Erich Hartmann: verifiable claims

[HGabor]

More for Hartmann:

328: OVERCLAIM - 5.12.1944 13:20 LaGG-5 4./JG 52 98 419: at 1.200m
329: OVERCLAIM - 5.12.1944 13:25 LaGG-5 4./JG 52 98 278: at 1.000m (One 486 IAP La-5FN loss (S/N: 39212724, Snagovskii KIA) at 11:55 over Ercsi- too big difference. A recce. La-5 pair against 6 Fw 190s. 2nd La-5FN (S/N: 39211776) of 177 GvIAP (pilot: Vereshak) was downed around 14:05 in dogfight/flak.)
330: OVERCLAIM - 9.12.1944 13:10 Yak-9 4./JG 52 88 683: at 2.000m
331: ???, probably OVERCLAIM - 9.12.1944 13:20 Yak-9 4./JG 52 88 694: at 2.000m (2 Yak-9 losses of 513 IAP, but one was a landing accident in soft soil at 13:20 after IL-2 escort (Fokin, Yak-9D, S/N: 19166063), the other one (Fedosov, Yak-9M, S/N: 2515361) was downed at 13:50 by flak. 513 IAP also lost one of their Po-2 messenger biplanes: S/N: 640314, pilot: Durakhov. All 3 pilots were OK. 150 GvIAP lost a Yak-3 after Baracska mission at 1000 m against 20 Fw 190s on landing at their airfield: S/N: 2329218 at 14:50, pilot: Kamanian was unhurt.)

Gabor

[harrison987]

Interesting stuff...

But does any of this really matter?

I mean...what is the point?

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by harrison987

Interesting stuff...

But does any of this really matter?

I mean...what is the point?

To me it matters to establish what really happened. I realise it won't change the outcome of the war but we may understand it a little better.

[HGabor]

But then how could they verify most claims of certain, really honest pilots and 'select' and then change the losses linked to eg. Hartmann? I don't think they knew all the time where Hartmann was. Selective approval/change of the loss reports for some opponent pilots just doesn't seem to be realistic to me.
Gabor

[Broncazonk]

Originally Posted by HGabor

Maybe, maybe, but this leads too far and I am not in a position to make justice here. I can only use what is written. But then how could they verify most claims of certain, really honest pilots and 'select' and then change the losses linked to eg. Hartmann? I don't think they knew all the time where Hartmann was. Selective approval/change of the loss reports for some opponent pilots just doesn't seem to be realistic to me. Gabor

I appreciate all of that, and agree. And this is why I think we need a team working on this, a working group of experts who can address all of these tangential issues.

It's pretty clear there is more to the Hartmann story, perhaps 10-percent of it has been told.

Is there a possibility that Hartmann's over claims were part of a Luftwaffe propaganda effort?

Bronc

[HGabor]

Yes, there could be a still unknown Luftwaffe propaganda-effort to keep up the fighting moral, by creating a 'Superhero', like: "Gott (und Hartmann) mit Uns" :-))) to which Hartmann has willingly/unwillingly assisted. If so, there is still a lot to discover. (I do not know this, I am just guessing...!) But it is very unlikely that the war propaganda machine has worked with full speed only on the soviet side and hasn't on the German side.

Gabor

[Juha]

While Soviets had a good radio intelligence service, and they knew lot on enemy aces and might well have picked up many of the Hartmann’s wingman’s confirmation messages, but does anyone believe that the commissars in 1940s believed that in one day Western researchers or as Soviets termed them in late 60s anf 70s "bourgeois history falsifiers" will be able to visit their archives? And that Soviets had interest to shift through their combat and loss records just in case to blacken Hartmann’s reputation 60-70 years later, but not that of e.g. Lipfert’s. One must remember that Hartmann was only 6th LW ace to achieve his 200th kill in early 1944, before that he probably wasn’t so special to Soviets before that. And Egorov’s article shows that Hartmann wasn’t especially accurate claimer even before his 200th kill.


Juha

[Broncazonk]

Hartmann religiously utilized a four-part method for engaging enemy aircraft: (1) Locate, (2) Decide (whether it was safe and prudent to attack), Attack (from behind with surprise), (4) Break away. As best as I can determine, Hartmann did not believe in dogfighting anything, or anyone, at any time, anywhere.

The hit and run, boom and zoom, break away approach to aerial combat maximizes your chances at survival, but it minimizes your time and opportunity to gain and verify a victory. Maybe Hartmann and his wingmen got into the habit of breaking away after the first squirt? The opposing aircraft nearly always went directionally downward after something like that...

---> Has anyone actually read any of Hartmann's reports or claims? What was he actually saying in them??

Wish we knew more...

Bronc

[Jim Oxley]

Another aspect that should be considered is that, if Hartman's score is placed under such scrutiny, then so to should all the other Luftwaffe aces in the 200+ bracket.

Is the goal to re-write the history books? Or to see who in fact was the highest scoring Luftwaffe ace? Surely not just a Hartman witch hunt.

It would be doing everyone a disservice if Barkhorn, Rall, Kittel, Nowotny, Batz, Rudorffer, Bar, Graf and other's claims were not also given the same intense analysis and match-up to Soviet losses.

[Juha]

Originally Posted by Jim Oxley

Another aspect that should be considered is that, if Hartman's score is placed under such scrutiny, then so to should all the other Luftwaffe aces in the 200+ bracket.

Is the goal to re-write the history books? Or to see who in fact was the highest scoring Luftwaffe ace? Surely not just a Hartman witch hunt.

It would be doing everyone a disservice if Barkhorn, Rall, Kittel, Nowotny, Batz, Rudorffer, Bar, Graf and other's claims were not also given the same intense analysis and match-up to Soviet losses.

In fact we have already talked on Nowotny's early claims and problems with some of Rudorffer's claims. Also on Lipfert's claims and Gabor has wrote on German claims over Hungary in 1944/45 incl. Düttmann's claims etc.

juha