Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz

[Nick Hector]

I'm with Michael (Nokose), let's try to help Johannes with his query.

I'll share some assistance comprising first a look at Stotz's opponents up until serving with Hahn, then a look at BOTH their opponents. I am indebted to the Tony Wood lists and Johannes' books plus Christer Bergstroem's work in trying to get this mapped out. It hope it helps somewhat to answer the original question of the thread:
Stotz's early opponents:


6.11.39
Blenheim I
Frankfurt area/Voelklingen
Possibly L1145/DX- of 57 sqn. P/O Alexander Donald Morton, Sgt. G Storr and AC1 F A Twinning all KIA (Generally attributed to Frank-Werner Rott of 3./JG 53)

14.5.40/1615
2 x Battle I
Sedan
Stotz is generally credited with P2182 of 150 sqn. P/O J Boon, Sgt. T Fortune and AC1 S Martin all KIA
3.6.40/1520
Hurricane I ("Curtiss Hawk")
W of Epernay
73 sqn. Severe overclaiming, only one loss: Serial unknown of P/O Ian Douglas Hawken KIA
(Versus five claims)

6.6.40/2100
2 x Curtiss Hawk
NW of Amiens
Stotz is generally credited with No. 124 of GC I/4. S/Lt. H de La Taille-Tretinville baled out but KIA because chute failed (slight overclaiming)

11.8.41/1540
13 KOAE. Lt. I S Chabukiani
(Also claimed by Philipp)

We then come to the claims described by Michael (Nokose), no need to duplicate those here

9.8.42/1015 and 1017
2 x Pe-2s (plus one claimed by Ofw. Paul Finkler)
793 BBAP, 211 BBAD, 3 VA. Crews of Mladshiy Leytenant Avdokhin, Serzhants Aleksey Volynchchikov and Ivan Moiseev all MIA
(3 claims for 3 losses)
10.8.42/1340, 1341 and 1342
3 x LaGG-3s
Staritsa-Rzhev
157 IAP. Two of the Hurricanes received 2-4 machine gun holes with Serzhant Voloshin WIA (right leg). Conflicting source says this was 163 IAP, Vladimir Fedorovich Timofeenko (2+7 shared victories)

10.8.42/1415
IL-2 Sturmovik
15km NE of Konaja (PQ 46254) @ low altitude
312 ShAP. Leytenants Vasiliy Khomyakov and Prokopiy Bushuev both failed to return
(other loss was inflicted by Stendel of JG 51)
16.8.42/0738 and 0741
2 x La-5s (the second was misidentified as a Curtiss P-40)
Golovskoye-Sukhinikhi
49 IAP, 309 IAD, 1 VA. Three losses, personnel details pending
(versus 5 claims in total)

19.8.42/1345 and 1347
2 x La-5s (misidentified as “Curtiss P-40s”)
S of Sukhinikhi
49 IAP, 309 IAD, 1 VA. Legitimate victories, there were apparently two losses, personnel details pending

12.12.42/1352 and 1358
2 x LaGG-3s
Demjansk-Staraya Russa
21 GIAP. 3 losses including AE CO Mayor Viktor Goncharov and deputy AE CO Kapitan Ivan Semenovich Bakal KIA
(Plus one claim each by Beisswenger and Sterr, 4 claims for 3 losses)


Stotz and Hahn together:

30.12.42/0850, 0851, 0852, 0854, 0856
5 x “LaGG-3s”, P-40s known to be involved
Engagement with 10 IAP and 156 IAP.
10 IAP, 239 IAD, 6 VA lost Mayor Nikolai Terekhin KIA plus one other shot down. 156 IAP, 240 IAD, 6 VA lost St.Lts. Vocharov, Kasakin and Tokarev plus St. Serzh Chinarov.
(Hahn claims 4 as well)

30.12.42/1140
LaGG-3
20km SW of Waldai (PQ 18261) @ 1000m
(Hahn claims one as well)
21 GIAP, 240 IAD, 6 VA lost Podpolkovnik Georgiy Nikolaevich Konyev (14 kills, 18 shared) in this engagement, generally attributed to Beisswenger some time after Stotz and Hahn claimed.
30.12.42/1345
IL-2 Sturmovik
35km NW of Demjansk (PQ 28123) @ 500m
243 ShAD, 6 VA. 6 losses for 11 claims throughout the day
(Hahn claims one as well)

30.12.42/1347, 1349 and 1355
3 x LaGG-3s
240 IAD, 6 VA. Lost eleven LaGG-3s and La-5s plus four Yak-7Bs that date

6.1.43/0750, 0751, 0752, 0753
4 x P-40s, the last two of which were claimed as LaGG-3s
436 IAP, 240 IAD, 6 VA. St.Lt. Nikolai Fedorovich Kuznetsov (14 and 4 shared kills) bellylanded WIA (returned to combat in 1944), Ml.Lt. Mikhail Galdobin baled out (the unit also lost Serzh Nikolai Matveevich Golovkov, but was it in this engagement?)

14.1.43/1036-1042
Hahn and Stotz claim 4 x La-5s each.
263 IAP, 215 IAD, 14 VA. Four losses: Serzhant Antonov and Ml.Lt. Seliverstov both KIA. Serzhant Petkevich baled out over friendly territory and Starshiy Serzhant Ageshin bellylanded back at Shum a/f. 522 IAP, 215 IAD, 14 VA also suffered one crashlanded back at base

14.1.43/1210-1212
Hahn and Stotz claim 3 x La-5s each.
263 IAP. Massive overclaiming, only Ml.Lt. Rostem forcelanded in friendly territory

26.1.43/1057-1059
Hahn claims one and Stotz claims two LaGGs
263 IAP. Lt. Kalenskiy and Ml.Lt. Petkevich both WIA
(Two losses for three claims)

26.1.43/1400-1405
Two claims by Hahn and three by Stotz for LaGG-3s
3 GIAP, 61 IABR, KBF. One engagement at 1500 Soviet Time, only loss was pilot Prasilov WIA; another engagement at 1600 Soviet Time, only loss was Serzhant Stepanov

27.1.43/1042 and 1043
Hahn and Stotz each claim a LaGG-3
Actually the La-5 of 2 GIAP. Gv.Lt. Filipp Kosolapov, escaped safely and made it home

11.2.43/0951-1008
Hahn and Stotz claim a mix of LaGGs and P-40s
158 IAP. Likely overclaiming, only one known loss: Ml.Lt. Petr Ivanovich Gavrikov MIA

19.2.43/1150-1154
Hahn claims one and Stotz claims two IL-2 Sturmoviks
1 ShAK had 8 losses total throughout the day

21.2.43/0911-0912
Hahn claims one and Stoz claims two La-5s
169 IAP. Bergstroem says Hahn downed St.Lt. Mikhail Vorobiyev KIA
169 IAP. Ml. Ltn. Balandin baled out WIA. Bergstroem says Stotz hit Alexander Mikhailovich Chislov. Lt. Pavel Grazhdaninov possibly shot at and claimed




Grateful for all help and appreciative of any updates/corrections that anyone might care to add....

I sincerely hope it helps Johannes with his enquiries

[Nokose]

19 August
Stotz’s victories claimed as Curtiss P-40 (72 - 73) at 13:45 and 13:47 at PlQu 54162 and 54134 were actually La-5. The 234 IAD had lost 2 La-5 from 49 IAP in which LeyAleksey Petro and Serzhant Vladimir Zakharov bot were listed as MIA

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by Stig Jarlevik

No idea why you always read things which are not there.
If I thought history was not worth investigating why on earth do you think I am
on this site in the first place?
You always have very firm opinions - fair enough - but do try and see others points as well.
Can be quite useful at times.

My opinions are firm, where firm they should be.
An argument 'you were not there' kills any discussion. So do false statements about reports having to boost morale and thus not reflecting the actual situation.
The system of reports serves the simple purpose of learning of enemy tactics, advantages or disadvantages of the enemy. There are numerous Allied reports stating exaclty advantages of enemy aircraft or tactics. This was thoroughly analysed and tactical notes issued to the aircrew.
To put in doubt those reports one has to have strong arguments. Why should Americans lie about the causes of losses in Korea? Did they disobey any orders? Would admitting losses to enemy aircraft result in any consequences? Was any such case identified?
In the case of Luftwaffe the primary problem is lack of paperwork. There are no combat reports, no loss reports, no flight records, etc., just only some lists.
Therefore we cannot be sure, if those records are complete.
In regard of losses original records should provide complete information of losses just in order to make the supply system working properly.
There are few instances of adjusting or changing causes of losses, however. One such prime example is the case of the loss of a Me 110 in the far north, where damage to the enemy fire was recorded on the wreck. The pilot, who was still alive, explained, that they were prohibited to attack ground targets to avoid losses. Hence listing the aircraft as lost to technical reasons would help to avoid investigation and perhaps a court of inquiry for the responsible.
We know that such orders were issued to various units at various periods, I recall that JG 2 and JG 26 were ordered to avoid combat with enemy fighters back in 1941. This did not make pilots happy, and they disobeyed those orders at times. Did it result with false loss reports as to causes? Possibly, but there is no proof. We can only have some statistical observations, like the one, that parachute was not used in most cases. I recall that 90% of write offs due to enemy action did not involve use of a parachute. What conclusion should be, then?
Similarly about the overclaim. Luftwaffe had a very rigid system of awarding victories. In theory, there should be no overclaim at all, and for years it was claimed there was none or that it was limited, indeed. Now, we find that this is not the case. How much of that was a simple result of combat confusion? Why RLM was unable to sort out those cases?
Johannes' observation that serial kills took place within small groups of pilots is an interesting one. Still, it is not an evidence of frauds. Could be those pilots trusted themselves and therefore could enter a more risky combat than with other pilots. This needs to be investigated, but this should not be limited to few cases, but rather a more general approach should be made. There are plenty of Soviet records available, and it should be possible to establish, if there were losses and if there were dog fights at all. Certainly, if it could be found that there were no encounters at the time multiple victories were claimed, should raise a question about honesty of some pilots.
Obviously, there is a question about a reason. Did excessive scores result in any gains? Could this motivate pilots to make fraudulent claims? And how could RLM approve those victories and not investigate them?
Certainly, an argument ‘you were not there’ or ‘you do not know, how to read documents’ would not help.

Originally Posted by Nick Hector

I'm with Michael (Nokose), let's try to help Johannes with his query.

I'll share some assistance comprising first a look at Stotz's opponents up until serving with Hahn, then a look at BOTH their opponents. I am indebted to the Tony Wood lists and Johannes' books plus Christer Bergstroem's work in trying to get this mapped out. It hope it helps somewhat to answer the original question of the thread:
Stotz's early opponents:

Nick
I am afraid, that the list is not exactly clear in providing the information required.
I would suggest a table with following information: Kill no of the pilot in question; number of kills of the pilot in particular combat; total number of kills; total number of aircraft lost; total number of write offs upon return; total number of aircraft damaged.
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120%; background: transparent }a:visited { color: #800000; so-language: zxx; text-decoration: underline }a:link { color: #000080; so-language: zxx; text-decoration: underline }

[NickM]

Originally Posted by HGabor

We have already put something on the table on this-> Verified Victories: Top JG 52 Aces Over Hungary 1944-45 which is ground breaking and simply unparalleled in detail for the Eastern Front (1944-1945). The closest similar book for the Eastern Front would be the works of our forum member Carl Guest, yet he specializes in mainly in the Winter War so early war. A work like Chirs Shores for the Eastern Front would be impossible (too much information, too little time no matter how many people you through at the task, the scale just does not compare, let the troubles to gain access to that quantity of information) and impractical (you would physically need a dedicated library to house the books, it would be too expensive to produce and next to no one would buy the entire corpus... much more realistic would be to go to TsAMO and read the documents you specifically want). If one picks up a copy of Verified Victories, they will quickly realize why it is impossible to write like that for the entire Eastern Front! ~1 page per claim! The JFV series is an average of ~500 pages per book and ~ 20 have been published so far, thats "only" 10,000 pages (!!!), so still not enough to cover the Eastern Front's claims in detail.

If one looks at Prien et al. and his series of books, even they reduced the scope down to only the fighter units and that is taking decades, will span over 20+ books, and is forced to lighten its detail level by offering briefer texts on the units compared to his dedicated units chronicles. There is simply too much. Christer Bergström's book series on the Eastern Front is also forced to make those trade-offs... less focus on the individual aircraft losses and claim analysis and more on the general course of the air war with useful personal accounts by those who were there over the Eastern front in the given period of time he is writing about. For our book Verified Victories we chose to go detailed into 1 specific subject over 1 country, that is why it presents unprecedented levels of detail into claiming and victory analysis. Doing the same thing for the entire Eastern Front is simply not an option. Broad vs deep. All encompassing vs surgically specific. These are the trade-offs one has to make as an author, and one the reader must be willing to purchase...that is the balancing game we play.

But this is not about Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz...

Cheers!

First let me say, I can vouch for your book and, having bought it and read it (going thru it for the second time now), I can attest to it's quality and accuracy. It's a great book on a not very well known theater of war.

Secondly, a Chris Shores style treatment for the Eastern Front is a project I would love to see, but as you say it's probably an impossible task...BUT doesn't Christer Bergstrom's 'Black Cross/Red Star' series sort of 'fill the bill'?


NM

[Stig Jarlevik]

Franek

Have you ever tried to put human nature into your equation?
If you do, you will be surprised to see what happens.

I have worked for an international company all my working life and I have thus come across loads of
individuals on every continent we have.
I also have seen how people "develop" through time and how this effects their "climbing the ladder".
I also worked very closely for many years with a Polish woman who were our controller. She was very....
ehhh...Polish in her way of handling her work. Nuff said....

There simply doesn't exist any system which ensure an absolute fair status for everyone. There are always
individuals who use systems for their own benefit.
There are also individuals who use such systems to write reports which they know their superiors like to
hear. I came across that far too many times. There was even one idiot who stole my evaluation report on India
and put his own name on it, since it was very beneficial for his career.

So again "we-were-not-there" is extremely valid, since all we can do is to try and evaluate the system and
the documents it has left behind.
Since these documents all too often does not fit human memories, especially not the books they wrote,
usually putting the writer in a more favorable position than actual reality.

Human nature Franek. Militaries are also driven by that, oddly enough....

Since again this is not part of the topic, I will stop any further discussion on it, since I believe I have made
my points quite clear. If you feel you want to discuss this further I suggest a new topic or feel free to send
me a private message.

Cheers
Stig
PS: I also have Polish origin, but that was almost 500 years ago.....

[kirche]

Originally Posted by Nick Hector

10.8.42/1415
IL-2 Sturmovik
15km NE of Konaja (PQ 46254) @ low altitude
312 ShAP. Leytenants Vasiliy Khomyakov and Prokopiy Bushuev both failed to return
(other loss was inflicted by Stendel of JG 51)

Hello,
46254 is the district of Saburovo, which is somewhat northwest of Karmanovo. But these two Il-2s took off at 14.25 (13.25 Berlin time) from the Alferevo airfield (north of Volokolamsk) to reconnoiter the banks of the Volga River between Apoki and Matyukovo (east of Rzhev). The fact that they were shot down after 50 minutes of flight more than 40 km from the route target and more than 30 km south of the flight route is a very bold identification. Most of the losses of this type of aircraft still fall on the fire of anti-aircraft artillery, but according to tradition, many try to link them with the action of fighters. IL-2 Khomyakov #5310, and IL-2 Bushuev #3205. Both aircraft have not yet been found, as far as I remember.
Best regards,
Kirill

[kirche]

Originally Posted by Nick Hector

16.8.42/0738 and 0741
2 x La-5s (the second was misidentified as a Curtiss P-40)
Golovskoye-Sukhinikhi
49 IAP, 309 IAD, 1 VA. Three losses, personnel details pending
(versus 5 claims in total)

19.8.42/1345 and 1347
2 x La-5s (misidentified as “Curtiss P-40s”)
S of Sukhinikhi
49 IAP, 309 IAD, 1 VA. Legitimate victories, there were apparently two losses, personnel details pending

08/16/1942 49 IAP had one battle in 8.40 (the first flight). The task of the mission is to cover their troops in the Chern-Dretovo area. 8 La-5s (Zeskin-Spiridenko-Ochagovsky-Steshich-Sorokin-Kolomin-Karagodin-Petrov) fought an air battle with 5 He-111, 8 Me-109 and 1 Ju-87 for 20 minutes. 2 Me-109s damaged. Zeskin shot down one Ju-87 (the fall was confirmed by the commanders of the 523rd IAP and 122nd Rifle Division). Zeskin's plane (La-5 #37210105) is set on fire, the pilot is slightly injured, bailed out. Petrov (La-5 #37210225 ? or 37210111) was hit, made an emergency landing near the village of Saburovshchina, the plane was broken, the pilot was unharmed. Karagodin (La-5 #37210104) did not return from a combat mission (the pilot was captured, during interrogation he incorrectly indicated the regiment number, type of aircraft, a/f site, etc.; he survived in captivity; the plane crash site was found in 2017 near the village Vosty).

08/19/1942 one air battle is indicated during a mission to cover friendly troops in the Volkonskoye-Aleshnya-Gretnya area. 6 La-5s (Tsyganov-Razinov-Ochagovsky-Olkhovsky-Khodun-Petrov) fought in the Pavlovo-Aleshnya area at an altitude of 600-1200 against 9 Ju-88s, 3 Ju-87s, 7 Me-109s and 1 Fw-189. 2 Ju-88s, 2 Ju-87s are indicated as downed, as well as 1 Ju-88 and 1 Fw-189 damaged. Losses: Petrov (La-5 #37210111 ?) was shot down by a Me-109 fighter, crashed into the ground and burned down (seen by Khodun and Tsyganov). Olkhovsky was hit in battle, made an emergency landing 5 km southwest of his airfield, the plane was destroyed, the pilot was unharmed.

[Franek Grabowski]

Stig
A human nature in military?
Any system may have flaws and might be prone to frauds, for sure. Nonetheless it is rather hard to assume that a reporting system was created to generate frauds. It is the purpose of propaganda to provide lies on purpose, well, more less.
I have went through hundreds of combat reports of Allied pilots mainly ETO but also MTO. I have never seen anything in kind of what you are implying, ie. writing them to satisfy the command. Quite to the contrary, they contain a lot of information about various deficiencies like imrpoper radio communication, tactical or technical advantages of the enemy, etc. Just recently I have re read a report claiming that Me 109F was a far superior aircraft in every respect, outperforming Spitfire. It is a completely different thing, what higher levels of command did with those reports, of course. Nonetheless reading intel bulletins, I had an impression, that the information was thoroughly digested, and combined with other resources to produce tactical instructions. Yet another thing is about claimed successes and reviews of those reports. Given that the Fighter Command noted, that several victories were reported despite firing from beyond the range of effective fire, there was certainly a sort of scepticism towards the reports. Still there was some policy in regard of awarding victories, seemingly quite liberal at first. I guess the command knew of actual enemy losses, and considered victories as a morale booster rather than information about enemy losses. This is my assumption only, however.
Basically, there was no interest of accepting fraudulent information on this low level, as the only one to make a profit from a fraud was a pilot filing a report for a victory that did not happen and which could give him some benefits. Another question is, if a fraud could be identified, and if it could be proven tobe intentional and not a result of a confusion.
That said, reports and memories are apples and oranges. Certainly, some are clear science fiction, and some are extremelly accurate for various reasons, either failing memory, self-promotion or even a demand of a publisher wanting a sensation. We should not consider memories relevant here, however, as we are interested in the system and not psychology.
As I undestand the point made by Johannes is, that certain pilots claimed excessive number of victories at certain conditions, well above their average. This obviously make them suspect. My point is, that victories of pilots in question should be evaluated against available documents of the other side, and if not valid a question mark should be put on victory crediting system in general. If the system bothered to investigate claims for years before crediting fraudulent claims as legitimate victories, it was not worth much, was not it?
I think it is enough and we should not detract from the original question, indeed.

Cheers
Franek

PS What is Polish way of handling work?

[@irnimal]

Originally Posted by kirche

08/16/1942 49 IAP had one battle in 8.40 (the first flight). The task of the mission is to cover their troops in the Chern-Dretovo area. 8 La-5s (Zeskin-Spiridenko-Ochagovsky-Steshich-Sorokin-Kolomin-Karagodin-Petrov) fought an air battle with 5 He-111, 8 Me-109 and 1 Ju-87 for 20 minutes. 2 Me-109s damaged. Zeskin shot down one Ju-87 (the fall was confirmed by the commanders of the 523rd IAP and 122nd Rifle Division). Zeskin's plane (La-5 #37210105) is set on fire, the pilot is slightly injured, bailed out. Petrov (La-5 #37210225 ? or 37210111) was hit, made an emergency landing near the village of Saburovshchina, the plane was broken, the pilot was unharmed. Karagodin (La-5 #37210104) did not return from a combat mission (the pilot was captured, during interrogation he incorrectly indicated the regiment number, type of aircraft, a/f site, etc.; he survived in captivity; the plane crash site was found in 2017 near the village Vosty).

08/19/1942 one air battle is indicated during a mission to cover friendly troops in the Volkonskoye-Aleshnya-Gretnya area. 6 La-5s (Tsyganov-Razinov-Ochagovsky-Olkhovsky-Khodun-Petrov) fought in the Pavlovo-Aleshnya area at an altitude of 600-1200 against 9 Ju-88s, 3 Ju-87s, 7 Me-109s and 1 Fw-189. 2 Ju-88s, 2 Ju-87s are indicated as downed, as well as 1 Ju-88 and 1 Fw-189 damaged. Losses: Petrov (La-5 #37210111 ?) was shot down by a Me-109 fighter, crashed into the ground and burned down (seen by Khodun and Tsyganov). Olkhovsky was hit in battle, made an emergency landing 5 km southwest of his airfield, the plane was destroyed, the pilot was unharmed.

Kirill, thanks for clarifying the data. Major help.

[@irnimal]

Originally Posted by kirche

Hello,
46254 is the district of Saburovo, which is somewhat northwest of Karmanovo. But these two Il-2s took off at 14.25 (13.25 Berlin time) from the Alferevo airfield (north of Volokolamsk) to reconnoiter the banks of the Volga River between Apoki and Matyukovo (east of Rzhev). The fact that they were shot down after 50 minutes of flight more than 40 km from the route target and more than 30 km south of the flight route is a very bold identification. Most of the losses of this type of aircraft still fall on the fire of anti-aircraft artillery, but according to tradition, many try to link them with the action of fighters. IL-2 Khomyakov #5310, and IL-2 Bushuev #3205. Both aircraft have not yet been found, as far as I remember.
Best regards,
Kirill

Hi Kirill,
On this same day, from the 233 ShAD, 728 ShAP lort Serzhant Yuriy Viktorovich Volkov (Mia), also in the Rzhev area. Do you know the time of the mission?
Accordin to Tony Wood's list, the only pilot that claimed was Gunther Schack, but that was almost 4 hours before Stotz's claim.