Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

Hi Guys

Have suspected for sometime that a Kommandeur could pick his wingman/witness, and therefore a Kommandeur is far more likely to be able(if he desired) to make fake claims.

By plotting claims I thought those were:-

Rudorffer/Tangermann
Kirschner/Bartels
Nowotny/Schnorrer

I had speculated that Hahn the Kommandeur of II./JG64 was using Stotz of 4./Jg54, in fact Stotz's claims were not explosive until Hahn arrives, and after Hahn's loss they return to being steady. I have just found the loss papers for Hahn and indeed Stotz was with him at the time. I wouldn't mind betting our "over-claimers" researchers can undermine these two.

Keep well

Johannes

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

I think you'll need to produce some genuine evidence before making sweeping claims. And the 'overclaiming rabbit hole' needs to be more actively pursued on both sides.

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

Not such sweeping claims. All other spectacular claimers with the exception of Marseille have proved to be "over-claimers", and proved being the proof i.e claims versus losses.

This can't be incomplete losses data as some high scoring, though unspectacular claimers have been given the thumbs-up. Classic example Helmut Lipfert thumbs-up by researchers.

Spectacular pilots I can usually say who they worked it with, but unable to say with Hartmann or Batz, yet I am told it is so, and told so by dedicated researchers.

Kind Regards

Johannes

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

Overclaiming of Allied pilots is discussed since the end of the war. Those were German victories which were portrayed as modest, absolutely accurate, and not debatable. It is funny to see a fury when they are put in doubt, among those, who did not hesitate to blame Allied pilots.
The evidence is all around, there are combat reports, mission reports or loss reports for Allied combatants, and it is possible not only to establish if there were any losses, but also if there were any engagements. If there are victories submitted at the time and place no Allied aircraft operated at all, what is the explanation?
Mind you, the opposite is not possible, the German paperwork is fragmentary at best.

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

I'm not 'blaming' anyone or trying to establish some sort of moral high ground. But I do see much zeal, on this and other forums, to attempt to call into question German claims without similar impetus given to the other side.

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

Every human being has his demons to fight.
Some of us win while others loose

In war or other desperate times it all depends on what kind of leadership we have.

In the German case, it is easy to see where the "losers" went. With such a system as the Germans adopted
"ruthless" individuals could all to easily manipulate the system.
But it was there just for the taking and just like today there are always individuals ready to use whatever
it takes.

For the Russians it was more or less the same. Manipulated by the Government the coveted HSU
was probably overwhelming to many, resulting in an incredible overclaiming.

In Japan it was the codex of the past that counted. And nobody ever questioned that, resulting in
probably the worst overclaiming of the war.

On the Allied side it is more difficult so see the benefit, even if the "aces" were glorified as well.
So far most researchers seems to believe the Allied overclaimed in good faith, but I think there were
enough "culprits" among them as well, even if the German aces have so far been the focus on TOCH.

Me? Oh I think all systems regardless of leadership always lead up to individuals using the system
to their benefit.

Human nature - Darwin if you like - survival of the fittest, either in nature itself, or the systems created....

Likeability? Don't ask since it depends on where you and me belongs.....;)

Cheers
Stig

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

This applies to the Eastern Front because information on Soviet losses became available, and turned a bot of a shock. Nobody bothers with the ETO or MTO because it is not spectacular, there is no paperwork available online and the information about Luftwaffe are scarce.

Stig

In most cases it was victory award system responsible. RAF was a bit liberal at first, but then became strict, and since 1943 it seems that credited victories are fairly accurate. USAAF remained liberal to a degree. I cannot say for USN or USMC. IJN or IJA - nobody was able to tell me, how the system worked, and even claimed there was no such system at all, and no victories were ever claimed. Not sure if true, but if so, they certainly did not overclaim. I cannot say anything about Soviets, but financial awards for downed enemy aircraft may have contributed towards overclaiming.
Still, those were Germans who were credited with the greatest numbers of victories, claimed to be confirmed by absolutely reliable and sophisticated system, contrary to others. Propaganda in this regard was very strong until recently, so no wonder it is now being debunked, much to pain of some.

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

Hi Guys

we all known of the British "ace" Douglas Bader's claims, and lack of actual truthful victories. Post war he published a book about his "aceness" but it was proposed that a National hero should not pat tax for his efforts. Yet Stanford Tuck, and Johnny Johnson were honest British aces.

If the truth was known Günther Rall and Gerhard Barkhorn would be the top aces, with top medals, not merely other Schwerter winners.

Stotz I feel was led astray by Hahn, yet just as Stotz leaves the seen, another great "over-claimer" begins his run of unbelievable claims........Emil Lang, so somewhat endemic within the Staffel, but I do not believe all pilots even within this Staffel were doing such things.

These "super over-claimers" sure seemed to cause inflation when it came to medals.

Keep Well

Johannes

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

Hmmm, I agree with a deeper study of all claims. I don't think any participant in the last wars was innocent of the abuse of propaganda and the associated releasing of ridiculous figures to bolster morale. Just have a look at the ludicrous figures given out by the English during the BoB.

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

I am not aware of Bader lacking actual victories, though no doubt his choice of Spitfire VA was weird one and reduced chances of scoring victories.
Cannot say anything about Stanford-Tuck.
Johnson's victories are listed on Wiki with an attempt to attribute losses. Does not look spectacular, I would say about average.

Basically, the problem starts after the Battle of Britain, where there are no details of German losses or operations in general. In the effect it is extremelly hard to match combatants of both sides. Funnily enough, it looks that JG 26 attributed all aircraft downed in their area to their pilots, not knowing actual reasons of losses. So a kind of hidden overclaim.

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

At the same time that Lang (and Rudorffer) were making spectacular claims, there were, in II/JG 54, guys like Albin Wolf and Hugo Broch that were very VERY accurate claimers.
Paulo

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

From what I've been able to find out till now on Hartmann is that while under Gruppen Kommamdeurs Hubertus von Bonin and then Guenther Rall, his claims were not that far fetched. Both of those Kommamdeurs were outstanding pilots and Leaders. Both of them quite accurate claimers (specially Rall).
But after scoring the 200th at the end of February 44, Hartmann is sent home, where he is decorated and has some time off the front. When he gets back to the Front, something changed. His claim's accuracy just goes down the drain. By that time Batz was the new Kommandeur. Don't know about his leader skills but hi claims accuracy was.......dubious.
Don't know if there was any kind of talk between Hartmann and the upper leadership, some kind of publicity stunt (by that time Germany was losing, so they were in need of Heroes to boost the morale), but one thing clearly stands out when looking at the Soviet Reports, Hartmann was overclaiming consistently.
But remember that those same files attest to the accuracy of other pilots.

Paulo

Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

Hi guys

Very interesting discussion regarding the claim accuracy of the various pilots in World War II. I am very glad that some facts have emerged regarding the accuracy of various German aces on the Eastern Front which helps us determine which pilots appear to have generally been more accurate than others. I am interested in the facts as best can be determined and if these seem to show that a certain pilot overclaimed, for whatever reason, then so be it. As an interesting demonstration of how the picture changes when one reads an account that draws on the loss lists of both sides, I recently read F4U Corsair versus A6M Zero-sen by Claringbould. One has always read accounts of how the F4U dominated the various Japanese fighters in aerial combat to the point that it racked up an eleven to one kill to loss ratio ... This may very well have been true when confronting barely trained pilots fit only for Kamikaze missions but the results of the air battles between the Corsair and the Zeke in 1943 and early 1944 over the southwest Pacific were generally quite equal, about one to one. This was a very different result than the idea that is so prevalent due to reading sources that only quote American pilots' accounts and take these at face value.

Horrido!

Leo

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

Paulo

I tend to agree with your comments.

Some time ago I wrote the following response to Johannes when discussing fraudulent claimants. I thought I had posted it on this website earlier, however I couldn’t find it, so maybe not. Anyway, the German system typically needed at least a wingman to verify claims for the claim to be awarded. Johannes had identified for some high scoring experten who regularly made multiple claims using the same wingman, thus open to collusion and fraudulent claim accusations (i.e. you help me with my claims and I’ll help you with yours). Johannes at the time had difficulty identifying a regular wingman for Hartman to collude with. I defended Hartmann as I believe he is an over-claimer, not a fraudulent claimer. The trends I highlighted below tend to also support your opinion.

“When most people look at the claims and see multiple days of 5 or more claims in a day, they say that the pilot must be making fraudulent claims. Personally, I think it’s a bit unfair to base a pilot’s credibility on the number of claims they make in a day. German fighter pilots, especially on the Eastern Front during the major battles like Kursk were required to fly 7, 8 or even more missions in a day. Unless you have their log-books, only an estimate can be made on how many claims for individual missions during a day were made, which I have based on the reported time of the claims and the following criteria:

1. Flying time for a Bf 109/Fw190 was about 90 minutes (being based close to the front and the rare use of drop tanks), and
2. Pilots were reluctant to engage in a second air battle after clear separation from the original air battle, due to potential ammunition and fuel shortage, thus tended to land and rearm.

Therefore, having the known times of claims, we can estimate missions where any claims around an hour or more apart would highly likely be from separate missions. For example, Johannes Weise (Stab I./JG 52) had 12 claims on 5 July 1943 (1st day of Kursk) which can be separated into 5 missions;

1. 3 claims (03.47, 03.55, 04.03)
2. 2 claims (07.51, 08.12)
3. 1 claim (09.40)
4. 1 claim (15.25)
5. 5 claims (18.30, 18.33, 18.40, 18.45, 18.50)

It is likely that he flew more scoreless missions that day, especially between the 09.40 claim and the 15.25 claim. Anyway, the most claiming missions that I can see on this basis is Walter Wolfrum who claimed 11 in 7 missions (1 [04.20], 1 [06.30], 2 [09.33, 09.47], 1 [11.17], 3 [14.09, 14.13, 14.20], 2 [16.07, 16.20], & 1 [18.07]) on 30 May 1944.

To me, a better measure of credibility is the number of claims in a mission. Several Allied pilots achieved 5 in a mission with less opportunity, so one could expect with the many opportunities German Pilots had, that many would be able to achieve 5+ in a mission and many did. Is it possible to claim 5 in a mission more than once - Marseille proved that this can be done in Africa. The first time he claimed 5+ in a mission (03.06.42 – claimed 6) from allied records that he got 5 and the 6th crash landed while returning to base. The second time (17.06.42- claimed 6) all claims were confirmed lost by allied records. So yes, it can be done. In all Marseille made 5 or more claims in a mission 5 times, but only the first 2 are fully supported by allied records (more on the others later).

So, what about achieving 5+ claims, 3, 4, or even 5 time in a career. The following are claimants that made 5+ claims in a mission, on 3 or more occasions that I was able to determine from available data – these can be broken into 3 groups as shown below.


Total / 5+ in a Day / Highest count in a day / 5+ in a mission / Highest count in a mission
JG54
Erich Rudorffer 224 13 14 13 13
Walter Nowotny 258 16 10 10 7
Emil Lang 173 7 18 7 9
Hans Philipp 206 10 9 6 6

JG 5
Theodore Weissenberger 208 13 7 10 7
Heinrich Ehrler 208 6 8 4 7
Walter Schuck 206 9 12 4 7
Jakob Norz 117 6 7 4 5
Franz Dorr 128 9 7 3 6

Other (Propaganda/Ego)
Erich Hartmann JG 52 352 19 11 5 6
Hans-Joachim Marseille JG 27 158 7 17 5 8

(Sorry about the format - cannot seem to insert a table)

This list contains the usual suspects when it comes to accused over-claimers and/or Fraud accusations. There is no surprise with the first 2 groups in consideration of the accusations regularly levelled at JG 5 and JG 54, of which much has been said and written. It’s the 3rd group that I wanted to highlight here.

Let’s first look at Marseille.

Marseilles achieved 5+ in a mission on 5 occasions.
03.06.42 (70-75) 1st mission 6 claims (12.22, 12.25, 12.27, 12.28, 12.29, 12.33) – 5 Allied aircraft lost + 1 crash landed on way back to base
17.06.42 (96.-104) 1st mission 6 claims (12.02, 12.03, 12.05, 12.08, 12.09, 12.12) – all 6 allied aircraft lost
01.09.42 (109.-116) 2nd mission 8 claims (10.55, 10.56, 10.58, 10.59, 11.01, 11.02, 11.03, 11.03) - supposedly all 8 allied aircraft lost but only 4 known to me
01.09.42 (117.-121) 3rd mission 5 claims (17.47, 17.48, 17.49, 17.50, 17.53) – Total 9 German claims for 6 Allied aircraft losses
15.09.42 (145.-151) 1st mission 7 claims (16.51, 16.53, 16.54, 16.57, 16.59, 17.01, 17.02) – Total 20 German claims for 6 Allied aircraft losses + 2 damaged

Note the times of Marseilles claims – generally 3 minutes or less between claims. Marseille had reportedly a very good shot and mastered the art of deflection shooting- after shooting down the first he would turn in the formation and shoot down the next – thus the short timeframes between claims. He was considered the yardstick for efficiency of claims. I remember reading that Galland commented on this, when referring to how few rounds of ammunition Marseille used for each claim.

By my count, mostly based on Christopher Shores work, Marseille first 100 claims in Africa were very accurate - 73 identified, +12 probable (more German claims than actual allied losses and cannot identify if Marseille directly responsible or not)) +7 that crash-landed and 8 unidentified of which 4 of these were in a combat over his base witnessed by everyone in 3./JG 27 on the ground on 15 June 1942 of which I have yet to identify the unit/victims – so basically of his first 100 claims in Africa only 2 are unknown. However, of his next 51 claims only 17 can be identified, a further 21 probable, 2 damaged and 11 unknown – he dropped from 85% accuracy (identified + probable) to less than 70% accuracy (identified + probable). Part of this was due to the bigger battles, but part of this was in my opinion, propaganda and ego – he was in the race for the top ace and no-one was going to question him and the propaganda machine wanted heroes – he fired at a plane, hit it and claimed it, no one was going to question him thus over-claiming. It’s Marseilles – they must have crashed. Particularly claims 145-151 – over-claimed badly to achieve a milestone (propaganda).

Though Hartmann claimed 5+ in a day an incredible 19 times, he claimed 5+ in a single mission on only 5 occasions and the most he claimed in a single mission is 6 – well short of the achievements of many of the multi-claimers listed earlier. These 5 times were:

26.02.44 195-199 2nd mission 5 claims (11.45, 11.48, 11.53, 11.58, 12.03)
04.06.44 246-250 2nd mission 5 claims (17.13, 17.23, 17.53, 18.15. 18.18)
23.08.44 286-290 2nd missions 5 claims (17.10, 17.12, 17.15, 17.17, 17.30)
24.08.44 291-296 1st mission 6 claims (13.15, 13.18, 13.19, 13.25, 13.27, 13.40)
24.08.44 297-301 2nd mission 5 claims (16.00, 16.03, 16.06, 16.10. 16.20)

The trend here is that he was going for 200, 250, and 300 –one can automatically see propaganda milestones but this can be a little bit deceiving.

Hartmann’s advantage was that he supposedly possessed fantastic eyesight that allowed him to spot the enemy first and be able to position for his favoured combat tactic of dive, attack, climb and dive again. This took time and many of Hartmann’s claims are 10+ minutes between claims - As I pointed out earlier, Marseille typically took up to 3 minutes between claims with his dive into combat and deflection shooting in the formation. So, anything between 4 and 9 minutes I gave the benefit of doubt to Hartmann – he may have hung around in combat or he may climb back and attacked. In Hartmann’s 1st 223 claims he claimed more than 3 in a mission only once – the first time he claimed 5. I think like Marseille these are genuine claims - being typically 5 minutes apart. Up until the 223rd claim Hartmann made multiple claims 3 minutes or less apart on only 7 occasions – including the occasion he was shot down while attacking the Il-2s (89th and 89th). Then, between claim 223 and 352 he achieved this feat 20 times - gradually increasing until the 20th -24th August (claims 275 – 302) where he claimed 5+ in a mission 3 times. The other 5 in a mission (to 250) is more like Hartmann (10 min, 20 min’s, 22 min’s, & 3 min’s between claims) so probably genuine and within Hartmann’s way of operation. Therefore, I suspect that this chase to 300 is major overclaiming - like Marseille’s chase to 150 (7 of 20 Luftwaffe claims for 6 losses + 2 damaged). As with Marseille, he shot at and hit an aircraft so it must be shot down!! The hierarchy wants their hero, so they likely will not even check the claims. “It’s Hartmann – they must have crashed”.

Having said all this, Hartmann rarely claimed more than 3 in a mission due to the limitation of flight time and his tactics – say 15 minutes to the front and return, and 10 minutes between claims – that is 50 minutes and he would need to have time to find his adversary, he would be in danger of running out of fuel – so 2 or 3 passes a mission – typically 2 or 3 claims - all reasonably believable to me. For the 322 claims in the claim microfilms Hartmann made the following:

1 claim in a mission - 109 times
2 claims in a mission - 61 times
3 claims in a mission - 19 times
4 claims in a mission - 2 (twice)
5 claims in a mission - 4 times
6 claims in a mission - 1 (once)

This is why I think it is difficult to find a partner in crime for fraudulent claims, as there is no real crime – just over-claiming. Hartmann’s success is that he flew a hell of a lot of missions and didn’t spend time on the side-lines wounded as did other experten. Marseille on the other hand was a master of deflection shooting, so he could get several victims in a single pass (proven against losses) – this is why I rate Marseille over Hartmann as the better fighter pilot.

As I stated earlier, I do believe Hartmann over-claimed – how much he over-claimed, I don’t know. His diving tactics would make it difficult to know for certain if his victim crashed. He dives, he hits an aircraft, and unless it explodes or the pilot bales out – how would he or his wingman determine that the aircraft actually crashed. Many Russian aircraft – like the Il-2 - could take a pounding before they would actually crashed. I believe that a portion of his claims were aircraft that either got back to base damaged or crash-landed in friendly territory and were later recovered – this last item also happened a lot in Africa, which made finding victims difficult at times.

I’ve been following the various threads on Hartmann and aside from use of false/out-dated information and badly researched articles, the number of claims identified to date is low. I find it a bit annoying when someone research’s a combat or short period of combat and finds that pilot “A” has claims that match the losses exactly thus that pilot must be an accurate claimer, without taking into consideration the rest of his career, while pilot “B” claims in a short time period do not match thus he must be fraudulent, all without looking at the whole of their careers and the situation they are in. For example, if you take Marseille’s claims of 15 June 1942 alone, Marseille must be very accurate (100%) but if you take his claims of 15 September 1942 alone, then Marseilles must be a fraud (30%)!!! It’s not an accurate depiction but it is what a lot of people have been doing. So, until I see a fully well researched work on the Eastern Front like Christopher Shores Mediterranean Air War series, I for one will not call him fraudulent. “

In addition to the above, I would also like to point out that in the back end of his career, Hartmann’s wingmen tended to be inexperienced novices. I doubt a beginner would stand up to contradict his leader and say that the aircraft was only damaged and that it didn’t crash. Add to that, a commanding officer who appears to be not so rigid on claim verification as you suggest – overclaiming would increase. So did Hartmann purposely make false claims? I don’t think so. Exaggerated yes, false no. Is this fraudulent, some may argue it is but many of us exaggerate, however for us mere mortals we are kept in check. I compare it to like a sports superstar. Many tend to become arrogant with their success and ego takes over. What happens if this is not kept in check by the relevant authorities!

Regards,

Craig…

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

Hi Craig,
Great overview you did. Well done. Agree with you all the way.
But talking about Hartmann it's like a taboo subject. I think that most of us got hooked on him when we read the bible ''The Blond Knight''. Like all those books written in the 60s, it is a comic book on words, to gev people hooked on a fantasy world of air combat, a thing that most of us probably longed to do. And they got what they wanted.
But in terms of real research.......
I, more or less, have been able to build a partial picture of how Hartmann's claims fair against Soviet losses during 42/43 (while looking for Rall's).
I say partial because I ran through most of the Loss Files (that I could find online) on the units involved in the fighting in his area of operations. To have a broader picture I still have to go through the Combat Reports, a thing that I still haven't had the time to do.
Hartmann was not a single mission multiple claimer. Like you said, he just was in the air all the time. Specially after the Battle of Kursk started. Rall was the same thing, always aloft. So their chances of bein able to claim were high. So, for that time period I am very inclined jo say that hi accuracy looks to be very very reasonable/good.
For 1944 onwards I still haven't had to the research myself, so I have to rely on the work made by others, specially for late 44.
For now just an example, 26 February 44 : overall 16 claims made by the Germans (14x Airacobra, a Il-2 and a Pe-2). Since Hartmann just claimed fighters, lets us stick to the 14 Airacobras claimed.
- [09h08~09h16] 2 claims (Hartmann - 2)
- [11h45~12h03] 8 claims (Hartmann - 5)
- [14h37~14h50] 5 claims (Hartmann - 3)
The only unit in the area operating P-39s was 205 IAD, and overall they lost 5 aircraft shotdown, 1 Mia and 1 CL (the pilot was OK and returned to unit).
Of these losses :
- [11h00~11h36sovtime] 1 shotdown, pilot b/out and returned to unit.
- [13h40~14h55sovtime] 3 losses (1 KIA, 1 Mia, bvt later pilot returned, 1 CL, pilot later returned)
- [16h15~17h15sovtime] 2 losses (1 Mia, pilot later retrned and 1 b/out, pilot returned)
- There was one more P-39 lost (Mia, pilot later returned) but no time given.
- from 203 IAD [153 GIAP] one Yak was lost (Mia, pilot later returned), to time available because still haven't been able to check Combat Report from that unit.
So, still a partial overall view but we can take some conclusions. Will leave that to everyone to do it individually.
And, Happy New Year to everyone.
Paulo

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

Hi Guys

With regards to Hartmann the pattern of his claims would suggest he was "over-claiming" from 5th July 1943, judging by his claim times I would speculate if true that his "enablers" were Werner Puls and Güther Toll, later Hermann Wolf and Herbert Bachnick. But contrary to pass "200" his honesty dramatically dropping I cannot find an enabler, though his claiming certainly does become spectacular. With regards to Wilhelm Batz earlier on the name that sticks out as an enabler would be Heinrich Sturm, but at this earlier time Batz in my opinion was honest, I base this on the number of ground witnesses he had. Later two pilots claimed on a regular basis with Batz.......Wolfrum and Düttmann, Wolfrum's claims pattern does match that of an "over-claimer" whereas Düttmann's really doesn't, yet Russian loss experts state Düttmann was an "over-claimer", whereas I'm not sure that Wolfrum was. I also suspect that Hermann Wolf enabled Hermann Graf.....along with Heinrich Füllgrabe, Johann Kalb, Friedrich Brückmann and above all Leopold Steinbatz, I would wager the associated pilot Alfred Grislawski was not involved !

With Nowotny, there is the famous Schwarm i.e Nowotny himself, Anton Dobele, Rudolf Rademacher and Karl Schnorrer. Yet scrutinizing the claims I would exclude Rademacher from this Schwarm, and include Gerhard Loos.

When Kommandeur I./JG54 Schnorrer and dobele would be the enablers, but they were borrowed from 1./JG54.

With Emil Lang the enablers would be Alfred Gross and Reinhold Hoffmann, after his transfer to the west......Günter Zilling and Erwin Schleef, with JG26 I can find no connection, but his pattern would suggest it continued, but yet again he is a Kommandeur, there must be some way the ranking officers abused there power to self-certify......controversial I know, but perhaps between us all we can prove or dis-prove this one.

If the above is true, it would prove the honesty of other Kommandeur who had the opportunity to "self-certify" but certainly did not.

Also it looks like a dis-honest Kommandeur may mean a dis-honesty Gruppe, or it could just be his enablers.

Keep well

Johannes

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

I did a thread on Hans Hahn’s Western victories claims on here. It was not really a reliable score.

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

Leo, I'm a huge fan of Claringbould, but I have not read THAT volume (though it sounds very interesting!); however I read the Unit History for VMF 214, by Gamble--I WAS surprised that, early on, they took pretty substantial losses in air to air combat (2000 hp Pratt and Whitney or not, more than a few pilots learned the hard way that a Zero could sometimes climb faster than an F4U). Now that Claringbould is turning his attention to include the air battles of the Solomons, I'm sure he's going to break everything down.

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

Happy New Year, Johannes! I can only add what Caldwell commented on Lang in II/JG26---that, in spite of his 'overly enthusiastic' claiming, his vigorous, energetic and aggressive style of leadership, combined with the excellent staffel and schwarm leaders made sure II/JG256 remained an effective top scoring Gruppe in JG26 (and, I daresay, in the Western Theater).

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

Hi Nick

I do not believe it was so easy to "over-claim" in the West, crash-sites were investigated, bit more difficult over Africa. JG 2 was far worse than JG 26, I assume because a lot of their claims were over water i.e no investigation possible. In the East they were usually made over enemy territory.

There is naturally opportunism, don't think that Hermann Graf would have had the opportunity to "over-claim" in the West.

I would suspect that most single claims by these "over-claimers" were genuine, just a feeling that they were unable(due to their company) to "over-claim", in fact when I jugged claims I was actually quite shocked that it was the same old wingmen involved in big mission claims, and when the leader makes a single claim, the same old didn't claim, I assume they were in "unknow" company.

Also looking through so many flugbücher is startling fact(in the east), very often these guys were flying as a pair, and that's not the Stab, in the East it was hardly ever a full Staffel event, usually two, three or four together !

Kind Regards

Johannes

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

HI Craig

Regarding Hartmann

I like your statement about Hartmann's wingmen being inexperienced and not likely to question his claims.
Apparently he was unpopular within Jg52, at one point there was going to be/or was a little mutiny against him. I bet at JG53 his single claim was genuine, and he just couldn't get away with anything.

An inexperienced pilot would have trouble just keeping up with Hartmann, let alone record crash-sites.

I am finding more and more his later non-mikrofilms claims are not correct i.e dates and types are wrong, same with Barkhorn.

Reason why Barkhorn had no success with JG6 was not due to him not getting away with anything, more he was unfamiliar with the Fw190, needed more flying time, think he only flew two missions there, plus he was completely burnt out. He like Rall considered their Schwerter decorations a failure. If the truth was known at the time, then Rall would have been the first to "200" & "250" and Barkhorn the first to "300", both would have had the upgrade to Diamonds.

Kind Regards

Johannes

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

I think that there is a gross misunderstanding of the topic.
The issue discussed is not claims but verified and credited victories. There were various systems of verification and approval of victories in different countries and they often differed significantly. One should not blame pilots of deficiencies of those systems.
In general the RAF system was quite liberal up until late 1942-1943, when a more thorough verification was introduced.Up to this time, there were several inconsistencies in the system, and apart of crediting shared victories as individual ones, claimed victories were often upgraded and not downgraded.
Germans created their own system, reputedly very rigid, but actually quite inefficient. The general problem is a gap in a paperwork. Endless discussions concern lists of victories, but those are not sufficient to match victories with actual losses. This is quite apparent during the Battle of Britain, where in most cases it is not possible to match combatants with any certainty. RAF suffered losses to technical reasons, bad weather and blue on blue or friendly fire, and this was not insignificant. The situation continued through 1941 and 1942 and a general comparison of RAF losses and German victories do not tell the truth about those combats.
For example, during Circus 68 on 9 August 1941, JG 26 was credited with 6 victories against 5 actually lost. Looks fine, despite discrepancy which still should not happen to the German system. Nonetheless, according to the research of Andy Saunders, three of the lost Spitfires fell dwon due to friendly fire incidents. So, for the 6 victories there are only 2 losses, and out of those only loss of P/O Casson can be matched to the victory of Hptm. Schopfel.
Therefore a through scrutiny should be made before drawing a general conclusions, though I guess it would never be done because of volume of documents that would need to be reviewed.
Aside, there is a bit of rivalry concerning JG 2 and JG 26 amongst the researchers. I have to note that the essential problem is, that both JG 2 and JG 26 were a subject of the same rigid German victory crediting system. So how it could be the system awarded more false victories to JG 2 and not to JG 26?

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

First of all the subject in this thread is/was Hans Hahn/M Stotz and is now totally side tracked.

Secondly the discussion is becoming more and more futile, since
a) None of us were there
b) trying to read useful information out of old records are very difficult since we have very little true
understanding why a report was written the way it was.
c) Writing reports showing that the enemy were far superior than yourself would have been
disastrous for morale and reports were no doubt written with that in mind making collisions, shot
down by AA-fire or even by your own side rather than an enemy in air-air combat so much
more attractive.

This "fooling yourself" activity took very odd terms especially when the USAAF in Europe and the
US Navy in the Pacific began their own war against Germany and Japan.
For some reason the mentality that "we can never be shot down" except by AA-fire took a firm
root and was later transferred over to the Korean conflict.
I bet there are still many out there who believe in the enormous superiority of the F-86 over the MiG-15 etc
All aircraft shot down during strafing/bombing attacks were only shot down by AA-fire.
Good (or at least acceptable) for morale perhaps, but far from the truth.

My own thinking is very clear and I accept that others have a different view.

Cheers
Stig

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

This is ridiculous because it suggests no research should have been done on the past. Sorry, I have been discussing those issues with the people who were still there and they were as much confused. The purpose of any historical research is to try to understand what had happened in the past, whatever information is available. It is also a matter of distinguishing difference between propaganda and reporting, and trying to make sense out of it.

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

Franek

No idea why you always read things which are not there.
If I thought history was not worth investigating why on earth do you think I am
on this site in the first place?
You always have very firm opinions - fair enough - but do try and see others points as well.
Can be quite useful at times.

Cheers
Stig

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

I think these claims do have to be valuated on a unit by unit basis, and the issue of competition between them would naturally play a role. I believe that my uncle, who was 'Abschuss-Offizier' with JG 27 in the spring\summer of 1942, was sent packing by Edu Neumann for raising objections to the claims being made by Sawallisch\Stigler\Bendert et al. I got absolutely nowhere when I corresponded with Neumann in the 1980's, so in my opinion he was still 'covering' for this sordid affair.

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

Well that depends: from updated accounts the loss ratio was still around 5 to 1 and I consider those results to be pretty 'enormous', considering for at least the first part of the war, the F86s were, generally speaking, at the far end of their 'combat radius', and the MiG15s were right in their own 'backyard' with substantially larger numbers and superior performance.


NM

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

Well Nick

I don't think the MiGs were there to just play with the F-86s.
They were there to stop the UN aircraft to get through to stop the Chinese/North Korean
ground troops.
If you look at the losses of the F-80s, F-84s, B-29s and Naval attack aircraft you will see
quite a different figure.
From the US side almost all of that was lost to AA-fire.

When coming down to take on the ground attack aircraft the MiGs were much more vulnerable.
Had they been used only as the Luftwaffe fighters on the Western Front 1941-42 the situation
would almost certainly have been very different.
Speculation of course since I can't predict what new tactics could have done to change things.

Cheers
Stig

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

MOST fighter bombers didn't get anywhere near the areas covered by the Migs. And like you said, staying at altitude kept the Migs in THEIR preferred performance envelope--and given the Migs were both higher AND further north than most UN interdiction ops, I didn't see them having an impact on it. The only place the MiGs did have a huge impact was against the B29 force--but that's what they were made for: "Can Openers" for the bombers.

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

I remembered something that Nikita Ergorov had written and I went back checked it on Hartmann. 26 Oct 1943 Hartmann was flying with Fw Hermann Wolf and they attacked some Airacobras. Hartmann claimed Airacobra (145) 08:08. Wolf claimed Airacobra (49) at 08:10. Hartmann claimed Airacobra (146) at 08:15.

Nikita’s research came up during that time only one Airacobra that was hit. Kapitan Ivan Korolev (HSU) 9 GIAP had his Airacobra damaged by the attack of a Bf 109. Korolev flew back to his airfield and landed.

So the hole gets a little deeper.

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

Hi Getlemen,
This is a great thread, very interesting discussion. Of all of us participating in this debate, I'll bet I'm the newest guy in town.
Many things have been mentioned here about the reasons why overclaiming occurred. Not going into that that because it is fairly obvious the various reasons for it to have happened (and if the cenario repeated itself today the same things would have happened again).
For me and , do I dear to suppose, for most of us it's to know how the war, and it's individual combats, panned out. Nothing can be known without proper research.
That is why I love the works of Christopher Shores, Brian Cull. Christer Bergstrom's work is also amazing. But when it comes to the Eastern Front the work needed to have something resembling the style of Chis Shores will be herculean. The amount of data that needs to be checked will take forever. Don't know how many of you Gentlemen are actually doing research in the area (and what I mean is, actually researching Soviet Loss/Combat Reports), but if we don't get together and actually do it, this will never be possible in our lifetime.
I've been researching mainly the Loss Files (the quickest way of building up data, and a picture of what happened), for the last 6~7 years. From time to time I also take a look at the combat reports, but that is vero time consuming task for someone that doesn't speak Russian (but that doesn't stop me).
Unless some of us actually come together and work towards this goal, if possible with Russian speaking people to help and do this, we will continue with these fruitless discussions about this topic.
Myself, I would like to see for future generations something like a ''Chris Shores like'' chronicle of the Eastern Front Air War.
Sorry about my bluntness, but I think that we need to get something done.
In the meantime, I'll continue with my own research, enjoy all the discussions that do go on in this site and contribute with whatever I can.
Cheers,
Paulo

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

The books I read about it from the Soviet (Russian) side takes a bit different view about it.
They don't subscribe to any 5 - 1 superiority from the US/UN side, not even if we only count MiGs vs F-86.
Quite a few fighterbombers in there as well!
But perhaps you have much more detailed information that I lack?
Would just love to have a correct loss figure, such as Soviet, Chinese, North Korean c/n and
where/how each aircraft was lost.

Cheers
Stig

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

If you want to analyse claims in Korea, I think we had quite a long thread about in the "Post-war Aviation" section a couple of years back so it's probably worth giving the search function a try.

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

We have already put something on the table on this-> Verified Victories: Top JG 52 Aces Over Hungary 1944-45 which is ground breaking and simply unparalleled in detail for the Eastern Front (1944-1945). The closest similar book for the Eastern Front would be the works of our forum member Carl Guest, yet he specializes in mainly in the Winter War so early war. A work like Chirs Shores for the Eastern Front would be impossible (too much information, too little time no matter how many people you through at the task, the scale just does not compare, let the troubles to gain access to that quantity of information) and impractical (you would physically need a dedicated library to house the books, it would be too expensive to produce and next to no one would buy the entire corpus... much more realistic would be to go to TsAMO and read the documents you specifically want). If one picks up a copy of Verified Victories, they will quickly realize why it is impossible to write like that for the entire Eastern Front! ~1 page per claim! The JFV series is an average of ~500 pages per book and ~ 20 have been published so far, thats "only" 10,000 pages (!!!), so still not enough to cover the Eastern Front's claims in detail.

If one looks at Prien et al. and his series of books, even they reduced the scope down to only the fighter units and that is taking decades, will span over 20+ books, and is forced to lighten its detail level by offering briefer texts on the units compared to his dedicated units chronicles. There is simply too much. Christer Bergström's book series on the Eastern Front is also forced to make those trade-offs... less focus on the individual aircraft losses and claim analysis and more on the general course of the air war with useful personal accounts by those who were there over the Eastern front in the given period of time he is writing about. For our book Verified Victories we chose to go detailed into 1 specific subject over 1 country, that is why it presents unprecedented levels of detail into claiming and victory analysis. Doing the same thing for the entire Eastern Front is simply not an option. Broad vs deep. All encompassing vs surgically specific. These are the trade-offs one has to make as an author, and one the reader must be willing to purchase...that is the balancing game we play.


But this is not about Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz...



Cheers!

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

Hi guys - specifically Paulo!

Since I rarely receive any positive comments on this Forum, I thought that I should thank Paulo for his kind words!

I don't intend to become involved in this debate, I just wish to advise those who may be interested that my latest effort is due out this year:

AIR WAR OVER THE ARCTIC: Murmansk and the PQ Convoys, 1941-1942

with co-authors Michael Barrentine (Nokose), Val Smirnov and Igor Borisenko (Stig Jarlevik was an original contributor); to be published by Fonthill.

The ten-year study will hopefully provide a day-by-day account of German, Russian and British aerial operations in the Far North theatre.

Stay safe
Happy New Year
Brian

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

Since this thread is about Maximilian Stotz, I will try to add some information about him that I researched. This all occurred in the area of Volosovo, according to Russian reports as many German pilots of JG 54 left out the location.
18 August 1941
Oberfeldwebel Maximilian Stotz 4/JG 54 DB-3 (17) 10:50
Gefreiter Heinrich Wegers 4/JG 54 DB-3 (4) 10:50

Soviet losses:
DB-3 1 MTAP (5 AE) KBF Starshiy Leytenant Pavel Babin (MIA)
DB-3 1 MTAP (5 AE) KBF Leytenant Valentin Klyuev (MIA)

Oberfeldwebel Maximilian Stotz 4./JG 54 I-18 (18) 10:58

Soviet loss:
MiG-3 5 IAP KBF Mladshiy Leytenant Pavel Titov (MIA)

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

No book ideas from me, at least not off the top of my head...BUT there was a well discussed thread RE: the Mig v F86 question right here:


http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showth...ghlight=Mig+15


Far smarter people than I will ever be 'parsed over' and 'teased out' the threads of this subject.

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

QUOTE=HGabor;325537]We have already put something on the table on this-> Verified Victories: Top JG 52 Aces Over Hungary 1944-45 which is ground breaking and simply unparalleled in detail for the Eastern Front (1944-1945).[/quote]

Gabor, I have your book. What a fabulous piece of work. That is what I'm talking about (Sorry, didn't mention your work in my previous post). I know that there are a lot of people doing the research, but if only there was a way to join it all in big database like ''thing''.....

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

19 August 1941
Soviet 7 IAK sent to defend Krasnogvardeysk 10 I-16 from 157 IAP. They were pounced by 4 Bf 109 that came out of the clouds . The German fighters then departed from the fight. Leytenant Fedor Bondarenko escaped by parachute and ended up in the Hospital.

Oberfeldwebel Maximilian Stotz 4/JG 54 I-16 (19) 18:00 no location

Re: Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz
 

Ah yes Nick
I remembered that thread but I couldn't find it.
The problems with it are many.
I tried to look up various sites mentioned back in 2007 and basically all of them are now gone.
Since the thread went on until 2011 I didn't chase up every year....
Most probably a lot of new information has been coming out of Russia, perhaps even China, but I
don't have much of that. And even if I did, we would probably have the same problem there as well,
official data where one does everything to hide the real truth.....

I am now off this Korean discussion since we stray more and more from the given heading.

Michael!
Thanks for keeping us on track!!

Cheers
Stig