German day fighter top aces by JG

[knusel]

As I mentioned, I don't think this thread or even the forum in general is the right setting to downgrade Hartmann's score.
Even the Khazanov project though being a diligent attempt, was flawed from the very onset and full of methodical errors, that's why it was chastised so much.
The matter requires a personal meeting of the most renowned specialists that results in a publication based on consensus.
I'm just an aviation fan, a non-professional, but in my profession, recently the prostate carcinoma classfication was refaced this way and now it is accepted by virtually everyone.
Some of your posts mix up opinions with facts, others are full of emotions which decreases their persuasive power.
That's why I prefer to keep on attributing the 352 to Hartmann, knowing very well that he overclaimed more or less than all the other thousands of aces in every nation in every war.

M

[Johannes]

Hi Guys

Regarding Hartmann

I think he was an opportunist. His claims to begin with seem fine, then explode in volumn(though he was flying huge numbers of sorties) You can't overclaim without help, and it would appear that certain Staffel were prone to this the 7th and 9th with JG 52, the 6th staffel with JG 5 e.t.c Only 90% of his claims can be checked against anyway as those for 1945 are largely guestimates anyway. You can say that a leopard doesn't change his spots, but I have noticed that many overclaimers fizzle out.....probably because they have fallen in the company of honest guys, usually because they have been transferred. I believe that in the West crash-sites were more usually investigated, so unless your combats are usually over the sea, then there is much higher chance that a claim may not be comfirmed.
Let us not forget that the British and American's overclaimed, especially bomber gunners, for B-17's at one point 20 claims for every lose, though that doesn't make them dis-honest i.e twenty gunners might be firing at a fighter that goes down......they all claim honestly!

Not many an author will say that on such a date such a pilot shot down five Il-2's, but the Sowiets lost none. Apart from JG 5 the Russian fronts units areas did over-lap from time to time making exact claim/lose details hard to put an actual name to.

In fact naming actual fraudsters for an author with only invite fights, it's kind of tabo. Personally I have just got around this by mentioning that a pilots claims match Allied losses well, or he was a honest claimer. But I am a little sad that my childhood heros were only inflating the cost of a Ritterkreuz......there are many a pilot who deserved the Ritterkreuz, but didn't get it because he lacked numbers, numbers that would have brought huge awards from any other Airforce.

Also the Luftwaffe claiming system when American heavies were involved basically gives two claims for every bomber lost ......like Schweinfurt Luftwaffe claims 120 the American's loose sixty. Usually only Luftwaffe aces in the West can be 100% accurately investigated, if honest I would assume they continued this if they went to Russia....but who can accurately say? I would say that an easy honest pilot to check here would be Joachim Müncheberg, so let us investigate him.......instead of arguing.

Kind regards

Johannes

[knusel]

Good morning Johannes,

thanks for your intresting considerations.
Could it contribute to the avoidance of misunderstandings to define terminology more clearly ?
"Confirmed" means in nearly every publication: "approved by the administrative authorities of the ace". It might be wise to use it only in this context.
The other thing is "correlated to an enemy loss" which should receive a separate terminus. However, I'm a non-mothertongue-speaker, and so far don't have a better suggestion than "verified".

Have a nice Wednesday,

Michael

[knusel]

Yes.

[knusel]

Originally Posted by Nick Hector

...the only good thing to come out of it is the rest of us helping each other so that's at least one thing that's positive...

Hmm, using cynisms and needing "help" when discussing with a totally harmless German raises my sympathy.
Don't be so bitter !
Airwar enthusiasm is just a hobby ! It's fun !

M

[HGabor]

To me, shining the once given glory of an opportunist pilot (namely Hartmann) who:

- did not take the opportunity to clarify the truth after the war (if - let's say- once it was only the propaganda-pressure of the Luftwaffe or his unit on him he ~had to accept),
- whose only every 3rd, or 4th claim can be verified from the records of the opposite side, as a much worse statistics than most fighter aces' of WWII,

- so to me rather THIS seems to be emotional, having nothing in common with an objective, historical approach that is ultimately the main goal of this forum.

Gabor

[Juha]

IMHO I’d not like to speak honesty/dishonesty even if there are cases of fraudulent claimers. Just because it much easier to dig out real world facts than figure out someone's motives. I think it simply the question that some can appraise the results of their actions more objectively than others. And then there is the effect of used tactic, Hartmann preferred hit and run tactic and as in the case of the Flying Tigers, this easily produced overclaims. Lipfert, who seems to be exceptionally objective claimer, was more diverse in tactics he used and didn’t shun close in dogfights. He also seems to be above average in a/c recognition, which made it easier to verify his claims.



Juha

[knusel]

There is a saying among German physicians which translates roughly:
"Once something is printed it is cast in stone - if you want to remove it from the stone get something in print that's better!"

I do not claim that Hartmann has shot down 352 planes, I'm even quite sure he didn't.
What's most puzzling to me is that some guys present their personal views as if they were given facts more valid than anything that has ever been written. These guys get aggressive when the audience doesn't cheer and doesn't discredit the greatest aviation authors. That's just too over-selfconfident to be credible to a normal guy like me.

[HGabor]

That's fair, but whatever was discussed here in this thread was already discussed (with detailed data) at least over 2 years ago, so these were absolutely not just 'words in the air'. Not to mention, that nobody said here that we do not accept Hartmann's claims because it is not matching our personal opinion, or taste, but because it is not matching the original documents of the opposite side - and that is a big difference!

Gabor

[knusel]

Originally Posted by HGabor

That's fair, but whatever was discussed here in this thread was already discussed (with detailed data) at least over 2 years ago, so these were absolutely not just 'words in the air'. Not to mention, that nobody said here that we do not accept Hartmann's claims because it is not matching our personal opinion, or taste, but because it is not matching the original documents of the opposite side - and that is a big difference!

Gabor

Hello Gabor,

yes, this thread wasn't the right location for a discussion that has been discussed already.
How do you like my proposal of sharply separating the terms
confirmed kill vs verified kill ?
It might avoid needless misunderstandings.

Cheers,

Michael