Luftwaffe shared victories (was: Hartmann ....352 victories or 80?)

[Klaus Schiffler]

The History Channel showed a documentary on "Heavy Metal" entitled "Mosquito Attack" on the development and operational history of the DeHavilland Mosquito. At the very beginning of the program, the narrator makes the preposterous claim that German fighter pilots received credit for two kills if they downed a Mosquito. Evidently, the writers of the program confused the point-system used by the Luftwaffe in the awarding of decorations and medals.

Later in the show the famous raid on the prison of Amiens on 18 Feb 1944 is shown. There was never any mention of the Typhoon fighter escort nor the interception by 7./JG 26 nor the loss of Group Captain Charles Pickard's Mosquito which was shot down by Fw. Wilhelm Mayer for his 13th kill. Mayer did not receive credit for a 14th kill. A Typhoon of 174 Sqd. was shot down by Lt. Waldemar Radener for his 12th kill. No losses were sustained by JG 26.

It is unfortunate that in the usual and typical fashion, the writers for the HC don't do the research into the German side of which there now is an abundant amount of material. In this case the writers could easily have looked at the excellent book "The JG 26 War Diary: Volume 2 1943-1945" by Donald Caldwell.

[Artist]

Originally Posted by Klaus Schiffler

Robert Johnson's P-47 was written off (Category E) upon his return and thus the German fighter pilot was responsible for the destruction of one P-47 and thus his claim is confirmed from USAAF records.

This will make me think. I just moved (a year ago!) my books are still in storage. I think I read Johsons P-47 "Half Pint" was lost over the North sea by another pilot. I used to correspond with Johnson before he past away, I'll look through my letters to see if he mentioned this. His letters to me are about his spicific missions so they may not shed light on this. If I remember right he stated that " Half Pint" was his favorite P-47. Maybe I can talk my wife into letting me get my books back! Thanks for the response it gives me somthing to try and look up. Robert

[John P Cooper]

Hi All,


I wanted to add some more fuel to the fire here. The following is a quote from Karl Stein (SG 1) about comabt vs. an IL-2.

"I apparently got the read gunner of one because his gun was pointed upwards, and I expended all my ammunition - guns and cannon - on the plane. He started smoking, his right landing gear dropped, and he slowed way down. BUt I couldn't knock him down.When I broke off, he was still in the air though he probably didn't make it back to base."

Although he does not say he got a kill one has to wonder how this was reported. (w.b or prob. ??) Similar to the Hartmann comment earlier in the thread. ~ Thoughts?

John

[Dick Powers]

I've read this thread, as well as the previous thread. It seems as if a starting point should be Hartmann's CONFIRMED victories. Not claims, not end-of-the-war take my word for it log book entries, but officially confirmed victories.

(Just slightly off topic, I looked through Christer Bergstrom's biography of Graf and Grislawski to see whether all their vics were "official". Although no specific informatin is given, Graf's final vicroty was in sumemr of 1944, Grislawski's was in Septemver 1944, both while the RLM victory claim process was still f unctioning. Christer, can you shed light on whether all their victories were confirmed?)

[Dénes Bernád]

Originally Posted by Dick Powers

a starting point should be Hartmann's CONFIRMED victories. Not claims, not end-of-the-war take my word for it log book entries, but officially confirmed victories.

If a logbook (any logbook) was stamped and counter-signed by the superior officer, it should be regarded as primary source.

[Dick Powers]

I believe that the claim/confirmation process was established to provide systematic checks and balances on individual claims.



The LW, at some level, had a vital interest in estimating its opponent’s losses which could help determining the strength of the enemy. This would avoid a situation similar to the Battle of Britain where Fighter Command was down to its last few Spitfires for weeks upon weeks. Thus a rigorous claim validation process can filter out spurious claims and begin to quantify at least one major cause of enemy losses.



Field units however, had incentives to maximize their victory totals. Personal awards, unit recognition, publicity, all pretty heady stuff for fighter pilots. So when a CO signs a logbook, it can mean that he really believes that Oblt. S shot down an Il-2. It can also mean that Oblt S was close to getting a medal, the Il-2 obviously went down, and so he must have shot it down. In the worst case it may mean the CO wants more recognition and the facts don’t matter, particularly if there’s no one from higher up to check.



Even if the CO, with the best intentions, signs the logbook, does he realize that another pilot from a different unit may have been shooting at the same airplane?



I understand your point, but I my opinion is that until the pilot received RLM confirmation it isn’t a victory. It’s only a claim.



But then again 352 is a sacred cow amongst us LW enthusiasts, isn’t it? And if we had to filter out unconfirmed claims it might be only 250.

After re-reading your post, I agree that a signed logbook should a A primary source. But it doesn't tell the whole story.

[chris schmitz]

I read allot about the claiming of shot down allied planes.
But isnt it an fact that the german fighter pilots where better than the allied,i mean if we doubt all the claims over the best west allied(38 hihi)or russian(68 hihi) and compare it to the german pilots with many over that of the best allied,first german pilots flew longer,at the start of 1943 there where more allied planes in the sky so they could pick it out,allied had to get in line to take an shot at the germans,and than the acces had more experiance than the allied,even wen they where outnumbered.
And what does after so long would be the provit of keeping up an lie,so i do believe its true.

chris

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by chris schmitz

But isnt it an fact that the German fighter pilots where better than the allied ...

The Germans lost the war, so having "better fighter pilots" doesn't seem to have been of much help, does it? Having a small percentage of high scorers is not the same as having an effective fighter force. Stephen Bungay's book about the Battle of Britain "The Most Dangerous Enemy" has a very interesting discussion of this question.

[Dénes Bernád]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

The Germans lost the war, so having "better fighter pilots" doesn't seem to have been of much help, does it?

Germany didn't loose the war because of its combat pilots. Blaiming the airmen for the failure of the leadership and command is not exactly beneficial.

[Franek Grabowski]

Hmm, pilots are an extension of leadership and command, so what is your point?