Erich Hartmann's individual victories researched

[Courtois Laurent]

[quote=Christer Bergström;280254]Erich Hartmann’s victories 1942-1943


No. 39, "LaGG" on 16.7.43/1415 over PQ 54661 @ 1500m: 18 GIAP and Normandie Niemen Eskadrilya. 18 GIAP lost Serzhant Ivan Stolyarov while Normandie Niemen lost Kpt. Albert Littolff (possibly by Hartmann), Lt. Noel Castelain and M.Lt. Adrien Bernavon. All KIA

No it is wrong. 2:15 p.m. German time, equivalent to 3:15 p.m. Soviet time at that time the last French has been laid for 10 minutes and the zone does not correspond either 15 km to the east. You have to look among, 12 la-5, 10 Yak-7, 1 Yak-1 lost this day By the 1st VA (AA). The 3 Yak-9s lost that day are those of the Normandie-Niemen and cannot have been shot down by Hartmann.

second correction : 1"8 GIAP lost Serzhant Ivan Stolyarov" for this day,in the repport of the 18 GIAP is wrotten no meeting with ennemy.

Translation :
18 Gv IAP from 18.15 to 19.25 protected our troops in the Znamensckoe, Ilanskoe, Khotynets region. 18 Yak-7s made 18 flights, flying 18 hours 59 minutes. To carry out a reconnaissance, two Yak-7 carried out two flights, flying 2 hours 25 minutes. In total 20 flights, 21h 24 minutes of flights. There was no encounter with the enemy.




cordially

[Johannes]

Hi Guys

Regarding Hartmann's claim November 1944-wars end. It seems increasingly obvious that 7./JG52's claims are complete on the mikrofilms until 14.12.1944, and that Hartmann was less active, or should we say imaginative in November 1944, and much more active/imaginative in December 1944.

It appears he was very active 15.12.1944-23.12.1944, and these claims have not come to light. However is seems he claims on 24.12.1944(331) and 25.12.1944(332-336) don't have any details other than the dates, but they come from official documents, so therefore are evidence. Claiming five on Christmas day should have been memorable I guess. Same documents also state Barkhorn claimed four this day(286-289) not the two we thought(285-286), therefore casting doubt on the reliability of his post mikrofilm claims dates.

What were the Russian losses this day, can they be matched to Barkhorn, and less likely Hartmann?

The Toliver/Constable book used Hartmann's flugbuch for his first 150 claims, and they are a good match to the mikrofilms. But those for 1944 using letters sent home are absolutely incorrect, and very mis-leading, they don't match the mikrofilms at all, therefore neither should those for 1945 be considered as anything other than fiction.
Let's just say that the Toliver/constable book did use Hartmann's letters, do we really think they are truthful ?

Kind Regards

Johannes

[Nick Hector]

Originally Posted by Johannes

Hi Guys

Regarding Hartmann's claim November 1944-wars end. It seems increasingly obvious that 7./JG52's claims are complete on the mikrofilms until 14.12.1944, and that Hartmann was less active, or should we say imaginative in November 1944, and much more active/imaginative in December 1944.

It appears he was very active 15.12.1944-23.12.1944, and these claims have not come to light. However is seems he claims on 24.12.1944(331) and 25.12.1944(332-336) don't have any details other than the dates, but they come from official documents, so therefore are evidence. Claiming five on Christmas day should have been memorable I guess. Same documents also state Barkhorn claimed four this day(286-289) not the two we thought(285-286), therefore casting doubt on the reliability of his post mikrofilm claims dates.

What were the Russian losses this day, can they be matched to Barkhorn, and less likely Hartmann?

The Toliver/Constable book used Hartmann's flugbuch for his first 150 claims, and they are a good match to the mikrofilms. But those for 1944 using letters sent home are absolutely incorrect, and very mis-leading, they don't match the mikrofilms at all, therefore neither should those for 1945 be considered as anything other than fiction.
Let's just say that the Toliver/constable book did use Hartmann's letters, do we really think they are truthful ?

Kind Regards

Johannes

This is confusing, Johannes. So where did the info on Pages 491 and 492 (Hartmann's claims #317 onward) of your volumes come from, when on page 1549 you make such a point of sticking to primary, substantiated, concrete sources and ignoring anything not meeting that strict criteria? You went as far as literally promising to throw out any and all correspondence that might state that a certain pilot achieved a certain kill on a certain date on the basis of previously published but otherwise unsubstantiated info.
Indeed, you clearly docked other pilots' "tallies" on the basis that some previously accepted info was unsubstantiated by official sources.
Now, whereas I a commend all that, sincerely, I am left with a question.

How then, why then, does Hartmann's tally (and on the basis of your words above: Barkhorn's too) survive "un-pruned" within your books?

[HGabor]

History that occurred eg. 2000 years ago is still being re-written today due to new evidences which have surfaced; WWII is no different. As certain archives, or private collections become known and their newly found contents oppose previously published claims, then the history books will naturally need updating. For instance the Russian TsAMO archives contains a special "Trophy Fond" which alone contains well over 2 MILLION pages of captured Axis documents throughout WWII, therefore it should be no surprise that when these become available the 'current' history books and chronicles may need certain updates and/or corrections. Any author which strives to accurately document history based on original documents to the best of his/her ability should not be condemned if inaccuracies appear in their works. No author is safe from this reality. As such, much of the "un-pruned" inaccuracies within history books are not a result of intentional tampering with data, rather simply the lack off access to new information which was not available during the time before publication. Every author is susceptible to this reality. As time flies by, our knowledge of the past becomes more complete, while new publications very often build on the ones published in the past.

Gabor

[NickM]

Originally Posted by HGabor

History that occurred eg. 2000 years ago is still being re-written today due to new evidences which have surfaced; WWII is no different. As certain archives, or private collections become known and their newly found contents oppose previously published claims, then the history books will naturally need updating. For instance the Russian TsAMO archives contains a special "Trophy Fond" which alone contains well over 2 MILLION pages of captured Axis documents throughout WWII, therefore it should be no surprise that when these become available the 'current' history books and chronicles may need certain updates and/or corrections. Any author which strives to accurately document history based on original documents to the best of his/her ability should not be condemned if inaccuracies appear in their works. No author is safe from this reality. As such, much of the "un-pruned" inaccuracies within history books are not a result of intentional tampering with data, rather simply the lack off access to new information which was not available during the time before publication. Every author is susceptible to this reality. As time flies by, our knowledge of the past becomes more complete, while new publications very often build on the ones published in the past.

Gabor

MANY years ago, when I asked about the future of historical WW2 writing as the participants passed away, I was told that it would be like 'archeology' using paper instead of digging thru dirt.

[Johannes]

Hi Nick

Source of Hartmann's late claims was an abschüßelist, which has proved to be completely unreliable past 1943. My co-author John Foreman always stated that once something has been published "It's cast in stone" meaning basically that typo's, mistakes and mis-information become "FACT".

A good point to this is Woidich's "110", his own abschüßelist has only eighty-two confirmed claims on, the first eighty-one match the mikrofilms exactly, plus one for 1945. It seems likely now that Ernst Obermeier was fed false information i.e "110" and this has become the reconised truethful number. Woidich didn't attend reunions, and I suspect didn't even know of the mis-information. It would appear that nobody asked him "82 or 110" !!!

I suspect that Hartmann's abschüßelist was stitched together largely by authors given snippets of information from Hartmann himself, probably he gave the flugbuch details correctly 1-150, but what he lacked for details 151-352 he just made-up.........like the real events, allegedly Hartmann used letters he sent home, but perhaps this is made-up also. This has been "cast in stone" for decades. For decades his claims were written-off at fake-claims for no other reason than the huge total, not based on factual investigation, because even if we had reliable Russian losses details he would appeared dodgy anyway because his claims being incorrect information would appear to be fake anyway....worse even than the truth. WE don't actually know the name of a single witness to the Hartmann claims, for these people helped him for whatever reason, and having tried to work-out who they are by Staffel claims, I must confess that I can work-out who these guys are, but not past 1943.

Hartmann was going to be Kommandeur of II./JG52 towards the end of the war, but this was changed because of protests from within this Gruppe, and why such a short spell with JG53. He was unpopular it has been said many time, surely it's because people thought he was dodgy, rather than just envy.

Anyway he spent ten year as a POW because of his "352", so you can say he got his just reward.

Keep Well

Johannes

[Nick Hector]

Johannes, Gabor

Thanks for your replies to my question (...which I hope didn't come across as harsh, just burning curiosity). The thing being it had appeared as though very strict criteria had been applied to everyone in the volumes except Hartmann (and perhaps Barkhorn) when perhaps it was known that the sources that Hartmann's later tally, even post-Toliver and Constable were not fully substantiated and not fully certain. I had always understood the point that Gabor was driving at, and NickM sums it up very well too: our knowledge increases and improves as more archival material is examined and added to our base of knowledge.

Will there be a second edition to the Aces' Biographies series in years to come? I hope so...

[Johannes]

Hi Nick

My ambition is getting it as perfect as possible, so any pointers to mistakes greatly received.
Actually the books work mostly on the mikrofilms, which are exhausted in that respect. Flugbücher, Leistungsbücher, abschüßeliste KBT papers and abschüßetafeln are what I am collecting now, mostly from gracious TOCH members. abschüßetafeln and KBT papers will be totally honest, occasional mistakes. I have seen one flugbuch that has been doctored....post-war I think. Abschüßeliste are open to dis-honesty(Walter Dahl springs to mind), and I have seen one actual fake one from a 103 claims SG2 pilot. Leistungbücher I believe are self made, so again open to tests of honesty.

Would love to do a second edition. Have acquired much information for the periods not covered by the mikrofilms, especially 1945. John Foremn wrote the text, sometimes just proofing my improving, but not so good literacy. John has not been well for several years now, So I'd have to complete any future work myself. Originally I wanted to do a fifth book with missed aces, amendments, additions and corrections, but there are so many updates that a second edition is probably a better route.

Another comment about Hartmann is that he may have thought cheating the norm because of his association with "Karaya" Staffel. Would love to know how he approached the subject to other pilots.

Kind Regards

Johannes

[Broncazonk]

There is a shocking amount of world-class research going on in this thread...

Bronc

[rpeck350]

Hartmann claims could be shares, damage and miss claims do to his tactic's but I always wondered if he was used as a propaganda tool. He was blonde blue eyed young man which was the perfect Aryan race model so they made him the ' Blonde Knight' for propaganda. I wound think he almost had no choice if that was the case.
I guess we will never know the real truth
.Hartmann has been gone for some time so he can't be ask questions or defend himself.