Hartmann: claims vs. victories

[rof120]

[quote=Faenor;297776]Hi Gabor,

"Missing: 2 IL-2, 9 Yak-9, 2 Aerocobras

How was these 2 Aerocobras lost ..."

Hie Faenor, I am not trying to educate you or something. This fighter-type was called Airacobra in the country which produced it but I don't know whether this name was entirely "respected" in the USSR or not: perhaps they did change it a little.

I wrote this because you and other people could have some difficulties when using a search engine in order to get more details, the first syllable not being the same in both cases: Aira vs Aero.

[HGabor]

FAenor,
Indeed, on June 4, 1944 the soviet 5th Air Army has reported the following summarized losses, however, the detailed unit reports are a bit different in some minor details:

Dogfight: 1 Yak-9, 1 IL-2
Flak: 4 IL-2
Missing: 2 IL-2, 9 Yak-9, 2 Aero(SIC!)cobras

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

16 GvIAP temporarily lost 3 damaged P-39s during the 2nd daily group mission between 16:25-17:30 (Moscow time) which, I think, is an hour late compared to the local time. Later all 3 planes got repaired. (See details in prev. notes.) Since the 5th Air Army summary-report mentioned 2 missing Airacobras, I assume they were the seriously, but not fatally damaged planes (Gv.Ml.Lt. Vladimir Vasilevich Dushanin and Gv.Ml.Lt. Petr Vasilevich Ketov), which landed somewhere else, not back at their base. These, or some of them could be Hartmann’s claims, however in this timeframe (15:25-16:30, local) he claimed NO P-39s!!! But If you consider both fighters to be Hartmann’s victims, then it’s 2 planes vs. his claimed 6. (Which were later repaired.) So ‘0 vs. 6’, or ‘2 vs. 6’. Still very poor, temporary result!

5 VA, 294 IAD, 427 IAP lost 4 Yak-9 and 3 (of their) pilots from St.Lt. Shamenkov’s flight: Lt. Shakurov, Ml.Lt. Kozlov and Ml.lt. Morozov. Ml.Lt. Pavel Antonovich Ponomarenko and Ml.Lt. Ivan Fedorovich Golovanov (both 427 IAP) were KIA in dogfight with enemy fighters. 8 Yak-9, 12 IL-2 vs. 14 Fw 190, 6 Me 109 in the Larga area between 16:00-17:00 (Moscow time). Ml.Lt. Sergeev’s Yak-9 crashlanded on soviet controlled territory, burned out, but the injured pilot returned to his own unit. 4 Yak-9 vs. 6 Fw 190s in the Larga area after 09:43, Moscow time.

(I think one of these 427 IAP Yak-9s could be Hartmann’s 245., ‘LaGG’ victory.)

Between 09:28-10:00 (Moscow time) two 5 VA, 231 ShAD, 873 ShAP IL-2s (Potapov, Kisterev) took off for a recce. mission in the Tăutești-Horlești area. Over the target the recce. pair had received intense flak fire and Ml.Lt. Nikolai Ignatevich Kisterev‘s IL-2 (S/N: 9341, gunner: Morozov) was shot down. Plane fell in the Tăutești area. Not air combat!

Between 16:27-17:15 (Moscow time) 12, 873 ShAP IL-2s were attacking about 50 enemy tanks and 100 other vehicles in the 173. point area (Iassi-NW, ~13 km). Dogfight with 6-8 Me 109s, plus AA fire. After the attack, IL-2 (S/N: 7707, pilot: Ml.Lt. Tsukerov) failed to return from combat mission. Since in the late 188 GvShAP records this very same plane was mentioned at least twice due to combat damages (February 4 and 29, 1945), this time it had to be only seriously damaged and repaired, but NOT lost. It probably force landed somewhere else and returned to base only after repair. That’s why it is not listed as a permanent loss. (The 873 ShAP was re-organized as 188 GvShAP by October 27, 1944.)

5 VA, 231 ShAD, 568 ShAP IL-2 (pilot: Maj. Mikhail Ivanovich Kasimov, gunner: St.Sgt. Gorelov) was shot down by enemy fighters in the target area.

5 VA, 231 ShAD, 568 ShAP IL-2 (pilot: Ml.Lt. Boris Petrovich Koselev, gunner: Sgt. Starkov) was shot down also by an enemy fighter in the target area.

(In the dogfight two additional air gunners were killed (Ml.Sgt. Alexandr Dmitrievich Gatilov and Ml.Sgt. Mikhail Grigorevich Zelenin), but their planes returned to base OK.)

5 VA, 231 ShAD, 568 ShAP IL-2 (pilot: Lt. Vladimir Ivanovich Pushkarev, gunner: Ml.Sgt. Zenin) was shot down by flak in the target area.

(At 16:20, 12 IL-2s of 568 ShAP were escorted by 6 Yak-9s. Combat with 4 Fw 190, 4 Me 109, - 3 losses.)

Between 19:30-20:38 (Moscow time), 12 5 VA, 7 GvShAD, 130 GvShAP IL-2 attacked targets in the Moimești area. IL-2m3 (S/N: 1878584, pilot: Gv.Ml.Lt. Ivan Petrovich Saharov, gunner: Ml.Sgt. Victor Ivanovich Lesovoi) was hit by flak and crashed in the target area.

Another 130 GvShAP IL-2m3 (S/N: 1878291, white ‘1’, pilot: Kravchenko, gunner: Kulakov) was damaged in a dogfight with 2 Fw 190s. Crew got injured.

Hope this helps.
Gabor


(Rof120: the soviet 5th Air Army document says AEROcobras, not AIRAcobras. Not a big deal, we all know they were P-39s ;-))

[rof120]

(Rof120: the soviet 5th Air Army document says AEROcobras, not AIRAcobras. Not a big deal, we all know they were P-39s ;-)

- Yes, of course you're right. Nevertheless if you try a search on the (general) Internet better use the original American name, Airacobra, in order to get (any) hits .

3 minutes later: I tried and it worked with Aerocobra too. Don't ask me why but I suspect Putin now controls Google.

[HGabor]

:-) hah, that's good.

[BenFolk]

Hello!
1) Unfortunately after the emergency landing Gv.Ml.Lt. Vladimir Vasilevich Dushanin returned on foot. His plane was not serviced.

2) Gv ml. Lieutenant Buzdin Ivan Pavlovich
104 GvIAP 9 GvIAD was missing.

So two P-39. Exactly. The Sovjets wrote the truth.

Greeting

[Broncazonk]

There is one scenario where Erich Hartmann is relatively "innocent" in all of this and it has everything to do with his wingman.

If I am Erich Hartmann's wingman, the safest thing for ME to say every single time for MY own safety is, "you got him!"

By way of example, Hartmann and his wingman are out on a free hunt. There they are, sitting up high, ducking in and out of the clouds, watching and waiting for something to develop. A Russian bomber formation appears down low in tight formation with fighter cover just a few thousand feet above them. Hartmann power dives, his wingman close behind, and BOOM Hartmann opens up on a victim with machine guns and cannon. Hartmann ZOOMS through the fighter protection and never even looks back, because his wingman who had a really good and very clear view of the engagement says, "you got him! That's a victory."

Hartmann's wingman could have been thinking: (1) I am Erich Hartmann's wingman and I don't want to be the guy that got Erich Hartmann killed. (2) Also, I don't want to die because death is bad and I enjoy being Erich Hartmann's wingman. (3) I saw Erich Hartmann engage a Russian aircraft at close range and saw numerous machine gun and cannon strikes on that aircraft. (4) The aircraft rolled over and headed straight towards the ground right after being hosed with bullets and shells fired by Erich Hartmann. (5) There is no reason whatsoever to go back in there and get mixed up in a furball with a bunch of pissed-off Russians just to see if that aircraft hit the ground: See 1 and 2 above.

I can see this happening A LOT. And this also explains 4 and 5 "victories" in a single mission.

And in my opinion, Hartmann may have honestly believed his wingman, not knowing what he was actually doing.

Bronc

[Nick Hector]

QUOTE: I can see this happening A LOT. And this also explains 4 and 5 "victories" in a single mission.

And in my opinion, Hartmann may have honestly believed his wingman, not knowing what he was actually doing.


Great theory. Fantastic theory.
....And then you compare Hartmann's tally of verifiable victories with pilots whose tallies stand up much better to comparison with the enemy's records (Gabor's example of Lipfert being a great case in point). Is the realisation that maybe, just maybe, Hartmann was a line-shooter really too terrible....?

Not having a dig at you, Bronc, but it's just a question worth asking.

[Broncazonk]

Originally Posted by Nick Hector

Great theory. Fantastic theory.

....And then you compare Hartmann's tally of verifiable victories with pilots whose tallies stand up much better to comparison with the enemy's records (Gabor's example of Lipfert being a great case in point). Is the realisation that maybe, just maybe, Hartmann was a line-shooter really too terrible....?

Not having a dig at you, Bronc, but it's just a question worth asking.

What?? I don't understand any of that.

Bronc

[Nick Hector]

Meaning that people seem to be finding excuses for a guy who actually looks like a liar.

He seems to be among the bottom 10 percent of guys whose victory tallies stand up to comparison with enemy losses. How many theories can we come up with to excuse that?

[Broncazonk]

Originally Posted by Nick Hector

Meaning that people seem to be finding excuses for a guy who actually looks like a liar.

He seems to be among the bottom 10 percent of guys whose victory tallies stand up to comparison with enemy losses.

Yeah. No argument here about that. It looks bad. I was just positing the one scenario (that I can think of) that makes Hartmann relatively "innocent."

["There is one scenario where Erich Hartmann is relatively "innocent" in all of this and it has everything to do with his wingman."]

I have Helmut Lipfert's book on my lap as I write this. (I've been looking at the photographs.) There are several photographs of Lipfert with Hartmann, that is, Lipfert talking to Hartmann. To me, it is apparent in the photographs that Hartmann would not look Lipfert in the eyes. And in one photograph it is r-e-a-l-l-y obvious that he wouldn't.

Bronc