Hartmann: claims vs. victories

[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

[Broncazonk]

There is one scenario where Erich Hartmann is relatively "innocent" in all of this and it has everything to do with his wingman.

If I am Erich Hartmann's wingman, the safest thing for ME to say every single time for MY own safety is, "you got him!"

By way of example, Hartmann and his wingman are out on a free hunt. There they are, sitting up high, ducking in and out of the clouds, watching and waiting for something to develop. A Russian bomber formation appears down low in tight formation with fighter cover just a few thousand feet above them. Hartmann power dives, his wingman close behind, and BOOM Hartmann opens up on a victim with machine guns and cannon. Hartmann ZOOMS through the fighter protection and never even looks back, because his wingman who had a really good and very clear view of the engagement says, "you got him! That's a victory."

Hartmann's wingman could have been thinking: (1) I am Erich Hartmann's wingman and I don't want to be the guy that got Erich Hartmann killed. (2) Also, I don't want to die because death is bad and I enjoy being Erich Hartmann's wingman. (3) I saw Erich Hartmann engage a Russian aircraft at close range and saw numerous machine gun and cannon strikes on that aircraft. (4) The aircraft rolled over and headed straight towards the ground right after being hosed with bullets and shells fired by Erich Hartmann. (5) There is no reason whatsoever to go back in there and get mixed up in a furball with a bunch of pissed-off Russians just to see if that aircraft hit the ground: See 1 and 2 above.

I can see this happening A LOT. And this also explains 4 and 5 "victories" in a single mission.

And in my opinion, Hartmann may have honestly believed his wingman, not knowing what he was actually doing.

Bronc

[Nick Hector]

QUOTE: I can see this happening A LOT. And this also explains 4 and 5 "victories" in a single mission.

And in my opinion, Hartmann may have honestly believed his wingman, not knowing what he was actually doing.


Great theory. Fantastic theory.
....And then you compare Hartmann's tally of verifiable victories with pilots whose tallies stand up much better to comparison with the enemy's records (Gabor's example of Lipfert being a great case in point). Is the realisation that maybe, just maybe, Hartmann was a line-shooter really too terrible....?

Not having a dig at you, Bronc, but it's just a question worth asking.

[Broncazonk]

Originally Posted by Nick Hector

Great theory. Fantastic theory.

....And then you compare Hartmann's tally of verifiable victories with pilots whose tallies stand up much better to comparison with the enemy's records (Gabor's example of Lipfert being a great case in point). Is the realisation that maybe, just maybe, Hartmann was a line-shooter really too terrible....?

Not having a dig at you, Bronc, but it's just a question worth asking.

What?? I don't understand any of that.

Bronc

[Nick Hector]

Meaning that people seem to be finding excuses for a guy who actually looks like a liar.

He seems to be among the bottom 10 percent of guys whose victory tallies stand up to comparison with enemy losses. How many theories can we come up with to excuse that?

[Broncazonk]

Originally Posted by Nick Hector

Meaning that people seem to be finding excuses for a guy who actually looks like a liar.

He seems to be among the bottom 10 percent of guys whose victory tallies stand up to comparison with enemy losses.

Yeah. No argument here about that. It looks bad. I was just positing the one scenario (that I can think of) that makes Hartmann relatively "innocent."

["There is one scenario where Erich Hartmann is relatively "innocent" in all of this and it has everything to do with his wingman."]

I have Helmut Lipfert's book on my lap as I write this. (I've been looking at the photographs.) There are several photographs of Lipfert with Hartmann, that is, Lipfert talking to Hartmann. To me, it is apparent in the photographs that Hartmann would not look Lipfert in the eyes. And in one photograph it is r-e-a-l-l-y obvious that he wouldn't.

Bronc

[Nick Hector]

Cheers Bronc,
Sorry if my wording was unclear earlier.
I think you make a good point with Lipfert's photos too

[Stig1207]

Originally Posted by Nick Hector

Meaning that people seem to be finding excuses for a guy who actually looks like a liar.

He seems to be among the bottom 10 percent of guys whose victory tallies stand up to comparison with enemy losses. How many theories can we come up with to excuse that?

I agree that it looks suspicious, but it also potentially makes a lot of other eksperten and aces look like liars, even though perhaps they were just not very accurate in their claiming.

Btw, fellow forum member Urusut covers this period from the VVS side here https://proza.ru/2019/08/23/427 for claims for Me 109's vs Jg 52 losses.

[Nick Hector]

Originally Posted by Stig1207

I agree that it looks suspicious, but it also potentially makes a lot of other eksperten and aces look like liars, even though perhaps they were just not very accurate in their claiming.

Who else claimed as badly as this? The majority of Luftwaffe aces achieved far better than 50% accuracy in their claiming. The other big exception is the II./JG 27 Schwarm of Experten: Stigler, Voegl, Bendert and Sawallisch. Known liars.

And the point Gabor makes is that either an aircraft was lost or significantly damaged... ...or it wasn't. By that standard, Lipfert looks good, Hartmann looks bad and guys like Ewald and Duettmann were somewhere in between

[Faenor]

Originally Posted by 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

Hi BenFolk and HGabor - you have more info about these losses (time, place or how or link them to another pilot claims?

rof120 - seriously? I used a quote from a previous post from Gabor - and yes, I know P-39, I know the name and I know the Soviets used the name AEROCOBRA. So I don't understand your post (3x) - as before, please don't respond to me and don't send me private messages, don't let another topic close due to your annoyance, especially if you have nothing to say - the question was for Gabor, whom I respect (and I mean not only me) as an erudite historian in the area of air battles and losses Hungary 44/45.

Thank you for respecting

Faenor