7 Feb 10 -Overclaimers v Reliable Claimers List

[Don Caldwell]

Attention John Beaman --

Hasn't this nonsense gone on long enough to delete this thread? The poor logic, gratuitous insults, and (willful?) misuse of simple English were more common in this forum in years past, and might be expected from non-English speakers in an English-only SIG, but most of this stuff seems to be coming from New York City!!!

Don Caldwell

[Rob Romero]

Full marks for the most spectacular misunderstanding of my previous post . . . . you dived in and attacked the specifics and ignored the real point of the message. . . Preddy was not clairvoyant, of course he claimed 6.

I’m sorry if my response came off as insulting, but my point was that a pilot SHOULD NOT claim a plane as shot down unless they were CERTAIN they had. For instance if the pilot bailed out, the target exploded, there was a catastrophic component failure (i.e., wing or tail shot off) or the plane was SEEN to have hit the ground. I suppose there were instances where a pilot believed that a plane they hit HAD TO have been shot down when it had not, but these would have been comparatively rare, like when some of a bomber’s crew bailed out but the pilot stayed behind in control, or when a burning fighter spun into overcast only to have the flames snuffed out due to the dive (i.e., Robert Johnson), but the fact remains that some pilots were MUCH more accurate in their assesments than others. This was important not only for records, accolades and promotions, but for battle damage assessment by commanders. And if this issue were so unimportant, why would the effort be spent to develop gun camera film. Yes, there were secondary benefits such as the identification of new enemy aircraft types, but the primary motivation was BDA and verification.

poor logic, gratuitous insults, and (willful?) misuse of simple English . . . might be expected from non-English speakers in an English-only SIG, but most of this stuff seems to be coming from New York City!!!

Well that’s a first for me Don, I’ve never been insulted by an author before, especially one I’ve bought books from. Ouch (!) and I’m a teacher; my only excuse is that I teach math! No wonder we’re ranked last in the developed world.
Though I try to make my responses coherent and grammatical, I refuse to be obsessive about it. Well, maybe I should use spell check!

Hasn't this nonsense gone on long enough to delete this thread?

I don’t know but, there seems to be a decent amount of interest in this thread which revolves around a LEGITIMATE issue. Quite a few have read it and there have been quite a few responses.

[Nikita Egorov]

What should we do with the registered losses but absent claims that should correspond them?-))

I understand Rob in his wish to simplify the problem by tighting each ace to the certain percentage. It would be very nice if there were no misidentifications, duplicated kills, wrong timing, misprints, "neck itching", losses balancing and many other things that consitute a real headache of any researcher.
In this case I suggest that we should, while stating something serious, back it with references to first hand documents that everybody could cross check this in the archive and confirm that the particular case at issue was researched in full scope.

John, in my opinion every plane that was excluded of the unit's inventory list (sent to repair facilities, factory), due damage received in air combat and could not be repaired by unit's repair team should be counted as a justified kill to the enemy pilot responsible for bringing it down. There are many such cases on the Eastern front, and if we reject this we deprive German aces of some of their confirmed victories...

[John Beaman]

Originally Posted by Don Caldwell

Attention John Beaman --

Hasn't this nonsense gone on long enough to delete this thread? The poor logic, gratuitous insults, and (willful?) misuse of simple English were more common in this forum in years past, and might be expected from non-English speakers in an English-only SIG, but most of this stuff seems to be coming from New York City!!!

Don Caldwell

Hi Don:

The Forum ends to take a rather liberal view on the long term value of threads such as this. As stated, it still has some interest to many.

Also, you do not have to open the thread if it offends you.

[Don Caldwell]

John --

I see very little long term value in this thread, but that's a matter of opinion. Many of the participants seem to treat their very serious subject as a game, which can lower the overall reputation of the forum, but again, that's my opinion. I hate to pass threads by, as I hope to either learn from or contribute to any of them, but that's impossible with this particular one.

Rob –

You’re the person who started this thread and pops in from time to time to stir things up, so yes, I was talking about you. Your reply to John was so totally illogical that it’s obvious (to me) that you still lack a fundamental understanding of why and how victory claims were recorded and confirmed, despite repeated attempts by our more patient members to educate you. (Preddy should have been given a victory credit for an aircraft that was scrapped after returning to base damaged? By whom, for heaven’s sake, and using what data? And just as important, why?) Most people who contribute data to this forum have either made a good faith effort to verify it or have come across something they don’t understand and are asking others for their help. I’ve made much use of the data I’ve found here. However, your table of overclaimers is of zero historical value. It is nearly all allegation and rumor and will never be used in a legitimate publication. Questions on the sources of your data have to the best of my knowledge gone unanswered. Furthermore, despite your addition of the word “alleged”, your charges are insulting to the memories of the deceased, who are not in a position to defend themselves. Preparation of your table can’t be considered an innocent hobby like trainspotting, because it results in calling men who were normal products of their time “liars” and “untruthful”. Overclaim ratios differed in different air forces, theaters, time periods, and units, and calling a pilot “untruthful” whose claims were found acceptable in his Staffel or squadron is grossly unfair.
Several of us have pointed out that the entire subject of victory claims and their veracity was of relatively little importance during WWII, as hard as that may be to believe today. "100% accuracy" was unattainable and unneeded. Aerial victories were important for the morale of aggressive, ambitious young fighter pilots and the home front, but they in no way helped determine the winner of the war, and are of secondary importance to historians, who consider losses, not claims, "real" data. Overclaiming was often handled by higher commands in a surprisingly sophisticated manner. My best example is the comparision of JG 2 with JG 26 from the BoB to D-Day. JG 2’s confirmed claims always exceeded those of JG 26, even though it was kept to the west of JG 26, out of the major route of both the RAF in 1941-42 and the USAAF in 1943-44, and had fewer engagements and opportunities to score. Why was JG 26 given the prize position in the theater and not JG 2? Berlin had to have known the truth about the victories being obtained by the two unts – and Göring came close to telling JG 26 exactly that, if the JG 26 veterans can be believed. Overclaiming in WWII did result in bad strategic decisions in a few cases – e.g., by the Luftwaffe in the BoB and the IJN in the Marianas – but for the most part was kept under control by verification procedures, (yes) gun cameras, and review boards.
The quality of victory claim records was typical of that of all WWII mililtary records. Ask anyone who has spent any time researching primary records in the archives of any of the combatants. Errors are rampant among the reams of reports that were generated on every base, every day, and since victory documents were not handled by a special team of “ace” clerks, any statement of how a claim “should have” been handled is naïve.
Finally, this thread is indeed active, and since it’s “clean” – no slander of participants is allowed – that’s an adequate reason not to delete it. But most of the contributions can be summarized as, “Hey, let’s see which dead guy we can call a liar today”, which I find sad.

Don Caldwell

[ahafan]

Originally Posted by Don Caldwell

Attention John Beaman --

Hasn't this nonsense gone on long enough to delete this thread? The poor logic, gratuitous insults, and (willful?) misuse of simple English were more common in this forum in years past, and might be expected from non-English speakers in an English-only SIG, but most of this stuff seems to be coming from New York City!!!

Don Caldwell

well with your so down to earth attitudes, I guess i wont be buyin any more books off you.or anybody ele,jumped up mr perfects.. who seem fit that I thought the Nazis were long dead..that been so so, perfect..has too be written like a true Pro- well I will leave that too you.an others..
who be only Ones left here..talk as much rubbish as you like...
One word, NUTS!!
Luvvy;

[Jim P.]

Come on, a quote from a movie? Some contrived dialog to move the 'story'? ' The 'Blue Max' is not a documentary, and while I agree it's nice movie, it's just that, a movie, entertainment, artificial reality. It has absolutely no basis in fact to be used for judging real life and death combat, aerial or otherwise - not unless we want to see some well known movie stars really put themselves in harms way to flame and burn. Ben Affleck and 'Pearl Harbor' come to mind in a "I only wish" sorta way. I'm out.

[ahafan]

Originally Posted by Jim P.

Come on, a quote from a movie? Some contrived dialog to move the 'story'? ' The 'Blue Max' is not a documentary, and while I agree it's nice movie, it's just that, a movie, entertainment, artificial reality. It has absolutely no basis in fact to be used for judging real life and death combat, aerial or otherwise - not unless we want to see some well known movie stars really put themselves in harms way to flame and burn. Ben Affleck and 'Pearl Harbor' come to mind in a "I only wish" sorta way. I'm out.

lol hello'
No-am I right, No wittneses -no confirm ..rules of air war..any..
glad you liked my pun.;
sharon

[GMichalski]

Hi to all,
I think the topic of this conversation deviates from the initial idea that was to complete the list with more pilots providing details and sources.
Discussions and reviews of this topic will continue for a long time .... as the years that have been talking about the claims of Hartmann.....
it´s only a proposal...
regards

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by GMichalski

Hi to all,
I think the topic of this conversation deviates from the initial idea that was to complete the list with more pilots providing details and sources.

I agree and suggest that any further posts on this thread would best be confined to specific questions and/or research findings about specific claims and losses — evidence instead of vehement opinions.