Verified Victories: Top JG 52 Aces Over Hungary 1944-45

[Nick Hector]

Another excellent publication that discusses Barkhorn's achievements:

https://helios-verlag.com/militaeris...8374ac84fca18f

[superbee]

Would love to see this one done in English!

Originally Posted by Nick Hector

Another excellent publication that discusses Barkhorn's achievements:

https://helios-verlag.com/militaeris...8374ac84fca18f

[NickM]

Originally Posted by Nick Hector

You won't be disappointed, NickM

OK I am almost done and,you're right I was not disappointed. Interesting how detailed the authors get in breaking down each 'named' ace's claims. I wonder if the Horvaths will come out with any other 'unit' aces (The Pumas, a couple of SGs and JG 53 get mentioned several times) or venture into other 'theaters' like the defense of Romania.

Anyway, it's a great book, and I don't want to give away spoilers but suffice to say, the author of my favorite LW war memoir also had the best record RE: accurate air to air claims.

NM

[NickM]

Just a quick question:

Given sometimes aircraft Identification is not a strong point for many German pilots, in the cases of the pilots who have lots of victory claims that are unverified (rather than hit, damaged but repairable--which I DO count as a defacto victory_), is it possible that the Soviet aircraft that was engaged was of a very different type than the ones claimed? Or were the USSR records 'on point' as to what units and what types were in the air at the time of the reported encounter?


Thanks ahead of time.


NM

[HGabor]

Hi Nick,
Correct, AC identification was difficult in many cases, however, in this case this is completely irrelevant, since in the book we checked ALL single-engine fighter losses of the day, not just the claimed models - if a fighter was claimed by the Ace in question, no matter if it was a Yakovlev, or a Lavochkin subtype. (Check it out, the table headings are called accordingly.)

Sometimes we could point out (based on the matching time, altitude and area details) that the victory claim was legitimate, but the victim was a completely different AC model than what was claimed in the report.

Soviet combat diaries are very specific about the combat details (times given in Moscow local time), area, participants listed by names, etc. The Soviet fighter regiments also used only a specific AC model, so no room for confusion and mistake here. If occasionally they flew different sub-types (eg. Yak-1Bs with Yak-3s or -9s) in a battle during the time of AC model transition, they still flew only one make (eg. only Yakovlevs), but never mixed with Lavochkins, P-39s, etc.

I hope this helps.
Cheers,
Gabor

[NickM]

Originally Posted by HGabor

Hi Nick,
Correct, AC identification was difficult in many cases, however, in this case this is completely irrelevant, since in the book we checked ALL single-engine fighter losses of the day, not just the claimed models - if a fighter was claimed by the Ace in question, no matter if it was a Yakovlev, or a Lavochkin subtype. (Check it out, the table headings are called accordingly.)

Sometimes we could point out (based on the matching time, altitude and area details) that the victory claim was legitimate, but the victim was a completely different AC model than what was claimed in the report.

Soviet combat diaries are very specific about the combat details (times given in Moscow local time), area, participants listed by names, etc. The Soviet fighter regiments also used only a specific AC model, so no room for confusion and mistake here. If occasionally they flew different sub-types (eg. Yak-1Bs with Yak-3s or -9s) in a battle during the time of AC model transition, they still flew only one make (eg. only Yakovlevs), but never mixed with Lavochkins, P-39s, etc.

I hope this helps.
Cheers,
Gabor

THANKS! That's exactly what I wanted to know.

AND I'm looking forward to what you produce next.

[HGabor]

A helpful point to all readers, the 1st chapter is vital for the accurate understanding of what a victory is/is not... both according to the Luftwaffe during the war and in the post war archival era which is able to find claim/loss connections with much greater accuracy.

Many may be surprised that the Luftwaffe directives would discount many so-called 'rules' past authors have written in their books about what qualifies as a victory.

[Nick Hector]

Originally Posted by HGabor

A helpful point to all readers, the 1st chapter is vital for the accurate understanding of what a victory is/is not... both according to the Luftwaffe during the war and in the post war archival era which is able to find claim/loss connections with much greater accuracy.

Many may be surprised that the Luftwaffe directives would discount many so-called 'rules' past authors have written in their books about what qualifies as a victory.

Yes, Gabor
You definitely busted a few myths of how fantastically stringent the German victory claims verification system was.
Authors such as Toliver and Constable made the whole thing look like overclaiming was completely and utterly impossible