In hindsight, who was the top day scorer?

[Jim P.]

In general I have to agree with edwest2. We would all like certainty in this pursuit, but unfortunately when it comes to this type of endeavor, in all reality you guys are "chasing the wind". The vast majority of actual witnesses have, long since, passed away, the records are incomplete, missing or replete with errors. Can you blame any of the few remaining survivors for their hostility, incomplete memories or whatever? And I'm not just referring to LW guys. You're questioning their integrity as it pertains to their lives. I'm not suggesting giving carte blanche approval to what they claimed from some 75 years ago, but allow the few survivors, from all sides, their dignity.

As is, you guys are cross-referencing the existing records, such as they are, and trying to come to reasonable conclusions based on those. A worthy exercise, but short of some discovery of a 'Holy Grail' treasure trove of records of unassailable accuracy for all, you're all just making educated assumptions based on what is currently available. Nothing wrong with that at all. Realistically though, the "absolute" answer ain't ever gonna happen. Accept it and move on.

Where I get disturbed is when someone starts ascribing motives such as liar, fraud, etc to someone long dead with no way to question them or allow them to defend themselves. And again, this isn't just a LW thing. Think 300 AVG claims versus supposedly about 100 actual Japanese losses in SE Asia in their operational area, the huge number of overclaims by the RAF versus actual LW losses in the BoB and so on and so forth. Overclaiming was a reality by all combatants, end of story. And yes, there are documented instances of intentional fraud - the case of 4./JG27 in NA comes to mind. Get over it.

I guess what makes the LW guys a particular target is the big numbers put up by so many pilots. I get that, but I wasn't there, there is no video via phone or whatever, just the surviving records. You guys are doing great work matching existing records of claims & losses - but short of knowing you have the complete record, you're still engaging in a somewhat speculative exercise. (And yes, I would whole-heartedly agree, it's incredibly unlikely Hartmann actually shot down anywhere near the claimed 350+ Soviet machines.)

[Jim P.]

Originally Posted by Broncazonk

I am bringing this topic around again to see if there is any movement in finding "the answer"--or at least a better answer.

For whatever reason, I believe correcting the record is important--the history is cherished by young and old literally all over the world--and the history is wrong. (The members of this forum know the "truth" about the official list: Hartmann 352, Barkhorn 301, etc, but the vast majority do not.)

What will it take? A collaboration of the experts on this forum? Funding by an interested benefactor? A publisher willing to be involved?

A problem--THE problem--I think, is Hartmann. His claims were/are sooo unsupportable AND we are at a loss for an explanation as to why. Correcting the record means addressing Hartmann (and the other over-claimers) but this MUST be done in a sensitive and delicate way. (But, what that sensitive, delicate way is, I have no idea, because I can't come up with an explanation that doesn't involve outright fraud.

Still, it must be done...somehow.

Bronc

In hindsight again, does it it really matter? The end result was that the LW, and Germany, were defeated. Ultimately, once Germany decided to invade the SU, with it's resource/industrial potential, and then declared war on the U.S. with it's resources, they were toast. In a war of attrition, they could never hope to match the combined industrial capacity, the numbers of troops available to be put in the field and resources of the Allied nations. They blew their chance when they couldn't subjugate the British Isles. Boiled down to its simplest factors, Germany (and the Axis allies) could not sustain a war of attrition against the combined Allied nations. (The 30000 foot view.)

[Broncazonk]

I think it matters.

Hartmann's "352" is known to both young and old around the world.

So once again, how could it be done, hypothetically speaking, a correction of the record that would reveal to the world that Hartmann's 352 and Barkhorn's 301, and etc., etc., etc., are NOT real numbers, WITHOUT questioning their integrity? There are cultural complexities involved--this is a delicate situation--BUT history deserves the correction, no?

I'm thinking Rall, Lipfert, Bar, Hackl (or whomever) deserves international recognition if indeed the actual evidence shows them to likely be, The One.

Bronc

[MW Giles]

You can narrow down the overclaiming significantly but getting the absolute answer is impossible.

Take the case I looked at yesterday, two Warwicks over the North Sea flying together, attacked by two Me410s.

One Warwick got away without injury at 11:45 hrs, the other was shot down. The first did not see what happened to the second.

Two claims for the right area, one at 11:50 and one at 11:58 by two different Lw pilots flying the right type of fighter.

What can we conclude? It is certain that the combat took place and that one Me410 was successful. Which one got it wrong? We will never know.

That is only two on two, with witnesses on both sides.

You are asking for too much

Martin

[HGabor]

Originally Posted by PMoz99

I would have thought someone would have created a revised list by now ...... Or is no-one confident enough in their work?
Peter

Confidence is not a problem at all due to the overwhelming evidences. But a large scale research like this requires more time. Just a little more patience please ... ;-)

Gabor and ...

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by Jim P.

In general I have to agree with edwest2. We would all like certainty in this pursuit, but unfortunately when it comes to this type of endeavor, in all reality you guys are "chasing the wind". The vast majority of actual witnesses have, long since, passed away, the records are incomplete, missing or replete with errors. Can you blame any of the few remaining survivors for their hostility, incomplete memories or whatever? And I'm not just referring to LW guys. You're questioning their integrity as it pertains to their lives. I'm not suggesting giving carte blanche approval to what they claimed from some 75 years ago, but allow the few survivors, from all sides, their dignity.

As is, you guys are cross-referencing the existing records, such as they are, and trying to come to reasonable conclusions based on those. A worthy exercise, but short of some discovery of a 'Holy Grail' treasure trove of records of unassailable accuracy for all, you're all just making educated assumptions based on what is currently available. Nothing wrong with that at all. Realistically though, the "absolute" answer ain't ever gonna happen. Accept it and move on.

Where I get disturbed is when someone starts ascribing motives such as liar, fraud, etc to someone long dead with no way to question them or allow them to defend themselves. And again, this isn't just a LW thing. Think 300 AVG claims versus supposedly about 100 actual Japanese losses in SE Asia in their operational area, the huge number of overclaims by the RAF versus actual LW losses in the BoB and so on and so forth. Overclaiming was a reality by all combatants, end of story. And yes, there are documented instances of intentional fraud - the case of 4./JG27 in NA comes to mind. Get over it.

I guess what makes the LW guys a particular target is the big numbers put up by so many pilots. I get that, but I wasn't there, there is no video via phone or whatever, just the surviving records. You guys are doing great work matching existing records of claims & losses - but short of knowing you have the complete record, you're still engaging in a somewhat speculative exercise. (And yes, I would whole-heartedly agree, it's incredibly unlikely Hartmann actually shot down anywhere near the claimed 350+ Soviet machines.)

The publication Luftwaffe im Focus has done an excellent job, along with countless books and other publications. Regarding any aspect of the Second World War, documents continue to appear at auction, not just eBay, and on sites which set a price and sell them. Then there were discoveries in Russian archives. The best any researcher can hope to do is his best. That's it. At my job I've been doing research for 40 years and that's all I can do.

Who would have thought just a few years ago that Japanese and Allied aircraft losses in the Pacific could be matched up so well?

Asking questions is fine but answers are sometimes not forthcoming shortly after.

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by Jim P.

In hindsight again, does it it really matter? The end result was that the LW, and Germany, were defeated. Ultimately, once Germany decided to invade the SU, with it's resource/industrial potential, and then declared war on the U.S. with it's resources, they were toast. In a war of attrition, they could never hope to match the combined industrial capacity, the numbers of troops available to be put in the field and resources of the Allied nations. They blew their chance when they couldn't subjugate the British Isles. Boiled down to its simplest factors, Germany (and the Axis allies) could not sustain a war of attrition against the combined Allied nations. (The 30000 foot view.)

Germany lost the war? That's it? Look at the Russian losses and the final disposition of all concerned. The goal here is to reconstruct a certain time period regarding the German Air Force and I've seen remarkable progress.

[VtwinVince]

Jim, I personally don't need to 'get over' anything. When you contact people who played major roles in a conflict and they behave in suspicious ways, it begs questioning. And Nick, considering the period in which Stigler's encounter with the Fortress took place, I think the consequences for deliberately NOT destroying it would have been severe, from the German side. I'm in no way saying that some sort of action didn't happen, but the degree of media participation in this event, and they way it was presented at the time, leave me suspicious. I had dinner with Stigler and Charlie Brown, the captain of the Fortress, and clearly these were both brave aviators.

[MW Giles]

Is it suspicious that someone does not want to go over the past and remember lost friends and comrades with a bunch of nosey youngsters keen to find out if they were something special?

More a case of self preservation

MG

[VtwinVince]

'Nosey youngsters'? That is truly hilarious. I haven't been called that for some time. When I was in touch with Neumann, I presented copies of documents which he signed, asking for clarification. I don't think this constitutes an invasion of privacy.