Erich Hartmann - several questions

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by krichter33

Once again it is just speculation. Yes, it is interesting, but without evidence that they actually committed fraud, you should stop referring to them as such. You stated Marseille had strange patterns as well, but as many as 3/4 of his claims are confirmed, and therefore he is "honest." All this shows is that these patterns don't necessarily mean a particular ace is an outright fraud or liar. It is speculation.

I basically agree with you, but the other problem I see is when the issue is stated in terms of 'fraud' or 'honesty', then the tendency can be to 'over verify' ace claims.

When the issue is stated in terms of a man's personal integrity, it's only fair to say his integrity is supported if he claimed 2, his comrades claimed another 3, and the opponent really lost 2. He *might* have downed both. But such an evaluation tends to distort the actual picture of claim accuracy. This is why IMO it's usually best to de-emphasize the issue of personal honesty when it comes to evaluating claim accuracy. The best estimate of the ace's score in that combat is 0.4, IMO.

We're focusing on the Germans here, but some air arms had typically low claim accuracies (well, German claims were pretty inaccurate too in some periods). Does this mean the typical claiming pilot in those low accuracy air arms was a 'fraudster'? Any such suggestion tends to make the discussion emotional, nationalistic and non-objective. So it's best to just stay away from that aspect, IMHO. OTOH quantifying actual claim accuracy, at least for whole units and air arms, is key to understanding fighter combat history.

Joe