Erich Hartmann - several questions

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by Dénes Bernád

Nikita, I also have the same approach when studying a particular air combat: list all aircraft of all sides, no matter if destroyed, damaged, or broke combat due to technical fault, as often the real cause is improperly listed.

If a pilot claimed a victory and the damaged enemy aircraft crept back to own territory, that can still be regarded as a justified claim, as at least the target was hit and a certain amount of damage caused (N.B. this total number added individually is often higher than the official statistics released for that day or certain time period!).
And, of course, not forgetting claims by flak crews, too, if it was the case.

To me, more information is better than less, so if the author tells me about damaged a/c and mechanical losses so much the better. Also, I agree that damaged (but repaired) a/c provide an *explanation* for overclaims of a/c destroyed, but are not IMO a 'confirmation'. Anyway as long as the author provides the info for the reader to make the decision himself, it's fine.

But I am most curious about this quote:
"as often the real cause is improperly listed. "
This relates to earlier exchange about 'distrust' of German archives, where you seemed to say your statement about them had been mischaracterized, but then this statement seems to somewhat support 'distrust'. Can you explain more, perhaps with examples, causes being mistated, and how we know this is true?

I've seen almost verbatim statements, by the same person actually! that US records in Korea are to be 'distrusted' because, among other reasons, loss causes were often mistated, it is alleged. But in fairly extensive research in those records with close comparison to detailed MiG claims from Soviet records, I have not found that. Both sides virtually always agree when and where the air combats of the day occurred and which general type of UN a/c was involved (swept or straight wing jet or prop; these broad categories were almost never mistaken for one another, it seems). And, losses of similar a/c type on the UN side attiributed to non-air combat causes were usually of different units than the ones involved in the air combat, at different times of day, and usually documented with additional details that would seem preposterous to compile in secret if just made up....why bother? (and I'm speaking strictly of then-secret records, not contemporary press releases). Also, I'm not speaking of cases where a/c were lost in known contact with enemy a/c but the cause was positively stated as something else: that's also rare, 'unk' losses in contact with enemy a/c were generally grouped with known air combat losses. As with any rule there are exceptions to the above, mechanical cases where it's not possible to absolutely determine whether there was also contact w/ enemy a/c by that particular flight, etc. but it's a pretty small %. Yet it's often stated, it's even 'internet conventional wisdom' that the loss causes were 'often' or even usually or systematically mistated in that case.

Can you compare and contrast this to the situations you are speaking of? wrt 'real cause improperly listed'. It's a pretty far from Hartmann, but loss record debates tend to be interconnected, because proof that such fudging of loss causes was done in one case makes it more plausible that it was done in other cases.

Joe