Hartmann: claims vs. victories

[Johannes]

Hi Gabor

Agreed, the claim for 8th May 1945 should be easily investigated due to the location be so specific.

However where does this claim come from, Toliver/Constable, this books portrayal of Hartmann is riddled with inaccurate tales, like four Il-2's being bought down due to one shot, all those Mustangs, so much detail was put into it. So did Hartmann tale these tales, or did the authors make it up? We do know that Hartmann made-up official tales if his claims are anything to go by.

I acquired a flugbuch of a pilot taken prisoner during 1940, I had him down with a few "kills" but his flugbuch showed about another ten, unconfirmed? not so.they look like they were added in later i.e this pilot(has motive) or somebody else who had acquired the flugbuch added them in !......strange World isn't it.

All the best

Johannes

[HGabor]

Hi Folks,
Just checking Erich Hartmann’s six P-39 Aerocobra ‘victories’ on June 4, 1944. It is believed (http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showpo...99&postcount=4), that his No.249 and No.250 victories were Maj. B. B. Gakhaet's and Leytenant Nikolay L. Trofimov's planes from the famous 16 GvIAP:

244: 4.6.1944 15:10 P-39 9./JG 52 78 733: at 1.500m
245: 4.6.1944 15:25 LaGG 9./JG 52 78 595: at 200m
246: 4.6.1944 17:13 P-39 9./JG 52 78 596: at 2.000m
247: 4.6.1944 17:23 P-39 9./JG 52 78 591: at 2.500m
248: 4.6.1944 17:53 P-39 9./JG 52 78 590: at 2.000m
249: 4.6.1944 18:15 P-39 9./JG 52 78 565: at 2.000m
250: 4.6.1944 18:18 P-39 9./JG 52 78 560: at 2.000m

Well, reading the combat diary of 16 GvIAP for June 4, 1944 I should slightly disagree with that. In the diary we can found the following info for June 4, 1944:

Single sortie between 11:55-12:15 (Moscow time), 1 Aerocobra (Torbeev), returned OK.

Mission #1 between 12:46-13:38 (Moscow time), 8 Aerocobras in the Larga area, covering soviet ground troops at 1500 m. (Fedorov, Lihachev, Torbeev, Statsenko, Starchikov, Novikov, Nikitin, Belozherov) Combat with 8 Fw 190, 2 Bf 109 - No losses.

3 single (training) sorties between 14:40-15:15 (Moscow time), No losses. (Koryaev 2x, Onishenko 1x)

Mission #2 between 16:25-17:30 (Moscow time), 10 Aerocobras in the Larga area between 1500-2500 m. (Klubov, Ivankov, Trofimov, Ketov, Ivashko, Berezhkin, Sukhov, Dushanin, Glinka, Vahnenko) Combat with 15 Ju 88, 14 Me 109, 12 Fw 190. Capt. Klubov downed an Me 109 at Redich (Dedich?), while Ivashko at Bogonos. 1 Ju 88 and 3 Fw 190s (by Glinka, Trofimov, …) were also claimed. Consumed ammo: 129 37mm, 940 12.7mm, 6529 7.62mm rounds. On the other hand 3 soviet Aerocobras were damaged:

Gv.Ml.Lt. Vladimir Vasilevich Dushanin (1922): damaged and force landed at Probota-E, 500 m
Gv.St.Lt. Alexandr Romanovich Ivashko (1922): got a large hole in left wing.
Gv.Ml.Lt. Petr Vasilevich Ketov (1922): engine & radiator damaged by flak. All repaired, but perhaps a ‘force landing’ can be considered an ‘aerial victory’.

Mission #3 between 18:20-19:15 (Moscow time), 8 Aerocobras in the Larga area. (Starchikov, Novikov, Torbeev, Statsenko, Ivanov, Onishenkov, Nikitin, Belozerov) Combat with 6 Fw 190, 4 Bf 109 at 2500 m. St.Lt. Nikolaii Alexeevich Starchikov downed a Fw 190, which fell at Movileni(?)–SE, 3 km. St.Lt. Grigorii Grigorevich Statsenko got damaged, but hit another one. Consumed ammo: 95 37mm, 950 12.7mm and 1400 7.62mm rounds. No soviet losses!

As you can see, Trofimov is mentioned indeed in the 2nd mission, but not as a victim, but rather a victory claimer! (Interestingly Gakhaet is not mentioned anywhere in the diary, only Gv.Maj. Glinka - so Gakhaet was probably just a typo. But they were NOT shot down by anyone, especially not by Hartmann!)

But beside the 16 GvIAP, the 5 VA, 7 IAK units (having 104 Aerocobras on June 4, 1944) also flew P-39 in the area. Their combat reports are similar to the 16 GvIAP:

205 IAD:
508 IAP – no losses
438 IAP – no losses
129 GvIAP – no losses

304 IAD (only 4 sorties), IAD HQ: 1 sortie
9 IAP – no sorties/no losses
69 GvIAP – no losses, 1 sortie
21 GvIAP – no losses, 2 sorties

At the end of the day, the 5 VA reported the following losses:
Dogfight: 1 Yak-9, 1 IL-2
Flak: 4 IL-2
Missing: 2 IL-2, 9 Yak-9, 2 Aerocobras

Since the detailed combat reports do not reveal permanent Aerocobra losses this day, only the 5 VA summary report (2 P-39s), thus they were probably just two temporary losses (which landed somewhere else, not back at their base) and got repaired later.

Long story in short: Erich Hartmann’s six P-39 ‘victories’ (#244, #246, #247, #248, #249, #250) on June 4, 1944 were most likely just damaged planes (not destroyed ones), which later returned to combat service. If we consider the force landed planes as ‘victories’, then max. 1-2 victories vs. 4 overclaims, - however the times of Hartmann’s claims and the soviet missions are a bit different.

This ratio (again) matches Hartmann’s max. ~30% reliability.

Gabor

[Broncazonk]

Originally Posted by HGabor

Long story in short: Erich Hartmann’s six P-39 ‘victories’ (#244, #246, #247, #248, #249, #250) on June 4, 1944 were most likely just damaged planes (not destroyed ones), which later returned to combat service. If we consider the force landed planes as ‘victories’, then max. 1-2 victories vs. 4 overclaims, - however the times of Hartmann’s claims and the soviet missions are a bit different.

This ratio (again) matches Hartmann’s max. ~30% reliability.

Gabor

In my opinion, this latest research supports my, "boom and zoom" hypothesis, that being, Hartmann was claiming one pass, boom and zoom engagements as victories. Visualize Hartmann (and a trusted wingman) diving to engage Russian aircraft, full power, rocketing out of the sky, guns blazing for one pass--one pass only--then zooming clear and away to safety.

As they look back the Russian aircraft is smoking and in a dive: that's a kill.

Going back to confirm the kill or mixing it up with the other Russian guys was a darn good way to die.

Except for his wingman he was outnumbered 3-5-7-10 to 1 most of the time, outnumbered and alone on a free hunt, correct?

How else do you go into combat every single day, and usually multiple times a day, being outnumbered 3-5-7-10 to 1 most of the time and survive? Boom and zoom is the only way--and hanging around to confirm a kill was a sucker's bet.

Thoughts?

Bronc

[NickM]

Originally Posted by Broncazonk

In my opinion, this latest research supports my, "boom and zoom" hypothesis, that being, Hartmann was claiming one pass, boom and zoom engagements as victories. Visualize Hartmann (and a trusted wingman) diving to engage Russian aircraft, full power, rocketing out of the sky, guns blazing for one pass--one pass only--then zooming clear and away to safety.

As they look back the Russian aircraft is smoking and in a dive: that's a kill.

Going back to confirm the kill or mixing it up with the other Russian guys was a darn good way to die.

Except for his wingman he was outnumbered 3-5-7-10 to 1 most of the time, outnumbered and alone on a free hunt, correct?

How else do you go into combat every single day, and usually multiple times a day, being outnumbered 3-5-7-10 to 1 most of the time and survive? Boom and zoom is the only way--and hanging around to confirm a kill was a sucker's bet.

Thoughts?

Bronc

It makes sense; similarly Chris Shores reports on his current volumes of The Med Air War Some vics by Marseilles were probably 'damaged' (given his confidence in his abilities, if he hit it, it must have gone down) with mg fire but then another I/JG27 experte also dove it and got in his licks as well--so they both got credit.

Anyway, per the memoirs of Helmut Lipfert, VERY late in the war, he saw that Hartmann waited 'upstairs' and watched the local fighter patrols flying aircover over a fixed point; when the patrols reached the point they needed to turn and head back the other direction, it was felt the pilots were more concerned about keeping formation and avoiding collisions when making those turns, so that's when he'd dive down to shoot then return to altitude to either wait for another chance or slip away in the ensuing chaos.

[HGabor]

Bronc, I think you are correct. With an instant ambush it was next to impossible to verify the results. Even a few 'very visual' hits were not enough to down a plane. This is why about 70% of Hartmann's so called 'victories' turn out to be just damaged ones. Lipfert eg. knew, that just to damage an enemy plane was already a huge achievement in itself. Three 'real' air-to-air victories a day was an extraordinary and unusual success for any pilot. This is why I am still amazed that despite of this, generations truly believed the repeated six or more air-to-air victories for Hartmann... General rule: victories can/should ultimately be confirmed by the verified losses of the opponent side, not by the reported claims of your own. (For any sides, of course.)

Gabor

[NickM]

Originally Posted by HGabor

Bronc, I think you are correct. With an instant ambush it was next to impossible to verify the results. Even a few 'very visual' hits were not enough to down a plane. This is why about 70% of Hartmann's so called 'victories' turn out to be just damaged ones. Lipfert eg. knew, that just to damage an enemy plane was already a huge achievement in itself. Three 'real' air-to-air victories a day was an extraordinary and unusual success for any pilot. This is why I am still amazed that despite of this, generations truly believed the repeated six or more air-to-air victories for Hartmann... General rule: victories can/should ultimately be confirmed by the verified losses of the opponent side, not by the reported claims of your own. (For any sides, of course.)

Gabor

It gets even more confusing when you have a very rugged aircraft (say a Grumman F4F, P40 or P47) vs a lightly armed aircraft (say a Mc202 or a Ki43, or even a early mark of Zero), especially when you're evasive action of choice is dive like hell at full throttle-all the opponent has time to see is an aircraft diving like it's out of control, streaming black smoke (exhausts?) after being hit. I think Lundstrom 'First Team' recounted a Coral Sea dogfight where a F4F pilot got jumped; dove away then climbed back up into the fight several times. He survived but multiple Zero pilots claimed a shot down 'Grumman' in each encounter.

[Faenor]

Hi Gabor,

I really appreciate your work and information sharing on this forum! Really good job with lot of information and history.

In your review, there is this info:

Missing: 2 IL-2, 9 Yak-9, 2 Aerocobras

How was these 2 Aerocobras lost and do you have some info about Yak-9?

Can be some of this losses linked to Hartmann victory or other german pilot?

Thanks

FAenor

[Johannes]

"Boom and Zoom", what you are basically saying is that Hartmann thought he had made a "Kill", but both he and more so his wingmen did not follow protocol regarding making a claim, this dictates that actual witnessing the crash had been made. Friedrich Obleser we(Bernd Barbas) questioned him about the lack of mikrofilm evidence of his USAAF claims he supposedly made, his reply was "I was in such danger myself that I didn't wait around to witness the crash".... therefore he submitted no official claim. Though I cannot really find any evidence that Hartmann had a "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine" thing going whilst famous, or earlier on in his claiming, there is a marked period in mid-1943 that I would say he could have, and probably did employ this method. Mostly during his fame he alone is claiming, therefore this method could not have been employed, well unless some other form of bribery was employed.

With Walter Nowotny the "scratch" method was employed practically throughout his claiming, no thinking they had crashed! As A Kommandeur he just used an old wingman from his previous staffel, not so with Hartmann.

Kind Regards

Johannes

[rof120]

[quote=Faenor;297776]Hi Gabor,



Missing: 2 IL-2, 9 Yak-9, 2 Aerocobras

How was these 2 Aerocobras lost ...

Hie Faenor, I am not trying to educate you or something. This fighter-type was called Airacobra in the country which produced it but I don't know whether this name was entirely "respected" in the USSR or not: perhaps they did change it a little.

I wrote this because you and other people could have some difficulties when using a search engine in order to get more details, the first syllable not being the same in both cases: Aira vs Aero.

[rof120]

[quote=Faenor;297776]Hi Gabor,



Missing: 2 IL-2, 9 Yak-9, 2 Aerocobras

How was these 2 Aerocobras lost ...

Hie Faenor, I am not trying to educate you or something. This fighter-type was called Airacobra in the country which produced it but I don't know whether this name was entirely "respected" in the USSR or not: perhaps they did change it a little.

I wrote this because you and other people could have some difficulties when using a search engine in order to get more details, the first syllable not being the same in both cases: Aira vs Aero.