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

[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.

[Boandlgramer]

Vinman wrote:
What happened to the thread?




lost in combat .

[Vinman]

Hello Boandlgramer,
Why was it ended?
Did it get to hot for discussing, or some other reason?
Vinman.

[Boandlgramer]

last pages were a little bit too "off topic" , and also insulting.

[Vinman]

Hi Boandlgramer,

Its too bad that some individuals cannot have an intelligent discussion, without insults.
If people could only put away their bias opionions and stop making blanket statements, then evyone could have a great debate. Oh well, maybe the subject will come up again.
The only question I have is: Does Hartmann's score or any other Luftwaffe Ace's score include shared kills? You never see it written in any publication. For example, Johnnie Johnson: 38 Kills (30 Individual + 7 Shared).
Vinman.

[Boandlgramer]

in the german luftwaffe there was no shared victory.

[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.

[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.