German overclaims in the East. Hartmann and others...

[Broncazonk]

In the construction of an evidentiary case, circumstantial evidence is often used to assess the credibility of direct evidence. Thus, it is unnecessary to have direct evidence of whether IAP, BAP, ShAP (or other units) or the name any air unit commander who acted in this way, as a circumstantial case can be made suggesting they all acted this way.

1) The state of mind of Soviet commanders is a probative element of circumstantial evidence. In this case, it is universally understood that the state of mind of Soviet commanders was fear, fear of dismissal, purge and execution. (The Germans were the least of their fears.) Thus, based on the fear of death, a motive can be found to finesse reports and records.

2) The course of prior conduct of Soviet commanders is also probative. In this case, it is well documented that many Soviet commanders finessed their reports and records.

3) An opinion as to credibility of Soviet records and reports is also admissible, if that opinion is made by persons with knowledge. In this case, the general consensus of historians with knowledge is that Soviet records and reports are not credible.

In this case, there is direct evidence of German claims, and there is direct evidence (in Russian reports and records) that German claims are not truthful. The circumstantial evidence (1-3 above) suggests that Soviet records may not be credible.

On the other hand, there is no countervailing evidence (The same factors listed in 1-3 above) that suggests that German records were not credible.

There is other circumstantial evidence to suggest some German claims were incorrect however, and these have be discussed above.

mars has already provided the answer, "...in WWII, the claim system of ALL AIRFORCE were not accurate, it was common for all WWII airforce that their over-claim rate reached the level of 3:1 or 4:1, the Luftwaffe was not an exception."

And to condemn a single noteworthy German pilot for this is unfair.

Bronc

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Originally Posted by Juha

The first Bf 110 recovered from Far North SU in 1980s or early 90s was found to be hit by MG fire into an engine even if officially lost to mechanical troubles. The pilot had survived the war and was still alive and when asked admitted that the plane was shot down by Soviet AA but under pressure from his superiors he had agreed to wrote down into his combat report the reason of the loss "engine failure".
Juha

Hello Juha,

It seems strange a bit. What is a reason for the "superiors" to hide the combat loss and replace it by engine failure?

Some Russian air war history fans believes that that "everybody lied in the Luftwaffe, e-v-e-r-y-b-o-d-y" (as written by forum member Broncazonk about the Soviet Union), but I thought before what it is hyperbolic a bit

In the Soviet Air Forces the situation was inverse - less problem for the commander to report about combat loss than about technical failure or the loss due to human error. But anyway, all losses were counted and cross-checking proves the picture (my experiense from researching the documents about Kuban Air Battles 1943, Kerch-Eltigen operation 1943 and Moonsund operation 1944).

Best regards,
Andrey

[Juha]

Hello Andrey
the reason was that orders had came from Oslo or Berlin that units up North had to try to spare their planes and low level attacks against trains on the Murmansk raiway were banned. The local commanders thought that those low level attacks were effective and decided to continue them and the 110 was hit during a low level attack against a train. So to hide their disobeyance the pilot was ordered to lie the reason for the loss by his CO.

Juha

[Andrey Kuznetsov]

Thank you, Juha! So it was a specific situation.

Andrey

[Juha]

Originally Posted by Broncazonk

In the construction of an evidentiary case, circumstantial evidence is often used to assess the credibility of direct evidence. Thus, it is unnecessary to have direct evidence of whether IAP, BAP, ShAP (or other units) or the name any air unit commander who acted in this way, as a circumstantial case can be made suggesting they all acted this way.

1) The state of mind of Soviet commanders is a probative element of circumstantial evidence. In this case, it is universally understood that the state of mind of Soviet commanders was fear, fear of dismissal, purge and execution. (The Germans were the least of their fears.) Thus, based on the fear of death, a motive can be found to finesse reports and records.

2) The course of prior conduct of Soviet commanders is also probative. In this case, it is well documented that many Soviet commanders finessed their reports and records.

3) An opinion as to credibility of Soviet records and reports is also admissible, if that opinion is made by persons with knowledge. In this case, the general consensus of historians with knowledge is that Soviet records and reports are not credible.

In this case, there is direct evidence of German claims, and there is direct evidence (in Russian reports and records) that German claims are not truthful. The circumstantial evidence (1-3 above) suggests that Soviet records may not be credible.

On the other hand, there is no countervailing evidence (The same factors listed in 1-3 above) that suggests that German records were not credible.

There is other circumstantial evidence to suggest some German claims were incorrect however, and these have be discussed above.

mars has already provided the answer, "...in WWII, the claim system of ALL AIRFORCE were not accurate, it was common for all WWII airforce that their over-claim rate reached the level of 3:1 or 4:1, the Luftwaffe was not an exception."

And to condemn a single noteworthy German pilot for this is unfair.

Bronc

Hello Bronc
First of all people reacted differently, some commanders who had suffered in the hands of NKVD became rather timid but not all, look e.g. Konstantin Rokossovsky, who spent a couple years in prison after being heavily tortured by NKVD in 1937, was after his release still a hard and stubborn man, who was not afraid to argue with even Stalin if he disagree with him on important military matters.

And its rather odd that claims of some LW, FiAF and Hungarian aces tally much better with the Soviet loss records than claims of some others. If ALL Soviet records were "finessed" how that was possible?

I'd not argue on this anymore but I hope that you'll try to acquire at least some basic knowledge on VVS documentation systems before making more sweeping claims on it.

Juha

[Juha]

Originally Posted by Andrey Kuznetsov

Thank you, Juha! So it was a specific situation.

Andrey

Yes

Juha

[Broncazonk]

Please understand that my posts on this subject were made to demonstrate the dangerous futility of this research topic. My comments were intentionally expansive and provocative, and beyond what one would normally expect in normal discourse of this forum. I apologize for the unusual tact, but for the exercise to succeed I could not disclose that I was using this debate technique.

Robert = Bronc

[Rob Romero]

Discussion on Japanese overclaimers as well as others including Billy Bishop who may have been the most egregious ever with perhaps 0 of 72 claims Historically Verified (though other more generous researchers suggest as many as 20)!

Canadian Billy Bishop, holder of the Victoria Cross. With 72 claimed (and generally accepted) victories, he was the top RAF ace in WWI. The late Ed Ferko, one of the most respected researchers in the field, using all surviving German records, letters, memoirs etc., "failed to match a single victory claim made by Bishop against a known German loss for the day, time, and place in question." Nor could the feat the won him the Victoria Cross be confirmed in any German source. See Alex Revell's "Victoria Cross: WWI Airmen and Their Aircraft" (1997), 23-27

http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=14376.0

[Nick Hector]

(Sigh and yawn, yawn and sigh) Once again, Fred Nurke says something on this other forum or Joe Bloggs says something on that other forum and Rob Romero serves up

h e a r s a y

as if it were

f a c t s

with ultimately nothing real proven.
...It's getting old, friendo.

How about doing some of your own research into individual combats and then posting what you find? That would surely make for interesting and for more constructive reading.

Additionally, none of the aces in the other forum's quote that you quoted had anything to do with the Luftwaffe.

Be as offended as you like. I'm happy to risk having the moderators get mad at me if they think I have overstepped the mark here...

[GMichalski]

Hi to all,

i check some claims of Hungarian pilots and i see that E. Hartmann flew as wingman with László Pottyondy on 17 november 44, this day both pilots claimed a Boston:

Erich Hartmann

17,11.44 7./JG 52 Hptm Boston III raum 25km südöstlich Budapest 25km SE Budapest 1425 2000 E J 316

László Pottyondy
17.11.44 . Cpt Boston Me 109G 102/2 FS CO Ocsa 7

In Osprey - Aircraft of the Aces Series Nº 50 Hungarian Aces says that Hartmann victim crashed near Erzsébetfalva (Pesterzsébet?) and Pottyondy victim near Ocsa


anyone can add more information? probable victims...

many thanks,
regards