Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum  

Go Back   Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum > Discussion > Luftwaffe and Axis Air Forces

Luftwaffe and Axis Air Forces Please use this forum to discuss the German Luftwaffe and the Air Forces of its Allies.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 14th January 2014, 01:43
GMichalski's Avatar
GMichalski GMichalski is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Spain
Posts: 328
GMichalski is on a distinguished road
Re: German overclaims in the East. Hartmann and others...

interesting.....

thanks Rob,

regards
__________________
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger [Wingman], you have lost your battle."
Dietrich Hrabak

"The wingman is absolutely indispensable. I look after the wingman. The wingman looks after me....."
Francis S. "Gabby" Gabreski,

"The first rule of all air combat is to see the opponent first."
Adolf Galland
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 14th January 2014, 03:45
Broncazonk Broncazonk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 264
Broncazonk is on a distinguished road
What does the evidence say?

Has anyone ever found evidence (even a hint) in Luftwaffe correspondence (records of the Luftwaffe) that shoot-down claims had become a propaganda tool of Goebbels, and the RMVP? After all, the Luftwaffe had propaganda officers that fed the Wehrmachtbericht on a daily basis.

Simple question: Is there evidence that the Luftwaffe claim system was systematically corrupted by a propaganda campaign?

Conversely, has anyone found evidence in the Soviet correspondence that reporting German shoot-downs as some other form of loss (or denying them outright) had become a propaganda tool of the Russian propaganda machine? (Not to mention the systematic misrepresentation of combat losses for other, more important reasons, that is, avoiding the internal wrath and purges that so often occurred?)

Quite frankly, I suspect the Soviet's record keeping in this regard. I think there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence supporting the above paragraph. Everybody was lying in the Soviet system, e-v-e-r-y-b-o-d-y. There was no incentive to tell the truth, and every reason to lie.

It's a significant and well known limitation in the study of the Eastern Front: The Soviet correspondence, all of their records and reports, contain omissions, misrepresentations, distortions and outright lies.

Bronc
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 14th January 2014, 04:21
Juha's Avatar
Juha Juha is offline
Alter Hase
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,374
Juha is on a distinguished road
Re: What does the evidence say?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broncazonk View Post
Has anyone ever found evidence (even a hint) in Luftwaffe correspondence (records of the Luftwaffe) that shoot-down claims had become a propaganda tool of Goebbels, and the RMVP? After all, the Luftwaffe had propaganda officers that fed the Wehrmachtbericht on a daily basis.

Simple question: Is there evidence that the Luftwaffe claim system was systematically corrupted by a propaganda campaign?
Have not seen that but clearly the info on RAF losses given daily by LW to KM during the BoB was highly optimistic, see e.g. Kriegstagebuch der Seekriegleitung.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broncazonk View Post
Conversely, has anyone found evidence in Soviet correspondence that reporting German shoot-downs as some other form of loss (or denying them outright) had become a propaganda tool of the Russian propaganda machine? (Not to mention the systematic misrepresentation of combat losses for other, more important reasons, that is, avoiding the internal wrath and purges that so often occurred?)

Quite frankly, I suspect the Soviet's record keeping in this regard. I think there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence supporting the above paragraph. Everybody was lying in the Soviet system, e-v-e-r-y-b-o-d-y. There was no incentive to tell the truth, and every reason to lie.

Bronc
Now how one could get replacements if one didn't declare losses? High combat losses meant trouble for regimental commander but so meant too many losses by pilot errors, bad weather etc. So why to lie?

The first Bf 110 recovered from Far North SU in 1980s or early 90s was found to be hit by MG fire into an engine even if officially lost to mechanical troubles. The pilot had survived the war and was still alive and when asked admitted that the plane was shot down by Soviet AA but under pressure from his superiors he had agreed to wrote down into his combat report the reason of the loss "engine failure". So, one cannot be 100% sure in individual cases but in SU the accusation of sabotage had dire consecuences so large scale reporting of combat losses as mechanical failures, pilot errors or weather related losses is very improbable in Soviet case.

Juha
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 14th January 2014, 04:36
Rob Romero Rob Romero is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New York City
Posts: 406
Rob Romero is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: German overclaims in the East. Hartmann and others...

In the same way that as a professional I have witnessed or am aware of innumerable compromises, or violations that have never gone and never will go reported, I suspect that Hartmann (352) may have been pressured on the occasion of his 300th (19 Claims over 2 days with a Propaganda Kompanie (PK) unit at the scene) - it was after all a totalitarian system with dire consequences for those who resisted -recall the bloody purges that were even then occurring within the military following the assassination attempt on Hitler. Hartmann may not have been the most reliable claimer, but I don't believe he was typically as bad as on 23-24 Aug 44. If he was indeed pressured in any way he may have been ashamed or embarrassed by the fact, and subsequently suppressed the memory. Lang (173) may have faced similar pressure earlier when he claimed 18 in one day in the midst of another Ostfront disaster in November 1943 with the photo of him emerging victoriously from his Fw-190 ending up on magazine covers.
But all this is mere conjecture; it is doubtful that any paper trail was left, just as there never was a document that EXPLICITLY stated the true fate of the victims of the euphemistic “Final Solution”.

To Echo Juha -one way or another - losses in the military GET reported -otherwise the military machine will fly apart.

Last edited by Rob Romero; 14th January 2014 at 05:10.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 14th January 2014, 05:33
mars mars is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 333
mars
Re: What does the evidence say?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broncazonk View Post
Has anyone ever found evidence (even a hint) in Luftwaffe correspondence (records of the Luftwaffe) that shoot-down claims had become a propaganda tool of Goebbels, and the RMVP? After all, the Luftwaffe had propaganda officers that fed the Wehrmachtbericht on a daily basis.

Simple question: Is there evidence that the Luftwaffe claim system was systematically corrupted by a propaganda campaign?

Conversely, has anyone found evidence in the Soviet correspondence that reporting German shoot-downs as some other form of loss (or denying them outright) had become a propaganda tool of the Russian propaganda machine? (Not to mention the systematic misrepresentation of combat losses for other, more important reasons, that is, avoiding the internal wrath and purges that so often occurred?)

Quite frankly, I suspect the Soviet's record keeping in this regard. I think there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence supporting the above paragraph. Everybody was lying in the Soviet system, e-v-e-r-y-b-o-d-y. There was no incentive to tell the truth, and every reason to lie.

It's a significant and well known limitation in the study of the Eastern Front: The Soviet correspondence, all of their records and reports, contain omissions, misrepresentations, distortions and outright lies.

Bronc
I do not believe Luftwaffe claim system was systematically corrupted by a propaganda campaign, the issue we are talking here is that, in WWII, the claim system of ALL AIRFORCE were not accurate, it was common for all WWII airforce that their overclaim rate reachs the level of 3:1 or 4:1, Luftwaffe was not an exception
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 14th January 2014, 05:35
Broncazonk Broncazonk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 264
Broncazonk is on a distinguished road
Reporting losses would require the use of 'finesse'

Bob wrote, "To Echo Juha -one way or another - losses in the military GET reported -otherwise the military machine will fly apart."

Juhu wrote, "High combat losses meant trouble for regimental commander but so meant too many losses by pilot errors, bad weather etc."

Soviet commanders used finesse when reporting losses. When there were too many combat losses, a few got reported lost due to weather and some were lost due to mechanical failure. Too many mechanical failures, and a few were reported lost due to combat losses and some due to weather. The idea was to keep everything in balance. Records and reports were constantly being finessed to not attract attention.

And Soviet commanders were very good at hiding this, because their lives depended not only on doing it, but also on keeping it secret.

The fundamental requirement for Soviet commanders to finesse everything at every stage of reporting is so obvious and prevalent in the literature that it's not even a matter of debate. It's a fact.

mars wrote, "...in WWII, the claim system of ALL AIRFORCE were not accurate, it was common for all WWII airforce that their overclaim rate reachs the level of 3:1 or 4:1, Luftwaffe was not an exception."

Agreed.

Bronc
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 14th January 2014, 06:05
Nikita Egorov Nikita Egorov is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Moscow
Posts: 418
Nikita Egorov
Re: Reporting losses would require the use of 'finesse'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broncazonk View Post
Soviet commanders used finesse when reporting losses. When there were too many combat losses, a few got reported lost due to weather and some were lost due to mechanical failure. Too many mechanical failures, and a few were reported lost due to combat losses and some due to weather. The idea was to keep everything in balance. Records and reports were constantly being finessed to not attract attention.

And Soviet commanders were very good at hiding this, because their lives depended not only on doing it, but also on keeping it secret.

The fundamental requirement for Soviet commanders to finesse everything at every stage of reporting is so obvious and prevalent in the literature that it's not even a matter of debate. It's a fact.

Bronc
Would you be so kind as to illustrate you words with examples containing precise references to the documents.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 14th January 2014, 07:20
Broncazonk Broncazonk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 264
Broncazonk is on a distinguished road
Do you have a pen and notebook?

Well Nikita, let's see... For starters, I can point you towards, Zhukov's Greatest Defeat - The Red Army's Epic Disaster in Operation Mars, 1942 a 403-page book by David Glantz whose scholarship is highly esteemed and beyond reproach. (Soviet correspondence citations fully annotated.) The book repeatedly refers to finessed (misleading) Soviet intelligence, planning, operations, logistics, casualty, movement and battle reports by Soviet commanders, from top to bottom, as a major problem and cause for defeat. In fact, the very existence of Operation Mars as a major Soviet disaster that ran concurrent with Operation Uranus (Stalingrad) was finessed out of the history books by Soviet commanders and propaganda until Glantz dug it back out.

Then there is, The Stalingrad Cauldron a 512-page book by Frank Ellis. (Soviet correspondence citations fully annotated.) In Chapter 5 of the book, Ellis thoroughly examines the Konings-Zaitsev sniper duel and calls it for what it is: a fraud created by Soviet propaganda. Major Konings, (regardless of how you spell his name) never existed, Zaitsev was a propaganda instrument from the very beginning, his kills, as with all of the other Soviet snipers, were "finessed" in the official reports for propaganda. Then in Chapter 6, we have a very detailed examination of how Soviet commanders "finessed" over 70,000 Hilfswillige out of existence. Over 70,000 Soviet soldiers and citizens were voluntarily fighting for the Germans at the end in Stalingrad. The Germans had every last one of them documented in official records the day before their surrender, and the day after, the Soviets didn't account for a single one of them. To this day, those people remain missing.

But those are just the two (2) books that I've read this week. Do you really want to continue along these lines? I have maybe 500 other examples. Again: the fundamental requirement for Soviet commanders to finesse everything (lie) at every stage of reporting is so obvious and prevalent in the literature that it's not even a matter of debate. It's a fact.

Bronc
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 14th January 2014, 09:09
Juha's Avatar
Juha Juha is offline
Alter Hase
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,374
Juha is on a distinguished road
Re: Do you have a pen and notebook?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broncazonk View Post
... Do you really want to continue along these lines?...
No, just give Nikita info on some VVS loss docus you have noticed to be "finessed". Have You ever seen VVS loss documents and are You aware what kind of info they contained?
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 14th January 2014, 10:20
Nikita Egorov Nikita Egorov is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Moscow
Posts: 418
Nikita Egorov
Re: Do you have a pen and notebook?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broncazonk View Post
But those are just the two (2) books that I've read this week. Do you really want to continue along these lines? I have maybe 500 other examples. Again: the fundamental requirement for Soviet commanders to finesse everything (lie) at every stage of reporting is so obvious and prevalent in the literature that it's not even a matter of debate. It's a fact.
Bronc
Please stick to the point: "When there were too many combat losses, a few got reported lost due to weather and some were lost due to mechanical failure. Too many mechanical failures, and a few were reported lost due to combat losses and some due to weather. The idea was to keep everything in balance. Records and reports were constantly being finessed to not attract attention.

And Soviet commanders were very good at hiding this, because their lives depended not only on doing it, but also on keeping it secret.
"

Please advise any IAP, BAP, ShAP or other unit where it was practised and name any air unit commander who acted in this way.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:59.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2018, 12oclockhigh.net