Erich Hartmann - several questions

[Andreas Brekken]

Hello, all

I have reread mr Zampinis messages and moderated myself a bit here... originally I was going to be quite harsh but I realize that this would be uncalled for, but

I realize that you have no experience in researching the Luftwaffe loss records first hand.

Two important points:

1. If an aircraft sustained what the inspection of the damaged aircraft by technical personnel deemed as below 10% damage - in most cases this ment that the aircraft could be restored to operational status by the technical personnel and facilities available to the 'halter' (meaning unit it was assigned to) - this loss would not be recorded. (I wonder when people will start understanding this VERY simple concept)

2. If the people inside the aircraft - the so-called crew members for those not yet familiar with the concept... - where not injured, killed or reported as missing - you will not have their name recorded in conjunction to a loss at all - if you do not for some reason or another have access to for example diaries or other secondary sources were this is noted.

Judging that Nowotny's loss is not recorded by a list (even if it was very well researched) is not conclusive.

I have recorded close to 270 individual FW 190 losses for JG 54 in 1943 - and we would have to thoroughly research all of these + the ones that occured so late in 1943 that they are listed in the records for 1944 that are missing before we can conclude.

Also - regarding your angle with regards to politics and the loss records:

The loss records we usually refer to was never part of the propaganda machine. The unit responsible for it was a data collections unit that put together and analyzed reported losses from all units in order to feed statistics of the command chain at high level, to make them able to make decisions based on the situation as reported by their subordinated units. In addition they kept tabs on personnell losses - and assisted with regards to have correct forms produced in order to get information sent on to the next of kin when a person was killed in action or went missing (forms still kept at the WASt today). I have put a long article on this unit (of which I have large parts of their remaining records as a unit - not what they produced) on hold, but I see that it is necessary to finish and publish it.

I am sure that there are gaps, as is natural! Looking at for example the situation on the eastern front where we have examples of loss records for aircraft destroyed by tanks and infantry while the flying personnel were trying to evacuate, it was probably not necessarily to write down the Werknummer of the unservicable Bf 109 parked in a blast pen that was on your mind!

But to draw a line between that situation on the ground and the conclusion that the Luftwaffe Generalquartiermeister 'doctored' the records for political reasons is nonsence. If records are missing - fine - they never reached their intended recipient - the people that should deliver it were killed, the records destroyed because a train or aircraft were blown to pieces... in stead of trying to discredit the 'Luftwaffe' or 'the German people' as a whole, try to add to research by producing additional evidence with regards to a specific incident. And evidence is in my opinion not something read in a softcover book produced using other books as sources...

I have for some time believed that it will be possible, communicating with people on this board like Dénes, Nikita and a lot of others (none mentioned none forgotten), to get to the point were the research of the second world war will be about facts and trying to establish them as close as we can get without being there with cameras and notebooks (of course embedded in a nondestructible body armor that will allow us to observe without being harmed) - and not about winning some political discussion about it. Other times I stop believing...

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 and keep up the good work all of you - and mr. Zampini do not get me wrong - keep up asking questions - maybe the most important part of this work - as long as one is willing to accept the answers with an open mind.

Regards,
Andreas B

[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

[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