Hartmann: claims vs. victories

[HGabor]

Agree, but soviet unit diaries are preserved (at least for the later years of WWII), mechanical reports have cross-references in regular AC inventory reports and there are German pilots, whose claims can be verified from the very same Russian diaries for over 90%! Not just for 29%, like Hartmann's, but over 90%! And that's a big difference. This tells me that those diaries are OK, as the soviets had no clue who sat in those German planes in order to manipulate their records accordingly. Don't forget, that these diaries were still written for themselves as top secret records (and if they did not report the losses, they did not receive new planes and pilots!!!), and not in the '50s, (cold war era) when everybody tried to lie to the 'other side'... We cannot paint both WWII and the cold war era with the same brush...

[Broncazonk]

Originally Posted by HGabor

Don't forget, that these diaries were still written for themselves as top secret records (and if they did not report the losses, they did not receive new planes and pilots!!!), and not in the '50s, (cold war era) when everybody tried to lie to the 'other side'... We cannot paint both WWII and the cold war era with the same brush...

Really good post. I was on the other side of this for a long time, but no more.

The big question is WHY? Why did it happen?

Bronc

[Broncazonk]

Let me clarify the, "why" question.

Was this (could this have been) official (sanctioned) over-claiming for morale (press and propaganda) purposes, OR was this personal ambition, OR had Hartmann perfected a "boom and zoom" aerial combat strategy where he engaged the enemy aircraft with a burst of fire and never looked back. In essence, was he claiming engagements as kills?

[HGabor]

Bronc, these are the questions that I cannot answer. I did not know Hartmann personally and never talked to him, so it would not be fair for me to pretend that I have the correct answer(s). The only thing I know, is that his victory-list contradicts the soviet loss records 'beyond all imagination', while others' match them pretty well. I do not know what political pressure was on him, or he really believed his numbers. He was a very skilled and brave pilot, because even if he destroyed 'only' 102 planes, it is still an amazing achievement. I think his preferred tactics of a quick ambush ('hit and run') itself carried the big chance to misunderstand the actual results. Smoke, or even flames were very visual results, but very often not enough to justify an aerial victory. Everything happened in a split of a second and I think the damaged planes still could have a good chance to survive, as Hartmann usually did not turn back for a second strike.

[Johannes]

Hi Guys

In my experience the most accurate area of claiming was by the night-fighters whose victims often burned which is very obvious, and second attacks much less risky, so in that respect I agree that Hartmann's method of attack would be much less often fatal, but there still lies the question of formality i.e the crash has to be witnessed. As explained before Fritz Obleser is often credited with claims against the U.S.A.A.F, but none appear on the mikrofilms, fortunately we were able to question him about this before his death, actually we presented him with an abschüßelist, as his flugbuch was stolen during 1945, yet still he stated that though he himself was sure he had shot-down nine American aircraft, but he did not submit the claims as in each case he was too pressured to wait around to witness the actual crash. Perhaps Hartmann was not so adhering to formality. Even so checking his claims against his comrades there does seem to be collusion at times as per back scratching, and other periods where his claims are not explained away but this.
A new angle could be the witnesses, with night-fighter I am guessing that the gunner/radio operators fulfilled this job, which is strange as this would be an obvious opener for false claims, yet then why are they so accurate?....my guess is that the crash-sites were easily open to investigation, can't be that these guys were just all an honest bunch. Now day-time ZG units claims are actually not very accurate, especially earlier on, during the battle of Britain there would be no crash-site available.
In the East usually crash-sites were not available for examination. Also I have noticed that the worst offenders were also Gruppenkommandeur, with Rudorffer he obviously used his wingman Tangermann back scratching wise, but not Hartmann or Nowotny, I don't know, and am looking for an answer as to who signs-off a Kommandeur or Kommodore's claim. Nowotny's earlier claims(prior to being Kommandeur) were obviously achieved with back scratching using Dobele and Loos.
Hartmann was not popular among his comrades, not necessarily because he was suspected by them of false-claims, he was a poor officer, but what of his personality?
Marseille's wingmen had a hard job just keeping-up with recording his claims including the crash-sites, but it was done, so it can be done.
Hartmann records only one claim whilst flying for JG53, in a period when there should really have been more, but his 1945 claims are generally vague anyway and as such cannot really be investigated as in most cases we cannot even really be sure about the dates net alone time or place, or even aircraft type.

An over-claimers pattern of "kills" are usually very obvious, Hartmann, Rudorffer, Nowotny all follows this pattern, whereas Günther Rall, Walter Krupinski and Helmut Lipfert stand out particularly as not following this pattern, but Marseille's does....a one-off ?

Kind Regards

Johannes

[HGabor]

A very interesting victory analysis from Ivan Lavrinenko for Eric Hartmann's claims in Jassy, in the spring of 1944. Out of his 35 claims about 26% could be potential victories. This is worse percentage than what I found for him over Hungary (I found about 30%), but still not too far from it. Based on these, the number of Hartmann's real victories in WWII could be around 95-100.

https://warspot.ru/3125-hartman-nad-...one-za-mechami

Gabor

[HGabor]

On February 21, 1945 2nd Belarus Front, 4 VA, 327 BAD, 640 BAP Douglas A-20G-35-DO Boston (S/N: 43-10097), piloted by Ml.Lt. Vasilii Fedorovich Artamonov (+) was shot down by 8-10 enemy fighters over Poland. Navigator-bombardier, Ml.Lt. Andrei Nikiforovich Krivohizha was also killed.

(The other 4 VA, 327 BAD, 640 BAP A-20G-40-DO Boston (S/N: 43-21503) this day, piloted by Ml.Lt. Temeryatnikov was damaged by flak.)

Since no further details are known for Erich Hartmann's 335th Boston III. (or Mitchell?) claim in Jan-Feb, 1945, No.43-10097 is a potential 'candidate' for him, but cannot be verified, until more specific details of Hartmann's claim are revealed.

Gabor

[GMichalski]

hello,

On February 21, 1945 i cant find claims of Hartman...

info of Johannes Mathews:

4,2.45 1./JG 53 Hptm Yak-9 Veszprém area _____ _____ E N 337
20,2.45 I./JG 52 Hptm P-39 _____ _____ E N 338
20,2.45 I./JG 52 Hptm La-5 _____ _____ E N 339
6,3.45 I./JG 52 Hptm La-5 raum Oppeln/Brieg Oppeln/Brieg _____ _____ E KBT N 340
6,3.45 I./JG 52 Hptm Yak-9 raum Oppeln/Brieg Oppeln/Brieg _____ _____ E KBT N 341

regards

[Johannes]

Hi Gabor

It's difficult to arrive at a "total" based on percentages. It must be a fact that in "over-claiming" Hartmann was so inclined, but he also needed the opportunity, though 9./JG52 in particular, and 7./JG52 had fellow "over-claimers" they were not all so inclined, I suspect as a matter of my own opinion that Hartmann's claims before July 1943 were honest, at this point i suspect the opportunity appeared, that's not to say that there were not "over-claimers" already in operation at this time. 9./JG52 had the Hermann Graf schwarm claiming like mad over a year earlier.

Guess we need to workout just for how long he did "over-claim", and did he have periods when he couldn't get away with it, there is at least one period then he was with JG53.

Kind Regards

Johannes

[HGabor]

I think everything was already mentioned earlier about Hartmann's claims. Calculated average, based on his fall and spring, 1944 claims - researched in details, etc. Most of his claims were max. damaged planes at best for about 70%. But I think eg. his final, May 8, 1945 Yak-9 claim was not just a mistake, or a damaged plane, - simply it was not true. Did not happen at all. (How could I say it nicer?) No combat events between soviet Yaks and the Luftwaffe in the whole region in the entire day. Closest Yak loss was about 240 km north from the reported area of Brno.

Gabor