Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Hi Folks,
Here is a short list of Maj. Gerhard Barkhorn (1919-1983, Stab II./JG 52) Bf 109 ace’s victory-analysis for the end of 1944. Officially he was credited with 301 aerial victories during WWII and as such, he was credited with the 2nd most aerial victories in military history. But regardless of this, as we will see, in reality probably he was and he will ever be the top scorer No.1 fighter pilot of all times:

274: 26.10.1944 - Yak-3 – OVERCLAIM - Stab II./JG 52, PQ 18284 (Újfehértó, Nyíregyháza-S), 14:25

5 VA, 13 GvIAD, 151 GvIAP, Yak-9 (S/N was not reported as it stayed in service) This day between 12:00-12:30 and 14:10-14:40 local time, groups of 4-6 Yak-9 of 151 GvIAP covered soviet ground forces (the ‘Pliev combat-group’) in the Nyíregyháza area, where 2 Bf 109 attacked them. One Yak-9 was hit, but still could reach the Kisszénás airfield, where landed safely. Pilot, Gv.Lt. Vladimir Ivanovich Muratov (1923-) was unhurt. Plane was later repaired. Barkhorn scored his Yak fighter right in the middle of the 2nd mission of the 5 VA, 151 GvIAP this day!

(The 5 VA reported 1 IL-2, 1 -511 ORAP- Pe-2R and 4 Yak losses on October 26, 1944.)

275: 14.11.1944 - Yak-9 - POTENTIAL VICTORY - Stab II./JG 52, PQ 98661 - 11:45
276: 14.11.1944 - Yak-9 - POTENTIAL VICTORY - Stab II./JG 52, PQ 98635 - 12:00

5 VA, 13 GvIAD, 151 GvIAP, Yak-1B (S/N: 18199) lost in a dogfight in the given Jászberény-S area. Pilot, Gv.Ml.Lt. Nikolai Vasilevich Rogatin (1923-) returned OK.

5 VA, 13 GvIAD, 151 GvIAP, Yak-9T (S/N: 1715339) lost in a dogfight in the given Jászberény-S area. Pilot, Gv.Ml.Lt. Lev Ivanovich Toropov (1924-) returned OK.

(The 5 VA reported 5 IL-2, 6 La-5 and 3 Yak losses this day, -2 IL-2 to flak.)

277: 16.11.1944 - Il-2 ~ POTENTIAL VICTORY - Stab II./JG 52 -
278: 16.11.1944 - Il-2 ~ POTENTIAL VICTORY - Stab II./JG 52 -
279: 16.11.1944 - Il-2 ~ POTENTIAL VICTORY - Stab II./JG 52 -
280: 16.11.1944 - Yak-3 - POTENTIAL VICTORY - Stab II./JG 52, PQ 98478, 13:40
281: 16.11.1944 - La-5 - POTENTIAL VICTORY???? - Stab II./JG 52, PQ 98452 (Hatvan-SE), 13:45


5 VA, 13 GvIAD, 150 GvIAP, Yak-3 (S/N: 3429214, No.’34’). Lost at Isaszeg, Budapest-E, Gv.Lt. Alexandr Nikolaevich Agdantsev went missing. At 13:42 local, between 2000-3500 m 8 Yaks covered their own troops and met 4 Bf 109. Agdantsev while protecting the first group of four was hit and bailed out with parachute. Downed by Maj. Gerhard Barkhorn (Stab.II/JG.52) at ‘13.40’ - confirmed.

5 VA, 279 IAD, 192 IAP, La-5F (S/N: 39214932, No.'32') Lost at Nagykáta at 14:00 local. 4 La-5, covering 9 IL-2 of 5 VA, 12 GvShAD, 188 GvShAP in the Hatvan-Hort-Atkár-Csány area. Combat with 6 ‘Fw 190’ at Nagykáta-NE, 2-3 km at 2400 m. Ml.Lt. Vladimir Mihailovich Olnev was hit, injured, bailed out at 2000 m. On November 20, 1944 he returned to his unit without his plane.

On this very intense day of November 16, 1944 the soviet 5th Air Army reported the following 3 IL-2 losses: 1 IL-2 lost to enemy fighters, 2 went missing. Others were seriously damaged, but repaired afterwards. Since the 3 IL-2 claims in Barkhorn’s list are listed before his 13:40 Yak-3 claim, I assume he claimed them still in the morning hours, just before lunch. This matches the report of the 92 GvShAP IL-2 flight, which was hit really hard this day around 11:45 local time in the Hatvan area, knocking out the following planes out of their flight of five by 6 Bf 109s. (Five 92 GvShAP IL-2, escorted by four 122 IAP Yak, vs. 6 Bf 109 in the Hatvan area):

5 VA, 4 GvShAD, 92 GvShAP IL-2m3, S/N: 10294, fuselage No.’71’, (Kovalev-Pichugin crew) – lost to fighter
5 VA, 4 GvShAD, 92 GvShAP IL-2m3, S/N: 11360, fuselage No.’99’, (Bocharov-Mihailov crew) – lost to fighter
5 VA, 4 GvShAD, 92 GvShAP IL-2m3, S/N: 303933, fuselage No.’74’, (Bizhko-Ermachenko crew) – lost to fighter
5 VA, 4 GvShAD, 92 GvShAP IL-2m3, S/N: 303925, fuselage No.’75’, (Sadokhin-Lapshin crew) – damaged, force landed on another soviet airfield, later flew back to their own base.

In 188 GvShAP IL-2m3 (S/N: 1878963) suffered combat damages in the same area, plus IL-2m3 (S/N: 11091, Alexandrov-Patrin crew) was destroyed on the Kecskemét airfield in an air raid.)


282: 17.11.1944 – La-5 - VICTORY - Stab II./JG 52, PQ 98615 (Tápiószecső area) at 1.500 m, 10:23
283: 17.11.1944 - Yak-3 - VICTORY - Stab II./JG 52, PQ 98622 at 3.500 m, 15:00

5 VA, 14 GvIAD, 178 GvIAP, La-5FN (S/N: 39212821, No.’21’). Flight of 10 La-5s at 10:25 local, Lt. Myakinin failed to return. While returning from the mission, at about 10-15 km north of Szolnok he separated from his group and went missing. Perhaps he, or his plane was wounded/damaged in the dogfight with Barkhorn and lost consciousness/control en route home and crashed/crashlanded.

5 VA, 13 GvIAD, 149 GvIAP, 2nd Sq., Yak-1B (S/N: 37191, No.’<37’). At 15:00 local, flight of 8 Yaks, Ml.Lt. Vladimir Petrovich Isupov (assigned from 19 ZhAP) bailed out with parachute in the Kóka-E area after severe dogfight with 2 Bf 109 and ‘4 Fw 190’, - returned without his plane on November 19, 1944, OK.

285: 24.11.1944 - Pe-2 – OVERCLAIM/VICTORY ??? - Stab II./JG 52 – (Perhaps 24.12.1944???????)

The 5 VA had no aircraft losses on November 24, 1944, only an A-20G and a Po-2 recce. sortie - without losses. The 511 ORAP, as the only Pe-2 equipped 5 VA recce. unit has only a Po-2 support-biplane loss on November 21, 1944 (S/N: 640732, St.Lt. Panchenko), which was not combat related. No Pe-2R loss in the entire month of November, 1944, only one write-off, due to wear and tear by November 9, 1944. (S/N: 16/153) However, VVS HQ, 48 GvORAP has lost a Pe-2 recce. plane (S/N: 19/296) on December 24, 1944 to fighter (Not 24.11.1944, but 24.12.1944!). If this was just a typo in Barkhorn’s biography and/or claim list -that I cannot verify-, then it was an authentic aerial victory. Plane with Lt. Ukrainskii’s crew onboard crashlanded at Martonos, Hungary-S (now in Serbia).

286: 25.12.1944 - Yak-9 - POTENTIAL VICTORY - Stab II./JG 52 –
287: 25.12.1944 - Yak-9 - POTENTIAL VICTORY - Stab II./JG 52 –

Details of these Yak claims are unknown, but throughout the day heavy dogfights took place between German Bf 109s and soviet Yaks of the 17 VA, 288 IAD in the Zámoly and in the city of Székesfehérvár (Stuhlweissenburg)-N area with severe soviet losses as follows:

17 VA, 288 IAD, 611 IAP, Yak-1B (S/N: 14177) – Lt. Nikolai Nikolaevich Kutsenko???
17 VA, 288 IAD, 611 IAP, Yak-1B (S/N: 15150) – Lt. Nikolai Nikolaevich Kutsenko???
17 VA, 288 IAD, 611 IAP, Yak-1B (S/N: 44172) – Capt. Konstantin Leontievich Chernogor (KIA) near Zámoly
17 VA, 288 IAD, 611 IAP, Yak-9T (S/N: 1115364) – Ml.Lt. Dmitrii Gavrilovich Kirichenko (KIA), Maj. Churilin’s wingman near Zámoly
17 VA, 288 IAD, 611 IAP, Yak-9M (S/N: 2715374) – Ml.Lt. Aleshkin, or Ml.Lt. Fadeev (both OK)
17 VA, 288 IAD, 611 IAP, Yak-9M (S/N: 2715372) – Ml.Lt. Aleshkin, or Ml.Lt. Fadeev (both OK)
17 VA, 288 IAD, 611 IAP, Yak-9M (S/N: 2715376) – Ml.Lt. Georgii Artemovich Alaverdov (right leg injury, crashlanded at Székesfehérvár airfield-N after a dogfight)
17 VA, 288 IAD, 659 IAP, Yak-9D (S/N: 16166065) – Ml.Lt. Pavel Alexeevich Gorlach near Vértesszőlős (Tatabánya)

Since Hptm. Helmut Lipfert (II./JG 52) also had 2 Yak-9 aerial victories in these battles (1 at Székesfehérvár and 1 at Mór (Zámoly-NW), I think it is reasonable to think that these claims were also Barkhorn’s legitimate aerial victories, as somebody had to shoot down all of these soviet planes and II./JG 52 was definitely involved in the events.

288: 29.12.1944 - Il-2 – OVERCLAIM - Stab II./JG 52 –

Neither the 5th, nor the 17th Air Army had IL-2 combat loss this day, except a 17 VA, 210 ShAP IL-2m3 (S/N: 12058, No.’22’), which has lost orientation, missed their airfield and finally crashlanded in a remote field near Pusztaszentimre. (Balakin-Bogatirev crew was OK. Not combat related loss.)

289: 29.12.1944 – Boston – OVERCLAIM - Stab II./JG 52 – No details, but:

17 VA, 244 BAD, 260 BAP, A-20 Boston (S/N: unknown, as it was not lost) Gunner, St.Sgt. Georgii Andreevich Vlasov was killed. The 17 VA, 244 BAD, 449 BAP flew bomb/recce. mission to Budapest. The 5 VA, 218 BAD regiments had no Boston loss this day.

Barkhorn also had a few more claims between January 2-5, 1945, but as far as I know, other than the types of his claims nothing else is known. The daily soviet losses (both for the 5th and 17th Air Armies) are known in details, but due to the lack of information on his side, they cannot be compared to them.

Most of Maj. Barkhorn’s 15 claims in late 1944 can be verified from the soviet loss records for a good 73-80% (!!!), which is very significant and even the ones that he ‘just’ damaged, but did not completely destroy are recorded in soviet combat reports.

It is clear, that in reality nobody (like NOBODY!!!) reached 300 aerial victories in human/military history - and nobody will ever reach, thank’s be to God -, but if this was Barkhorn’s average score during his WWII fighter career, than most likely Maj. Gerhard Barkhorn was (and will ever be) the most successful fighter pilot of all times with about ~220-241 real aerial victories.

Gabor

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

According to data published in "Drei Falken der III./JG 52 auf der Krim im Luftkampf um die Kertch-Halbinsel", from November 1943 till April 1944 Barkhorn definitely shot down 28 Soviet planes, he could have brought down 13 more (it is unclear if these fell to his guns or some other pilots or flak) and overclaimed 31 times (either no corresponding loss at all or minor damage to his opponents). Pretty impressive, still, from so far published researches based on Soviet archival data, it seems that Otto Kittel has been the actually most successful Luftwaffe pilot.


Boris

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

I would have thought it was Günther Rall.

Bronc

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Could be, but how many (or what %) of Rall's, or Kittel's victories were matching soviet loss records? The final, credited number of victories is irrelevant, as they still could be full of overclaims (just like Hartmann's). What really matters here is the matching and verified records. Would be nice to know..

Gabor

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Hi Gabor,

Thanks for sharing your research -- it's greatly appreciated.

Such efforts will help provide a more accurate account of events, and hopefully ensure that the more deserving individuals (e.g. Barkhorn, Rall, Kittel, Lipfert) get their due recognition.

Regards,
Leon Venter

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Hi Gabor, for your interest:

I believe it was posted on here earlier as part of a different thread, but here is a Russian-language forum with an excellent comparison of German victory claims in the northern sector during September-October 1944. You will be able to see that many of Kittel's claims appear to be well-substantiated:

https://forum-kenig.ru/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=4513

Rall remains a bit more of an unknown quantity, so I am inclined to agree with Boris Ciglic

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Thanks Nick, excellent material!
Gabor

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Cheers Gabor,
Now, as always, well done and keep up the good work!

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Hi Gabor

Think you are saying that Barkhorn was mistaken in about sixty of his claims, more of a case of not following claiming protocol rather than direct over-claiming.
He once uncovered a scam by a fellow pilot, in this they were themselves filing paperwork to the RLM that should have been for the general unit i.e not a single pilot. Barkhorn was horrified and put a stop to it.

Doesn't of course mean he wasn't an over-claimer, I have worked with incompetent managers who to cover their uselessness spend their time attacking others just to draw attention away from there own failings.

Unlike Hartman we have many of the abschussmeldung of Barkhorn that give exact crash-sites and witnesses. Without cross-examining against these other pilots, there are only two periods that would possibly be dodgy, and by this the constant use of the same witnesses, this being claims number 209-251 of which thirty-two have Heinz Ewald as witness, and numbers 140-160 which all had Karl-Heinz Plucker as witness. I have the abschussmeldung of numbers 65-139 and they are a total mix of witnesses, many of who are proven honest claimers.

Naturally we assume that the wingmen are competent, experienced and not lazy.

We are in agreemant with Barkhorn's 1945 claims being too vague to investigate

Have you anylized Walter Nowotn'y claims yet?

Kind Regards

johannes

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Hi Guys

I did compare the claims of Barkhorn to those of his wingman Karl-Heinrich Plucker, and can state that there was no collusion between them in the normal sense of baring false witness to each others claims. Regarding his earlier claims, the abschussmeldung also mention if the pilot/crew bailed-out, and any fire, from where he attacked, also the witnesses story, the bailing-out part I would think being most useful.

Keep well

Johannes

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Hi Johannes,

Barkhorn's claims are very accurate and reliable, even the planes that he did not completely destroy, only damaged show up is soviet combat records. It is too bad that no further details are known about his January, 1945 claims where the soviet 5th and 17th VA loss records are all available. His analyzed 15 claims in the fall/winter of 1944 show a reliable pattern, were the final overclaims might have been related just to the poor winter visibility. His earlier claims in good visibility were pretty much right on. The approx. 60 planes that were not completely destroyed are simply calculated from the statistics, where -of course- a larger number might result a more accurate ratio. I can easily imagine that in case of a deeper analysis of not 15, but eg. 50, or more claims would result a much more accurate victory ratio with significantly less overclaims on his side. In order to properly analyze Barkhorn's further (or other Axis aces') claims we must know the details of the opponent soviet units' loss records, which at this point are available for only the soviet 5th and 17th Air Armies, supporting the 2nd and 3rd Ukrainian Fronts' ground forces in Hungary, Slovakia, Austria and partially in the Czech Republic. Aces, whose op. area fell out of this region cannot be analyzed in details yet. But research does not stop..

Gabor

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Hi Gabor

We agree that Barkhorn was honest then, perhaps some non-conforming with claims protocol when it comes to actual witnessing the crash, but as you say bad weather, and the Bf109 did have poor visibility itself. Also I would guess that Barkhorn like Hartmann and Rall claimed mostly fighter aircraft who's escape might have looked like death-dive.

Barkhorn was ambitious in his way, he thought his Schwerter an inferior decoration, as did Rall, both I think would have been awarded the Brillianten if it were not for Nowotny and Hartmann.

I maintain that with JG52 the most suspicious Gruppe was III, especially 9th then 7th staffel, and the least suspicious Gruppe was I. The more flugbücher I read the more I realize that more often than not they flew at Rotte, hardly ever as a full staffel. But also there had to be opportunity, even a dis-honest claimer needed opportunity, sometimes a pilot just fell in with a bad person, most often over-claiming by a pilot took place as one certain time in his career, then abruptly stops, good case for this is Emil Lang, reading Norbert Hannig's book Lang's record breaking day was planned-out, he had organised his wingmen that day for a series of sorties. In fact Lang's record breaking claiming spree was quite brief, then ends as abruptly as it started. With Maximilian Stotz it's the same, the opportunistic association with Hans Hahn in my opinion.

What is your opinion on Wilhlem Batz, he I think would be in your sphere of research, and his claims pattern highly suspicious, yet his earlier claims were very often not witnessed by a wingman, but by ground units, and he seems to have been flying alone for much of this period. I'll try to associate him with certain wingmen, but nothing is obvious to me by memory.

Take care

Johannes

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Hi Johannes, looks like unfortunately Wilhelm Batz (Stab III/JG 52) was not serving in the 2nd, or 3rd Ukrainian Front area in the late September, 1944 - May, 1945 timeframe, for which I have the soviet records.

Gabor

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Hi Johannes,


I will again use the data from "Drei Falken". From 63 claims made by Wilhelm Batz between November 1943 and early April 1944, only 9 can be confirmed in VVS records, he could have scored 8 or 9 more (unclear whether particular aircraft have been brought down by him or other pilots/flak), and the remaining 45-46 cannot be confirmed at all! Compared with other Luftwaffe aces which claimed 10 or more victories in that time frame over Krimea, Batz had the lowest percentage of confirmed kills. On other hand, Fonnekold had the best: out of 50, 31 are confirmed and 11 more are possible.



Boris

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Dear Gabor and Boris

I have checked Batz's claims against other pilots he flew with, and am surprised that I cannot say he had a system going with other pilots, a little bit of a match with Peter Düttmann, lesser with Otto Fonnekold and Walter Wolfrum, but as these were all high scorers anyway one would expect a little matching. But then again he become Kommandeur and from then on there are no matches with other pilots, again I believe that somehow Kommandeur can somehow self confirm there claims, or have a profound hold over their wingmen. Again if this proves to be true, only some abused their power.

So this is how it's done.

1. I scratch your back, like Rudorffer/Tangermann, Nowotny/Loos/Dobele i.e I'll confirm your if you confirm mine......actually now proved to have happened!

2. I scratch your back, for some other reward.......none proven, but likely, rank plays a part in this!

3. I am Kommandeur and can self witness(no evidence of this, but we can keep looking)

4. I am Kommandeur and you will witness(trouble with this is that post-war somebody would have blow the whistle.)

5. The whole Staffel or even Gruppe were scratching each others backs.....in my opinion this did happen with certain units over certain periods of time. But if you look your find certain Staffel grossly outperforming others of the same Geschwader/Gruppe under exactly the same circumstances like 6./JG5, 9./JG52 e.t.c.

Yet Heinrich Bartels of low rank took his bad habits from JG5 to JG27, a difficult one to explain.

Keep well

Johannes

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Thanks Johannes, just a side-note: I found Peter Düttmann's claims full of overclaims. (Found matching claims as well, but not many.)
Gabor

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Hi Johannes,
I cannot recall if I already brought this to your attention already, but this is an interesting link for the confirmation of aerial victories, by dint of sheer character reference. Google translate may come in handy for non-Russian speakers


https://warspot.ru/14209-kogda-dzhen...rbU0l7vQT4wCM0

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Hi Guys

Thanks for your responses and link. I was pondering the getting away with it issue, then checked Stotz's claims against those of his fellow conrads and found a few possible collusions, but nothing major, but thought about my theory about his Kommandeur Hans Hahn, and they absolutely match perfectly, basically Hahn borrowed Stotz as his wingman from 4./JG54. As mentioned before as soon as Hahn is gone then Stotz's claims pattern reverts back to unspectacular.

Anyway tried the same thing with Nowotny, and again absolutely matching with his former wingmen Dobele ans Schnorrer, Nowotny always claims two to Schnorrer's one, he just used his authority to borrow his former collusioners from 1./JG54. There seems to be no link with Rudolf Rademacher, who rarely flew with Nowotny....if at all, so another myth about the "Greatest Schwarm" broken, the fourth person was Gerhard Loos, until he was transfered to the West.

I will next try this with Hartmann and Batz and see how it looks. But looks like Kommandeur didn't/couldn't self witness, but could just fly with who they wanted!

Kind Regards

Johannes

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

So Hans "Assi" Hahn was an overclaimer too ?

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Very much so.
You can use the Tony Wood lists to compare JG 2's claims to Fighter Command's losses (use the 1941 and 1942 Luftwaffe claims lists for the German victory claims, and the Fighter Command summaries to find the enemy losses. At the very least, the discrepancies in the numbers claimed versus the numbers actually lost will become obvious).
As for his service on the Russian Front, I refer you to Christer Bergstroem's recent Black Cross + Red Star 4, which gives good coverage of many of his victories and overclaims

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

I have read Black Cross + Red Star 4, in which Mr Christer gives him very high regard, and I don't recall Christer mentioned him as an overclaimer.

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Beg to differ. Page 140 describes his claims in the second sortie of 14 January 43 as being over-optimistic, we read similar on Page 144 (in several seperate parts of that page, in fact).

Listing out what I can, this is what I have come up with:

30.12.42/0850, 0850, 0853, 0855
4 x “LaGG-3s” (actually P-40s, likely others involved)
Staraya Russa – Demjansk
10 IAP, 239 IAD, 6 VA lost Mayor Nikolai Terekhin KIA plus one other shot down. 156 IAP, 240 IAD, 6 VA lost St.Lts. Vocharov, Kasakin and Tokarev plus St. Serzh Chinarov.
(Versus at least 8 claims)

30.12.42/0857
IL-2 Sturmovik
Staraya Russa/Demjansk (PQ 29472) @ 800m
243 ShAD, 6 VA. 6 losses for 11 claims

30.12.42/1145
LaGG-3
Staraya Russa/Demjansk (PQ 18262) @ 1800m
21 GIAP, 240 IAD, 6 VA lost Podpolkovnik Georgiy Nikolaevich Konyev (14 kills, 18 shared) in this engagement
(Stotz also claimed)

14.1.43/1036, 1037, 1038 and 1042
4 x LaGG-3s
Schlusselburg-Mga
263 IAP, 215 IAD, 14 VA. Four losses: Serzhant Antonov and Ml.Lt. Seliverstov both KIA. Serzhant Petkevich baled out over friendly territory and Starshiy Serzhant Ageshin bellylanded back at Shum airfield
(Stotz claimed 4 victories in the engagement as well)

14.1.43/1210, 1211 and 1212
3 x LaGG-3s
Schlusselburg-Mga
263 IAP. Overclaiming, only Ml.Lt. Rostem forcelanded in friendly territory
(Stotz claimed 4 victories in the engagement as well)

23.1.43/1320, 1322 and 1325
3 x LaGG-3s
Mga Sector
2 GIAP. Overclaiming, only loss was Kapitan Afanasiy Sobolev baled out
(Steindl claimed one as well)

24.1.43/0935, 0940, 0942 and 1135
4 x LaGG-3s

25.1.43/0945, 0947 and 0949
2 x La-5s, 1 x LaGG-3

26.1.43/1058
La-5 ("LaGG-3")
SE of Schlusselburg (PQ 10152) @ 2000m
263 IAP. Lt. Kalenskiy and Ml.Lt. Petkevich both WIA
(Stotz claimed two as well)

26.1.43/1400 and 1403
2 x LaGG-3s
E of Schlusselburg
3 GIAP, 61 IABR, KBF. One engagement at 1500 ST, only loss was pilot Prasilov WIA; another engagement at 1600 ST, only loss was Serzhant Stepanov
(3 claims by Stotz)


27.1.43/1043
La-5 ("LaGG-3")
Schlusselburg area (PQ 10111) @ 50m
2 GIAP. Gv.Lt. Filipp Kosolapov, escaped safely and made it home
(Stotz claimed one as well)

21.2.43/0911
La-5 ("LaGG-5")
30km W of Demjansk (PQ 18463) @ 2000m
169 IAP, one pilot KIA and one WIA. One source says this may have been Alexander Mikhailovich Chislov, only damaged but most now agree this was St.Lt. Mikhail Vorobiyev KIA

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Thanks Nick, it is also interesting about Hans Hahn's experience after he was taken prisoner, especially the part he claimed he was almost hanged after a verbal altercation

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Hi Guys

I am surprised that I cannot workout how Batz and Hartmann did this over-claiming. No link such as Hahn/Stotz and Nowotny/Schnorrer/Dobele using somebody from a staffel whilst Kommandeur.

With Batz his earlier claims with stab.II./JG52 are quite odd, I thought many should be legitimate because he used ground-witnesses, but the offers are very likely to have been in the company of Heinrich Sturm, yet despite this they seem to be A.S.M or O.Z-A.S.M claims, I am even more convinced these are all legitimate claims. As for the offers the pattern of claiming is very suspect, I just can't find how he worked it.

So unlike the Kommandeur of JG54 those with JG52 on the fiddle must have used another form of inducement of unknown to myself to work their scams.

I would suggest that the researchers in the matter are not having the complete Russian losses before them, but if this is the case, why do they suggest others were honest?
I guess there must be another answer.....but what?

Kind Regards

Johannes

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Keep up the excellent work Johannes.

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Good question, but I have no idea. Personally I always trust the official loss-reports more (issued by their owners, regardless of their side) than any reported claims, filed by the opponent side after the mission, having zero responsibility on the loss. Any side, losing a plane had the responsibility for:

1., Report the loss of the plane and the loss of their pilot in different channels, even if the pilot returned healthy in just a few days. Simply, because eg. he could not be scheduled for the next mission of the day, or the next day.

2., They also had to report the loss to the families of the MIA/KIA airmen, and the change in their maintenance, refill, etc. tasks of the day for the ground crews,

3., they had to request new, replacement planes from the factories / Air Army distribution centres to maintain the combat value of their unit.

4., they had to request new, replacement pilots from the training units.

So it was much-much more complicated and difficult to play tricks with the losses than with the claims. But since the soviet reports match the claims of many other Luftwaffe pilots very well, to me it is obvious that the problem was with some individual Luftwaffe pilots' reports/claims, not with the reported losses. But unfortunately I cannot tell you what and how..

Gabor

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Hi Guys

Am still looking into the excessive periods of the Stab of first and second Gruppe JG54. It would appear to be not to be all, with the second Gruppe just Hans Hahn and Erich Rudorffer. As we have established most often the Gruppenkommandeur flew with only a single wingman, in Hahn's case he borrowed Max Stotz from one of his Staffels, with Rudorffer he had his own official wingman Kurt Tangermann. All the other Gruppenkommandeur seem honest.
With the First Gruppe we have Hans Philipp using his own personal wingamn Reinhardt, previous to this period both seem to be claiming unspectacularily, then this changes very abruptly together to spectacular claiming. With Nowotny it's different he borrows his former wingmen from staffels within his Gruppe to continue his spectacular claiming/over-claiming. Again the other Gruppenkommandeur seem honest.

I have heard bad things about Franz Eisenach, but cannot link him to anybody in collusion! As with Wilhelm Batz, though possible there are links with other top scorers within 5./JG52 during 1943, he claims spectacular though they are during 1944 with the stab.III./JG52 were made without any collusion, in fact he was the only guy claiming with the staff, and I cannot find any link between him and any staffel member/members of III./JG52, yet research would suggest, or rather prove that he was over-claiming, but though we know he did it, we do know know how, certainly not in the way of the JG54 guys.

Barkhorn did use sometimes regular wingmen, but at other times he flew with random wingmen, being a Gruppenkommandeur he had the opportunity, but as we have established, not the inclination Guess we could say about Philipp is that he had the inclination, but no opportunity until he became Gruppenkommandeur.

But how do you go about it even with the opportunity that being a Gruppenkommandeur brings, was there a secret handshake or something? How did Hans Hahn know he could use Stotz, Stotz's claims prior to Hahn being Kommandeur though large in number were not spectacular, then abruptly they became so. Hahn did not know Stotz before becoming Kommandeur.

With Nowotny it's slightly different, that being that he could fly within a larger group, at least Schwarm size within his staffel and they all four over-claim. I suspect that perhaps he was shy about approaching as Kommandeur to suggest the back-scratching plan, so he just used his old over-claiming staffel friends of Gerhard Loos, Anton Dobele and Karl Schnorrer.

Hans Philipp take Reinhardt with him to JG1, bu there they flew as much larger groups, thus the opportunity was not there!

Keep well

Johannes

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Hi Guys

I looked into Düttmann, like Hartmann/Batz it's hard to pin him down, however we do have the witness to each of his claims. I tried liking him to other pilots, during this I did a check on Fonnekold, and agree with Boris Ciglic, without having Russian losses his claims pattern is not suspicious, moreover no link to anybody really.

So all of Düttmann's witnesses seem okay with three exceptions, two of which never had claims themselves, but there is always other inducements I guess, the third is Rudolf Fritze, he shines more less than a month, then is gone, don't know where or what happened to him, but each of his own claims was with Düttmann during Düttmann's most lucrative moment, the ratio is two "kills" for Düttmann for one to Fritze, and he was of very low rank a gefreiter.

I'll do a new thread to see if some well informed member knows anything about him.

Question for Gabor, is your opinion that Düttmann was always over-claiming, or was there certain periods?

Kind Regards

Johannes

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Johannes,
Düttmann's claims in 1945 were absolutely terrible. I should say they contain some 'traces of victories'. Without much details, that -by the way- would worth a book:

08/03/1945 - 16.24 - OVERCLAIM - Yak-3
08/03/1945 - 16.27 - OVERCLAIM - Yak-3
09/03/1945 - 13.51 - OVERCLAIM - La-5
09/03/1945 - 13.53 - OVERCLAIM - Il-2mH.
11/03/1945 - 13.23 - OVERCLAIM - Yak-9
11/03/1945 - 13.26 - OVERCLAIM - Yak-9
11/03/1945 - 15.21 - OVERCLAIM - Yak-9
14/03/1945 - 12.55 - CONFIRMED VICTORY - Boston (S/N: 43-21519)
16/03/1945 - 13.55 - OVERCLAIM - Il-2mH.
16/03/1945 - 13.56 - OVERCLAIM - Il-2mH.
16/03/1945 - 13.58 - OVERCLAIM - Il-2mH.
16/03/1945 - 13.59 - OVERCLAIM - Il-2mH.
16/03/1945 - 14.01 - POTENTIAL VICTORY - Il-2mH. (S/N: 18874124)
18/03/1945 - 14.05 - OVERCLAIM - Yak-3
19/03/1945 - 11.52 - OVERCLAIM - Il-2mH.
19/03/1945 - 14.56 - OVERCLAIM - Yak-3
19/03/1945 - 15.03 - POTENTIAL VICTORY - La-5 (S/N: 39211166)
20/03/1945 - 14.05 - OVERCLAIM - P-51

Soviet records cannot be mistaken. (- and we have them in our museum's records!) They list even the number of bullets fired/used during the missions by calibre, dropped bombs by number and kind, fired wing rockets, - everything. Take off times, landing times (Moscow time!), events, losses, so again: everything. Usually there were several hours of time gaps between Düttmann's claims and the confirmed soviet losses. But eg. on March 16, 1945 several IL-2s returned with combat damages (eg. S/N: 1871494, 1871988, 1872787), which might be linked to Düttmann's actions, but they were not lost. They landed safely, got repaired, then took off again. I was shocked to see the inaccuracy of Düttmann's claims. But if the German office for any reasons recorded wrong details (time, type, location of victory, etc.), certainly I cannot verify that and I can compare only the records that have been written down.

Gabor

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Hi Gabor

Sorry to have questioned the completeness of Russian losses. I have the British losses, but need to be careful as the coastal units get listed separately.

I have all the Luftwaffe confirmed claims some 67,000, but this is incomplete, the mikrofilms fade-out end 1944, flugbücher and abschusseliste help, but they will never be found for all pilots. Also there is only really the period of completeness for the mikrofilms of October 1943 until October 1944....and then some SG units are omitted, but between these two date runs the daily mikrofilm entries, prior to this it's done by Gruppe and staffel, of which several units are missing, abschussetafel survive for some of these units, but most do not indicate if the claim was confirmed or not.

I was told that Düttmann related a story about the death of Otto Fonnekold so outrageous that it was unbelievable. But I investigated it anyway, basically story went that another Luftwaffe pilot who hated Fonnekold challenged him to a duel in the air, which Fonnekold lost. I looked into the other pilot and he was wounded at the time, also his Gruppenkommandeur relates his death in some detail, naturally it is possible that the Kommandeur was told a lie, as Fonnekold was killed by a single bullet to the heart I did wonder if it had been a duel on the ground, but how could it be allowed to happen in either senario ? Perhaps Düttmann could talk a good tale, though in this case it was allegedly supported by another pilot.

With about half the very top pilots being "over-claimers" and not just mistaken, it makes the actual honest guys even more outstanding in my eyes.

Helmut Lipfert was Düttmann's Gruppenkommandeur, but seems not really to have flown much with him. So if Lipfert is fooled my Düttmann it just goes to show that it can be done. I am surprised though about Düttmann, his pattern of claiming isn't so bad, and he had large numbers of unconfirmed due to lack of witnesses, I can only imagine then that if flying alone he would just claim a few "over-claims", or that he claimed among honest men who would not support his claim, but in almost ever case I cannot find evidence of him having company.

Kind Regards

Johannes

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Johannes, please send me an e-mail address in PM. I will send you stuff to see.
Gabor

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

I am always curious of the source(s) of 1945 claims. From which level did these claims come from? Flugbuch, post-War documents, Staffel, Gruppe,...?
His claims are detailed with time and place while for most pilots we don't even know the date.

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

I would say that any discussion about patterns without relevant German combat reports is a little bit pointless. There is a significant difference between overenthsiasm, not unusual in desperate dog fights, and deliberate fake claims.
In regard of the German victories, there was a lot of overclaim since the beginning of the war. It becomes apparent when one compares details of losses. The problem is, apart of lack of combat reports, that quite too often essential details like time & place are missing. Also exact circumstances of Allied losses are often not known. Thus matching of both contains a big grain of salt. I suppose that proper scrutiny of ETO/MTO aces would lead to quite dramatic conclusions.
Aside, shared kills and friendly fire are also to be considered. Still, without combat reports nothing can be said for sure.

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Hi Franek

We known also all the date/time/place/type of Luftwaffe claims, these can obviously be compared to Allied losses. A.S.M claims seem to have survived for most of the war, these do give a pilots report of the combat, munitions used, height, direction of attack e.t.c, and the witness completes a separate report. Abschussemeldung papers seem to survive from the pilots only, and are much rarer, but with Barkhorn I think I have about 130 of these. Basically Barkhorn can be investigated until the end of 1944, and has been and the conclusion is that though sometimes mistaken, Barkhorn was honest.

Each nation had a different score procedure, the English added-up shared claims, the Italian's I believe, and as strange as it sounds shared in a claim i.e if a pilot shoots down an enemy ALL his staffel get the claim. But within the Luftwaffe they followed the Luftwaffe rules within JGr.Ital. But ALL nations over-claimed, ALL nations had basically liars.

But those exposed as over-claimers within the Luftwaffe all shared certain patterns in their claims, there are others being exceptional pilots who also had these patterns that were honest like Marseille, but these patterns are so profound that I cab pre-guess the dis-honest guys, and usually can associate them with certain comrades that helped each other, sometimes I just cannot see how they did it, but they did.

We have established through Russian losses that Maximilian Stotz was a little less than honest. With 4./JG54 and JG76 he would possibly have been in collusion with Hans Philipp, then he seems to have lost the opportunity for quite some time to over-claim, the Hans Hahn borrows him for a short while and both their claims are extraordinary in numbers, then Hahn is gone and Stotz goes to 6./JG54, shortly after he is in collusion with Reinhold Hoffmann, Stotz is lost and then Hoffmann is in collusion with Emil Lang, again they make extraordinary claims, claims that have been investigated by losses expert and proved to be largely over-claims, and sometimes just plain false claims, in fact Lang's "record day" would seem to have been planned, Lang had pre-chosen his wingmen according to Norbert Hannig, who I think was not involved in Lang's over-claiming, according to Hannig Lang set out to set the record!

Keep well

Johannes

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Thank you Johannes, documents sent in e-mail.
Gabor

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Hi Johannes

To the best of my knowledge, a lot of German claims/credited victories of 1940-41 period are often missing essential details like time and place. Even so, a close comparison with the available Allied data suggests, that there are some errors in the records, whatever the reason. Thus a thorough analysis of combats in the period is often impossible. With many aircraft and combats around, narratives are often essential to establish what had actually happened. The verification system is irrelevant, and no one can be called a liar as long as it can be proven that the report filed is a complete fiction. Mind you the situation that there is a claim and a loss in the same location just indicates a probability and is not a fact. I have came across numerous such cases, when it turned over aircraft were lost due to different causes rather than enemy action.

Best wishes

Franek

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Hi Franek

You are correct about the mikrofilms. Basically earlier claims are typed-out per Staffel or occasionally Gruppe, then abruptly in late July 1942 this become daily claims in two groups East and West for all units, however some units are late in joining the daily claims.

With the earlier type lots of units sheets are missing, in fact sometimes just a single page is missing for a Staffel, but I'll know exactly how many claims are on a sheet, and the time period as they run in almost exact datum order, but the sheet do not they might appear on the mikrofilms in an order such as 2,1,3,4,6,5 e.t.c, but are usually actually numbered themselves.

The mikrofilm daily sheets(all hand written) are only really complete between October 1943 when JG1 starts daily mikrofilm entries and the end of September 1944 when JG5 stops making daily mikrofilm entriies, and October 1944 would seem to be a huge month for them, but sadly all missing. Also for January 1944 in the West only the A.S.M entries have survived. But generally daily mikrofilm entries are good until the end of 1944, but become incomplete for some units during December 1944..


There are also the daily A/S.M mikrofilms from the beginning of the war until they just get added to the daily mikrofilms

There is also surviving for partial K-L only actual listings for individual pilots like Emil Lang and Walter Krupinski, but only up to summer 1944.
So for the missing periods we rely on flugbücher, abschusselist, KBT papers, Leistungbücher and Staffel/Gruppe Tafel.

Also there are mikrofilms that list claims by Staffel by amerk number, but these give time and date only, no type/pilot e.t.c, but most are missing the Staffel whose earlier typed-out mikrofilms are missing anyway, but in some cases like 8./JG5 they are there, so I know the dates and the times of this staffel claims, but not the claimant, but can them compare with Leistungsbücher and flugbücher to fill in. You may remember Jochen Prien's earlier publications like JG3, he previously had this form of mikrofilms and added in those he knew from other documents, but also guested some of the others.

I have details of 67,000 confirmed claims, and a few thousand unconfirmed claims, but would say that the true total of confirmed claims would be 70,000- 75,000, probably closer to the smaller number.

With flak claims, there are the unit claims that survive, but when the daily mikrofilm entries started they became added for all flak units on a separate sheet with each day. Looking at them it would appear that flak claims were shared by many units all given the same time/type.

The most complete units for claims on all forms of mikrofilms are JG2, JG52 and JG53, the worst JG1 and JG5. The mikrofilms are extremely accurate, but have gaps, and the gap period are exactly know.

Keep well

Johannes

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Hello Johannes and others

This may,perhaps,help to understand the complexity of approvals using microfilms or not.
During a bombing of Berlin in november 1943,documents confirming or not "abschusse" were destroyed.
OKL asked all units to send to R.d.l.u.Ob.d.l. before 01/04/44,a summary table of the victories already approved or REJECTED,copies of the claims of victories transmitted before 25/11/43 and not yet approved.
The claims mentioned in the OKL list preceding 25/11/43 come from a RECONSTRUCTION:it's easy to imagine the risk of omissions,confusions.....

Obviously,this does not clear the 'cheats' but it's a link in a complex chain wich does not help to see clearly.

If we add to it other links of chain where all the criteria requiring a real homologation are not met,we find "experts" with suspect scores,

I have an exemple wich seems very telling to me:

Staffelkapitän report on 95° to 98° "abschusse" of Lt Heinrich Sterr (27/03/44)

'This report cannot be written because the person concerned is also the Staffelführer
Sterr,Lt and Staffelführer

Gruppenkommandeur Report
During an entire group takeoff to counter an attack from Petchory airfield,seven Il-2 were shot down as well as five Yak-9.Lt Wolf shot down two Yak-9 and one Il-2;Lt Sterr three Il-2 and one Yak-9:Lt Jung,Resch and Uffz Kraft each one Il-2;Ofw Grollmuss and Fw.Bungert each one Yak-9.

Let us say the participants and Witnesses,all the planes were observed until their destruction,wich makes these claims certain.
As they are presented by serious pilots experienced and talented,they cannot be doubted.
The group therefore requests confirmation of these "abschusse" both for the pilots and for the unit

Erich Rudorffer,Major and Kommandant of II/JG54,QG,25/05/1944.

They were approved because Rudorffer says that the pilots were serious (ah!),it's interesting on the part of a guy whose many of his claims are suspect.

Michel

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

Hi Johannes
That is my point. Whatever the reason, the problem is that we cannot recreate course of events with the available data. Let's pick a famous pilot, and try to verify his score. If we have a loss in appropriate time and place, then it is a success. Nonetheless we also find a number of claims in the same area and approximate time, and a number of unassigned claims, where it is not known if they are relevant or not. Hence, we cannot say if the pilot in question is reliable or not. Even if we had those data, then there is a problem of verification of the Allied losses. We often do not know exact circumstances and place of loss which is essential. This is especially valid for aircraft lost over continent. Nonetheless in several cases we can find out that the reason of particular loss was technical, collision or friendly fire, thus not relevant to the German claims. I am far to make a general statement, but based on fragmentary research, the German overclaim over England and France 1940-1941 was heavy, much heavier than widely believed. Does it mean that the claimants were dishonest? Some perhaps were, but I guess that in most cases the reason was exactly the same as for Allied pilots in the same period - in the mess of intense dog fight they were unable to properly assess results of combats. The bigger combat, the larger overclaim. Even in such cases it is possible to work out what was going on, but extensive narratives are just essential. The extensive collection of Allied combat reports helps to make some order, but as long as there is a gap on the German side, I am afraid never to be filled, we will never know for sure.
BTW Interesting to note that JG 2 claims are one of the best covered, as I have a lot of problems with them in 1941.
Best wishes
Franek

Re: Barkhorn: claims vs. victories
 

A short note from one who had not went very deep on claim/overclaim research.
Air fighting was most of time very different on the Eastern Front that in the NW Europe, being much less "concentrated" over the very long Eastern Front. Jagdfliegern often operated in pairs or fours there, so making things much easier to us, later day reserachers. Air fighting there was so different that the LW learned that it was best to give some retraining to the units transferred from East to West, so that they relearned the fighting tactics used with bigger formations.


Juha