Question regarding a victory for Heinz Bär 07/08/44

[focusfocus]

Hello all

I have a copy for a Mustang win report (Abschussmeldung)

JAGDGESCHWADER UDET/STAB

203.Tagabschuss
07/08/1944 14h40
SO Chartres,PL.QU.CD2/5

Höhe Bodennähe

Maj.Bär
Mustang
USA
Stern

aircraft crash not observed;wegen weiteren Luftkampfes

Zeugen
a) luft keine
b) erde keine

Bär
Major und Geschwaderkommodor

No Mustang was shot down in this region

NO CRITERIA ARE MET for his request to be approved by the OKL

WHY this one is in the different compilation as 191st CONFIRMED victory(e.g.Mathews/Foreman,or 203st.T.Woods.....)????

Michel

[kaki3152]

I thought this claim was possibly a 354th FG P-51? Three of these were lost on August 7,1944.

[focusfocus]

His claim is unfounded....my astonishment is that,in his application for approval,he did not provide any reasons to support it(he saw NOTHING of the "fate of his victim" and has NO WITNESSES.

It's obvious(?) that the OKL cannot have approved his claim!....or what?
Nevertheless,this one seems to be accounted for,in a lot of publications (often serious).....but based on what??

Can someone explain this "magic" trick?

Michel

[ju55dk]

Is his report stamped VNE and ASM? Why do you say that it is unfounded? He did engage in airbattle, but did not se a crasch. You will find loads of claims from fighter pilots without seeing the opponent crasch. This is seen on both sides. The Luftwaffe labelled such claims with VNE=Vernichtung nicht erwiesen with some also stamped ASM=Anerkennung später möglich. Authors do make mistakes as they are only human. And so did the clerks in RLM also.
Junker

[focusfocus]

No his report is NOT overloaded with VNE-ASM
Unfounded because no P-51 lost (Chartres), the 3 P-51 of 354°FG lost far too from Chartres (+200Km),no witnesses

Michel

[John Manrho]

I think the question should be was there a combat with P-51 in that area and were any Mustangs damaged....

[Johannes]

Hi Michel

When John Foreman and myself compiled the, or should I say our abschüßelist we were quite adamant to ignore anything published before. We determined that the mikrofilms was our primary source, but we would also checked it against flugbucher, Leistubgbücher, individual pilots personal abschusseliste and staffel abschussetafel.

With v.n.e-a.s.m claims we included them as a "kill" i.e confirmed, many pilots had these confirmed completely without witnesses, these were usually the higher ranking pilots (by actual rank, more than score totals). As most claims took more than a year to confirm anyway, this later claim we would certainly assume to have been confirmed.

We were also trying not to discriminate i.e the "over-claimers", in fact we had been warned-off about it, so sometimes we would mention if the pilots claims matched Allied losses. Erik Mombeek has published an article exactly about the claims system, and it's abuse. I think Bar comes into the honest, but not fully following the system category. Sometimes we would mention if an unconfirmed claim "was known to have fallen", but wouldn't mention if known not to have fallen. It is not our place to confirm or otherwise a claim. Nowotny would be the biggest fraudster of all, yet we merely listed the official claims knowing full well most never actual fell. If the truth was known during the war Barkhorn and Rall would be the highest scorers !

So basically to listed this claim as confirmed because it appears on the mikrofilms.

Kind regards

Johannes

[focusfocus]

Hello Johannes

Ok,his claim is on microfilm....but with a probate date ?

What I don't understand,why it was...would have been..approved?

According to the directive 55 270/41 (approval of aerial victories),it was necessary:
-of discovery of the debris (this is why units of the luftwaffe were in charge of finding them)
-witnesses

In this case,in his report (document n°88)these conditions do not exist.

So,why homologated it?....because Bär,already had a "name"?....in this case,why the OKL rejeted (? really?)its 200°vic on 04/22/44...despite a witness (Ofw.Schumaher)

Best Regards
Michel

[ju55dk]

It's easy to sit in an armchair a decade later, and claim a pilot to make false claims. Not that it did not happen, and some of them were caught in the act. But in the heat of an air battle it was often not possible to track those you did shoot down or hit. Next were errors at RLM, and also some confirmed claims due to propagande purposes. This is not only a Luftwaffe thing. There are dozens of examples on allied side too, and the fact that a lot of gunner on B-17 and B-24 were allowed and confirmed claims from air battles due to boost the morale.
Junker

[Adriano Baumgartner]

I do agree with you JUNKER...and we do have this ocurring in all sides and Fronts...so we can not blame this side or the other sides.