German day fighter top aces by JG

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by HGabor

In historical research there is no place for outdated political propaganda & fairy tales.

Gabor

I quite agree and I think that the word "confirmed" is misleading if the word the Luftwaffe used was "anerkannt" (accepted/recognised) rather than "bestätigt" (confirmed). I think that maybe we should reserve "confirmed" for the cases where we can confidently match a claim to a loss.

Just about everyone overclaimed — usually in good faith and for completely understandable reasons — so comparing pilots' total claims doesn't get us very far in studying history. Even if we knew the true totals of aircraft each shot down, it would still tell us little without considering how many months/years a pilot spent in combat, how many sorties he flew and how many potential targets were available in the sectors where he served.

[HGabor]

NOT about the veracity? Then what is the whole purpose of it? Sorting fairy tales all over again?

Sorry, I thought this is a historical forum...

[HGabor]

Correct. But you get the point.

[ClinA-78]

*sigh*
If you insist.
On the one hand: scores and scores of extremely good books and articles written by the greatest airwar experts in mankind's history.
On the other hand: a person named Nick Beale.

Whom would you give your attention ?

Jumping briefly on this topic which I found quite boring (my 2 cents) but your comment, Knusel, is felt unrespectful toward a dedicated researcher and writer who takes time to answer your silly questions and shares - freely - his knowledge on the internet (we don't need to buy his books, just joking now)
What do you have written and published yet?

Sorry, but some forumer may be more humble and think 7th time before writting.

Bye

ClinA-78

[Johannes]

Hi HGabor

I think what Michael is looking for are the claims of the individual. Whether or not the pilot is honest. Even an honest pilot will have thought to have destroyed an aircraft that crawls back to base. A fraudulent pilot might officially claim an aircraft that not only he didn't shoot-down, or attack, or even seen, but officially it's confirmed. No matter how bad it sounds, it's still official. Several Luftwaffe pilots submitted no claims for planes they shot-down for many reasons varying from didn't think they had to couldn't be bothered with the paper work.

Regards

Johannes

[HGabor]

Nick,
Thank you very much, much appreciated!
Gabor

[knusel]

As I mentioned, I don't think this thread or even the forum in general is the right setting to downgrade Hartmann's score.
Even the Khazanov project though being a diligent attempt, was flawed from the very onset and full of methodical errors, that's why it was chastised so much.
The matter requires a personal meeting of the most renowned specialists that results in a publication based on consensus.
I'm just an aviation fan, a non-professional, but in my profession, recently the prostate carcinoma classfication was refaced this way and now it is accepted by virtually everyone.
Some of your posts mix up opinions with facts, others are full of emotions which decreases their persuasive power.
That's why I prefer to keep on attributing the 352 to Hartmann, knowing very well that he overclaimed more or less than all the other thousands of aces in every nation in every war.

M

[knusel]

Yes.

[Johannes]

Hi Guys

Regarding Hartmann

I think he was an opportunist. His claims to begin with seem fine, then explode in volumn(though he was flying huge numbers of sorties) You can't overclaim without help, and it would appear that certain Staffel were prone to this the 7th and 9th with JG 52, the 6th staffel with JG 5 e.t.c Only 90% of his claims can be checked against anyway as those for 1945 are largely guestimates anyway. You can say that a leopard doesn't change his spots, but I have noticed that many overclaimers fizzle out.....probably because they have fallen in the company of honest guys, usually because they have been transferred. I believe that in the West crash-sites were more usually investigated, so unless your combats are usually over the sea, then there is much higher chance that a claim may not be comfirmed.
Let us not forget that the British and American's overclaimed, especially bomber gunners, for B-17's at one point 20 claims for every lose, though that doesn't make them dis-honest i.e twenty gunners might be firing at a fighter that goes down......they all claim honestly!

Not many an author will say that on such a date such a pilot shot down five Il-2's, but the Sowiets lost none. Apart from JG 5 the Russian fronts units areas did over-lap from time to time making exact claim/lose details hard to put an actual name to.

In fact naming actual fraudsters for an author with only invite fights, it's kind of tabo. Personally I have just got around this by mentioning that a pilots claims match Allied losses well, or he was a honest claimer. But I am a little sad that my childhood heros were only inflating the cost of a Ritterkreuz......there are many a pilot who deserved the Ritterkreuz, but didn't get it because he lacked numbers, numbers that would have brought huge awards from any other Airforce.

Also the Luftwaffe claiming system when American heavies were involved basically gives two claims for every bomber lost ......like Schweinfurt Luftwaffe claims 120 the American's loose sixty. Usually only Luftwaffe aces in the West can be 100% accurately investigated, if honest I would assume they continued this if they went to Russia....but who can accurately say? I would say that an easy honest pilot to check here would be Joachim Müncheberg, so let us investigate him.......instead of arguing.

Kind regards

Johannes

[knusel]

Good morning Johannes,

thanks for your intresting considerations.
Could it contribute to the avoidance of misunderstandings to define terminology more clearly ?
"Confirmed" means in nearly every publication: "approved by the administrative authorities of the ace". It might be wise to use it only in this context.
The other thing is "correlated to an enemy loss" which should receive a separate terminus. However, I'm a non-mothertongue-speaker, and so far don't have a better suggestion than "verified".

Have a nice Wednesday,

Michael