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

[Vinman]

As I mentined in an earlier post, The RAF Ace Johnnie Johnson was credited with 38 Kills (30 Individual+8 shared).
What was Hartmann's ratio? Is his score broken up the same way?
Vinman

[Dénes Bernád]

Originally Posted by MB

As I know, this is the straight way from WWI Allies tradition, when each shared victoy counted as a full victory for every British, American, Russian etc pilot of group fighted with enemy planes.

I assume the Rumanians copied the early-war French tradition and kept it 'till the end of the war (although most of these shared victories happened in the 1941 campaign).

[John P Cooper]

Originally Posted by Vinman

Hello,
I am new to this forum, just signed up yesterday and was looking forward to participating on the Hartmann 352 victories or 80 discussion.
What happened to the thread?
Any comments,
Thanks,
Vinman.

Some additional information can be found here on Neil's web page.

http://www.members.aol.com/falkeeins...annclaims.html

[Six Nifty .50s]

Originally Posted by John P Cooper

(comments of Jean-Yves Lorant and Hans Ring continued below..)
"..I interviewed Hartmann in the summer of 1979 for an article in Air Fan and was able to consult his only surviving logbook, carefully annotated with no crossings-out or 'suspicious additions' in different coloured inks as noted in other aces logbooks. Hartmann was a very modest man and the first to admit that it was not always possible to observe the crash sites of his downed opponents, always a dangerous luxury for a fighter pilot. An enemy aircraft was claimed if it produced a heavy trail of smoke, signifying a gasoline or engine fire. To witness an aircraft going down in a spin or in an uncontrolled fashion - with perhaps a dead or incapacitated pilot in the cockpit - was never a pretext for Hartmann to forward a victory claim, since similar manoeuvres were often flown by pilots seeking to break off combat

If that was Erich Hartmann's 'method' for claiming victories -- it is all the proof we need that he was substantially overclaiming enemy aircraft destroyed and that his often-published score is grossly inflated.

To be fair, it was not uncommon for flyers to assume that an enemy plane would crash if it was trailing smoke. But, it is rather astonishing that an experienced hunter like Hartmann could be so amateurish to justify that as a policy -- after 1,500 combat missions!

A smoke trail does not even prove that the enemy plane was hit by gunfire. Many engines would belch smoke when the pilot selected full power. If the motor was not operating in top condition or the fuel was bad, the engine would emit more smoke. When a plane was hit by gunfire, a trail of smoke was hardly enough to guarantee that the enemy plane would crash.

Thank you for posting that link. The article was very enlightening.

[Artist]

I dont think you are being fare to Erich Hartmann. I am sure He witnessed good hits before the smoke to asume he had been it's victor. If he had followed all his victims down to the crash site, he would not have survived very long. I am sure all pilots of all nations claimed this way. But I am not going to question every fighter pilot who claims a kill.

[John P Cooper]

You are most welcome but please give credit to Neil and the authors he translated...


As for the one part about smoke - I think the point was that if enough smoke was seen that from experience the assumption could be made that an engine fire or other fatal damage was inflicted thus it was claimed as a kill.

Cheers

John

[Six Nifty .50s]

Originally Posted by Artist

I dont think you are being fare to Erich Hartmann. I am sure He witnessed good hits before the smoke to asume he had been it's victor. If he had followed all his victims down to the crash site, he would not have survived very long.

If he didn't see the plane crash, then he should not claim that it crashed. Especially if the plane was just 'trailing smoke' rather than spinning down in flames or falling in little pieces.

Unless the gun camera record shows the enemy plane hit the ground, broke up or exploded in mid-air, or the pilot is filmed while bailing out, the intelligence people should usually reject such a claim for lack of evidence.

When gun film was not available, it may have been acceptable to consider eyewitness reports from other pilots, but that could get confusing if there were many planes swirling around and shooting at each other in the same area.

[Artist]

Yes I understand what you are saying. I just don't think we should pick on any specific fighter pilot. I think this type of claim happened with all fighter pilots who claimed many kills. Maybe we should just deduct 3/4 of all claims from all pilots. Robert Johnson was claimed shot down in his P47 "Half Pint" in 1943, because the German fighter pilot thought there was no whay he would make it across the Channel. Johnson himself didn't think he could.

[Klaus Schiffler]

Originally Posted by Six Nifty .50s

If he didn't see the plane crash, then he should not claim that it crashed. Especially if the plane was just 'trailing smoke' rather than spinning down in flames or falling in little pieces..

Erich Hartmann's tactics in aerial combat was to approach the enemy aircraft as closely as possible and open fire whereby the destructive effect of the MG and cannon projectiles was devastating and fewer rounds would miss. Hartmann had the experience to know when an enemy aircraft was finished and that the smoke trailing the enemy aircraft was caused by him.

[Klaus Schiffler]

Originally Posted by Artist

Robert Johnson was claimed shot down in his P47 "Half Pint" in 1943, because the German fighter pilot thought there was no whay he would make it across the Channel. Johnson himself didn't think he could.

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.

The fact is that some units on both sides had a more "liberal' attitude toward confirmation of kills. JG 2 is one example. The MTO seems notorious for overclaiming on the American side. For example, on 30 July 1944, the 325th FG claimed 21 single-engined fighter which they identified as both German and Italian fighters over Sardinia. The Italians had previously been pulled back to the Italian mainland. The opponents of the Americans were from III./JG77 which in fact lost only four fighters and one pilot killed, a claim of 5:1. The story improved with time where the Americans claimed that Italian civilians near the base stated that some 30 German fighters failed to return, and thus, confirming for the Americans that their claims were understated. Since we have no record of the interrogation of these civilians, all that is possible at this time is to conclude that the American interrogator was putting the answers into his questions and that the Italians told him what he wanted to hear.