just wingmen, but also any other fighter pilot in the unit, commanders and other pilots in the combat zone, would all have to be involved. This sounds extremely far fetched to me. Yes, it some isolated instances it is possible, but not to such a vast degree that is being suggested. As far as their "shooting patterns" are concerned, this again, doesn't prove anything. Studying loss records is very historically viable and important, and does show the type of overclaiming that can occur, but it does not prove fraud. I wish this same level of interest would be focused on the top Allied aces and their overclaiming. Of course, I'm sure, most would be adamant not to call them "fraudsters."

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

Hi Patterns for frauds are:-

Huge claimly claims, huge number in short time, sudden excelleration in claims. However Maeseille showed this pattern, but was very honest.

Honest pilots with large overall claims seemed to do this over a long period, with relatively small maximum daily totals.

Also fraudsters seemed to make a big jump whilst approaching a significant number(look at Nowotny, Rudorffer e.t.c).

Again case against Hartmann has yet to be proved one way or other, but he fulfils all the criterior, again as did Marseille.

Also the unit they are with is an indication, Jg2 in the West, and Jg5 in the East. Jg5 pilots believed they were exiled/under equiped.

Rall, Barkhorn,Lipfert fall into the honest pattern, and our Russian friend has stated that Lipfert was honest. Point is that looking at there claims pattern I would have guessed Lipfert was honest, so presume(to be proved one way or other) that Rall and Barkhorn would be the same, though Khazanov states that Barkhorn's record is less reliable as he approached "300"=Brillanten! Barkhorn was also a special case, his claims did not need a witness, as he was so honest!!!!!! Rall had only a couple of high scoring days, and then only five was the max, and he didn't have these to get to a significant number.........Hartmann did!

Hope this helps.

Glory be to the honest guy.

Johannes

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

Once again it is just speculation. Yes, it is interesting, but without evidence that they actually committed fraud, you should stop referring to them as such. You stated Marseille had strange patterns as well, but as many as 3/4 of his claims are confirmed, and therefore he is "honest." All this shows is that these patterns don't necessarily mean a particular ace is an outright fraud or liar. It is speculation.

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

This is very important to point as well this is not only case that records was not made at all (or in some cases intentionally made incorrect)

Any overall opinion about Hartmann total score? Over 300, under 300, near his claim... ?

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

I basically agree with you, but the other problem I see is when the issue is stated in terms of 'fraud' or 'honesty', then the tendency can be to 'over verify' ace claims.

When the issue is stated in terms of a man's personal integrity, it's only fair to say his integrity is supported if he claimed 2, his comrades claimed another 3, and the opponent really lost 2. He *might* have downed both. But such an evaluation tends to distort the actual picture of claim accuracy. This is why IMO it's usually best to de-emphasize the issue of personal honesty when it comes to evaluating claim accuracy. The best estimate of the ace's score in that combat is 0.4, IMO.

We're focusing on the Germans here, but some air arms had typically low claim accuracies (well, German claims were pretty inaccurate too in some periods). Does this mean the typical claiming pilot in those low accuracy air arms was a 'fraudster'? Any such suggestion tends to make the discussion emotional, nationalistic and non-objective. So it's best to just stay away from that aspect, IMHO. OTOH quantifying actual claim accuracy, at least for whole units and air arms, is key to understanding fighter combat history.

Joe

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

I took a look through Christer Bergstroem's book "Bagration to Berlin" and saw these claims that he wrote down. 18Sep43 812 IAP lost 3 Yak-1 of which Hartmann claimed 2, Friedrich Obleser 1 and Johannes Bunzek 1. Who's to say that Obleser or Bunzek's Yak-1 didn't go down. 29Sep43 Hartmann possibly ended the life of Mayor Vladimir Semenishin in a Airacobra of the 104 GIAP (15 victory & 11 shared ace). He lists that Hartmann on the 20Aug43 was possibly shot down by the rear gunner of Lt. P. Yevdokimov's Il-2 of the 232 ShAP. That was the day he was captured by the Russians and escaped.
I don't have any problem with Hartmann's score. It may not be 352 and only 80 but it hasn't been proved either way by someone who is UNBIAS. Dmitriy Khazanov might be bias. I have several of his books that have some good facts if you "pick" through what he has to say. I have seen only praise by him for one German pilot of JG51. Maybe Bernd Barbas should write a book on Erich Hartmann but with a co-author from Russia like Vitaliy Gorbach. He's fair and could provide the Russian losses and point of view on many of the dogfigths.
I have respect for what Hermann Graf and Hartmann did at the end of the war. They stayed with their men and were captured. They could have flew out with the rest of the pilots and left everyone else to get away on their own. How many of the people out there who have a wife and family would do that?

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

With regards to Marseille actually downing abouth three quartres of his claims, he was such an egoist like Wurmheller that I would have bet money on him making fraudulent claims like Wurmheller, but the fact is that i believe he thought that he had shot down 152 aircraft(plus six unconfirmed). Now Egon Mayer's claims stand up reasonable well for a Jg2 pilot, and he had huge problem's with Wurmheller, don't know what, but I guess he thought he was on the fiddle.
Regarding Bernd Barbas doing a Hartmann book, he's heavily engrossed in a Gerhard Barkhorn book at the moment(huge numbers of coloured photo's) Whereas Bernd thinks that Hartmann was honest, he seems to think that Barkhorn was the better man, or at lea\st he preferes him. Sad thing is that Barkhorn's medals have all been stolen!
Regarding other nations fraudsters.......the American's overclaimed, but not sure whether it's fraud or everybody shooting at everthing all the time. The "Ace"(or not) Douglas Bader was outragous in claiming, in fact it was his downfall, in his last combat he caught a staffel of Bf109's but instead of attacking, he dove away, only to be mistaken as an escaping 109 and shot dowen by his own side, yet he claimed three 109's........without engaging the enemy!!! He managed to carry off his deception for forty year, made fame and fortune from it as well!!!!
Also I wonder if Khaznov used Hartmann's old list or the Micro Film generated one to get his "80"?

Regards

Johannes

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

Johannes, why do you still throw around terms like "fraudster." I don't know if Wurmheller or any of the others you mentioned actually lied, maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Yes, it's obvious they overclaimed, but as I and other posters have already mentioned numerous times, unless you have actual proof they did fabricate claims then stop referring to them as fraudsters. I basically agree with Joe's post. I don't really know how many "kills" the top aces from all sides actually had. Like I said, I believe they pretty much all overclaimed, so their actual "kills" are never accurate. Some pilots overclaimed more than others, and yes, in some isolated instances, some pilots probably lied and fabricated scores. But like I said before I believe those pilots were the minority not the norm. Studying loss records is an important historical undertaking that shows which units and which pilots overclaimed. But as Joe said judging the personal integrity of any of these pilots is beyond the scope of any statistical endeavor. Like has been said, Marseille might have been an "egoist" which I really don't know, and his "shooting patterns" seemed "strange" yet his scores are considered very accurate with not as much overclaiming. This simply shows that anything that can be gathered out of such "facts" are all speculation. No one will ever now the actual scores of the top aces. It is not like readjusting U Boat aces claims, which are quite easy to do. So, myself personally, when I look at the "victory" lists of the top aces, from all nations, I accept the scores credited, with the knowledge that ALL these scores include overclaims and are simply the "victories" credited. Yet, I never challenge the personal integrity of any of these pilots, and neither do most professional aviation historians.

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

Nokose,Regardless whether they choose to stay with their men or not, they would be handed over to Soviet anyway

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

Nokose:

Well, Khazanov credited to Hartmann two other Soviet aces - Sytov and Lazaryev. Regarding Hartmann being shot down by the rear gunner, I think he is mixing up two different incidents:
5.11.1942: The day when Hartmann claimed his first victim (an Il-2), and asserts that he had to belly land because of debris coming from his prey damaged his aircraft, what in fact happened that it was struck by the machinegun fire from the rear gunner of a 7 GShAP's Il-2. His Bf.109G-2 resulted with a 30% damage.
20.08.1942: Lt. Pavel Yevdokimov (232 ShAP, 7 ShAK) shot down Hartmann's Bf.109G-6 W.Nr. 20485, but using his Il-2 Shturmovik like a fighter - IT WAS NOT the rear gunner.
There were a lot of cases when aggressive Il-2 pilots struck back and shot down the Bf.109s or Fw.190s which were jumping them. If you want I can list them there, and many experten fell that way.
One thing more that I would like to point out, is the fact that only 15 out of Hartmann's 352 claims were Il-2s. Taking into account these two cases when he was shot down by Il-2 (one falling by the rear gunner, and the second by an aggressively flown Shturmovik) one understand why: he learnt to respect the Ilyushins, and became reluctant to attack them, evidently doing so only if absolutely necessary.
Kind regards,
Diego

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

I would love a Barkhorn book. He's one of the lesser known aces, despite his high credited score. It should be interesting.

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

Mars,
Yes, that was a "shameful" event if what happen to the refugees happen as described in the book.
Diego,
I have another source for the 20Aug43 incident with Hartmann being shot down from "Над Огненной Дугой" by Vitaliy Gorbach. Chapter 5.3 "On 20 August Erich Hartmann will be shot down by the fire of a Shturmovik from the composition of the 8 VA and only good luck will allow the future Luftwaffe star to avoid waiting to the end of the war in a prisoner of war camp". He doesn't say what regiment, pilot or gunner.

Re: Erich Hartmann - several questions
 

This has been an interesting discussion, but alas the want to review a pilot’s score seems to be the "in thing" these days.

I acknowledge that over claiming is a constant in war, especially air side of the conflict, with closure speeds in excess of 700mph, split second the opposition is in the gun sight, the need to keep the head on a swivel stick, the need to keep control of your aircraft, and most importantly the need and want to survive.

Of interest I find the statements in this discussion about Hans-Joachim Marseille's claims as being quite accurate of note, due to my own interest in the Curtiss Kittyhawk Family.

I will firstly state that my belief is that Marseille's score is and always will be 158. I, however, have yet to be able to confirm all his claims against first and second source data for the P-40 aircraft. Does this make him a "fraudster" - certainly not, does it mean that P-40/P-46 claims were miss-identified - possibly (in the case of the P-46 certainly). Could it be that the aircraft although damaged made it back to home plate, the pilot claiming in good faith - certainly (bare in mind just how much damage a P-40 can take - I'll also assume that the Russian aircraft could also take a beating as well).

Does this mean I must review and write to the world that his score was “XX”, being lower than what he claimed - Not at all. I can tell the world with some certainty which of his claims can be tallied with available records, the rest are presently unidentified, or in some cases disputed as other German pilots claimed during the same sorties/timeframes/areas as well as other airforce pilots claiming as well.

Maybe a thought would be post the ones that can be verified through other documentation (sources quoted), and that way others who may have additional data from untapped sources can add or provide further relevant details, so that we as a community can further our knowledge of these airmen.

I believe that people should understand that the scores stand, for right or wrong. Also in many cases the primary source of data is no longer available to be checked - These being the pilots themselves.....most are not here to defend themselves. The written records, both official and unofficial can and are at time in error, with both dates, times and in some cases area.

In many cases this form of historical need for accuracy is a blight to our research as I know personally of pilots not wishing to discuss their operations and experiences because "What's the point, no-one believes us anyhow" (direct quote from one pilot).

Regards

Buz