Erich Hartmann: 352 victories or... 80?

[chris schmitz]

Well i think that it is not overcredited what german fighter pilots shot down,because i thik for the folloing reasons:

First most of the german fighter pilots flew most of the war and allied pilots where sent to the trainingschools.
Secons allied aces couldnt gain more earialvictories because the germans shot them out of the sky.
and i think that is to much to say that the nearly 100 germans to gain more than 80 earialvictories to question there integrety of claiming that.
Why is it not possible to say that the allies dont wanne give in that the claims are wright,why are they not making up something because in the sky the individual fighter pilot of the germans where much better than what allied fighter pilot ever will be,its the numbers that made the difference................

sorry i am an german,i hated the politics of the war,but not the soldiers who fought them and to say..........aaarrgghhhh what ever

[Boandlgramer]

very simple calculation made by christer.

if we take the claims of the german luftwaffe: 25.000 westallied AC destroyed in combat
add the claims of the flak : 10.0000 ac

= we have a number of 35.000 ac


now lets take the losses of the USAAF for europe/africa ( just first line losses: combat and accident)
25.022 ac


add the british losses of the bombercommand ( same as above)
8963 ac
add the fighter commands losses ( don´t know the exact )nummer
3500 ? ac

(not included the french/ dutch etc. ac´s lost in combat )

we have a number about 37500 ac.


claims made by the germans ( luftwaffe & flak ) 35.000 ,
the westallied lost 37.500 .
does it prove the luftwaffe had no overclaims ?

hell, of course not.
just to show christers calculation above is simple , very simple.

but may i got it extremly wrong .

[Graham Boak]

Let's note that, as a general rule, accidents made up as many losses as aerial combat. So a simple equation such as Boandlgramer's does not work. This evidence - if taken as gospel, and there seems to be too many assumptions for my taste - would imply something like a 2:1 ratio between claims and kills.

On other matters, there is not surprisingly a difference between claims made after the introduction of effective gun cameras and those made before. There is a difference in "reality" between claims made during times of intense fighting, where multiple units are involved, and where the battle takes place over the other side's territory, as opposed to low-intensity combat with few participants over your own soil. So if you must compare, then compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges, not just picking whichever fruit suits your own arguments.

[LWFlieger]

I would like to chime in and suggest there is another source for cross checking claims data: at least one of the JG 52 volumes put out by Niko Fast some years ago has tabulated claims and losses. As these volumes are compilations of articles by the veterans of JG 52, it could be useful. Unfortunately these books are rarer than hen's teeth. I have volumes 1-4( but they are in storage a thousand miles away!) and a total of 7 were published by Bernsberger.
I don't know if this helps any but I thought I should mention it.

Good Luck, and good hunting!

[FalkeEins]

for those interested I've translated some paragraphs from the Khazanov article and added some translated general comments on the article from Jean-Yves Lorant and Hans Ring..access my site via the link below..."visit..homepage"..

cheers,

Neil

[John Beaman]

Originally Posted by FalkeEins

for those interested I've translated some paragraphs from the Khazanov article and added some translated general comments on the article from Jean-Yves Lorant and Hans Ring..access my site via the link below..."visit..homepage"..

Neil..........there was no link in your posting

[FalkeEins]

..John,

the link is in blue ..under my name...bottom left..automatically appears under each post.. or perhaps your screen is configured in such a way that you can't see it..?

Neil

[Dénes Bernád]

When clicking your blue, underline name and after being directed to your home page: http://www.members.aol.com/falkeeins/Sturmgruppen
I receive the message that the URL cannot be found.

It would be better if you could just post the link to the page directly in your post.

Dénes

[Mazila]

DefiniteLY Khazanov article doesn't have enough strong points to prove that most Hartmann's victories are overclaims. Obviously it would be a subject for a big book not a small article.

It's also clear that some sentenses of Khazanov critics look naive and obsessively.

Seems that cold war propaganda still keeps some minds. The remark about russian archives -"a) the disparate & incomplete nature of the Soviet archives precludes any objective analysis - who shot down who, a "dangerously romanticised" version of the air war " doesn't look just "strange at least" - as Andrei Dikov mentioned - in reality it looks ignorant, arrogant and represents the remark's author as an absolute neophyte.

[FalkeEins]

John,

thanks for your kind comments..the Khazanov article struck me as being fairly sobre, if somewhat lacking in detail..it's also quite a long piece, so I shall keep adding to that page..

Graham,

Khazanov states that Hartmann's victory total is "..somewhere between 70 to 80 Soviet aircraft shot down" He continues... "It is therefore not incorrect to state that the scores of other famous JG 52 aces are likely to have been largely superior to Hartmann's, given that the evidence for his victory claims is much more unreliable than that for other pilots such as Barkhorn and Rall (..) This has much to do with Hartmann's tactic of catching lone Soviet aircraft unawares far behind the front lines, with only a wing man's statement to support his claim and goes someway to explaining the disparity with Soviet records since aircraft lost in this way were recorded as missing in action and not as shot down in combat..."

Mazila,

'cold war propaganda'. Researchers in the West have no idea what may have 'happened' to the Soviet archives during the cold war period....Was it not the case for example that Hartmann was put on trial in 1949 by the KGB charged with the destruction of 345 Soviet aircraft..as Khazanov states .." Hartmann's defenders will always argue that the KGB's researchers are unlikely to have been in error given the seriousness of the charges.."




Neil