Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes
Hi Guys
Regarding Hartmann's claim November 1944-wars end. It seems increasingly obvious that 7./JG52's claims are complete on the mikrofilms until 14.12.1944, and that Hartmann was less active, or should we say imaginative in November 1944, and much more active/imaginative in December 1944.
It appears he was very active 15.12.1944-23.12.1944, and these claims have not come to light. However is seems he claims on 24.12.1944(331) and 25.12.1944(332-336) don't have any details other than the dates, but they come from official documents, so therefore are evidence. Claiming five on Christmas day should have been memorable I guess. Same documents also state Barkhorn claimed four this day(286-289) not the two we thought(285-286), therefore casting doubt on the reliability of his post mikrofilm claims dates.
What were the Russian losses this day, can they be matched to Barkhorn, and less likely Hartmann?
The Toliver/Constable book used Hartmann's flugbuch for his first 150 claims, and they are a good match to the mikrofilms. But those for 1944 using letters sent home are absolutely incorrect, and very mis-leading, they don't match the mikrofilms at all, therefore neither should those for 1945 be considered as anything other than fiction.
Let's just say that the Toliver/constable book did use Hartmann's letters, do we really think they are truthful ?
Kind Regards
Johannes
|
This is confusing, Johannes. So where did the info on Pages 491 and 492 (Hartmann's claims #317 onward) of your volumes come from, when on page 1549 you make
such a point of sticking to primary, substantiated, concrete sources and ignoring anything not meeting that strict criteria? You went as far as literally promising to throw out any and all correspondence that might state that a certain pilot achieved a certain kill on a certain date on the basis of previously published but otherwise unsubstantiated info.
Indeed, you clearly docked other pilots' "tallies" on the basis that some previously accepted info was unsubstantiated by official sources.
Now, whereas I a commend all that, sincerely, I am left with a question.
How then, why then, does Hartmann's tally (and on the basis of your words above: Barkhorn's too) survive "un-pruned" within your books?