Erich Hartmann - several questions

[krichter33]

As far as Dmitriy Khazanov is concerned, his "research" has already been shown to be faulty by Jean-Yves Lorant and Hans Ring.

[Ruy Horta]

Hartmann bashing is popular nowadays.

I find it questionable that people like Rall, Backhorn, Krupinski, Steinhoff etc would have encouraged Hartmann to rejoin the post war Bundesluftwaffe, have supported his career (to the best of their ability) and have allowed him to lead the premier fighter squadron if his character was as flawed as some make out to believe.

These were all men of character, some stronger some weaker. The war was long, those that survived prolonged combat were good, smart and lucky.

What does enter in the whole "right or wrong" includes the cliques that were already established pre- during and to some extend post war. The spaniards, the fighters vs bombers, the east vs west, party vs "non-party" etcetera.

Some who were more popular were able to present and make sure their version of events became history as we know it, others who were less popular or less prolific in writing were often discredited.

With Hartmann the truth will likely be somewhere in the middle. Fact is that the Soviets held him long enough to give at least some credence to his wartime reputation on both sides of the line.

Hartmann might have looked like a Bube, but was probably tough as nails as a CO, marked by war and captivity he probably didn't mellow with age. Not an endearing character like Rall or Galland, but that doesn't mean that he was a fraud.

Hell, wonder how most of us would deal with prolonged and extensive combat, followed by c. 10 years as a POW under a system like Stalin's Soviet Union.

I'd love to see someone like Kurt Braatz take up the challenge. He's got extensive JG 52 material, that combined with the work by Barbas and Prien, might go a long way in re-establishing a picture of Erich Hartmann, regardless if he did or did not shoot down 352 aircraft.

...actually if it were proven that he shot down less than a third, that would still show that we arm chair generals have no right to judge these men of character who fought and survived a war we can't even start to imagine.

[Andreas Brekken]

Hello, all.

I just realized that I am using time better spent on my own research trying to get other people which I do not know to be as cautios with regards to facts about this period of time as I try to be myself.

Of course, from past experience, I should know this to be futile.

The main problem here is that you can not take information, any information, from two of the most extreme dictatorships the world has known at face value.

You have to go to the sources that are least likely to be tainted by propaganda, fear of reprisals or both. On the German side for example GenQu 6 Abt records (not perfect but for a system before the computer with databases suite good), the British have excellent records, the Americans also - most of it openly accessible for researchers that bother to go to the source and do not rely on second or third or whateverhand information.

And the Soviets/Russians? I wouldn't use 'openness' as the best fitting word when describing their practice on military historic records...

Khatyn or Chernobyl ring a bell? The leader of the reactor at Chernobyl asked his staff what level of radiation they measured. The answer was that the main devices was broken, and the handheld devices had the readings at their max level. The next question was if they could then prove positively that the real values really were higher. Of course they could not even if they knew it. The reading reported to Moscow was the handheld devices max reading, multitudes lower than the real values. This was in 1986 - 33 years after Stalin died - but in the system he was central in creating.

I personally think one should use caution before characterizing named persons or indistinguished groups as fraudsters, dishonest or liars - even if the internet has made this possible for any anonymous selfclaimed expert to do so. This of course goes for combattants of all sides.

In my opinion - try to do something more useful. If you are close to whatever archive or historic site - go there - try to find some new information and post that as a piece of info for the enligthenment of the community.

If not (and I guess as an invitation for a flame war) - in my not so polite version - just stop posting (in my local language Hold kjeft). What Johannes of course could do was to publish his thousands of ace biographies for scrutiny at this site or another one. Would be nice as reference!

Everyone is of course allowed to post whatever (almost) they want here - but a general progression in quality would be nice. Agree with James, and sadly discussions on this topic has looked the same on this board for a decade...

Regards,
Andreas B




Regards,
Andreas B

[Dénes Bernád]

It has already been demonstrated that Khazanov's findings in regards of Hartmann's claims in East can be forgotten, as they are sloppy and possibly motivated by politics. So any references to his 'study' should be discarded outright.

My opinion, based on several decades of activity in the aviation history field, is that one cannot have a fair enough picture unless goes to primary sources, untainted by day-by-day politics or fading memory. Even with these primary data there are many-many contradictions and ambiguous situation that need to be solved.

As for the amount of primary data available in the Soviet archives, I was shown samples from 1943 that appear to be more detailed and precise than the Luftwaffe's own system of tracking losses. As known, victory claims are many (most?) times uncertain, but losses almost always accurate (even if the cause of loss being misgiven). Therefore, there is hope that our Russian speaking colleagues will come up one day with accurate loss records (one should only live long enough to see this coming to print).

Therefore, bashing certain prominent pilots, regardless of their nationality, without having a strong evidence that can be shared, is nothing more than hearsay and should thus be discredited.

P.S. A final point, claims of anti-aircraft artillery crews and ground fire are usually overlooked in trying to assess one certain pilot's claims, even though about half of all shotdowns and damages to aircraft were caused by this branch.

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by Dénes Bernád

It has already been demonstrated that Khazanov's findings in regards of Hartmann's claims in East can be forgotten, as they are sloppy and possibly motivated by politics. So any references to his 'study' should be discarded outright.

This is what I have heard from other credible people besides yourself, though I have not studied it in detail myself.

But OTOH and from examples I know of, German fighter claiming in the second half of WWII was often pretty inaccurate, so even if as mentioned 80 covers only a portion of Hartmann's career and his total 'real' score were say in the low 100's (purely to give an example) that would not be a particularly poor ratio by the standards of all WWII fighter claiming, if the 'real' score is intended to represent distinct (from other 'friendly' claims) actual losses of the enemy.

Politics and national feelings sometimes enter into such discussions in a crude and obvious way. But even when they don't, there's still the question of 'standard of proof' and 'benefit of doubt'.

The two related questions, it seems, are:
1. whether competing claims on the ace's side, in the same combat, are considered
2. what's the standard of evidence for determining that enemy losses occurred in the same combat the ace described
Of course the difficulty in determining those two things varies enormously depending on the circumstances of combat and level of detail of each side's surviving records. In small theaters it's often obvious which units met in which combats even if the records are very sketchy, and the judgement of the researcher is only a matter of whether to consider the aces' comrades claims and consider the stated cause of loss (other than air combat) of opposing a/c. In a large theater it might be pratically impossible to disambiguate various engagements reported on each side and more claims and losses might have to be lumped together, or alternatively it gives a more distorted picture in a more complex theater to just consider the ace's claims and all possibly corresponding losses and call that 'verification'. But it isn't necessarily dishonest. Or, an author might just give all the enemy losses without saying whether he thinks they were all caused by the ace or what the probability is, so throwing the judgement call to the reader. Other authors adopt devices like calling it a 'victory' if one pilot drove another from the combat perhaps damaged, as he determined in his research, though not destroyed as the claiming pilot believed. IMHO that's not a 'verification' of a destroyed claim, though useful detail.

It's hard to evaluate a researcher's standards in these regards without oneself viewing the same source material that he used. But, though I know (have been told often!) that commercial considerations weigh against a lot of 'hemming and hawing' and talking about sources in a book or having footnotes, I still really prefer books or articles where at least in footnotes you get some hint of the strength and weakness of the sources, and thus strength of the conclusions about claim veracity (of individual pilots or units) that appear to be reached in the narrative.

Joe

[Johannes]

To answer Huy Horta

My friend Bernd Barbas knows more about Jg52 than anybody dead or alive i should think. Personally he doesn't believe the Hartmann fraud stories, and knew Hartmann himself very well. However he has spoken to many Jg52 pilots who were not happy with Hartmann(but not in a fraud way). I should imagine that apart from anything else prestige was a good reason to encourage Hartmann into the Bundesluftwaffe!
I have wondered why though that Hartmann didn't dispell the mythe about his Mustang claims, surely somebody asked him, or he talked about it? Bernd Barbas questioned Fritz Obleser about his U.S claims ten years ago, so for 55 years we all believed nine U.S aircraft, yet when I pressed Bernd to ask him as none were on the micro Films he(Obleser) stated " Oh, mr Barbas I have no details the American's stole my log-book, but I did shoot down nine U.S aircraft, but I never submitted the claims, as I was too busy trying to stay alive to watch them crash"
So does anybody have details of Erich recollection of the Mustang's?, yet these would have been the easiest of his claims to dis-credit........yet nobody could! Don't know how hard it would be for Eastern claims, but very hard I should think, unit overlapped, not like Jg5 which was isolated.
I would look forward to seeing his name cleared in the future!
But regarding Dmitriy Khazanov, if it was political why dis-credit some and not others.
From the Luftwaffe point of view, in the West they recorded and examined the crash sites of pilots claims, but in the East it was usually in enemy territory, so not possible to prove one way or other whether in general claims were accurate!
I guess Hartmann's last claim over Brunn, i.e it crashed into the central platz, should be provable!

Regards

Johannes

[DiegoZampini]

Johannes:

Originally Posted by Johannes

Personnally I can check only those in the West, so I rely on other people's checking for the East. However I do have complex biographies on 2500 + aces, and anopther 5000 scoring non-aces, and those that I know to be fraudulent in the West all show the same pattern to there claims, Hartmann shows this pattern, Rall does not, however as with Marseille it doesn't mean so it must be, but shows that he probably is!

What you say is very interesting...
According to your experience and research: What is that pattern? What pattern shows a pilot which is fraudulent regarding his claims for aerial victories?
Diego

[krichter33]

It's really sad that such terms such as "fraudster" are thrown about without any direct evidence to support it. It's my belief that the vast majority of successful fighter aces, from ALL SIDES, overclaimed. Some, of course, more than others. But I believe only a very small percentage would have actively engage in outright fraud. The suggestions stipulated here about a whole range of different aces as being "fraudsters" I find disturbing. Is it possible some of them did exaggerate and lie about particular claims, yes it is. But unless you have absolute proof that they did, all you have are personal suspicions. I find it hard to believe that so many of these top aces were all outright frauds and liars. This implies a conspiracy of so many different elements. Not just wingmen, but also any other fighter pilot in the unit, commanders and other pilots in the combat zone, would all have to be involved. This sounds extremely far fetched to me. Yes, it some isolated instances it is possible, but not to such a vast degree that is being suggested. As far as their "shooting patterns" are concerned, this again, doesn't prove anything. Studying loss records is very historically viable and important, and does show the type of overclaiming that can occur, but it does not prove fraud. I wish this same level of interest would be focused on the top Allied aces and their overclaiming. Of course, I'm sure, most would be adamant not to call them "fraudsters."

[Johannes]

Hi Patterns for frauds are:-

Huge claimly claims, huge number in short time, sudden excelleration in claims. However Maeseille showed this pattern, but was very honest.

Honest pilots with large overall claims seemed to do this over a long period, with relatively small maximum daily totals.

Also fraudsters seemed to make a big jump whilst approaching a significant number(look at Nowotny, Rudorffer e.t.c).

Again case against Hartmann has yet to be proved one way or other, but he fulfils all the criterior, again as did Marseille.

Also the unit they are with is an indication, Jg2 in the West, and Jg5 in the East. Jg5 pilots believed they were exiled/under equiped.

Rall, Barkhorn,Lipfert fall into the honest pattern, and our Russian friend has stated that Lipfert was honest. Point is that looking at there claims pattern I would have guessed Lipfert was honest, so presume(to be proved one way or other) that Rall and Barkhorn would be the same, though Khazanov states that Barkhorn's record is less reliable as he approached "300"=Brillanten! Barkhorn was also a special case, his claims did not need a witness, as he was so honest!!!!!! Rall had only a couple of high scoring days, and then only five was the max, and he didn't have these to get to a significant number.........Hartmann did!

Hope this helps.

Glory be to the honest guy.

Johannes

[krichter33]

Once again it is just speculation. Yes, it is interesting, but without evidence that they actually committed fraud, you should stop referring to them as such. You stated Marseille had strange patterns as well, but as many as 3/4 of his claims are confirmed, and therefore he is "honest." All this shows is that these patterns don't necessarily mean a particular ace is an outright fraud or liar. It is speculation.