Erich Hartmann - several questions

[Nokose]

Nikita, Thanks for the answer on the above question on Pokrishkin.

I believe Hartmann stated he was a bad shot in "The Blond Knight of Germany" which is why he bore in close to fire. If your a bad shot a prolong dogfight might not be to your advantage.

In Valeny Romanenko's book "Airacobras enter Combat" he stated that he thought that Hartmann might have shot down on 15Apr43 (he listed a time of 19:00?) one of the two P-39's flown by St.Lt M. Petrov and Serz. Bezbabnov of the 45 IAP (100 GIAP). No location and the time 19:00 seems to be way off from the German times. He also gave two other P-39's same unit shot down at 13:00. Tony Wood's list has the following.

Hartmann 15:33 85192
Mato Dukovac 15/JG52 14:50 Krimskaya
Josef Zwernemann III/JG52 12:52 85753
Lt. Wolf Ettel 4/JG3 15:30 86834
Lt Hans Reiff 8/JG3 14:48 3km SE of Neledshskaya
Lt. Helmut Haberda 5/JG52 uk hrs 85152

Is Hartmann's one of these? And was this a overclaim day for P-39's?

[Nikita Egorov]

Michael,

Well, I have not yet researched this day in details, too many fault claims. First of all St. Bezbabnov was shot down on P-40 and evidently by Waldemar Eyrich of II/JG3. Valery, in his book, it was one of the first books with an attempt to match some two sided info, apparantly omitted damaged Aircobras. In general 216 IAD suffered the following losses: 16 GIAP two were shot up and belly landed, including Maj. Kryukov chief navigator of the regiment, 45 IAP two Aircobras were shot down of S/L Petrov and St. Sapyan and two more made emergency landings due to battle damage, by S/L Dmitry Glinka and St. Popov plus P-40 of Bezbabnov was shot down. From that List Petrov's P-39 was attaked twice, first it was damaged and left the combat, then finished off by another Me-109...So, we have 7 lost Aircobras (2 irrevocably+5 damaged to different extent) and 9 German claims on them. I will check if 298 IAP had any more losses that day.

[Dénes Bernád]

Originally Posted by Nikita Egorov

So, we have 7 lost Aircobras (2 irrevocably+5 damaged to different extent) and 9 German claims on them.

Nikita, I also have the same approach when studying a particular air combat: list all aircraft of all sides, no matter if destroyed, damaged, or broke combat due to technical fault, as often the real cause is improperly listed.

If a pilot claimed a victory and the damaged enemy aircraft crept back to own territory, that can still be regarded as a justified claim, as at least the target was hit and a certain amount of damage caused (N.B. this total number added individually is often higher than the official statistics released for that day or certain time period!).
And, of course, not forgetting claims by flak crews, too, if it was the case.

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by Dénes Bernád

Nikita, I also have the same approach when studying a particular air combat: list all aircraft of all sides, no matter if destroyed, damaged, or broke combat due to technical fault, as often the real cause is improperly listed.

If a pilot claimed a victory and the damaged enemy aircraft crept back to own territory, that can still be regarded as a justified claim, as at least the target was hit and a certain amount of damage caused (N.B. this total number added individually is often higher than the official statistics released for that day or certain time period!).
And, of course, not forgetting claims by flak crews, too, if it was the case.

To me, more information is better than less, so if the author tells me about damaged a/c and mechanical losses so much the better. Also, I agree that damaged (but repaired) a/c provide an *explanation* for overclaims of a/c destroyed, but are not IMO a 'confirmation'. Anyway as long as the author provides the info for the reader to make the decision himself, it's fine.

But I am most curious about this quote:
"as often the real cause is improperly listed. "
This relates to earlier exchange about 'distrust' of German archives, where you seemed to say your statement about them had been mischaracterized, but then this statement seems to somewhat support 'distrust'. Can you explain more, perhaps with examples, causes being mistated, and how we know this is true?

I've seen almost verbatim statements, by the same person actually! that US records in Korea are to be 'distrusted' because, among other reasons, loss causes were often mistated, it is alleged. But in fairly extensive research in those records with close comparison to detailed MiG claims from Soviet records, I have not found that. Both sides virtually always agree when and where the air combats of the day occurred and which general type of UN a/c was involved (swept or straight wing jet or prop; these broad categories were almost never mistaken for one another, it seems). And, losses of similar a/c type on the UN side attiributed to non-air combat causes were usually of different units than the ones involved in the air combat, at different times of day, and usually documented with additional details that would seem preposterous to compile in secret if just made up....why bother? (and I'm speaking strictly of then-secret records, not contemporary press releases). Also, I'm not speaking of cases where a/c were lost in known contact with enemy a/c but the cause was positively stated as something else: that's also rare, 'unk' losses in contact with enemy a/c were generally grouped with known air combat losses. As with any rule there are exceptions to the above, mechanical cases where it's not possible to absolutely determine whether there was also contact w/ enemy a/c by that particular flight, etc. but it's a pretty small %. Yet it's often stated, it's even 'internet conventional wisdom' that the loss causes were 'often' or even usually or systematically mistated in that case.

Can you compare and contrast this to the situations you are speaking of? wrt 'real cause improperly listed'. It's a pretty far from Hartmann, but loss record debates tend to be interconnected, because proof that such fudging of loss causes was done in one case makes it more plausible that it was done in other cases.

Joe

[klemchen]

Hi everybody,

could it not be that most cases of overclaiming were in fact cases of over-self-confidence? I imagine that the experts were quite convinced they could tell when an opponent was finished (cf. Obleser's assertion above), particularly when they saw pieces coming off their target or smoke and fire developing. I have read of several occasions when a later expert was shot down while watching his victim crash, so from then on he abandoned that habit and also told young pilots not to indulge in it.
I suspect the weakest point in Luftwaffe claims is that probably in most cases they were confirmed by the wingmen. These were mostly subordinates of their leaders, and it must have taken some courage to contradict those, all the more when the wingman did not know for sure that it was not a victory he was supposed to confirm.

Regards,
klemchen

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi.

I think that we also have to try to find a common and relatively broad definition of what to call a 'kill'.

If an aircraft return to an airfield controlled by own forces, damaged beyond repair and scrapped, I know that especially on the US side when considering the bomber forces this would not be defined as a 'kill'.

If a German fighter shot up and bellylanding in France under German occupation, this would be a 'kill' as seen from the western allies side.

In the first example, if the attack by fighters or even Flak damage, happened before the bomber reached it's intended target, it was forces to jettison it's bombload and try to make it back to base... still not a 'kill' I guess?

There are countless similar situations that could be discussed on all sides.

I believe that the approach to try to gather information on all aspects of given operations and dates, taking into account all possibilities with regards to misidentifications, misunderstandings and the fact that the people involved were in extreme situations, is the correct one.

We must also in my opinion stop trying to win the war again and again, there were atrocities and horrible acts commited on all sides, none of the combattants involved have an unblemished moral track record, not before the second world war, and not after. It seems that a lot of people forget that war is about destruction of the enemies resources, both human and material, in the most effective way possible. And a major point that most people living in the western democraties today seems to forget is that the information available, and possibility to make a 'morally' correct decision in the beginning of the 1940ies were limited. Refusing to obey an order in wartime usually has a severe reaction from the establishment, in the US, in the UK, in Soviet federation, Germany or my native Norway for that case - death sentence.

Hopefully some food for thought.

Regards,
Andreas B

[Russell]

Originally Posted by Nokose

Nikita, Thanks for the answer on the above question on Pokrishkin.

I believe Hartmann stated he was a bad shot in "The Blond Knight of Germany" which is why he bore in close to fire. If your a bad shot a prolong dogfight might not be to your advantage.

In Valeny Romanenko's book "Airacobras enter Combat" he stated that he thought that Hartmann might have shot down on 15Apr43 (he listed a time of 19:00?) one of the two P-39's flown by St.Lt M. Petrov and Serz. Bezbabnov of the 45 IAP (100 GIAP). No location and the time 19:00 seems to be way off from the German times. He also gave two other P-39's same unit shot down at 13:00. Tony Wood's list has the following.

Hartmann 15:33 85192
Mato Dukovac 15/JG52 14:50 Krimskaya
Josef Zwernemann III/JG52 12:52 85753
Lt. Wolf Ettel 4/JG3 15:30 86834
Lt Hans Reiff 8/JG3 14:48 3km SE of Neledshskaya
Lt. Helmut Haberda 5/JG52 uk hrs 85152

Is Hartmann's one of these? And was this a overclaim day for P-39's?

On page 91 and 92 of Kurt Braatz's biog of Walter Krupinski, there is a commentary on the circumstances of Hartmanns' claim, near Taman and a single P-39, which Krupinski coached Hartmann to shoot down.

Regards

Russell

[DiegoZampini]

Hi again, guys:
I apologyze for not replying your posts sooner. I was extremely bussy, much more than I anticipated. Now I reply your posts.
Dear Dénes:

Originally Posted by Dénes Bernád

This is not what I've said. I was only pointing out that the sample of VVS loss records I was shown are even more complete than the Luftwaffe ones. Nothing else.

Even when this is only retoric, I ask you: if Luftwaffe's loss records are less complete than the VVS ones, It does not mean you cannot fully trust (RELY) on them?
I know that you that there is a difference between to say that a set of archives are uncomplete, and to say that one cannot rely on them. But unreliability is a logic comsequence of uncompleteness - if they are so uncomplete, How can one to be sure that there are no more losses than the ones mentioned in such archives, or even that the cause of loss mentioned there is the actual one?

If, on ideological grounds you distrust the Luftwaffe loss records compiled for INTERNAL use, not intended for publicity, then you're left with virtually nothing to rely on from the German (or Axis) side.
With the same logic, you have to distrust the Soviet loss records, too, as ideologically, the two totalitarian regimes were not that far apart...

Assuming that Comunism is a totalitarian regime, COMUNISM IS NOT IN THE SAME LEVEL THAN NAZISM. WHY? BECAUSE THERE IS SOMETHING THAT COMMUNISM NEVER HAD, BUT NAZISM HAD FROM ITS SAME ROOTS: RACISM. THIS IS THE IDIOLOGICAL COMPONENT OF NAZISM (AND NONE ELSE), WHICH MAKES ME SKEPTIC OF THE GERMAN LOSS RECORDS.
Most of the German war actions in the East were led right from the start by the premise that the "Russians" were untermeschen and they did not deserve any respect. And many of the Luftwaffe members were known by sharing that point of view. Many of them changed their mind (e.g. Trautloft and Lutzow) but many others stubbornly kept loyal to Nazism and its racism - the top example was Hans-Ulrich Rudel, who in his biograhy After all repeated over and over again the same slogans about the Russians being masses from the East (even when sometimes conceded some merits to them, like to admitt the aiming skills of the Russian women operating the AAA batteries in Stalingrad). Hartmann himself was an example. Initially he understimated his Soviet opponents, and his mentor Alfred Grislawski many times reprimend him saying: "Do you think the Russians doesn't know how to shoot?" Summarizing: Racism and understimation of the Slavs (and comsequently the Soviet military capabilities) remained at all levels of the Whermacht along the whole war, even when they were already extremely evident. ARE YOU ABSOLUTELY SURE, THAT SUCH UNDERESTIMATION DID NOT AFFECT GERMAN LOSS RECORDS? CAN YOU ASSURE THAT THE GERMANS DID NOT PREFER TO CREDIT LOSSES TO ACCIDENTS THAN TO SOVIET PILOTS BECAUSE OF SUCH RACISM?
If your experience dealing with Luftwaffe loss records is that racism did not affect them, that in them there is not an understimation of Soviet fighter pilots, please share it with us. In my case perhaps might change my skepticism
Kind regards, always a pleasure to discuss with you
Diego

[DiegoZampini]

Nikita:
Once again, I apologyze for replying to your posts that later. The scholar year began shortly before here in Argentina, and I have my hands full with my work as teacher. Furthermore, I am organizing the visit of my Russian girlfriend to my country (she will meet my family) and I want that everything will be allright. But tonight and tomorrow I'll have some free time and answer your replies:

Originally Posted by Nikita Egorov

Diego,
You do not have to translate this piece of narration, at least for me, because I have written it myself.

Ponyal (Understood). No ya sdelal dlya vsex chitatelyax, kotoryx ne mogut ponimat' russkiy yazyk (But I did for all readers, that cannot understand Russian )

No matter whether report is full of details or have none of them, only matching other side records could give any result in real confirmation of a claim. Lots of details in report could have their origins in pilot's imagination.

But how can you fully match on the other side's records are that uncomplete as German ones? I fully agree with you that to research the opponent's loss records give the real confirmation (or ultimate discarding) of a certain claim, and I also know that veterans' memories can fool even themselves (assuming good faith).
But when one finds that many gaps as one can find in Luftwaffe loss records, that a loss is not mentioned there it does not mean it did not occur. Furthermore, even knowing that veterans' memoirs can be very unaccurate (and knowing that is always better to back them up with official documents), Why to discard veterans' testimonies that quickly? After all, THEY WERE THERE, not you, neither I nor most of researchers.

Could I ask you a question: where did you find exact time of Stracnizky's crash and Danilov's claim? Another question is how did you get to conclusion that Yeryomin and Solomatin clashed with I/JG53, instead of JG3. And the last question could you please list other Soviet fighters claims against Bf-109s in this area this day (I could give you a hint, in general there were nine of them)

Regarding Stracnizky-Danilov: I admitt that time I did not find, but Prien place Stracnizky in Pl.Q. 49161, which is (if I did not misplaced it) over Stalingrad outskirts, N of the city. Bergstrom indicates that most of 265 Soviet sorties that day (specially Shturmoviks) were N-NW of the city to cut supplies to General Hube's 16th Pazerdivision. The place matched.
Regarding Yeryomin and Solomatin: they scored victories in the same combat, and it was logical to assume that they scored them against aircraft of the same unit. There were no two losses in JG 3, but there were two in I./JG 53:
-Bf.109G-2 W.Nr. 14161 Uffz. Gustav Perl (MIA, Experte with 12 victories)
-Bf.109G-2 W.Nr. 13552 Uffz. Heinz Seig (WIA, Experte with 15 victories) (Engine failure?)
Other Soviet claims that day that I know (all over the city itself):
-Ivan P. Motornyy Yak-1 512 IAP, 220 IAD Ju.88 (probably Ju.88D-1 W.Nr.1680 4 KIAs 3.(F)/121)
-Grigoriy K. Gultyayev Yak-1 788 IAP, 102 IAD PVO Ju.87 (probably Ju.87D W.Nr.2432 Crew Unknown 75% written off 1./StG 77) (Accident?)
-Ivan M. Dzyuba Yak-1 12 IAP, 288 IAD Bf.109 (probably Bf.109E-7 W.Nr.6392 Fw. Hans Beruwka MIA 3./SchG 1) (Cause unknown)
That makes 6 identified claims. Evidently there are 3 additional claims that I ignore. Please, if I wrongly cross-referenced German losses with Soviet claiminants, correct my mistakes, and if you want share with us your findings. I am willing to learn from my mistakes and correct them.

As regards to loss records, I believe you have got Denes in a wrong way, how you can compare this if you do not see original records from one side and you know that the majority of orginal files from another side has been lost?

PROBABLY YOU ARE RIGHT ON THAT, NIKITA.
BTW, Yevgeny Velichko told me that you are working on a book about the Air Battle of Stalingrad. Congratulations!! It is already in the Russian book stores? I want to buy it!
Kind regards,
Diego

PS: I will repeat this post in a new thread "Soviet air victories over Stalingrad" in the "Soviet and Allied air forces" forum, to do not desvirtuate the original topic (Hartmann's). If you consider that this is the right thing to do, reply there.

[DiegoZampini]

Nikita:
One more reason for me to assume that Straznicky was Danilov's victim is the fact that Straznicky flew a Bf.109F-4/R1, that is an gondola-armed Messerschmitt, usually tasked with the mission to intercept and destroy the heavily armoured Il-2s.
Kind regards
Diego