WW2TV Horvath lecture/presentation

[keith A]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO_XTOjpUEo

I watched this last night on YouTube and really enjoyed it. It is rare to focus on a single ace, even the much proclaimed Hartmann, without getting a lot of hyperbole and mythology. The only part of the lecture I thought needed clarification was the part that covered Luftwaffe rules on claims. What the presenter appears to say is that the Luftwaffe originally at least, only credited the victories that were verifiable (i.e. on German controlled areas of the battlefield). Much like they (sort of) allowed WW1 aerial victories. And that only those that fell the other (Russian in this study) side of the German lines and were verifiable losses can be accepted as "kills".On these criteria I wondered how the Luftwaffe allowed aces such as Wick, Moelders, Galland and others to claim Spitfires and Hurricanes shot down over England in 1940 or indeed those claimed over the English Channel in 1940-41 where wreckage is not available? Perhaps many of the claims made by Luftwaffe pilots were just a marrying up of RAF losses - by historians post-war?

This main argument for Hartmann or others does not really cover other eventualities. Is a "kill" only acceptable as an aircraft loss? In most cases this is true but what is the pilot is killed or severely wounded, what if the aircraft lands with a mortally wounded pilot? I would regard the loss of an airman more substantial a loss than an aircraft but even more so a pilot. All of this requires a post-war examination of enemy records (something that is difficult for the reasons that in WW1 and WW2 Axis records are fragmentary because of war damage).

It is equally evident in the German Panzer "Aces" claims for Russian and other Allied tanks in WW2 where a single knocked out tank could be claimed by any number of crews until it is destroyed completely.

That said I enjoyed the presentation and recommend the "Verified Victories" book which is exceptional.

best regards

Keith