Hans Hahn/Maximilian Stotz

[Johannes]

Hi Guys

Have suspected for sometime that a Kommandeur could pick his wingman/witness, and therefore a Kommandeur is far more likely to be able(if he desired) to make fake claims.

By plotting claims I thought those were:-

Rudorffer/Tangermann
Kirschner/Bartels
Nowotny/Schnorrer

I had speculated that Hahn the Kommandeur of II./JG64 was using Stotz of 4./Jg54, in fact Stotz's claims were not explosive until Hahn arrives, and after Hahn's loss they return to being steady. I have just found the loss papers for Hahn and indeed Stotz was with him at the time. I wouldn't mind betting our "over-claimers" researchers can undermine these two.

Keep well

Johannes

[VtwinVince]

I think you'll need to produce some genuine evidence before making sweeping claims. And the 'overclaiming rabbit hole' needs to be more actively pursued on both sides.

[Johannes]

Not such sweeping claims. All other spectacular claimers with the exception of Marseille have proved to be "over-claimers", and proved being the proof i.e claims versus losses.

This can't be incomplete losses data as some high scoring, though unspectacular claimers have been given the thumbs-up. Classic example Helmut Lipfert thumbs-up by researchers.

Spectacular pilots I can usually say who they worked it with, but unable to say with Hartmann or Batz, yet I am told it is so, and told so by dedicated researchers.

Kind Regards

Johannes

[@irnimal]

Originally Posted by Johannes

Spectacular pilots I can usually say who they worked it with, but unable to say with Hartmann or Batz, yet I am told it is so, and told so by dedicated researchers.

Kind Regards

Johannes

From what I've been able to find out till now on Hartmann is that while under Gruppen Kommamdeurs Hubertus von Bonin and then Guenther Rall, his claims were not that far fetched. Both of those Kommamdeurs were outstanding pilots and Leaders. Both of them quite accurate claimers (specially Rall).
But after scoring the 200th at the end of February 44, Hartmann is sent home, where he is decorated and has some time off the front. When he gets back to the Front, something changed. His claim's accuracy just goes down the drain. By that time Batz was the new Kommandeur. Don't know about his leader skills but hi claims accuracy was.......dubious.
Don't know if there was any kind of talk between Hartmann and the upper leadership, some kind of publicity stunt (by that time Germany was losing, so they were in need of Heroes to boost the morale), but one thing clearly stands out when looking at the Soviet Reports, Hartmann was overclaiming consistently.
But remember that those same files attest to the accuracy of other pilots.

Paulo

[Leo Etgen]

Hi guys

Very interesting discussion regarding the claim accuracy of the various pilots in World War II. I am very glad that some facts have emerged regarding the accuracy of various German aces on the Eastern Front which helps us determine which pilots appear to have generally been more accurate than others. I am interested in the facts as best can be determined and if these seem to show that a certain pilot overclaimed, for whatever reason, then so be it. As an interesting demonstration of how the picture changes when one reads an account that draws on the loss lists of both sides, I recently read F4U Corsair versus A6M Zero-sen by Claringbould. One has always read accounts of how the F4U dominated the various Japanese fighters in aerial combat to the point that it racked up an eleven to one kill to loss ratio ... This may very well have been true when confronting barely trained pilots fit only for Kamikaze missions but the results of the air battles between the Corsair and the Zeke in 1943 and early 1944 over the southwest Pacific were generally quite equal, about one to one. This was a very different result than the idea that is so prevalent due to reading sources that only quote American pilots' accounts and take these at face value.

Horrido!

Leo

[Kapper]

Paulo

I tend to agree with your comments.

Some time ago I wrote the following response to Johannes when discussing fraudulent claimants. I thought I had posted it on this website earlier, however I couldn’t find it, so maybe not. Anyway, the German system typically needed at least a wingman to verify claims for the claim to be awarded. Johannes had identified for some high scoring experten who regularly made multiple claims using the same wingman, thus open to collusion and fraudulent claim accusations (i.e. you help me with my claims and I’ll help you with yours). Johannes at the time had difficulty identifying a regular wingman for Hartman to collude with. I defended Hartmann as I believe he is an over-claimer, not a fraudulent claimer. The trends I highlighted below tend to also support your opinion.

“When most people look at the claims and see multiple days of 5 or more claims in a day, they say that the pilot must be making fraudulent claims. Personally, I think it’s a bit unfair to base a pilot’s credibility on the number of claims they make in a day. German fighter pilots, especially on the Eastern Front during the major battles like Kursk were required to fly 7, 8 or even more missions in a day. Unless you have their log-books, only an estimate can be made on how many claims for individual missions during a day were made, which I have based on the reported time of the claims and the following criteria:

1. Flying time for a Bf 109/Fw190 was about 90 minutes (being based close to the front and the rare use of drop tanks), and
2. Pilots were reluctant to engage in a second air battle after clear separation from the original air battle, due to potential ammunition and fuel shortage, thus tended to land and rearm.

Therefore, having the known times of claims, we can estimate missions where any claims around an hour or more apart would highly likely be from separate missions. For example, Johannes Weise (Stab I./JG 52) had 12 claims on 5 July 1943 (1st day of Kursk) which can be separated into 5 missions;

1. 3 claims (03.47, 03.55, 04.03)
2. 2 claims (07.51, 08.12)
3. 1 claim (09.40)
4. 1 claim (15.25)
5. 5 claims (18.30, 18.33, 18.40, 18.45, 18.50)

It is likely that he flew more scoreless missions that day, especially between the 09.40 claim and the 15.25 claim. Anyway, the most claiming missions that I can see on this basis is Walter Wolfrum who claimed 11 in 7 missions (1 [04.20], 1 [06.30], 2 [09.33, 09.47], 1 [11.17], 3 [14.09, 14.13, 14.20], 2 [16.07, 16.20], & 1 [18.07]) on 30 May 1944.

To me, a better measure of credibility is the number of claims in a mission. Several Allied pilots achieved 5 in a mission with less opportunity, so one could expect with the many opportunities German Pilots had, that many would be able to achieve 5+ in a mission and many did. Is it possible to claim 5 in a mission more than once - Marseille proved that this can be done in Africa. The first time he claimed 5+ in a mission (03.06.42 – claimed 6) from allied records that he got 5 and the 6th crash landed while returning to base. The second time (17.06.42- claimed 6) all claims were confirmed lost by allied records. So yes, it can be done. In all Marseille made 5 or more claims in a mission 5 times, but only the first 2 are fully supported by allied records (more on the others later).

So, what about achieving 5+ claims, 3, 4, or even 5 time in a career. The following are claimants that made 5+ claims in a mission, on 3 or more occasions that I was able to determine from available data – these can be broken into 3 groups as shown below.


Total / 5+ in a Day / Highest count in a day / 5+ in a mission / Highest count in a mission
JG54
Erich Rudorffer 224 13 14 13 13
Walter Nowotny 258 16 10 10 7
Emil Lang 173 7 18 7 9
Hans Philipp 206 10 9 6 6

JG 5
Theodore Weissenberger 208 13 7 10 7
Heinrich Ehrler 208 6 8 4 7
Walter Schuck 206 9 12 4 7
Jakob Norz 117 6 7 4 5
Franz Dorr 128 9 7 3 6

Other (Propaganda/Ego)
Erich Hartmann JG 52 352 19 11 5 6
Hans-Joachim Marseille JG 27 158 7 17 5 8

(Sorry about the format - cannot seem to insert a table)

This list contains the usual suspects when it comes to accused over-claimers and/or Fraud accusations. There is no surprise with the first 2 groups in consideration of the accusations regularly levelled at JG 5 and JG 54, of which much has been said and written. It’s the 3rd group that I wanted to highlight here.

Let’s first look at Marseille.

Marseilles achieved 5+ in a mission on 5 occasions.
03.06.42 (70-75) 1st mission 6 claims (12.22, 12.25, 12.27, 12.28, 12.29, 12.33) – 5 Allied aircraft lost + 1 crash landed on way back to base
17.06.42 (96.-104) 1st mission 6 claims (12.02, 12.03, 12.05, 12.08, 12.09, 12.12) – all 6 allied aircraft lost
01.09.42 (109.-116) 2nd mission 8 claims (10.55, 10.56, 10.58, 10.59, 11.01, 11.02, 11.03, 11.03) - supposedly all 8 allied aircraft lost but only 4 known to me
01.09.42 (117.-121) 3rd mission 5 claims (17.47, 17.48, 17.49, 17.50, 17.53) – Total 9 German claims for 6 Allied aircraft losses
15.09.42 (145.-151) 1st mission 7 claims (16.51, 16.53, 16.54, 16.57, 16.59, 17.01, 17.02) – Total 20 German claims for 6 Allied aircraft losses + 2 damaged

Note the times of Marseilles claims – generally 3 minutes or less between claims. Marseille had reportedly a very good shot and mastered the art of deflection shooting- after shooting down the first he would turn in the formation and shoot down the next – thus the short timeframes between claims. He was considered the yardstick for efficiency of claims. I remember reading that Galland commented on this, when referring to how few rounds of ammunition Marseille used for each claim.

By my count, mostly based on Christopher Shores work, Marseille first 100 claims in Africa were very accurate - 73 identified, +12 probable (more German claims than actual allied losses and cannot identify if Marseille directly responsible or not)) +7 that crash-landed and 8 unidentified of which 4 of these were in a combat over his base witnessed by everyone in 3./JG 27 on the ground on 15 June 1942 of which I have yet to identify the unit/victims – so basically of his first 100 claims in Africa only 2 are unknown. However, of his next 51 claims only 17 can be identified, a further 21 probable, 2 damaged and 11 unknown – he dropped from 85% accuracy (identified + probable) to less than 70% accuracy (identified + probable). Part of this was due to the bigger battles, but part of this was in my opinion, propaganda and ego – he was in the race for the top ace and no-one was going to question him and the propaganda machine wanted heroes – he fired at a plane, hit it and claimed it, no one was going to question him thus over-claiming. It’s Marseilles – they must have crashed. Particularly claims 145-151 – over-claimed badly to achieve a milestone (propaganda).

Though Hartmann claimed 5+ in a day an incredible 19 times, he claimed 5+ in a single mission on only 5 occasions and the most he claimed in a single mission is 6 – well short of the achievements of many of the multi-claimers listed earlier. These 5 times were:

26.02.44 195-199 2nd mission 5 claims (11.45, 11.48, 11.53, 11.58, 12.03)
04.06.44 246-250 2nd mission 5 claims (17.13, 17.23, 17.53, 18.15. 18.18)
23.08.44 286-290 2nd missions 5 claims (17.10, 17.12, 17.15, 17.17, 17.30)
24.08.44 291-296 1st mission 6 claims (13.15, 13.18, 13.19, 13.25, 13.27, 13.40)
24.08.44 297-301 2nd mission 5 claims (16.00, 16.03, 16.06, 16.10. 16.20)

The trend here is that he was going for 200, 250, and 300 –one can automatically see propaganda milestones but this can be a little bit deceiving.

Hartmann’s advantage was that he supposedly possessed fantastic eyesight that allowed him to spot the enemy first and be able to position for his favoured combat tactic of dive, attack, climb and dive again. This took time and many of Hartmann’s claims are 10+ minutes between claims - As I pointed out earlier, Marseille typically took up to 3 minutes between claims with his dive into combat and deflection shooting in the formation. So, anything between 4 and 9 minutes I gave the benefit of doubt to Hartmann – he may have hung around in combat or he may climb back and attacked. In Hartmann’s 1st 223 claims he claimed more than 3 in a mission only once – the first time he claimed 5. I think like Marseille these are genuine claims - being typically 5 minutes apart. Up until the 223rd claim Hartmann made multiple claims 3 minutes or less apart on only 7 occasions – including the occasion he was shot down while attacking the Il-2s (89th and 89th). Then, between claim 223 and 352 he achieved this feat 20 times - gradually increasing until the 20th -24th August (claims 275 – 302) where he claimed 5+ in a mission 3 times. The other 5 in a mission (to 250) is more like Hartmann (10 min, 20 min’s, 22 min’s, & 3 min’s between claims) so probably genuine and within Hartmann’s way of operation. Therefore, I suspect that this chase to 300 is major overclaiming - like Marseille’s chase to 150 (7 of 20 Luftwaffe claims for 6 losses + 2 damaged). As with Marseille, he shot at and hit an aircraft so it must be shot down!! The hierarchy wants their hero, so they likely will not even check the claims. “It’s Hartmann – they must have crashed”.

Having said all this, Hartmann rarely claimed more than 3 in a mission due to the limitation of flight time and his tactics – say 15 minutes to the front and return, and 10 minutes between claims – that is 50 minutes and he would need to have time to find his adversary, he would be in danger of running out of fuel – so 2 or 3 passes a mission – typically 2 or 3 claims - all reasonably believable to me. For the 322 claims in the claim microfilms Hartmann made the following:

1 claim in a mission - 109 times
2 claims in a mission - 61 times
3 claims in a mission - 19 times
4 claims in a mission - 2 (twice)
5 claims in a mission - 4 times
6 claims in a mission - 1 (once)

This is why I think it is difficult to find a partner in crime for fraudulent claims, as there is no real crime – just over-claiming. Hartmann’s success is that he flew a hell of a lot of missions and didn’t spend time on the side-lines wounded as did other experten. Marseille on the other hand was a master of deflection shooting, so he could get several victims in a single pass (proven against losses) – this is why I rate Marseille over Hartmann as the better fighter pilot.

As I stated earlier, I do believe Hartmann over-claimed – how much he over-claimed, I don’t know. His diving tactics would make it difficult to know for certain if his victim crashed. He dives, he hits an aircraft, and unless it explodes or the pilot bales out – how would he or his wingman determine that the aircraft actually crashed. Many Russian aircraft – like the Il-2 - could take a pounding before they would actually crashed. I believe that a portion of his claims were aircraft that either got back to base damaged or crash-landed in friendly territory and were later recovered – this last item also happened a lot in Africa, which made finding victims difficult at times.

I’ve been following the various threads on Hartmann and aside from use of false/out-dated information and badly researched articles, the number of claims identified to date is low. I find it a bit annoying when someone research’s a combat or short period of combat and finds that pilot “A” has claims that match the losses exactly thus that pilot must be an accurate claimer, without taking into consideration the rest of his career, while pilot “B” claims in a short time period do not match thus he must be fraudulent, all without looking at the whole of their careers and the situation they are in. For example, if you take Marseille’s claims of 15 June 1942 alone, Marseille must be very accurate (100%) but if you take his claims of 15 September 1942 alone, then Marseilles must be a fraud (30%)!!! It’s not an accurate depiction but it is what a lot of people have been doing. So, until I see a fully well researched work on the Eastern Front like Christopher Shores Mediterranean Air War series, I for one will not call him fraudulent. “

In addition to the above, I would also like to point out that in the back end of his career, Hartmann’s wingmen tended to be inexperienced novices. I doubt a beginner would stand up to contradict his leader and say that the aircraft was only damaged and that it didn’t crash. Add to that, a commanding officer who appears to be not so rigid on claim verification as you suggest – overclaiming would increase. So did Hartmann purposely make false claims? I don’t think so. Exaggerated yes, false no. Is this fraudulent, some may argue it is but many of us exaggerate, however for us mere mortals we are kept in check. I compare it to like a sports superstar. Many tend to become arrogant with their success and ego takes over. What happens if this is not kept in check by the relevant authorities!

Regards,

Craig…

[NickM]

Originally Posted by Leo Etgen

Hi guys

Very interesting discussion regarding the claim accuracy of the various pilots in World War II. I am very glad that some facts have emerged regarding the accuracy of various German aces on the Eastern Front which helps us determine which pilots appear to have generally been more accurate than others. I am interested in the facts as best can be determined and if these seem to show that a certain pilot overclaimed, for whatever reason, then so be it. As an interesting demonstration of how the picture changes when one reads an account that draws on the loss lists of both sides, I recently read F4U Corsair versus A6M Zero-sen by Claringbould. One has always read accounts of how the F4U dominated the various Japanese fighters in aerial combat to the point that it racked up an eleven to one kill to loss ratio ... This may very well have been true when confronting barely trained pilots fit only for Kamikaze missions but the results of the air battles between the Corsair and the Zeke in 1943 and early 1944 over the southwest Pacific were generally quite equal, about one to one. This was a very different result than the idea that is so prevalent due to reading sources that only quote American pilots' accounts and take these at face value.

Horrido!

Leo

Leo, I'm a huge fan of Claringbould, but I have not read THAT volume (though it sounds very interesting!); however I read the Unit History for VMF 214, by Gamble--I WAS surprised that, early on, they took pretty substantial losses in air to air combat (2000 hp Pratt and Whitney or not, more than a few pilots learned the hard way that a Zero could sometimes climb faster than an F4U). Now that Claringbould is turning his attention to include the air battles of the Solomons, I'm sure he's going to break everything down.

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by VtwinVince

I think you'll need to produce some genuine evidence before making sweeping claims. And the 'overclaiming rabbit hole' needs to be more actively pursued on both sides.

Overclaiming of Allied pilots is discussed since the end of the war. Those were German victories which were portrayed as modest, absolutely accurate, and not debatable. It is funny to see a fury when they are put in doubt, among those, who did not hesitate to blame Allied pilots.
The evidence is all around, there are combat reports, mission reports or loss reports for Allied combatants, and it is possible not only to establish if there were any losses, but also if there were any engagements. If there are victories submitted at the time and place no Allied aircraft operated at all, what is the explanation?
Mind you, the opposite is not possible, the German paperwork is fragmentary at best.

[VtwinVince]

I'm not 'blaming' anyone or trying to establish some sort of moral high ground. But I do see much zeal, on this and other forums, to attempt to call into question German claims without similar impetus given to the other side.

[Stig Jarlevik]

Every human being has his demons to fight.
Some of us win while others loose

In war or other desperate times it all depends on what kind of leadership we have.

In the German case, it is easy to see where the "losers" went. With such a system as the Germans adopted
"ruthless" individuals could all to easily manipulate the system.
But it was there just for the taking and just like today there are always individuals ready to use whatever
it takes.

For the Russians it was more or less the same. Manipulated by the Government the coveted HSU
was probably overwhelming to many, resulting in an incredible overclaiming.

In Japan it was the codex of the past that counted. And nobody ever questioned that, resulting in
probably the worst overclaiming of the war.

On the Allied side it is more difficult so see the benefit, even if the "aces" were glorified as well.
So far most researchers seems to believe the Allied overclaimed in good faith, but I think there were
enough "culprits" among them as well, even if the German aces have so far been the focus on TOCH.

Me? Oh I think all systems regardless of leadership always lead up to individuals using the system
to their benefit.

Human nature - Darwin if you like - survival of the fittest, either in nature itself, or the systems created....

Likeability? Don't ask since it depends on where you and me belongs.....

Cheers
Stig