Erich Hartmann - several questions

[Ruy Horta]

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

I believe that this thread has started to swing towards what I believe to be the correct direction, but the board as a whole has a way to go.

Regards,
Andreas B

First I can only be thankful for the well balanced points you put forward.

With that behind me I'd like to address the quoted bit.

Since TOCH! is both open for all kind of members and community driven I am afraid you'll never see this forum reach the standard you are referring to.

You could only achieve such a level of objective high end historical debate and research if you limited membership. That might be enough, but you'd probably need to have clear rules / guidelines to follow and enforce them.

This would end up being a scientific and restricted forum, membership on invitation (peer or otherwise) and far different from the open type we see on the internet. It would be a tool for a number of researchers and or historians only.

But as I am not a researcher / historian myself it is not my primary aim to provide such a restricted tool.

I'd be willing to provide (restricted or not) sub-forums for special projects, but I won't change this forum into something it wasn't intended to be.

I think the openness allows for a fresh influx.

Anyone who has an idea for a special (research) project can ask me to create a specialist sub forum, and such can be set with many special requirements (membership, moderators, passwords etc).

[Andreas Brekken]

Dear Ruy!

I totally agree with you with regards to your comments - and I see now that I should have rephrased this sentence.

The board shouldn't be limited and it should be open for all - and I have had my share of quite heavy debates with other members over the years - maybe my problem is that I am getting old and a little bit wiser?

What I do believe however, is that we should try to refrain from attacks on specific persons, living or dead. I do not believe I will stop trying to push such discussions in a different direction.

One example springs to mind - a soviet aviator of some repute went into what could be called uncontrolled spin after the war - alcohol, sexual assaults and several other acts not becoming an officer so to speak - indicating a personality of limited moral stature.

Should this affect my research with regards to his wartime efforts? Should I use this knowledge to discredit his name publicly on a discussion board on the internet?

I think the answer is obvious.

Regards,
Andreas B

[Nick Beale]

My message to Diego would be to approach the whole business calmly, spend more time with primary sources and question every account that depends on a person's memory. Like other researchers I have heard stories from veterans that are impossible to reconcile exactly with the historical record — times and places become confused, loss or success is exaggerated and so on. Even so such memories can often be related to an actual event, even when the description is not accurate. A typical example would be something like "we lost a lot of people in landing accidents", when the record tells of one such accident. But if the man telling the story lost a good friend, that accident grows in significance in his memory.

[Broncazonk]

To the experts on this list, honest question: How did star pilots get away with massive overclaiming with gun cameras mounted in their aircraft? When a star pilot landed and claimed six, seven, ten aircraft on a single mission EVERYBODY would have wanted to see that film. "The camera must have been broken" excuse would have worked about once. "The camera must have ran out of film" excuse would also have worked about once.

How did they get away with it??

Bronc

[Leo Etgen]

Hi guys

The times that I have seen the description given by Gefreiter Karl Schnörrer it is always given in relation to the incident of 11 August 1942. Regarding the account by Hans Ellendt it is not known, at least by me, when he wrote or recalled this event. It is stated is that he "clearly remembers" which would indicate this recollection happened some time after the event described. Concerning the 25-26 October 1942 raid I do not know what was the number of II./KG 51 aircraft stationed on the field nor the proportion of losses. It is interesting to note that II./KG 51 was a Ju 88 equipped unit as per the strength returns and thus it was impossible for the Gruppe to have suffered losses of He 111 bombers. According to the strength returns the Gruppe began October 1942 with 38 Ju 88 A-4 bombers and 20 of these were lost to strength through enemy action as well as three lost due to other causes other than enemy action and one through overhaul through the month. In turn the unit received 16 bombers as replacements as well as one Ju 88 C-6 through the month to finish October 1942 with 31 aircraft. Without knowing the number of bombers the unit had on strength at the time of the raid and the exact losses it would be difficult to draw conclusions. Unfortunately my DVD disk containing the QM 6 returns has chosen this very moment to inexplicably go bad and I can not access the relevant files to determine the number of aircraft lost by II./KG 51 in this attack. As concerns the incident described by Nowotny it may well be that we will have to wait until Prein releases his loss list for the time period to know the details of the event especially in light of the fact that not even the date is known with certainty. In regards to gun cameras it is my understanding that it was not usual for Luftwaffe fighters to be fitted with these until somewhat later in the war.

Horrido!

Leo

[Broncazonk]

Leo wrote: "In regards to gun cameras it is my understanding that it was not usual for Luftwaffe fighters to be fitted with these until somewhat later in the war."

Emmm... Gun cameras were fitted by mid-1942?

A lot of very big multiple claims were made in late-1942, all of 1943 and 1944 when gun cameras were certainly in use. And when a star pilot returned to base claiming five, six or ten kills on a single mission, EVERYONE in that unit (and of-course in higher headquarters) would want to see that film. (Not to mention all the other pilots for moral and celebration if nothing else.)

How could a star pilot continue to make huge single mission or weekly mission claims when the evidence was never appearing on his gun camera??

I don't have a dog in this fight: I just want to know.

Bronc

[udf_00]

Perhaps, in harsh, chaotic and hectic situations, the supply, loading, unloading and processing of films was not the main concern of the involved people.

[Andreas Brekken]

Hello.

Some gun cameras in use, but very few.

In fact the inclusion of a gun-camera in the Bf 109 of Robert Müller was such a special event that they photographed the entire installation procedure. This is available from the Bundesarchiv in Koblenz.

I have seen some of the footage in private ownership - and sadly for the conspirators - several claims can be verified - at least to the level when you see smoke, fire and parts (like wings) flying off the target. The fighter does not follow his prey down of course but breaks off for a new target.

Additional footage should be available as part of a series of instruction films afaik at the IWM.

One should however be aware that according to all information I have, the inclusion of gun cameras where far between in the Luftwaffe.

Look at for example the immense number of Bf 109 photographs available - how many have you seen with a gun cam installed??

(I guess your next message Broncazonk or whatever your real name is that this is the conspiracy... the Luftwaffe did not equip their aircraft with gun cameras because that would compromise the Experten's tales of their exploits - I believe it is just a question of WHY do it? In the first part of the war especially on the eastern front the results were quite easy to find - as the front evolved they could count the downed aircraft on the ground... afterwards when the battles took place behind German lines the same applied - a lot of claims were not approved because they could not find a likely match on the ground.)

And as far as movie screenings goes - I don't think the main interest of the other parts of a unit was just that in 1942 in North Africa or in the East. The pilots I have spoken to were more interested in food, drink, a sigarette and most of all decent rest.

Regards,
Andreas B

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by Broncazonk

How could a star pilot continue to make huge single mission or weekly mission claims when the evidence was never appearing on his gun camera??

The experts on the Lufrwaffe can answer better in aspects specific to the Luftwaffe, but in general the answer, AFAIK, is:
1. gun camera would generally reduce crediting for completely made up claims, but the great majority of over claims, by any evidence I know in other situations with which I'm more familiar, were not made up by dishonest individuals, within an otherwise *actually* (not just on paper) strict claim verification process.

2. dramatic gun camera images published in books often show obvious destruction of the target a/c, but victories were credited based on gc images which were less than fully conclusive as to the target's destruction, often much less, in every case I know of specifically.

3. gun camera images often don't rule out the possiblity more than one pilot contributed to the destruction of the target, and duplicated claims of actual destruction of enemy a/c were a major source of over claims.

4. a key factor, perhaps the key factor, in over claims was the 'culture' of the air arm toward claim accuracy. I *don't* mean culture as in 'yeah, Englishmen are like this and Japanese are like that', not national characteristics, or not them alone, and not politics per se. But it's clear that various air arms in various wars had organizational approachs to claim verification that differed markedly in practice, even when the *theoretical* process on paper was similar. It could differ a lot even in the same air arm in different periods. It gets back to point 1: focusing on differing levels of personal honesty among pilots in a particular unit at a particular time is mainly barking up the wrong tree to explain general over claim rates. Clearly it was more socially accepted, for everyone, to play faster and looser with claims in some air arms/units/periods than others. The theoretical process of confirmation, or a particular device like a gun camera, was only part of the picture.

Joe