German day fighter top aces by JG

[HGabor]

Hi Michael,

We all know that Hartmann was credited 352 (confirmed) victories. To me the question is: how many of these were true or false. To decide it, I go to the other side(s) reports, so to me it is even more simple: YES -or- NO. So far for the checked items there is much more NO, than YES.

Gabor

[knusel]

Hello Gabor,

crosschecking claims is a very important and fascinating subtopic of airwar enthusiasm.
However, it's not among my favourite 10 subtopics.
Most of all I'm intrested in finding out what plane an ace flew when scoring a corfirmed, (not necessarily a verified) kill. In some cases this hasn't been documented but I also enjoy finding out the most probable plane. In Hartmann's case it's easy: Bf109G and K only. I also determined the most probable plane for all German WW1 ace kills.

What is your favourite topic ? Crosschecking ?

Michael

[HGabor]

Hi Michael,

My favourite topic is the history of the aerial war over Hungary during WWII, especially the 1944-1945 events. As a volunteer researcher of the Szolnok Aircraft Museum, I have the list of the soviet plane losses in Hungary from TsAMO archives, Podolsk, Russia via our Russian partners and friends. Only this unique situation made it possible to compare the Axis claims to the (real) soviet losses in certain months (and fronts). This applies to Hartmann - and everybody else for their dogfights over Hungary. From here I know, that eg. Lipfert was an extremely accurate and honest pilot.

Gabor

[Mikael Olrog]

According to the oxford dictionary a synonym of verified is confirmed... So the distinction being suggested in this thread is IMHO not correct to do.

[knusel]

Originally Posted by Mikael Olrog

According to the oxford dictionary a synonym of verified is confirmed... So the distinction being suggested in this thread is IMHO not correct to do.

Yeah but consider the Latin origin:
confirmed = "made permanent", e.g. approve a claim officially
verified = "made true", e.g. match to enemy loss

M

[Hofstetter]

Originally Posted by 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.

The best post in the entire thread

[ClinA-78]

In fact, I don' t care about Aces, Experten or else but someone here appears from nowhere and challenges acknowledged researchers, at the same time, he provides few inputs as his own material (or archives?) is based on already published book. Meanwhile, others researchers spend their time on this thread for what??? It is so consuming time and energy. As especially there are still so much uncovered in the Luftwaffe (I was thinking about Larry De Zeng's recent post) than aces & Co, even if they deserved attention.
I am laughing when those said researchers (compilators of second row) lit the fire and let the inferno behind them.

Last bye for this post.

ClinA-78

[knusel]

...cool down !
You talk about airwar enthusiasm as if it were airwar !

Have a nice weekend,

Michael, who never claimed to be a researcher and who is happy to stay a compilator

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by knusel

...cool down !
You talk about airwar enthusiasm as if it were airwar !

Have a nice weekend,

Michael, who never claimed to be a researcher and who is happy to stay a compilator

Since you aren't a researcher and have contributed no original information to the discussions you have started, you should show more respect for people who actually do research. When they disagree with what you read in a book, they may well have good reasons. If you can't understand that then you are going to annoy people.

[knusel]

Originally Posted by Hofstetter

The best post in the entire thread

Thank you, Hofstetter.

Nick,

it would be easier to take the info spread by a researcher serious if is wasn't presented in such an annoying narcistic attitude.
In the profession in which I do research (pathology), no one would ever DEMAND respect over and over again. We publish and let our publications speak for themselves. I have already received some of your posts which you find so brilliant. However they do not contain a single useful information for me (yet). Instead they contain much nagging, which annoys me. I'm sorry to say that again but whom I give my admiration is my own free will as I'm unwilling and unable to feign.

M