Quote:
Originally Posted by Stig Jarlevik
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.
|
My opinions are firm, where firm they should be.
An argument 'you were not there' kills any discussion. So do false statements about reports having to boost morale and thus not reflecting the actual situation.
The system of reports serves the simple purpose of learning of enemy tactics, advantages or disadvantages of the enemy. There are numerous Allied reports stating exaclty advantages of enemy aircraft or tactics. This was thoroughly analysed and tactical notes issued to the aircrew.
To put in doubt those reports one has to have strong arguments. Why should Americans lie about the causes of losses in Korea? Did they disobey any orders? Would admitting losses to enemy aircraft result in any consequences? Was any such case identified?
In the case of Luftwaffe the primary problem is lack of paperwork. There are no combat reports, no loss reports, no flight records, etc., just only some lists.
Therefore we cannot be sure, if those records are complete.
In regard of losses original records should provide complete information of losses just in order to make the supply system working properly.
There are few instances of adjusting or changing causes of losses, however. One such prime example is the case of the loss of a Me 110 in the far north, where damage to the enemy fire was recorded on the wreck. The pilot, who was still alive, explained, that they were prohibited to attack ground targets to avoid losses. Hence listing the aircraft as lost to technical reasons would help to avoid investigation and perhaps a court of inquiry for the responsible.
We know that such orders were issued to various units at various periods, I recall that JG 2 and JG 26 were ordered to avoid combat with enemy fighters back in 1941. This did not make pilots happy, and they disobeyed those orders at times. Did it result with false loss reports as to causes? Possibly, but there is no proof. We can only have some statistical observations, like the one, that parachute was not used in most cases. I recall that 90% of write offs due to enemy action did not involve use of a parachute. What conclusion should be, then?
Similarly about the overclaim. Luftwaffe had a very rigid system of awarding victories. In theory, there should be no overclaim at all, and for years it was claimed there was none or that it was limited, indeed. Now, we find that this is not the case. How much of that was a simple result of combat confusion? Why RLM was unable to sort out those cases?
Johannes' observation that serial kills took place within small groups of pilots is an interesting one. Still, it is not an evidence of frauds. Could be those pilots trusted themselves and therefore could enter a more risky combat than with other pilots. This needs to be investigated, but this should not be limited to few cases, but rather a more general approach should be made. There are plenty of Soviet records available, and it should be possible to establish, if there were losses and if there were dog fights at all. Certainly, if it could be found that there were no encounters at the time multiple victories were claimed, should raise a question about honesty of some pilots.
Obviously, there is a question about a reason. Did excessive scores result in any gains? Could this motivate pilots to make fraudulent claims? And how could RLM approve those victories and not investigate them?
Certainly, an argument ‘you were not there’ or ‘you do not know, how to read documents’ would not help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Hector
I'm with Michael (Nokose), let's try to help Johannes with his query.
I'll share some assistance comprising first a look at Stotz's opponents up until serving with Hahn, then a look at BOTH their opponents. I am indebted to the Tony Wood lists and Johannes' books plus Christer Bergstroem's work in trying to get this mapped out. It hope it helps somewhat to answer the original question of the thread:
Stotz's early opponents:
|
Nick
I am afraid, that the list is not exactly clear in providing the information required.
I would suggest a table with following information: Kill no of the pilot in question; number of kills of the pilot in particular combat; total number of kills; total number of aircraft lost; total number of write offs upon return; total number of aircraft damaged.
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120%; background: transparent }a:visited { color: #800000; so-language: zxx; text-decoration: underline }a:link { color: #000080; so-language: zxx; text-decoration: underline }