Erich Hartmann vs. P-51

[kennethklee]

Originally Posted by Kapper

Kenneth

I wouldn’t use the Toliver and Constable (T&C) Book as the Gospel in respect to Erich Hartmann’s claims. The T&C book that I have in my possesion was written in 1970 with a revision in 1985. A lot has happened since then, including the finding of some of the RLM claims files that have been copied onto the Net by Tony Woods.

By T&Cs own admission the first 150 claims listed were taken from Hartmann’s first logbook however the remaining 202 are sourced from III/JG52 records and personal letters. These claims mostly lack detail and 28 of those are in a date range only.

The Tony Wood’s list was translated from the RLM microfilms. Robs states he has 337 claims, I’ve actually got 324 but I believe 3 of these are either double up or incorrect, unfortunately I don’t have a copy of the original to confirm this.

Now, when comparing the Tony Wood’s list with the T&C list, you would expect that the first 150 claims to match as they were taken from the RLM listing and Hartman’s first logbook. This is not the case, they don’t! Of the 150 claims 7 differ on dates, 8 differ on time and 22 differ on type. This is without looking at location in detail. That means only 113 of the claims match. This would indicate some translation errors of handwritten documents and possible clerical error.

For the remaining 202, 171 claims are listed in the Wood’s list (RLM) with the remaining 31 claims not listed at all.

Of the 171 (Wood’s) listed claims when compared to the T&C list, we note that 14 are missing from T&Cs list (No 267 – 280 24/5/44-23/8/44), 44 differ in date and 17 differ on type. This leave 96 that generally agree but remember there is no time and few types and locations listed in the T&C List.

Of the remaining 31 not listed in Tony Wood’s list, I’ve compared these to Barbas’s “Die Geschicht der I Gruppe des Jagdgeschwader 52” and “Die Geschicht der II Gruppe des Jagdgeschwader 52”. Again 14 are missing from T&Cs list (No. 333 – 346, 6/2/45-27/2/45), and 7 differ in date so only 10 agree on date with both lists (very little data in time or location).

Thus, only 113 of the first 150 claims for both list match thus having a high reliability of being accurate claims. 96 of the remaining 171 Wood’s listed claims are even comparable but less reliable with the T&C list lacking in type, time, and location. Of the remaining 31 claims that were compared to Barbas’s work only 11 is comparable but again even less reliable with both lists lacking time and location for many of the claims.

Now this raises an interesting question? Dimitri Khazanov’s wrote an article in respect to Hartmann only gaining 80 victories. I do not have a copy of the article but I have read Jean-Yves Lorant response and it appears that Khazanov’s research is based on the T&Cs list in his effort to confirm the claims. In light of the differences listed above, it’s no wonder Khazanov can only confirm about 80 of Hartmann’s 352 claims using the T&C list.

If anyone has a copy of Khazanov’s article/work I would be interested in getting a copy to determine which of Hartmann’s claims he was able to confirm for his 80 victories?

For those interested, I’ve attached my combined lists that was used in the comparison.

Regards,

Craig...

Craig-

Thanks much for your detailed and thoughtful response, as well as your revised list of Hartmann's victories, to my query about Hartmann's P-51 victories (or victory). I've realized in the past 10 years that Toliver and Constable's (T&C) writings on Luftwaffe fighter aces and their victories are inconsistent in their accuracy, exacerbated by their lack of rigorous references, and the revision on Hartmann's P-51 credited victories only underscores this. My access to the newer literature on Hartmann is limited, but thanks to you and others on this listserve, as well as the internet, I am starting to gather more recent and accurate information.

This discussion created another question for me; T&C have emphasized in their books that the Luftwaffe system of verifying victories was very rigorous and rendered accurate the credited victory totals of Luftwaffe fighter pilots. Of course, victory lists and totals of some leading Luftwaffe fighter aces, including Rudorffer and Bendert, have recently been shown to be dubious. Donald Caldwell. in his JG 26 War Diaries, has also raised questions as to the veracity of some specific victories of Luftwaffe fighter aces (I don't have the books at hand, but Emil Lang comes to mind). I suspect the victory verification system was not nearly as rigorous as T&C claimed and I am curious as to what others thought about it, especially in comparison to the verification systems of the Americans, British, Russian, and Japanese. I realize this is a very subjective question and a clear-cut answer may not be possible.

Thanks,
Kenneth

[Rob Romero]

The system was a good one, and necessary for high command evaluation of battle results, but like any system, rules are only as good as their application or enforcement and the honesty of those charged to do so; as with any human endeavor, this varied according to the mores of each individual involved.

Rob Romero

[kennethklee]

Originally Posted by Rob Romero

The system was a good one, and necessary for high command evaluation of battle results, but like any system, rules are only as good as their application or enforcement and the honesty of those charged to do so; as with any human endeavor, this varied according to the mores of each individual involved.

Rob Romero

True that. Thanks Rob.

[NickM]

Originally Posted by Kapper

Kenneth

Of the 150 claims 7 differ on dates, 8 differ on time and 22 differ on type.

Regards,

Craig...

Craig in all fairness(and NOT having read the entire thread JUST yet!) and being slightly tongue in cheek, most LW aces had 'appalling' aircraft IDing skills, it seems.

NM

[Rob Romero]

Kenneth this is an expanded version of my point refering the Luft victory claim verification system:

The system was a good one, and necessary for high command evaluation of battle results, but like any system, rules are only as good as their application or enforcement and the honesty of those charged to do so; as with any human endeavor, this varied according to the mores of each individual involved. MOREOVER THE ALLIES FACED THE SAME LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY HUMAN FRAILTY AND SUBJECTIVITY ('I got good hits on the bugger who was smoking when he dove into the overcast, so he MUST have gone down' -Could a wingman comfortably dispell the claim of an adamant Section or Rotte leader when he would want to maintain an amicable relatationship with his superior and would perhaps need confirmation of his own claims later?) -SUCH ISSUES WERE LARGELY RESOLVED THROUGH THE USE OF GUN CAMERAS.

Rob Romero

[mayfair35]

RE: Hartmann vs P-51
I was on the June 24th mission and only 1 P-51 was lost on the Ploesti mission. The other loss was on an Air Sea Rescue escort mission. Welch was hit by light flak in the Pescara, Italy area and crashed into the sea.
For the Ploesti mission, 46 Mustangs took off, 7 were early returns, 39 Mustangs rendezvoused with the B-24s at 0920 hours, 38 Mustangs left bombers at 1021 hours. 38 P-51s down at base at 1530 hours. Claims were
1 Me-109 destroyed 2 FW-190s destroyed 1 IAR 80 Probably destroyed
2 IAR 80 destroyed 2 ME-109s Probably destroyed

I believe the FW-190s were actually IAR 80s

Cordially, Art Fiedler

[Kapper]

Kenneth,

The issue of the Luftwaffe system of verification has been pretty much flogged to death within other discussion threads in this Forum, you might wish to do a search on this to see several different viewpoints. You are correct in your comment that this subject is very subjective as several of these threads ended up being closed by the moderator

For my opinion, I started writing a detailed response to try to justify my opinion and found that I was starting to write an essay. To keep it simple, I believe initially the German system was very rigid but was relaxed during the conflict to help process the backlog of claims (and possibly propaganda). So Robs answer is a very good answer, however I will add that the application of systems change as circumstances change (for good or bad) and I believe that this occurred on both sides during various stages of the war.

Regards,

Craig..

[Kapper]

Nick,

I agree that the Luftwaffe pilots seem to have an aircraft identification problem, just as much as the Allies also had this problem (i.e. Allied claims for Bf109/MC202’s in North Africa). This is one of many reasons that makes it difficult to compare claims to losses.

Regards,

Craig..

[FalkeEins]

Originally Posted by Kapper

If anyone has a copy of Khazanov’s article/work I would be interested in getting a copy to determine which of Hartmann’s claims he was able to confirm for his 80 victories?
For those interested, I’ve attached my combined lists that was used in the comparison.

Regards,

Craig...

Khazanov doesn't go into the sort of detail you've attempted. I've translated parts of his piece...& the response from Lorant/Ring, which includes detailed quotes from Khazanov's article - therefore the following might be of some interest to you. Ring states that these illustrations "serve to expose the superficial nature of Khazanov's assertions and confirm that his only goal in compiling his article was to discredit Hartmann and his record ...."



A) Hartmann's two victory claims on 20 August 1943.
Combats took place west of Millerowo on that day according to Khazanov who states that "there exists no corresponding loss in the Russian archives" . In actual fact Hartmann claimed his victories in square 88263, ie east of Kuteinikowo, some 160 km south of Millerowo with 7. and 9./JG 52 claiming six Il-2s shot down. During the day some 33 victories were claimed by the Germans, although none in the sector around Millerowo.


B) Hartmann's 100th claimed on 20 September 1943.
According to Khazanov, "German observers noted a LaGG-3 plunging earthwards, while on the Russian side the loss of a Yak-7 of the 288th Fighter Division of the 17th Army was reported.." Khazanov fails to state whether a time was recorded for this loss. At least eleven victories were claimed over the sector where Hartmann was operating that day.


C) "On 29 May 1944 Hartmann claimed three La-5s shot down in the vicinity of the airfield of Roman (Rumania) during a large scale attack by aircraft of the 5th Air Army. All the La-5s of the 302nd Fighter Division returned safely" . False. Hartmann claimed a single Airacobra near Jassy. In addition Hartmann's victories 248-250 claimed on 4 June 1944 were P-39s and not Il-2s


D) "Between 3 and 6 June 1944 Hartmann claimed 15 Airacobras and 8 La-5s" . Incorrect. During these four days of combat Hartmann claimed 22 victories ( 7 La-5s, 2 Yak-9s, 13 Airacobras, of which five were claimed before 15h00).


E) " The Nazi regime needed heroes (...). According to German sources, based on the testimony of Hartmann's wingman Ofw. K. Unger, the famous 'ace' claimed a total of 19 soviet aircraft on 23 and 24 August, including eleven victories on 24 August 1944, while Russian losses amounted to three Airacobras only. The only likely candidate to have been shot down by Hartmann on this date is a single Po-2 of the 208th Night Bomber Division... " .
Khazanov asserts that Hartmann "in no way obtained the exceptional results claimed. At the very least eight of these victories are pure invention..". However Khazanov fails to note that German fighters claimed a total of 24 victories on that date near Sandomierz. No Po-2s feature in these claims. These combats all took place over German-held territory and were thus witnessed.


F) Hartmann apparently shot down a number of German fighters in error. Khazanov quotes a story related to him by Sergei Sikorsky, the son of the famous designer who worked in the BRD (Federal Republic) post war and knew Hartmann well.
Hartmann.. " on occasion the most experienced pilots were obliged to get airborne in the most appalling weather conditions to 'free hunt' . Being able to spot the most basic of landmarks on the desolate Steppe and having absolute mastery of my aircraft were the two factors that enabled me to always return safely. On at least two occasions in bad weather ( once over the Dniepr during the autumn of 1943 ) I attacked and brought down two aircraft. It was only as they were going down that I noted the Balkenkreuze on their wings..needless to say no-one ever knew of this..."
I consider this statement highly unlikely. Hartmann never flew alone and always remained in contact with German ground stations. Any pilot engaging in combat would immediately report the fact over the frequency. G) " one of Hartmann's primary concerns when flying combat sorties was his own personal safety. There are very few bombers among his victims.." An idiotic notion. Attacking bombers was obviously part of the mission if III./JG 52 encountered any in the air. Looking at Hartmann's first 150 victories achieved in 149 combat encounters over the course of his first 391 sorties, 85 of these of these were flown as bomber escort missions, 61 were 'free hunts', 3 were 'Alarm' scrambles and one sortie was designated a bridge protection sortie..Hartmann's scoreboard is the logical consequence of the types of sorties flown and aside from fighters thus comprises, six bombers, nine IL-2s, not forgetting three U-2s and R-5s.

[kennethklee]

Originally Posted by Rob Romero

The system was a good one, and necessary for high command evaluation of battle results, but like any system, rules are only as good as their application or enforcement and the honesty of those charged to do so; as with any human endeavor, this varied according to the mores of each individual involved.

Rob Romero

Thanks Rob for your incisive response. In my first response, I hope I did not appear curt or "snarky"; if I did, I apologize for that was not my intention. Your comments are a good reminder that a system devised by humans is subject to change and inconsistency due to circumstances and human inconsistency and frailties. Thanks also for initiating this interesting thread, it has been educational, as are many threads and posts on this forum.

Kenneth