Erich Hartmann - several questions

[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

[Leo Etgen]

Hi guys

Here are a couple of photographs of the installation of the gun cameras in the fighter of Oberfeldwebel Rudolf Müller that Andreas alluded to in his post.



The majority of Luftwaffe fighters that I have seen fitted with gun cameras are Fw 190 types and the majority of the footage from these that I have seen concern USAAF four-engined bombers. Only occasionally have I seen footage from the Eastern Front. I do know that USAAF fighters appear to have generally been fitted with these instruments but on Luftwaffe fighters it does not appear to have been commonplace.

Horrido!

Leo

[Broncazonk]

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

That is a very good point--I actually looked last night. Very few gun cameras could be seen on Bf-109's, and quite honestly, very few could be seen on Fw-190's in photographs from late-1943 and 1944.

Bronc

[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