Hartmann: claims vs. victories

[HGabor]

Bronc, I think you are correct. With an instant ambush it was next to impossible to verify the results. Even a few 'very visual' hits were not enough to down a plane. This is why about 70% of Hartmann's so called 'victories' turn out to be just damaged ones. Lipfert eg. knew, that just to damage an enemy plane was already a huge achievement in itself. Three 'real' air-to-air victories a day was an extraordinary and unusual success for any pilot. This is why I am still amazed that despite of this, generations truly believed the repeated six or more air-to-air victories for Hartmann... General rule: victories can/should ultimately be confirmed by the verified losses of the opponent side, not by the reported claims of your own. (For any sides, of course.)

Gabor

[NickM]

Originally Posted by HGabor

Bronc, I think you are correct. With an instant ambush it was next to impossible to verify the results. Even a few 'very visual' hits were not enough to down a plane. This is why about 70% of Hartmann's so called 'victories' turn out to be just damaged ones. Lipfert eg. knew, that just to damage an enemy plane was already a huge achievement in itself. Three 'real' air-to-air victories a day was an extraordinary and unusual success for any pilot. This is why I am still amazed that despite of this, generations truly believed the repeated six or more air-to-air victories for Hartmann... General rule: victories can/should ultimately be confirmed by the verified losses of the opponent side, not by the reported claims of your own. (For any sides, of course.)

Gabor

It gets even more confusing when you have a very rugged aircraft (say a Grumman F4F, P40 or P47) vs a lightly armed aircraft (say a Mc202 or a Ki43, or even a early mark of Zero), especially when you're evasive action of choice is dive like hell at full throttle-all the opponent has time to see is an aircraft diving like it's out of control, streaming black smoke (exhausts?) after being hit. I think Lundstrom 'First Team' recounted a Coral Sea dogfight where a F4F pilot got jumped; dove away then climbed back up into the fight several times. He survived but multiple Zero pilots claimed a shot down 'Grumman' in each encounter.

[Faenor]

Hi Gabor,

I really appreciate your work and information sharing on this forum! Really good job with lot of information and history.

In your review, there is this info:

Missing: 2 IL-2, 9 Yak-9, 2 Aerocobras

How was these 2 Aerocobras lost and do you have some info about Yak-9?

Can be some of this losses linked to Hartmann victory or other german pilot?

Thanks

FAenor

[rof120]

[quote=Faenor;297776]Hi Gabor,



Missing: 2 IL-2, 9 Yak-9, 2 Aerocobras

How was these 2 Aerocobras lost ...

Hie Faenor, I am not trying to educate you or something. This fighter-type was called Airacobra in the country which produced it but I don't know whether this name was entirely "respected" in the USSR or not: perhaps they did change it a little.

I wrote this because you and other people could have some difficulties when using a search engine in order to get more details, the first syllable not being the same in both cases: Aira vs Aero.

[rof120]

[quote=Faenor;297776]Hi Gabor,



Missing: 2 IL-2, 9 Yak-9, 2 Aerocobras

How was these 2 Aerocobras lost ...

Hie Faenor, I am not trying to educate you or something. This fighter-type was called Airacobra in the country which produced it but I don't know whether this name was entirely "respected" in the USSR or not: perhaps they did change it a little.

I wrote this because you and other people could have some difficulties when using a search engine in order to get more details, the first syllable not being the same in both cases: Aira vs Aero.

[rof120]

[quote=Faenor;297776]Hi Gabor,

"Missing: 2 IL-2, 9 Yak-9, 2 Aerocobras

How was these 2 Aerocobras lost ..."

Hie Faenor, I am not trying to educate you or something. This fighter-type was called Airacobra in the country which produced it but I don't know whether this name was entirely "respected" in the USSR or not: perhaps they did change it a little.

I wrote this because you and other people could have some difficulties when using a search engine in order to get more details, the first syllable not being the same in both cases: Aira vs Aero.

[HGabor]

FAenor,
Indeed, on June 4, 1944 the soviet 5th Air Army has reported the following summarized losses, however, the detailed unit reports are a bit different in some minor details:

Dogfight: 1 Yak-9, 1 IL-2
Flak: 4 IL-2
Missing: 2 IL-2, 9 Yak-9, 2 Aero(SIC!)cobras

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

16 GvIAP temporarily lost 3 damaged P-39s during the 2nd daily group mission between 16:25-17:30 (Moscow time) which, I think, is an hour late compared to the local time. Later all 3 planes got repaired. (See details in prev. notes.) Since the 5th Air Army summary-report mentioned 2 missing Airacobras, I assume they were the seriously, but not fatally damaged planes (Gv.Ml.Lt. Vladimir Vasilevich Dushanin and Gv.Ml.Lt. Petr Vasilevich Ketov), which landed somewhere else, not back at their base. These, or some of them could be Hartmann’s claims, however in this timeframe (15:25-16:30, local) he claimed NO P-39s!!! But If you consider both fighters to be Hartmann’s victims, then it’s 2 planes vs. his claimed 6. (Which were later repaired.) So ‘0 vs. 6’, or ‘2 vs. 6’. Still very poor, temporary result!

5 VA, 294 IAD, 427 IAP lost 4 Yak-9 and 3 (of their) pilots from St.Lt. Shamenkov’s flight: Lt. Shakurov, Ml.Lt. Kozlov and Ml.lt. Morozov. Ml.Lt. Pavel Antonovich Ponomarenko and Ml.Lt. Ivan Fedorovich Golovanov (both 427 IAP) were KIA in dogfight with enemy fighters. 8 Yak-9, 12 IL-2 vs. 14 Fw 190, 6 Me 109 in the Larga area between 16:00-17:00 (Moscow time). Ml.Lt. Sergeev’s Yak-9 crashlanded on soviet controlled territory, burned out, but the injured pilot returned to his own unit. 4 Yak-9 vs. 6 Fw 190s in the Larga area after 09:43, Moscow time.

(I think one of these 427 IAP Yak-9s could be Hartmann’s 245., ‘LaGG’ victory.)

Between 09:28-10:00 (Moscow time) two 5 VA, 231 ShAD, 873 ShAP IL-2s (Potapov, Kisterev) took off for a recce. mission in the Tăutești-Horlești area. Over the target the recce. pair had received intense flak fire and Ml.Lt. Nikolai Ignatevich Kisterev‘s IL-2 (S/N: 9341, gunner: Morozov) was shot down. Plane fell in the Tăutești area. Not air combat!

Between 16:27-17:15 (Moscow time) 12, 873 ShAP IL-2s were attacking about 50 enemy tanks and 100 other vehicles in the 173. point area (Iassi-NW, ~13 km). Dogfight with 6-8 Me 109s, plus AA fire. After the attack, IL-2 (S/N: 7707, pilot: Ml.Lt. Tsukerov) failed to return from combat mission. Since in the late 188 GvShAP records this very same plane was mentioned at least twice due to combat damages (February 4 and 29, 1945), this time it had to be only seriously damaged and repaired, but NOT lost. It probably force landed somewhere else and returned to base only after repair. That’s why it is not listed as a permanent loss. (The 873 ShAP was re-organized as 188 GvShAP by October 27, 1944.)

5 VA, 231 ShAD, 568 ShAP IL-2 (pilot: Maj. Mikhail Ivanovich Kasimov, gunner: St.Sgt. Gorelov) was shot down by enemy fighters in the target area.

5 VA, 231 ShAD, 568 ShAP IL-2 (pilot: Ml.Lt. Boris Petrovich Koselev, gunner: Sgt. Starkov) was shot down also by an enemy fighter in the target area.

(In the dogfight two additional air gunners were killed (Ml.Sgt. Alexandr Dmitrievich Gatilov and Ml.Sgt. Mikhail Grigorevich Zelenin), but their planes returned to base OK.)

5 VA, 231 ShAD, 568 ShAP IL-2 (pilot: Lt. Vladimir Ivanovich Pushkarev, gunner: Ml.Sgt. Zenin) was shot down by flak in the target area.

(At 16:20, 12 IL-2s of 568 ShAP were escorted by 6 Yak-9s. Combat with 4 Fw 190, 4 Me 109, - 3 losses.)

Between 19:30-20:38 (Moscow time), 12 5 VA, 7 GvShAD, 130 GvShAP IL-2 attacked targets in the Moimești area. IL-2m3 (S/N: 1878584, pilot: Gv.Ml.Lt. Ivan Petrovich Saharov, gunner: Ml.Sgt. Victor Ivanovich Lesovoi) was hit by flak and crashed in the target area.

Another 130 GvShAP IL-2m3 (S/N: 1878291, white ‘1’, pilot: Kravchenko, gunner: Kulakov) was damaged in a dogfight with 2 Fw 190s. Crew got injured.

Hope this helps.
Gabor


(Rof120: the soviet 5th Air Army document says AEROcobras, not AIRAcobras. Not a big deal, we all know they were P-39s ;-))

[rof120]

(Rof120: the soviet 5th Air Army document says AEROcobras, not AIRAcobras. Not a big deal, we all know they were P-39s ;-)

- Yes, of course you're right. Nevertheless if you try a search on the (general) Internet better use the original American name, Airacobra, in order to get (any) hits .

3 minutes later: I tried and it worked with Aerocobra too. Don't ask me why but I suspect Putin now controls Google.

[HGabor]

:-) hah, that's good.

[BenFolk]

Hello!
1) Unfortunately after the emergency landing Gv.Ml.Lt. Vladimir Vasilevich Dushanin returned on foot. His plane was not serviced.

2) Gv ml. Lieutenant Buzdin Ivan Pavlovich
104 GvIAP 9 GvIAD was missing.

So two P-39. Exactly. The Sovjets wrote the truth.

Greeting