Severe Overclaimers Vs. Reliable Claimers List -4 Nov 07 Update

[Nokose]

EK1 on the breast.

[Rob Romero]

Nokose,

Thanks for your response,

Rob

[Jim P.]

How do I say this without coming across as sounding like I believe that the LW fighter pilots and their claims are somehow totally infallible. We all know that at least one unit, 4./JG 27, was caught fudging their claims, and there are certain other individuals, like Rudorffer, who have many claims that are suspect for that same reason. Like everybody else here, I'm interested in finding out 'who got who' where a claim and loss can be matched up. But frankly this exercise of 'severe overclaimers' versus 'reliable claimers' is just so much sophistry. It just seems to me that applying some ulterior motive to a particular claim that's not verified by a specific loss by somebody who's long dead is unfair and somewhat silly. Air combat by its very nature is a very dynamic exercise conducted in 3-dimensional space. You want to stare your latest claim into the ground, so be it, but you will also in all likelihood end up dead. Rall is, by his own admission, a perfect example of this, though fortunately for him he only lost a thumb. Dr. Prien also explained the circumstance of a claim by Knoke that was questioned in this thread, yet the fact that he had to do so because somebody thought it was a bogus claim with the intent of padding one's score just illustrates how silly this exercise can become.

The bottom line is everybody overclaimed for any number of reasons and to try and assign motive 70 years on is futile, unless there is documentation to prove otherwise. In this country we have the legend of the 'Flying Tigers'. They claimed some 300 Japanese aircraft. Dan Ford essentially proved that the actual losses for the Japanese was about 100 machines. The man was excoriated by the surviving vets from the unit, but the bottom line was his research was corroborated by other published sources. "But the Japanese were lying" was the usual response by the Tiger vets and defenders, but, well you get the picture.

[FalkeEins]

Originally Posted by Jim P.

The bottom line is everybody overclaimed for any number of reasons...

..while its not terribly scientific - and I don't like the terminology -'severe overclaimers' - personally I think its about time we started saying so where suspected and attempting to re-write the accepted history that we've been fed before its too late - as Dan so ably did. We may bust a few more myths in the process. As Gary says, 'no witness, no claim', yet 'history' still has Hartmann on 352 vics (only 307 'official' claims), Dahl on 128 including 36 Viermots - repeated yet again in the lastest Osprey Duel booklet.. And we wonder why guys like Dulias exist...

.." certain other individuals like Rudorffer have many suspect claims "- I can see it turning into a pretty long list. Loos doesn't appear for one (buy some books Rob!) and is another example ; Lorant currently going back through his interviews from the late seventies has Loos saying - in front of Bracht and Driebe, 'no, never shot down anything in the Ta 152...' .. the accepted 'history' of course is Reschke's...

[Kutscha]

Originally Posted by dora9forever

but how can you claim a plane if no wreckage or wittness. so there tales are true "Rudorffers. too. surely there claims were on the vale.i know unit losses by RAF USA. can be errors. by dates etc-
how about the star of Afrika,hans j marsailles.351 desert-was it 6 BOB kills or 3 given to him.so 357---------or 354.
Gary

Agh, I think you need to look again at how many claims by H-J M.

[George Hopp]

I cannot say anything about Japanese records of units fighting AVG, but I know they are scarce for 1943.

Very scarce, since the AVG no longer existed in 1943.

Your comments were nicely stated, Jim P.

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by George Hopp

Very scarce, since the AVG no longer existed in 1943.

Please re-read. I referred to later combats in China against USAAF.

[Rob Romero]

When I initially started this ‘project’, I posted an extensive disclaimer. I realize that there are many pitfalls to this endeavor, and I’m sure there are some that we haven’t even thought of. AND I WILL NOT HERE RENGAGE ON AN EXTENSIVE DEBATE ON THE PROS AND CONS ON WHAT I HAVE ALREADY ADMITTED IS A FLAWED UNDERTAKING. However, I do feel that –whatever its limitations- this process is of some historical value, and there are a number of researchers (some of whom I’m corresponding with) who are making headway in the nitty-gritty of this research. At some point, with some of these pilots, it will be clear that some (i.e., Kurt Wolff (33) 100% VV) were either good at judging the effects of their fire, or more scrupulous than others for whom accuracy approaches or is actually 0%. Failing some complete loss of records or monumental misinterpretation thereof, this surely reflects something about these men in terms of their ability as fighter pilots and character –doesn’t it?

Rob Romero