German overclaims in the East. Hartmann and others...

[Broncazonk]

In the construction of an evidentiary case, circumstantial evidence is often used to assess the credibility of direct evidence. Thus, it is unnecessary to have direct evidence of whether IAP, BAP, ShAP (or other units) or the name any air unit commander who acted in this way, as a circumstantial case can be made suggesting they all acted this way.

1) The state of mind of Soviet commanders is a probative element of circumstantial evidence. In this case, it is universally understood that the state of mind of Soviet commanders was fear, fear of dismissal, purge and execution. (The Germans were the least of their fears.) Thus, based on the fear of death, a motive can be found to finesse reports and records.

2) The course of prior conduct of Soviet commanders is also probative. In this case, it is well documented that many Soviet commanders finessed their reports and records.

3) An opinion as to credibility of Soviet records and reports is also admissible, if that opinion is made by persons with knowledge. In this case, the general consensus of historians with knowledge is that Soviet records and reports are not credible.

In this case, there is direct evidence of German claims, and there is direct evidence (in Russian reports and records) that German claims are not truthful. The circumstantial evidence (1-3 above) suggests that Soviet records may not be credible.

On the other hand, there is no countervailing evidence (The same factors listed in 1-3 above) that suggests that German records were not credible.

There is other circumstantial evidence to suggest some German claims were incorrect however, and these have be discussed above.

mars has already provided the answer, "...in WWII, the claim system of ALL AIRFORCE were not accurate, it was common for all WWII airforce that their over-claim rate reached the level of 3:1 or 4:1, the Luftwaffe was not an exception."

And to condemn a single noteworthy German pilot for this is unfair.

Bronc