PDA

View Full Version : Found Info on Eric Hartmanns downed enemies! from 42 to 44 Type/Alt and time



DIRTY-MAC
11-27-2007, 02:39 PM
Found this on a forum ´cant understand the laguage but I think its Spanish, Anyway there seems to be alot of interesting stuff in there.
Sadly I just cant understand it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
maybe someone can translate
link:
http://images.google.se/imgres?imgurl=http://img54.imag...0%26hl%3Dsv%26sa%3DN (http://images.google.se/imgres?imgurl=http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/5708/lagg3traduc4ow.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.elgrancapitan.org/foro/viewtopic.php%3Fp%3D182074%26sid%3Dc225e2c52b7daa3 452481ae3d6b09459&h=1009&w=824&sz=107&hl=sv&start=135&tbnid=q2dCNHlOsawgsM:&tbnh=150&tbnw=122&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmig-3%26start%3D126%26imgsz%3Dxxlarge%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp %3D21%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Dsv%26sa%3DN)

Las victorias de Hartmann hasta Diciembre de 1944 según el OKL, a partir de ese momento el proceso de verificacion se vio muy seriamente afectado:

9-nov-42 Ltn. Erich Hartmann: 1 7./JG 52 Il-2 £ 44 793 at 400 m. 12.05 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 537
8-dic-42 Uffz. Erich Hartmann Stab II./JG 52 Curtiss P-40 £ 39 491 at 2.000 m. 9.59 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 276
27-ene-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 MiG-1 £ 15 112: at 2.500 m. 11.3 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 604
9-feb-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG-3 £ 86 722: at 1.000 m. 10.2 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 625
10-feb-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 Boston £ 86 671: at 3.200 m. 6.15 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 630
24-mar-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 Il-2 £ 86 712: at 20 m. 13 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 640
27-mar-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 I-16 Rata £ 85 171: at 800 m. 11.5 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 641
15-abr-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 Airacobra £ 85 192: at 200 m. 15.33 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 645
26-abr-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 R-5 £ 86 722: at 700 m. 11.35 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 659
28-abr-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 85 122: at 5.000 m. 9.3 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 663
30-abr-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 85 712: at 4.000 m. 16 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 669
30-abr-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG-3 £ 85 752: at 4.000 m. 16.2 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 671
7-may-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 75 262: at 5.000 m. 8.05 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 685
7-may-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 85 171: at 500 m. 16.43 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 686
11-may-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 75 234: at 3.000 m. 5.45 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 689
11-may-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 85 144: at 5.000 m. 5.5 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 690
15-may-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 U-2 £ 86 544: tiefflug 12.1 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 794
5-jul-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 Il-2.m.H. £ 61 663 at 300 m. 3.4 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 747
5-jul-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 61 151 at 1.500 m. 7.1 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 753
5-jul-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 IL-2 m.H. £ 61 333 at 200 m. 14 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 759
5-jul-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 61 124 at 2.000 m. 18.15 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 765
7-jul-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 Il-2 m.H. £ 61 183: at 500 m. 3.5 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 771
7-jul-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 Il-2 m.H. £ 61 154: at 200 m. 3.52 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 773
7-jul-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 Il-2 m.H. £ 61 331: at 500 m. 6.05 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 778
7-jul-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 61 182: at 1.000 m. 6.1 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 779
7-jul-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 61 214: at 3.000 m. 17.15 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 712
7-jul-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 62 873: at 2.000 m. 17.2 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 783
7-jul-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 62 792: at 3.500 m. 17.3 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 784
8-jul-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 61 223: at 2.500 m. 9.05 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 788
8-jul-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 61 221: at 2.500 m. 9.1 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 789
8-jul-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 62 872: at 2.500 m. 18.05 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 790
8-jul-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 61 134: at 1.000 m. 18.25 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 791
9-jul-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 IL-2 m.H. £ 61 272: at 500 m. 7.25 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 792
9-jul-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 62 871: at 2.000 m. 9.1 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 793
9-jul-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 62 844d: at 2.000 m. 9.2 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 794
10-jul-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 62 872: at 2.000 m. 7.05 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 742
11-jul-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 62 883: at 2.600 m. 16.55 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 796
15-jul-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 54 562: at 1.500 m. 17.2 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 799
16-jul-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 54 661: at 1.500 m. 14.15 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 800
17-jul-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 54 974: at 1.800 m. 19.25 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 802
31-jul-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 54 623: at 1.000 m. 10 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 803
31-jul-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 64 541: at 3.000 m. 16.55 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 805
1-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 64 523 at 4.500 m. 11.4 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 87
1-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 54 663 at 3.000 m. 14.4 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 808
1-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 53 491 at 3.000 m. 17.05 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 809
1-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 53 131 at 2.000 m. 19.21 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 811
1-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 54 584 at 2.500 m. 19.4 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 812
3-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 61 334 at 1.000 m. 11.17 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 817
3-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 61 412 at 1.000 m. 11.22 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 818
3-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 61 192 at 1.000 m. 11.45 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 819
3-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 61 193 at 3.000 m. 18.05 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 820
4-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 61 391 at 3.500 m. 10.19 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 823
4-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 61 331 at 2.000 m. 10.3 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 824
4-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 61 334 at 1.000 m. 10.5 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 826
4-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 61 343 at 2.500 m. 13.43 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 829
4-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 51 462 at 3.000 m. 15.4 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 830
5-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 61 351 at 3.000 m. 9 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 834
5-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 61 323 at 4.000 m. 11.5 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 836
5-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 61 314 at 3.500 m. 12 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 837
5-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 61 333 at 4.000 m. 17.04 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 838
5-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 61 441 at 5.000 m. 17.27 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 839
6-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 61 393 at 3.500 m. 16.08 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 840
7-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 61 391 at 3.000 m. 8.3 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 841
7-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 61 384 at 2.500 m. 8.35 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 842
7-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 Pe-2 £ 61 561 at 4.000 m. 11.55 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 844
7-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 61 551 at 3.500 m. 12 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 845
7-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 Pe-2 £ 61 373 at 2.000 m. 12.2 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 848
9-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 61 821: at 400 m. 6.14 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 859
9-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 61 581: at 4.000 m. 9.3 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 860
9-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 61 561: at 4.000 m. 16.3 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 861
9-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 61 814: at 4.500 m. 16.4 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 862
12-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 61 772: at 5.000 m. 8.55 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 863
15-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 Pe-2 £ 60 214: at 4.500 m. 9.14 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 868
15-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 70 762: at 3.000 m. 18.1 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 870
17-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 70 841: at 4.500 m. 5.2 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 874
17-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 Airacobra £ 70 791: at 2.500 m. 12.3 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 879
17-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 70 842: at 5.000 m. 13.05 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 880
17-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 Airacobra £ 70 871: at 3.500 m. 17.4 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 882
18-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 60 193: at 3.000 m. 10 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 884
18-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 61 792: at 3.000 m. 12.45 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 885
18-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 60 134: at 2.000 m. 12.55 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 887
19-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 88 263: at 5.000 m. 10.35 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 888
19-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG £ 98 132: at 3.500 m. 10.5 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 889
19-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 Airacobra £ 88 281: at 3.000 m. 16.25 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 893
20-ago-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 Il-2 £ 88 263: at 50 m. 6.07 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 895
15-sep-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Yak-9 £ 68 314: at 2.000 m. 12.2 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 1175
18-sep-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 69 563: at 4.000 m. 7.35 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr.1176
18-sep-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG-3 £ 68 391: at 4.000 m. 10.3 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr.1177
18-sep-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 68 392: at 5.000 m. 13.55 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr.1178
18-sep-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 68 332: at 4.000 m. 13.55 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr.1179
19-sep-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 58 6614: at 1.200 m. 14.4 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 1184
19-sep-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 56 599: at 800 m. 15.2 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 1186
20-sep-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG-3 £ 59 394: at 2.000 m. 13.2 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 1191
20-sep-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 59 474: at 2.000 m. 13.4 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 1193
20-sep-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 58 682: at 6.000 m. 15.35 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 1194
20-sep-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 58 334: at 2.000 m. 15.5 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 1196
25-sep-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 58 532: at 3.000 m. 7.55 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 1199
25-sep-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 58 831: at 5.000 m. 12.43 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 1200
25-sep-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 58 611: at 4.000 m. 16.35 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 1201
26-sep-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 58 691: at 5.000 m. 6.55 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr.1202
26-sep-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 58 554: at 600 m. 7.05 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr.1203
26-sep-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 58 592: at 6.000 m. 9.55 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr.1204
27-sep-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 58 611: at 4.600 m. 11.15 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 1206
27-sep-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 58 643: at 3.000 m. 11.25 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 1207
28-sep-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 58 641: at 2.000 m. 16.3 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 1208
29-sep-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 58 644: at 4.000 m. 6.56 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 1209
29-sep-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 58 682: at 4.000 m. 8.55 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 1210
30-sep-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 58 681: at 4.500 m. 6.55 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 1211
30-sep-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 58 732: at 2.500 m. 14.3 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 1212
30-sep-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 58 583: at 5.500 m. 16.4 Film C. 2032/II Anerk: Nr. 1213
1-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 58 641 at 5.000 m. 12.2 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 1215
1-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 58 762 at 3.500 m. 12.3 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 1216
2-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 58 833 at 5.000 m. 8.4 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 1217
2-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Pe-2 £ 58 762 at 6.500 m. 8.5 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 1218
2-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 58 851 at 5.000 m. 11.4 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 1219
2-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 58 672 at 4.000 m. 13.55 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 1220
3-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 58 592: at 3.500 m. 10.1 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr.1221
3-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 58 591 at 2.000 m. 16.05 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr.1222
4-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 58 614 at 5.000 m. 7.25 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr.1223
11-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 58 124: at 2.000 m. 13.4 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr.1227
12-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 58 134: at 1.500 m. 7 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr.1228
12-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 58 241: at 2.000 m. 7.15 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr.1229
12-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 58 211: at 1.000 m. 7.35 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr.1232
12-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 58 161: at 1.000 m. 15 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr.1233
13-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 58 181: at 3.000 m. 10.35 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr.1234
14-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 58 184: at 4.000 m. 8.2 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr.1235
14-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 58 151: at 3.500 m. 8.25 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr.1236
14-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 58 153: at 3.000 m. 15.2 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr.1237
15-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 58 153: at 4.000 m. 8.59 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr.1239
15-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 58 154: at 4.000 m. 9.05 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr.1240
15-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 58 181: at 4.000 m. 11.5 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr.1241
20-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 39 472: at 4.000 m. 7.15 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr.1242
20-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 39 393: at 3.500 m. 7.2 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr.1243
20-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 39 534: at 1.500 m. 14.42 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr.1244
21-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 39 481: at 4.500 m. 7.4 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr.1245
24-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 57 753: at 2.000 m. 14.1 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr.1248
24-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 58 534: at 3.500 m. 14.35 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr.1249
25-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Pe-2 £ 49 523: at 6.500 m. 10 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr.1250
25-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 57 182: at 2.000 m. 15.3 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr.1253
26-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 57 181: at 4.000 m. 8.08 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr.1254
26-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 57 153: at 4.500 m. 8.15 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr.1256
29-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 38 151: at 5.500 m. 8.5 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr.1258
29-oct-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 29 499: at 2.000 m. 11.05 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr.1259
7-dic-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ S.S.E. Dneprovka: 4.000 m. 13.46 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. -
13-dic-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ S. Jsnigirevka: at 900 m. 10.1 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 454
15-dic-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ N.W. Chervonovershka: at 800 m. 12.32 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 457
15-dic-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ N. Verblyuzhka: at 700 m. 12.45 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 458
15-dic-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ N.N.E. Chervonovershka: at 900 m. 14.16 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 459
17-dic-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ E. Novgorotka: at 5.000 m. 14.1 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 461
17-dic-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ N.E. Novgorotka: at 4.000 m. 14.2 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 464
17-dic-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ S. Verblyuzhka: at 4.000 m. 14.24 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 465
20-dic-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ N.E. Verchniy: at 200 m. 9.02 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 470
20-dic-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ W. Tomakovka: at 250 m. 12.13 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 472
20-dic-43 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ N.W. Verchniy: at 200 m. 12.13 Film C. 2035/I Anerk: Nr. 473
3-ene-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG-3 £ 38 893 at 1.000 m. [Novo Krasnoye] 12.1 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 475
7-ene-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG-3 £ 29344 at 3.000 m. 14.25 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 486
7-ene-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG-3 £ 29361 at 4.000 m. 14.2 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 484
8-ene-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 29371 at 3.500 m. 14.15 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 483
8-ene-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 29352 at 3.000 m. 14.2 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 485
8-ene-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 29552 at 4.000 m. 14.3 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 487
16-ene-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 29 343 at 3.500 m. 10.15 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 492
16-ene-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Lagg £ 19 464 at 4.000 m. 10.26 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 493
16-ene-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Lagg £ 19 492 at 4.000 m. 10.47 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 494
17-ene-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 29 512 at 3.000 m. 9.44 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 495
17-ene-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 29 521 at 2.500 m. 12.19 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 497
17-ene-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Pe-2 £ 19 492 at 1.000 m. 12.24 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 498
17-ene-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 29 341 at 4.000 m. 14.06 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 499
23-ene-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 29342 at 3.000 m. 11.3 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 500
23-ene-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 19262 at 1.000 m. 13.2 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 501
23-ene-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 19264 at 1.000 m. 13.25 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 502
23-ene-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 19293 at 1.000 m. 13.45 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 504
24-ene-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG-3 £ 19 262 at 2.000 m. 10.25 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 505
30-ene-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 19 274 at 400 m. 10.05 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 507
30-ene-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 19 283 at 300 m. 10.1 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 508
30-ene-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 19 241 at 4.000 m. 12.25 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 509
30-ene-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 19 243 at 3.000 m. 12.3 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 510
30-ene-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 19 261 at 2.000 m. 14.25 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 511
30-ene-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 19 432 at 2.300 m. 14.3 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 513
31-ene-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 19 241 at 2.000 m. 11.1 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 514
31-ene-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 19 132 at 1.200 m. 11.15 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 515
1-feb-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Lagg £ 19 284 at 800 m. 8.1 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 534
1-feb-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Lagg £ 19 162 at 2.500 m. 10 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 520
1-feb-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Lagg £ 19 241 at 2.000 m. 10.05 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 521
1-feb-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Lagg £ 19 124 at 1.500 m. 12 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 522
1-feb-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Lagg £ 19 134 at 1.000 m. 12.02 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 523
3-feb-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Lagg £ 19 152 at 400 m. 13.4 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 524
4-feb-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 10 783 at 3.500 m. 11.4 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 525
26-feb-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 29 381: at 3.000 m. 9.08 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 526
26-feb-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 29 384: at 3.000 m. 9.16 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 527
26-feb-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 29 524: at 4.000 m. 11.45 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 528
26-feb-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 29 521: at 3.000 m. 11.48 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 529
26-feb-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 29 514: at 3.000 m. 11.53 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 530
26-feb-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 29 524: at 2.500 m. 11.58 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 531
26-feb-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 29 524: at 2.000 m. 12.03 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 532
26-feb-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 29 552: at 2.500 m. 14.4 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 534
26-feb-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 29 531: at 3.000 m. 14.45 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 535
26-feb-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 29 512: at 2.000 m. 14.5 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 536
23-abr-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 35 351: at 1.500 m. 15.45 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 734
24-abr-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 35 474: at 2.000 m. 11.55 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 735
24-abr-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 35 472: at 5.000 m. 12.15 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 636
26-abr-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 35 481: at 4.000 m. 14.2 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 746
26-abr-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 35 474: at 4.000 m. 14.15 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 751
3-may-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 35 273: at 2.000 m. 15.45 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 685
4-may-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 35 424: at 3.500 m. 16.1 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 696
4-may-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 35 424: at 5.000 m. 17.35 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 697
4-may-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 35 214: at 2.500 m. 17.5 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 698
5-may-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 35 421: at 3.000 m. 8.2 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 699
5-may-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 85 614: at 2.000 m. 10.45 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 700
5-may-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 35 612: at 2.000 m. 10.48 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 701
5-may-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 35 532: at 1.500 m. 10.54 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 702
5-may-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 35 274: at 1.500 m. 14.15 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 703
5-may-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 35 423: at 4.500 m. 14.15 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 704
6-may-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 35 442: at 2.500 m. 10.45 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 225
7-may-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 35 644: at 5.000 m. 9.22 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 703
7-may-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 35 641: at 5.000 m. 9.3 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 707
7-may-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 35 483: at 3.500 m. 9.4 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 705
8-may-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 35 612: at 1.000 m. 9.25 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 709
8-may-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 35 362: at 4.000 m. 13.45 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 710
20-may-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG-5 £ 98 754: at 2.500 m. 12.24 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 752
20-may-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG-5 £ 98 711: at 2.000 m. 18.35 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 753
29-may-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 78 764L tiefst. 15.35 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 1275
30-may-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 78 644: at 3.500 m. 11.25 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 754
30-may-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 78 613: at 4.000 m. 14.38 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 755
31-may-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 78 647: at 4.000 m. 18.05 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 756
31-may-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 78 614: at 5.000 m. 18.08 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 757
31-may-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 78 733: at 3.500 m. 18.13 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 758
1-jun-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 78 677: at 200 m. 11.31 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 759
1-jun-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 78 813: at 2.000 m. 11.32 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 760
1-jun-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 78 648: at 2.000 m. 14.2 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 762
1-jun-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 78 673: at 1.000 m. 14.3 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 763
1-jun-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 78 673: at 2.000 m. 14.32 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 764
1-jun-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 78 675: at 1.000 m. 14.35 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 765
2-jun-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 78 685: at 4.000 m. 17.1 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 766
2-jun-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 78 640: at 4.000 m. 17.15 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 767
3-jun-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 78 825: at 4.000 m. 13.3 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 1044
3-jun-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 78 813: at 3.000 m. 13.33 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 1045
3-jun-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 78 733: at 500 m. 14 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 1046
3-jun-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 78 568: at 600 m. 16.17 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 1051
4-jun-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 78 733: at 1.500 m. 15.1 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 1052
4-jun-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 78 595: at 200 m. 15.25 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 1053
4-jun-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 78 596: at 2.000 m. 17.13 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 1058
4-jun-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 78 591: at 2.500 m. 17.23 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 1060
4-jun-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 78 590: at 2.000 m. 17.53 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 1061
4-jun-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 78 565: at 2.000 m. 18.15 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 1062
4-jun-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 78 560: at 2.000 m. 18.18 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 1063
5-jun-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 25 km. N.W. Jasi: at 5.000 m. 13.12 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 768
5-jun-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 5 km. W. Jasi: at 5.000 m. 13.19 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 769
5-jun-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 78 582: at 3.500 m. 15.2 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 770
5-jun-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 78 722: at 100 m. 17.1 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 498
5-jun-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 78 562: at 2.500 m. 18.07 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 771
5-jun-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 78 674: at 5.000 m. 18.35 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 772
5-jun-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 78 583: at 4.000 m. 18.43 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 773
6-jun-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 78 598: at 600 m. 15.25 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 940
6-jun-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 78 591: at 1.000 m. 15.3 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 941
6-jun-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 78 582: at 1.500 m. 19.15 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 944
6-jun-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 78 569: at 1.000 m. 19.25 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 945
6-jun-44 Ltn. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 78 728: at 800 m. 19.35 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 949
12-jun-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 78 862: at 1.500 m. 14 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 951
12-jun-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 78 831: at 3.000 m. 14.05 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 952
24-jun-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Mustang £ 65 136: at 3.000 m. 9.5 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 454
27-jun-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 85 229: at 3.000 m. 18.1 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 956
27-jun-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 85 245: at 2.000 m. 18.15 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. 957
1-jul-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 94 173: at 4.000 m. 17.3 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 959
1-jul-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 94 179: at 3.000 m. 17.32 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 960
15-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG-5 £ 01 633 at 1.500 m. 11.43 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 918
15-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 01 663 at 1.500 m. 11.45 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 919
17-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 11 267 at 3.000 m. 12.25 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 920
17-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 11 273 at 5.000 m. 12.3 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 921
17-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 11 277 at 800 m. 15.27 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 922
18-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 11 272 at 500 m. 16.27 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 923
20-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 11 779 at 1.500 m. 12 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 924
20-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 11 757 at 1.200 m. 12.03 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 925
20-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 11 724 at 1.200 m. 12.1 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 926
22-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 11 274: at 3.000 m. 12.2 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 927
22-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 11 335: at 2.000 m. 12.3 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 928
22-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 11 339: at 2.000 m. 12.31 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 929
22-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 11 411: at 2.000 m. 15.17 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 930
22-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 11 271: at 1.500 m. 15.22 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 931
23-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 11 411: at 1.000 m. 14.15 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 932
23-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 11 413: at 1.200 m. 14.18 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 933
23-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 11 278: at 1.000 m. 14.2 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 934
23-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 11 363: at 1.500 m. 17.1 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 935
23-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 11 333: at 1.500 m. 17.12 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 936
23-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 11 412: at 1.200 m. 17.15 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 937
23-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 11 421: at 1.000 m. 17.17 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 938
23-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 11 444: at 3.500 m. 17.3 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 939
24-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 11 416: at 2.000 m. 13.18 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 962
24-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 11 417: at 1.500 m. 13.15 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 961
24-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 11 421: at 1.200 m. 13.19 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 963
24-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 11 427: at 1.500 m. 13.25 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 964
24-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 11 419: at 1.000 m. 13.27 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 965
24-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 11 443: at 3.000 m. 13.4 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 966
24-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG-5 £ 11 335: at 1.500 m. 16 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 1064
24-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG-5 £ 11 363: at 1.200 m. 16.03 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 1065
24-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 11 447: at 1.200 m. 16.06 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 1066
24-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 11 441: at 1.000 m. 16.1 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 1067
24-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 11 422: no height 16.2 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 1068
25-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 01 663: at 200 m. 13.27 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 1069
27-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 Airacobra £ 11 353: at 2.500 m. 18 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 1071
27-oct-44 Hptm. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 Yak-9 £ 18 265: at 2.500 m. 10.16 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. -
31-oct-44 Hptm. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 Yak-7 £ 15.3 Film C. 2032/I Anerk: Nr. -
7-nov-44 Hptm. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 Yak-7 £ 98 563: at 1.000 m. 13.35 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. -
13-nov-44 Hptm. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 Yak-9 £ 89 ---: at 5.000 m. 14.1 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. -
13-nov-44 Hptm. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 Yak-9 £ 9866-: at 4.200 m. 14.15 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. -
13-nov-44 Hptm. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 Yak-9 £ 0854-: at 4.000 m. 14.25 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. -
13-nov-44 Hptm. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 Yak-9 £ 98 637: at 4.000 m. 14.3 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. -
14-nov-44 Hptm. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG-5 £ 98 494: at 2.000 m. 11.35 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. -
14-nov-44 Hptm. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG-5 £ 08 471: at 800 m. 11.45 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. -
16-nov-44 Hptm. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 Yak-9 £ 98 368: at 4.000 m. 8.45 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. -
16-nov-44 Hptm. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 Yak-9 £ 98 487: at 1.000 m. 8.5 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. -
17-nov-44 Hptm. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 Boston III £ 98 584: at 2.000 m. 14.25 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. -
22-nov-44 Hptm. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 Yak-9 £ 98 453: at 3.500 m. 11.4 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. -
22-nov-44 Hptm. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 La-5 £ 98 452: at 4.500 m. 11.45 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. -
5-dic-44 Hptm. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG-5 £ 98 419: at 1.200 m. 13.2 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. -
5-dic-44 Hptm. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 LaGG-5 £ 98 278: at 1.000 m. 13.25 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. -
9-dic-44 Hptm. Erich Hartmann 7./JG 52 Yak-9 £ 88 683: at 2.000 m. 13.1 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr.


found this to:
Lista de maxismos ases contra el IL-2 Stormovik.

Lo que aparece al lado del nombre son los IL-2 que derribo y debajo el total de derribos.

Oberleutnant Otto Kittel

Rank
First Name
Last Name
Il-2
Total

Oblt. Otto "Bruno" Kittel 94
267

Hptm. Joachim Brendel 88
189

Maj. Johannes Wiese 70+
133

Hptm. Franz Schall 61
133

Oblt. Günther Josten 60
178

Maj. Erich Rudorffer 58
224

Oblt. Anton "Toni" Hafner 55
204

Maj. Franz Eisenach 52
129

Hptm. Wilhelm Batz 46
237

Oblt. Kurt Dombacher 43
68

Hptm. Rudolf Trenkel 42+
138

Maj. Diethelm von Eichel-Streiber 42
96

Lt. Herbert Bachnick 41
80

Hptm. Robert "Bazi" Weiss 40
121

Lt. Peter "Bonifaz" Düttmann 38
152

Lt. Hermann Schleinhege 38
96

Hptm. Helmut Lipfert 36
203

Oblt. Oskar "Ossi" Romm 34+
92

Obst. Walter Dahl 34
129

Oblt. Hans Waldmann 33
134

Maj. Erich Leie 32
118

Hptm. Werner Lucas 31
106

Hptm. Erich "Bubi" Hartmann 30
352

Oblt. Fritz Seyffardt 30
30

Lt. Josef "Pepi" Jennewein 29
86

Oblt. Gerhard Thyben 28
157

Hptm. Karl-Heinz Weber 28
136

Hptm. Wilhelm Lemke 28
131

Ofw. Wilhelm Philipp 28
81

FjOfw. Heinz "Negus" Marquardt 27+
121

Oblt. Heinrich Höfemeier 27+
96

Hptm. Emil Bitsch 27
108

Maj. Viktor Bauer 27
106

Oblt. Hans Grünberg 27
82

Lt. Heinz Kemethmüller 26
89

Oblt. Siegfried Engfer 25
58

Maj. Walter Nowotny 24
258

Maj. Heinz Lange 24
70

Oblt. Walter Wever 24
44

Lt. Reinhold Hoffmann 23
67

Oblt. Max-Hermann Lücke 22
78

Oblt. Wolf-Udo Ettel 21
124

Lt. Rudolf "Rudi" Rademacher 21
97

Lt. Otto Gaiser 21
66

Lt. Ulrich "Seppl" Wöhnert 20+
86

Hptm. Emil "Bully" Lang 20
173

Lt. Ulrich "Pipfax" Wernitz 20
101

Lt. Günther Scheel 20
71

Lt. Hugo Broch 18
81

Oblt. Edwin Thiel 18
76

Maj. Erwin Clausen 17
132

Lt. Walter Zellot 17
86

Ofw. Fritz Lüddecke 17
51

Oblt. Walter Wolfrum 16
137

Hptm. Alfred Grislawski 16
133

Hptm. Franz Dör 16
128

Lt. Johann-Hermann Meier 16
78

Ofw. Heribert Koller 16
50+

Oblt. Wolfgang Böwing-Treuding 16
46

Maj. Günther Rall 15
275

Maj. Theodor Weissenberger 15
208

Lt. Hans-Joachim Birkner 15
117

Oblt. Hans Schleef 15
99

Hptm. Alfred Teumer 15
76

Lt. Hans-Joachim Kroschinski 15
76

Lt. Hans Fuss 15
71

Hptm. Lutz-Wilhelm Burkhardt 15
69

Maj. Wilhelm Moritz 15
44

Lt. Alfons Klein 15
39

Maj. Günther Bleckmann 15
33

Maj. Joachim Müncheberg 14
135

Lt. Heinz Sachsenberg 14
104

Lt. Heinz Ewald 14
84

Oblt. Hermann "Anatol" Lücke 14
78

Oblt. Kurt Ebener 14
57

Lt. Johann Badum 14
54

Lt. Georg Schwientek 14
31

Hptm. Walter "Graf Punski" Krupinski 13+
197

Maj. Hartmann Grasser 13
103

Hptm. Hans Götz 13
82

Lt. Karl "Fuchs" Munz 13
60

Fw. Heinz "Figaro" Golinski 13
47

Lt. Franz-Josef Beerenbrock 12
117

Hptm. Hans Roehrig 12
75

Lt. Ludwig Häfner 12
52

Obst. Hermann Graf 11+
212

Obst. Johannes "Mäcky" Steinhoff 10
176

Hptm. Wolfgang Tonne 10
122

Obstlt. Helmut Bennemann 10
93

Oblt. Alfred Heckmann 10
71

Lt. Karl "Quax" Schnörer 10
46

Stew278
11-27-2007, 03:11 PM
Wow, look at all those LaGG's and Airacobra's. I take it the VVS units in that area didn't fly Yak's since there are so few of them listed, or did he just avoid those?

Haigotron
11-27-2007, 04:13 PM
How many ppl does it take to build a LAGG. How many ppl does it take to down it?

luftluuver
11-27-2007, 04:44 PM
Looks like the list was compiled from the files on this site
http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/tony/tonywood.htm

FPSOLKOR
11-27-2007, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by Stew278:
Wow, look at all those LaGG's and Airacobra's. I take it the VVS units in that area didn't fly Yak's since there are so few of them listed, or did he just avoid those?
VVS units mostly didn't have that many LaGG-3s at the areas of E.H. operations, and there are serious problems with Airacobras either... May be misidentification, or maybe else...

PBNA-Boosher
11-27-2007, 08:18 PM
is it possible that those LaGG's are just misnumbered? All to often do I hear the La-5 and -7 spoken of as LaGG's. As far as I know the G. and G. designers didn't have much to do with the La version, but some people kept calling them LaGGs anyway.

HuninMunin
11-27-2007, 08:32 PM
Yes, most La5s or 7s were written off as LaGGs by the Luftwaffe.
Thats why it always just says "LaGG" and nothing specific.

FPSOLKOR
11-27-2007, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
is it possible that those LaGG's are just misnumbered? All to often do I hear the La-5 and -7 spoken of as LaGG's. As far as I know the G. and G. designers didn't have much to do with the La version, but some people kept calling them LaGGs anyway.
Germans had a LaGG-5 designation for all aircooled La's.
Now, to the Cobras and Hartmann (Some of his claims cross-checked by Nikita Egorov in TsAMO):
26 sept 1943 Hartman claims 2 Cobras (also: 1 by Hrabak and 1 by Oblezer)
No losses recorded by Soviet side (only 3 regiments flying Cobras at this location - no problem with checking, even more - no contact was made by Cobra pilots with enemy aircraft)
8 january 1944. Hartmann claimed 3 Cobras in one fight.
Result - 1 cobra lightly shot up... Not necesserely by E.H. - given location is way off from the area of the damage. There was 1 Cobra set on fire, but it was even farther from the location given by Hartmann, and at different time. (6 regiments flying cobras at this location.)
5 claims - 1 damaged... And so on, and on, and on... So far for 352 claims only about 30 definitely confirmed cases.

Loco-S
11-27-2007, 09:08 PM
not to be a revisionist, but Hartmann tally was verified by allied personnel after WW2, also he had a bounty offered by Stalin Himself of 50,000 dollars to whoever shot him down and captured him.....it was never cashed tough.

HayateAce
11-27-2007, 09:32 PM
As time passes more truth will come to light, and most intelligent people will know EH's "record" of 352 to be false.

I'm sorry, but there it is.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

avimimus
11-27-2007, 10:05 PM
That sure is a lot of Laggs. Very sad stuff. What poor sap was flying an I-16 in 1943? A training school?

FPSOLKOR
11-27-2007, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by Loco-S:
not to be a revisionist, but Hartmann tally was verified by allied personnel after WW2, also he had a bounty offered by Stalin Himself of 50,000 dollars to whoever shot him down and captured him.....it was never cashed tough.
??? Which allied personnel you are referring to? They could have confirmed his CLAIMS, but as was shown above CLAIMS have nothing to do with KILLS. Stalin never even heard of Hartmanns name, IMHO... And he had a lot of things to do besides claiming bounty for someones head, especially in dollars. (At least he did not place one on Hitlers head).I just can't imagine a way to spend a single DOLLAR in USSR! I'm afraid that's another propaganda story...

badatit
11-27-2007, 10:07 PM
Look at all that Mustang.

FPSOLKOR
11-27-2007, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by avimimus:
That sure is a lot of Laggs. Very sad stuff. What poor sap was flying an I-16 in 1943? A training school? I-16's were phased out from front-line service as late as spring 1944.

FPSOLKOR
11-27-2007, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
As time passes more truth will come to light, and most intelligent people will know EH's "record" of 352 to be false.
Let's say, he is not the only one with claim-kill ratio problems... Other pilots with a "problematic" accounts are, for example: Rudorfer, Lang, Nowotny, Ostermann... the named are well exceding usual 2:1, and closer they get to "round" numbers, the bigger the mistake is.

Boandlgramer
11-27-2007, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
As time passes more truth will come to light, and most intelligent people will know EH's "record" of 352 to be false.
Let's say, he is not the only one with claim-kill ratio problems... Other pilots with a "problematic" accounts are, for example: Rudorfer, Lang, Nowotny, Ostermann... the named are well exceding usual 2:1, and closer they get to "round" numbers, the bigger the mistake is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure there are many more.

The Flying Tigers for example , or a "few" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif soviet Pilots.

M_Gunz
11-27-2007, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
As time passes more truth will come to light,

About WWII air victories? I keep seeing just the opposite!

M_Gunz
11-27-2007, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Looks like the list was compiled from the files on this site
http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/tony/tonywood.htm

Personally, I want to thank you for that link!

FPSOLKOR
11-28-2007, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
Sure there are many more.

The Flying Tigers for example , or a "few" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif soviet Pilots.
True, true... There are even some facts when out of 20 claims none can be confirmed...

jadger
11-28-2007, 01:25 AM
FPSOLKOR, I love how you claim to be the one telling the truth but you are the one who hasn't cited any sources at all. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

the truth is, Luftwaffe investigation into kill claims was far more strict than either the Allies or the Soviets.

As for a prize put on his head, he did not mean a literal dollar amount, that user is probably from the USA and so thinks in dollars. A good book to read is "The Blonde Knight of Germany" by Raymond F. Toliver and Trevor J. Constable, in it they detail the reward for whoever kills him. In this book it also has a partial list of his kills, which were backed up by VVS reports I might add.

yet I cant find any sources that back up your claims FPSOLKOR, strange http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Kurfurst__
11-28-2007, 01:30 AM
This seems some sort of compliation (selection?) of Hartmann`s victories, of which all seems to have been confirmed by the OKL, so I presume the unconfirmed victory claim are missing from that list. Hartmann`s case is difficult anyway, since AFAIK his last war diary logging victories in the last phase of the war was lost.

M_Gunz
11-28-2007, 01:45 AM
I am impressed with how few non-fighters are in that list if I count IL2 and Pe-2 as
non-fighters. No transports or recons that I see in scanning the list.

What are the numbers like the 422 below? I see date, pilot, target and model(?), 422:,
alt and guncam reference? What a video library those film clips would make!

24-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 11 422: no height 16.2 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 1068

DIRTY-MAC
11-28-2007, 03:30 AM
This is also posted on the same forum:
La lista de derribos de Hartmann es en total:

109 La-5
27 La-7
77 P-39
6 P-51
7 LaGG-3
5 Yak-3
8 Yak-7
51 Yak-9
28 Il-2
11 Pe-2
2 B-20
1 B-25
1 MiG-1
1 I-16
1 R-5
1 U-2

realmente llamativo el enorme numero de cazas tipo Lavochkin. La produccion de aviones en la URSS durante la SGM corresponde a:

Yak-1: 8721.
Yak-3: 4560.
Yak-7: 6399.
Yak-9: 16769.

Total Yak: 36449.

LaGG-3: 6528.
La-5: 10003.
La-7: 5905.

Total Lavochkin: 22436.

Il-2: 36163.
Il-10: 6000.

Total Sturmovik: 42000.

Pe-2: 11202.

Hartmann comienza a derribar numerosos aviones a mediados de 1943. En esta epoca los LaGG-3 son completamente inferiores a los aviones alemanes, asi que se destinan a frentes con poca actividad aerea enemiga. Hartmann derriba 136 La-5/7 y solo 64 Yak-3/7/9, cuando los segundos constituyen la espina dorsal de la VVS:

Yak-3/7/9: 27728.
La-5/7: 15908.

La proporcion es de 1.74:1 a favor de los Yak. La proporcion de Hartmann es 2.125:1 a favor de los Yak. Esto nos hace preguntarnos:

- Hartmann operaba en zonas donde habia mas regimientos de La ?
- Se concentraba en derribar aviones de escolta ?
- El La aguanta menos daños que el Yak !!!????

En fin, aunque estas estadisticas no son precisas, dan una idea de que hay algo que no cuela en los derribos de Hartmann. Seguro que si se estudia los tipos de aviones operados en los regimientos de la zona de Hartmann nos seguiriamos llevando sorpresas. No he tenido en cuenta el numero de aviones lend & lease. Las cifras son:

P-39: 5707 (4719 llegaron a la URSS)
P-40: 2397
P-47: 195
P-63: 2397 (21 perdidos en el envio)
Hurricane: 2952
Spitfire: 1331
A-20: 2908
B-25: 862
B-24: 1
Hampden: 23
Albemarle: 14
Mosquito: 1

luftluuver
11-28-2007, 03:43 AM
See also this site, http://www.luftwaffe.cz/

FPSOLKOR
11-28-2007, 04:29 AM
Originally posted by jadger:
FPSOLKOR, I love how you claim to be the one telling the truth but you are the one who hasn't cited any sources at all. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

the truth is, Luftwaffe investigation into kill claims was far more strict than either the Allies or the Soviets.

As for a prize put on his head, he did not mean a literal dollar amount, that user is probably from the USA and so thinks in dollars. A good book to read is "The Blonde Knight of Germany" by Raymond F. Toliver and Trevor J. Constable, in it they detail the reward for whoever kills him. In this book it also has a partial list of his kills, which were backed up by VVS reports I might add.

yet I cant find any sources that back up your claims FPSOLKOR, strange http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
Raymond F. Toliver and Trevor J. Constable are not a source to be mentioned in the serious historian community - most of their words are propaganda, not even close to the reality. It is easy to write a book without any research done in the OPPOSITE sides archive. What is backing my words is TsAMO (RF central archive of the ministry of defence ). This year it was opened for free access for everybody, if you have free 3-4 years, you can come and make a research by yourself. An article is being prepared for publishing on this matter by Nikita, but i'm not sure when exactly it will come out - for example a complete article about "Ossi " Ostermann can't be published for various reasons for 4 years already.

Kurfurst__
11-28-2007, 04:45 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I am impressed with how few non-fighters are in that list if I count IL2 and Pe-2 as
non-fighters. No transports or recons that I see in scanning the list.

What are the numbers like the 422 below? I see date, pilot, target and model(?), 422:,
alt and guncam reference? What a video library those film clips would make!

24-ago-44 Oblt. Erich Hartmann 9./JG 52 LaGG £ 11 422: no height 16.2 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 1068

Luftwaffe Grid reference IIRC.

KIMURA
11-28-2007, 06:52 AM
FPSOLKOR did you cross-checked all the different fighter losses of the VVS in that area where Hartmann made his claims? My point is that in a combat zome misidentying of types is a common thing.

My other point is, that Hartmann's impressive tally had only one reason, namely a great amound of sorties. If you split his kill to the sories he has flown, then U'll find out that Hartmann's claims are far below of any Allied pilots. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

waffen-79
11-28-2007, 07:00 AM
@Dirty-Mac

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

thanks for the info mate, and it's in spanish too! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

DIRTY-MAC
11-28-2007, 07:15 AM
What does it say in spanish?
and dont forget to check the whole thread, It seems pretty interesting.

Deadmeat313
11-28-2007, 07:50 AM
Very good stuff. I had heard that of his 352 kills, more than 200 of them are listed as LaGGs. This list certainly seems to bear that out.

And, I agree with KIMURA. Hartmann flew something like 1400 sorties? Overall it works out at 1 kill per 4 sorties approx. Other pilots achieved a far greater ratio of kills/mission, but many of them were themselves killed.

T.

TgD Thunderbolt56
11-28-2007, 08:22 AM
For pete's sake let's not get into a pi$$ing match about false kill claims. The records accross the boards (English, American, German, Soviet, Japanese...ALL OF THEM!) have discrepencies where the opposing pilots may claim a total of 18 aircraft shot down in a particular sortie where there might have only been a couple shot down and a few others damaged.

I find the unsubstantiated insinuation that anyone intentionally 'padded' their kill claims hypocritical. Did some pilots do it? most assuredly, but we have no proof and most all are dead now anyway. Let's not make assumptions based on further (and likely more warped) propaganda.

Like in anything, we need to make the most learned conclusion we can...and that's about all we can do.


TB

DIRTY-MAC
11-28-2007, 09:30 AM
Erich "Bubi" Hartmann was born on 19 April 1921 at Weissach in Württemberg. His early years were spent in China where his father, a doctor, had a general practice in Changsha. He returned to Germany with his family in 1928 and completed his schooling. Hartmann learned to fly sailplanes and had gained his pilot's licence in 1939. He entered the Luftwaffe on 10 October 1940. Hartmann attended the Luftkriegsschule II (air combat school) at Berlin-Gatow gaining his military pilot's licence in August 1941. From 14 October 1941 to February 1942 he attended Jagdfliegerschule-Vorschule 2 at Lachen-Speyerdorf. He attended Jagdfliegerschule 2 at Zerbst from February 1942 to July 1942 before being posted to Ergänzungruppe Ost at Gleiwitz for operational training, which he completed in October 1942. His first operational posting was to 7./JG 52 on the Eastern Front on 10 October 1942. Leutnant Hartmann came under the guidance of Oberfeldwebel Edmund "Paule" Rossmann (93 victories, RK, POW 9 July 1943), considered one of the best element leaders on the Eastern Front. During this time he was given the advice of several another accomplished aces of 7./JG 52, including Oberfeldwebel Alfred Grislawski (132 victories, RK-EL) and Leutnant Walter Krupinski (197 victories, RK-EL). Hartmann recorded his first victory, a Russian Il-2 Sturmovik ground-attack aircraft, shot down on 5 November 1942. However, he too was hit in the engagement and was forced to crashland. By the end of April 1943, his victory total stood at 11. On 23 May he claimed his 17th victory but two days later force-landed his Bf 109 G-4 "White 2" (W.Nr. 14 997) after colliding with a LaGG-3 fighter. After this incident he was given leave to rest and recuperate, returning to combat duty by the end of June. By the end of July 1943 his victory total had reached 42, including seven enemy aircraft shot down on 7 July to record his 22nd through 28th victories. In August, he claimed 48 victories, including five on 1 August (43-47), 4 August (52-56), 5 August (57-61) and 7 August (63-67). However, following his 90th victory on 20 August 1943, Hartmann was shot down in Bf 109 G-6 (W.Nr. 20 485), and captured. Feigning injury, he managed to decoy his captors into not keeping a close watch on him and was able to escape and returned to his unit after two days. On 2 September 1943, Hartmann was appointed Staffelkapitän of 9./JG 52. On 13 September he was awarded the Ehrenpokal. He gained his 100th victory on 20 September 1943. In October, he claimed 33 victories. Leutnant Hartmann was awarded the Ritterkreuz on 29 October 1943 after his 148th victory. On 6 December he was awarded the Deutsches Kreuz in Gold. He recorded his 150th victory on 13 December. On 30 January 1944, Hartmann shot down six enemy aircraft (178-183). He claimed five victories on 1 February (186-190). He brought up his 200th victory on the 26 February 1944, on a day when he shot down 10 Airacobra fighters (192-202). He was awarded the Eichenlaub (Nr 420) on 2 March. On 8 May, Hartmann, with two of his groundcrew in the baggage locker of his Bf 109, was forced to withdraw from the Crimea. He had 223 victories to his credit at the time. For a short period, Hartmann operated over Rumania intercepting the American daylight bombing raids on the Rumanian oil fields and installations, and on 24 June he claimed a 15th USAAF P-51 fighter as his 265th victory. On 2 July he was awarded the Schwertern (Nr. 75) for 266 victories. A Russian counter-offensive took the unit back to the Crimea and, during May and June 1944, he accounted for 60 Russian aircraft to bring his score to 267. In August 1944, Hartmann claimed 35 victories, including eight on 23 August (284-291). He became the first fighter pilot to record 300 victories on 24 August 1944, on a day when he shot down eleven enemy aircraft. Hartmann was awarded the Brillanten for 303 victories on 25 August 1944, only the 18th German soldier to receive this accolade. He was immediately prohibited from combat flying and was assigned to Erprobungskommando 262 to test fly the Me 262 jet fighter. In October, Hartman was able get the prohibition on his combat flying lifted. On 1 October he was appointed Staffelkapitän of 4./JG 52 (or 7./JG 52?) based in Hungary. By the end of 1944, he had raised his victory tally to 331. From 1 to 14 February 1945, Hartmann briefly led I./JG 53 in an acting Gruppenkommandeur role. He relinquished the role to Hauptmann Helmut Lipfert (203 victories, RK-EL) on 15 February. In mid-February 1945, Hartmann was given command of I./JG 52. In March he was transferred to Lechfeld for short training on the Me 262 jet fighter before requesting to return to JG 52. He became the only man ever to achieve 350 victories on 17 April 1945 and in late April he was promoted to Major. On 8 May 1945 he claimed his 352nd, and last, victory against a Yak-9 fighter over the Brünn area in Czechoslovakia. Major Hartmann surrendered his unit to an American armoured unit but on 24 May he was handed over to the Russians. He was to be sentenced to 25 years hard labour by the Russians, serving 10 years before returning to Germany on 15 October 1955. He served in the reformed Luftwaffe from 1956 and commanded JG 71. He retired from active duty in 1970. Erich Hartmann died on 19 September 1993 at Weil im Schönbuch.
Erich Hartmann was the top scoring fighter pilot of all the combatants in World War 2. He flew 825 missions in recording 352 victories. All his victories were recorded on the Eastern Front and included 15 Il-2 Sturmovik ground-attack aircraft. He force-landed 14 times during his combat career.

Victories : 352
Awards : Ehrenpokal (13 September 1943)
Deutsches Kreuz in Gold (17 October 1943)
Ritterkreuz (29 October 1943)
Eichenlaub (2 March 1944)
Schwertern (2 July 1944)
Brillianten (25 August 1944)
Units : JG 52, JG 53

luftluuver
11-28-2007, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by Deadmeat313:
Very good stuff. I had heard that of his 352 kills, more than 200 of them are listed as LaGGs. This list certainly seems to bear that out.

And, I agree with KIMURA. Hartmann flew something like 1400 sorties? Overall it works out at 1 kill per 4 sorties approx. Other pilots achieved a far greater ratio of kills/mission, but many of them were themselves killed.T. He flew 1400 sorties but only had combat on ~800 of those sorties. That makes the ratio ~1:2.

DuxCorvan
11-28-2007, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
This is also posted on the same forum:
La lista de derribos de Hartmann es en total:

109 La-5
27 La-7
77 P-39
6 P-51
7 LaGG-3
5 Yak-3
8 Yak-7
51 Yak-9
28 Il-2
11 Pe-2
2 B-20
1 B-25
1 MiG-1
1 I-16
1 R-5
1 U-2

realmente llamativo el enorme numero de cazas tipo Lavochkin. La produccion de aviones en la URSS durante la SGM corresponde a:

Yak-1: 8721.
Yak-3: 4560.
Yak-7: 6399.
Yak-9: 16769.

Total Yak: 36449.

LaGG-3: 6528.
La-5: 10003.
La-7: 5905.

Total Lavochkin: 22436.

Il-2: 36163.
Il-10: 6000.

Total Sturmovik: 42000.

Pe-2: 11202.

Hartmann comienza a derribar numerosos aviones a mediados de 1943. En esta epoca los LaGG-3 son completamente inferiores a los aviones alemanes, asi que se destinan a frentes con poca actividad aerea enemiga. Hartmann derriba 136 La-5/7 y solo 64 Yak-3/7/9, cuando los segundos constituyen la espina dorsal de la VVS:

Yak-3/7/9: 27728.
La-5/7: 15908.

La proporcion es de 1.74:1 a favor de los Yak. La proporcion de Hartmann es 2.125:1 a favor de los Yak. Esto nos hace preguntarnos:

- Hartmann operaba en zonas donde habia mas regimientos de La ?
- Se concentraba en derribar aviones de escolta ?
- El La aguanta menos daños que el Yak !!!????

En fin, aunque estas estadisticas no son precisas, dan una idea de que hay algo que no cuela en los derribos de Hartmann. Seguro que si se estudia los tipos de aviones operados en los regimientos de la zona de Hartmann nos seguiriamos llevando sorpresas. No he tenido en cuenta el numero de aviones lend & lease. Las cifras son:

P-39: 5707 (4719 llegaron a la URSS)
P-40: 2397
P-47: 195
P-63: 2397 (21 perdidos en el envio)
Hurricane: 2952
Spitfire: 1331
A-20: 2908
B-25: 862
B-24: 1
Hampden: 23
Albemarle: 14
Mosquito: 1

I'm a Spaniard, and I can translate things for you. For example, the texts above would be like this:

"The final list of Hartmann's victories is:

109 La-5
27 La-7
77 P-39
6 P-51
7 LaGG-3
5 Yak-3
8 Yak-7
51 Yak-9
28 Il-2
11 Pe-2
2 B-20
1 B-25
1 MiG-1
1 I-16
1 R-5
1 U-2

It's really shocking the huge number of Lavochkin type fighters. The total plane production numbers in the USSR during WW2 is:

Yak-1: 8721.
Yak-3: 4560.
Yak-7: 6399.
Yak-9: 16769.

Total Yak: 36449.

LaGG-3: 6528.
La-5: 10003.
La-7: 5905.

Total Lavochkin: 22436.

Il-2: 36163.
Il-10: 6000.

Total Sturmovik: 42000.

Pe-2: 11202.

Hartmann started shooting down many planes from mid 1943. In that time, the LaGG-3 were still completely inferior to the German fighters, so they were sent to fronts with low enemy air activity.
Hartmann downed 136 La-5/7 but only 64 Yak-3/7/9, even when the latter formed the backbone of the VVS:

Yak-3/7/9: 27728.
La-5/7: 15908.

The numbers were 1.74:1 in favor of the Yaks.
But Hartmann downed 2.125 La's for every Yak. This make us wonder:

- Did Hartmann usually operate in areas where there were more regiments equipped with La's?
- Did he concentrate in escort fighters?
- Were the La's less durable than the Yaks !!!????

Well, although these statistics are anything but precise, give a clue about something not working with Hartmann's claims. I'm sure that if we study the types employed by VVS regiments in the areas where Hartmann operated, we'll find some surprises. I still haven't counted the lend-lease types. These are the numbers:

P-39: 5707 (4719 arrived to USSR)
P-40: 2397
P-47: 195
P-63: 2397 (21 lost before deliver)
Hurricane: 2952
Spitfire: 1331
A-20: 2908
B-25: 862
B-24: 1
Hampden: 23
Albemarle: 14
Mosquito: 1"

JG4_Helofly
11-28-2007, 09:53 AM
Even some other german pilots did not believe that his kills were real. Once Hartmann heard of this and flew a sortie with a pilot who didn't want to belive Hartmanns kills. In this mission he shot down 2 enemys http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Taking into account the fact that most german aces flew over 1000 sorties, had very good training and much experience, these kill numbers are not supernatural.

FPSOLKOR
11-28-2007, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by KIMURA:
FPSOLKOR did you cross-checked all the different fighter losses of the VVS in that area where Hartmann made his claims? My point is that in a combat zome misidentying of types is a common thing.

My other point is, that Hartmann's impressive tally had only one reason, namely a great amound of sorties. If you split his kill to the sories he has flown, then U'll find out that Hartmann's claims are far below of any Allied pilots. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
If you read carefully N.E. states that only 30 kills can be undisputedly credited to Hartmann. About 130 have nothing close (no flights or losses at given time at given location by VVS aircraft), the rest are highly disputable, since for 1 VVS loss at this time and location there are, for example, 5 claims by LW pilots. It is virtually impossible to establish the author of the victory. Same picture is for the opposite side. The work continues, though...

JG14_Josf
11-28-2007, 03:41 PM
Raymond F. Toliver and Trevor J. Constable are not a source to be mentioned in the serious historian community - most of their words are propaganda, not even close to the reality.

Speaking of propaganda,

Does the quote above claim to be factual? Does the claim above claim to be more factual than the claims made by soldiers in wartime? If so, then, where does the claim earn its legitimacy?

Where is the proof?

A book (http://www.amazon.com/Fighter-Luftwaffe-Schiffer-Military-Aviation/dp/0887409091/ref=pd_sim_b_img_2)

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/f6/05/7034124128a0ea3af7de7010._AA240_.L.jpg

If the reader on this forum is propagandized into avoiding that book based upon a forum members humble opinion (claim) – this one:


Raymond F. Toliver and Trevor J. Constable are not a source to be mentioned in the serious historian community - most of their words are propaganda, not even close to the reality.

If that humble opinion influences someone to avoid reading books by Toliver and Constable, then, it does, and, by what measure will that affect ˜the serious historian community'? I mean, of course, that the frivolous historian community may lose something when people fail to read frivolous history?

How about a quote from the book written by Toliver and Constable?


Nearly five decades have passed since the end of World War II, but this book remains the most comprehensive volume about the German fighter pilots written by anyone outside Germany. I therefore welcome this revised and enlarged version as an international document. Since its original appearance some twenty five years ago, this volume has been a landmark in aviation history.

That is the forward to Fighter Aces of the Luftwaffe.

How about this:


Bob Johnson was one of the quickest and deadliest of America's aces, and Werner Molders was one of the Germany's best. The portion of Molders' logbook reproduced here deals with his victories over French, British, and Belgian-flown aircraft of all types. RAF Spitfires and Hurricanes make up the largest portion of his bag. After careful perusal of the dates and tallies in this log, it becomes obvious that Molders trod no easy pathway. Many loose ideas concerning the high scores of German aces are laid to rest by this historic record.

That is a reference to Toliver and Constable's comparison of Robert S. Johnson and Werner Moelder's ˜claims'.

It goes on:


This statistical summery has been selected from a large number in the possession of the authors, because it provides a fair and rational comparison of two leading fighter pilots. The accomplishments of each were attained under conditions of attack, on the Western Front in each case.

Johnson required ninety-one missions to score twenty-seven confirmed victories. Molders needed 140 combat missions to confirm his first twenty-seven victories. Johnson thus emerges very favorably from the comparison, especially considering that Molders was already a fighter ace of the Spanish Civil War, with fourteen victories in 1938. This was long before Johnson ever learned to fly. Molders began World War II as an accomplished ace.


Does that measure the obvious lack of historical seriousness required for any serious historical record?

Trigger_88
11-28-2007, 04:03 PM
How many of Richard Bong's kills were confirmed?

TX-Gunslinger
11-28-2007, 04:44 PM
Note that Herr Hartmann's release from Soviet captivity did not occur until October, 1955.

So if one doubts his claims by a large margin, perhaps you could answer then, why did Stalin have him held - beyond all other Luftwaffe pilots, for over 10 years (and past Stalins death)?

Because he over-claimed?

Give me a break.

I'm with TB.

S~

Gunny

Loco-S
11-28-2007, 09:20 PM
revisionism in progress: A guy who lives in former soviet union, doesnt want to believe a former enemy of his country could beat by more than 200 hundred victories the tally of his best fighter pilot: 96 victories....


starting 1943 German pilots were outnumbered, Allied pilots didnt had the amount of targets that the German had, some Allied pilots flew their whole careers without shooting down a single enemy plane, and lots and lots of Allied pilots had the fabled 1/2 kill or 1/4 kill ( see Chuck Yeager about it)...Jerry had strict rules, one pilot: one kill, no sharing allowed.

just imagine going up with 6 of your buddies, and being bounced by a gaggle of 50 to 100 enemy planes, or the insanely huge formations of bombers ( 300 to 1000?) plus fighter escort ( 150?) chances are you could shoot at one or more down before they pummeled you.

besides, Russky pilots were not well trained by WW2 standards.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif


PS, I live in the US but I was born and raised somewhere else ( like 4,012 miles south from where I do live now)

Schwarz.13
11-29-2007, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
If you read carefully N.E. states that only 30 kills can be undisputedly credited to Hartmann. About 130 have nothing close (no flights or losses at given time at given location by VVS aircraft), the rest are highly disputable...

I wouldn't deny there was the posssibility for a small margin of error but Luftwaffe procedures for verifying Abschuße were extremely rigorous regardless of theatre.

FPSOLKOR - but if you are saying that Hartmann's final score is nearer to 30 than 352, then that is quite frankly absurd!!!

FPSOLKOR
11-29-2007, 02:37 AM
Originally posted by Schwarz.13:
I wouldn't deny there was the posssibility for a small margin of error but Luftwaffe procedures for verifying Abschuße were extremely rigorous regardless of theatre.

FPSOLKOR - but if you are saying that Hartmann's final score is nearer to 30 than 352, then that is quite frankly absurd!!!
If you want to know the truth, you have to take claims provided by one side (in this time LW) and cross-check it with the losses provided by the opposite side (VVS). Usual overclaim is somewhere at 2:1, but on several occasions it can be a lot higher. If you want to know how 300 victories can turn into 30 (which is not what I mean. 30 - it's UNDISPUTED victories, there can be more, which for some reason cannot be fully credited to H.) - I can explain that:
1. Shooting does not mean hitting
2. Hitting does not mean destroying
3. Claiming does not mean actually meeting enemy aircraft in the air.
4. Hitting same aircraft 7 times = 7 planes shot down.
Here is an example: "November 19, 1941 was the most difficult day for our aviation group. Rzhevka, at that time it was called Smolnyy airfield was still closed, and we were flying to Komendantskiy airfield, at Novaya Derevnya. The Germans were very close.
Fighters were escorting us, but the fighters had landed before all of our aircraft were on the ground. Two German fighters shot down Misha Zhukov, first aircraft in the landing circle, and everyone on that aircraft was killed instantly (M.Ye. Zhukov, N.V. Dzhyukaev, Y.S. Kovalev, S.I. Oleynik, and A.A. Strakhov). The aircraft of Kireev"”Yevgeniy Romanovich Kireev"”was second to land. He was the chief pilot for Vyacheslav Molotov [Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs], who two days later was to fly to the United States to sign the Lend-lease Agreement. He was sitting in the right seat, permitting Zhuravlev to fly the aircraft. Kireev was killed outright; the wounded flight engineer was able to lower the landing gear. He died two hours later. Seriously wounded, Zhuravlev landed the aircraft, but his entire crew was in critical condition; all of them were evacuated to a hospital. They transported Yevgeniy to Moscow and buried him there.

At that moment, after a flight to Khvoynaya, a nine-ship formation of PS-84s, led by pilot Grigoriy Golan, came in for landing. Because of thick haze, the transport aircraft made a second circle. The four fighters escorting them, not waiting for their charges and not supporting the coverage of the landing, themselves landed. When four Messerschmitts appeared over the airfield, six transport aircraft were still in the air.
Oberfeldwebel Kempf (7./JG 54) and Ostermann (3./JG 54) attacked the practically defenseless PS-84s first, at 0935. Later Feldwebel Gerhard Lautenschlager at 0936 and Unter-offizer Karl-Heinz Bornemann at 0937, both in the 3 Squadron, and also Ober-leutnant Gerhard Koall from the headquarters flight of 3./JG 54 claimed an additional three transport aircraft.
Judging by descriptions from our side, Mikhail Zhukov's aircraft was downed by Kempf. The pilots were just able to turn their aircraft away from supply facilities and the PS-84, having fallen away from the airfield, exploded. Yevgeniy Kireev's PS-84 was second in the glide path. The commander was killed and five crew members were wounded. In addition to the two indicated PS-84s, our sources do not report additional losses. Therefore, considering all descriptions, the pilots of III Squadron were attacking one and the same aircraft"”Kireev, and Koall might have damaged an additional transport that landed safely. [Commentary provided by A. Dikov and M. Bykov]"
5. propaganda reasons.
Before I will give you an example of such thing tell me, who and with which score is No 2 VVS ace?

Another thing. Tracing losses of LW is almost impossible, since records for 1944-45 were mostly lost.
Losses of Soviet side are well known , but claims of German aces well exceed all of the actual losses that can be credited to fighters.

Training of the most of the Soviet pilots was bad.

Genie-
11-29-2007, 02:58 AM
damn! I would like to see that film roles!

That would be nice guncamera clips collection..

FPSOLKOR
11-29-2007, 03:05 AM
Originally posted by Genie-:
damn! I would like to see that film roles!

That would be nice guncamera clips collection..
That's not guncam films. The No near a claim it's a microfilm No at which a document is filmed. In German archives all documents were copied on microfilms so that original documents won't be damaged.

stathem
11-29-2007, 03:25 AM
To all those seeking to tear FPSOLKOR a new one over this; remember that this is a man who has been inside TsAMO; who has done hugely important work in trying to capture the oral histories of VVS pilots whose stories might otherwise never have been told; and what is more, he has very generously translated those to English and made them available for us to learn more about those times and places, essentially for free.

He has earned the right in this community to be listened to without the knee-jerk reaction being seen in this thread. Do him that courtesy at least. History changes all the time, as new information comes to light about those dark days. The western allied records and the German records have been extant for years; the Soviet records only recently. It would behove us to keep our minds open while the work is going on.

Read what he has to say and think about it; you may think what you like but don't flame him automatically because he says something that challenges your accepted notions. He is the man at the sharp end. Whether you agree or disagree with him, at least treat him with some respect.

La7_brook
11-29-2007, 03:25 AM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Schwarz.13:
I wouldn't deny there was the posssibility for a small margin of error but Luftwaffe procedures for verifying Abschuße were extremely rigorous regardless of theatre.

FPSOLKOR - but if you are saying that Hartmann's final score is nearer to 30 than 352, then that is quite frankly absurd!!!
If you want to know the truth, you have to take claims provided by one side (in this time LW) and cross-check it with the losses provided by the opposite side (VVS). Usual overclaim is somewhere at 2:1, but on several occasions it can be a lot higher. If you want to know how 300 victories can turn into 30 (which is not what I mean. 30 - it's UNDISPUTED victories, there can be more, which for some reason cannot be fully credited to H.) - I can explain that:
1. Shooting does not mean hitting
2. Hitting does not mean destroying
3. Claiming does not mean actually meeting enemy aircraft in the air.
4. Hitting same aircraft 7 times = 7 planes shot down.
Here is an example: "November 19, 1941 was the most difficult day for our aviation group. Rzhevka, at that time it was called Smolnyy airfield was still closed, and we were flying to Komendantskiy airfield, at Novaya Derevnya. The Germans were very close.
Fighters were escorting us, but the fighters had landed before all of our aircraft were on the ground. Two German fighters shot down Misha Zhukov, first aircraft in the landing circle, and everyone on that aircraft was killed instantly (M.Ye. Zhukov, N.V. Dzhyukaev, Y.S. Kovalev, S.I. Oleynik, and A.A. Strakhov). The aircraft of Kireev"”Yevgeniy Romanovich Kireev"”was second to land. He was the chief pilot for Vyacheslav Molotov [Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs], who two days later was to fly to the United States to sign the Lend-lease Agreement. He was sitting in the right seat, permitting Zhuravlev to fly the aircraft. Kireev was killed outright; the wounded flight engineer was able to lower the landing gear. He died two hours later. Seriously wounded, Zhuravlev landed the aircraft, but his entire crew was in critical condition; all of them were evacuated to a hospital. They transported Yevgeniy to Moscow and buried him there.

At that moment, after a flight to Khvoynaya, a nine-ship formation of PS-84s, led by pilot Grigoriy Golan, came in for landing. Because of thick haze, the transport aircraft made a second circle. The four fighters escorting them, not waiting for their charges and not supporting the coverage of the landing, themselves landed. When four Messerschmitts appeared over the airfield, six transport aircraft were still in the air.
Oberfeldwebel Kempf (7./JG 54) and Ostermann (3./JG 54) attacked the practically defenseless PS-84s first, at 0935. Later Feldwebel Gerhard Lautenschlager at 0936 and Unter-offizer Karl-Heinz Bornemann at 0937, both in the 3 Squadron, and also Ober-leutnant Gerhard Koall from the headquarters flight of 3./JG 54 claimed an additional three transport aircraft.
Judging by descriptions from our side, Mikhail Zhukov's aircraft was downed by Kempf. The pilots were just able to turn their aircraft away from supply facilities and the PS-84, having fallen away from the airfield, exploded. Yevgeniy Kireev's PS-84 was second in the glide path. The commander was killed and five crew members were wounded. In addition to the two indicated PS-84s, our sources do not report additional losses. Therefore, considering all descriptions, the pilots of III Squadron were attacking one and the same aircraft"”Kireev, and Koall might have damaged an additional transport that landed safely. [Commentary provided by A. Dikov and M. Bykov]"
5. propaganda reasons.
Before I will give you an example of such thing tell me, who and with which score is No 2 VVS ace?

Another thing. Tracing losses of LW is almost impossible, since records for 1944-45 were mostly lost.
Losses of Soviet side are well known , but claims of German aces well exceed all of the actual losses that can be credited to fighters.

Training of the most of the Soviet pilots was bad. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Claims get passed the German Air Ministry (RLM) Hitting same aircraft 7 times = 7 planes shot down.RLM will need too confirm the claim too have it pass logbook entries eyewitness testimony and map coordinates , a case like this never be filed bye the unit let alone get too the RLM

KIMURA
11-29-2007, 03:38 AM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
If you read carefully N.E. states that only 30 kills can be undisputedly credited to Hartmann. About 130 have nothing close (no flights or losses at given time at given location by VVS aircraft), the rest are highly disputable, since for 1 VVS loss at this time and location there are, for example, 5 claims by LW pilots. It is virtually impossible to establish the author of the victory. Same picture is for the opposite side. The work continues, though...

Can you pick out maybe some 5 specific Airacobras claims which are claimed by Hartmann but you failed to find in Russian archives? Maybe it would be interesting what's to see on the guncam footage of that specific kill made by Hartmann. You only can prove Hartmann as a liar if you prove he did not tell the truth. Simply not find any listed losses is not really a prove.
So far to case-law or any other kind of scientific argumantation. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

As a example to mention is the very strange behaviour the RAF owned to rate their own fighter losses during BoB. Many RAF fighter losses you'll not find in any of the RAF-Sqn.books simply of the fact that the damaged a/c was kept in the unit log because in could be repaired by Sqn intern repair units.

Kurfurst__
11-29-2007, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:

Another thing. Tracing losses of LW is almost impossible, since records for 1944-45 were mostly lost.
Losses of Soviet side are well known , but claims of German aces well exceed all of the actual losses that can be credited to fighters.

I have to call bullocks on this. Loss records of all LW units are even available fully online up to 31 december 1944. That`s what we can all directly access online - but records of loss for 1945 are quoted partially by many authors in their various works.

Say in December 1944, daylight fighter groups and their associated OTUs reported 1079 aircraft lost to enemy action, 865 to non-enemy action, 586 was transferred from/lost to units due to overhauls and repairs, 284 were transferred to other units. In the same month, 1388 new production and 674 repaired aircraft were received, and cumulatively 302 aircraft were transferred to individual daylight fighter units. Ground attack, bomber, recon etc. units can be similiarly given.

In total between March 1942 - December 1944, daylight fighter groups and their associated OTUs reported 12836 aircraft lost to enemy action, 11508 to non-enemy action, 7217 was transferred from/lost to units due to overhauls and repairs, 9432 were transferred to other units.

In the same period, 25529 new production and 9493 repaired aircraft were received, and cumulatively 7988 aircraft were transferred to individual daylight fighter units. Again, ground attack, bomber, recon etc. units can be similiarly given.

JG4_Helofly
11-29-2007, 03:53 AM
If he only shot down some 30+ planes, why did the soviets put a price on his head? For overclaiming? There must be a reason.

Then I have the question, why did Toliver and Constable wrote propaganda in your opinion? And who says that they are not a serious source?

Last point. Göing also didn't belive the high scores, so he ordered to exactly log all kills with at least one other person to confirm. Pilots had to write in their reports how they hit the target, the amount of damage, the way they lost sight of it and where and when it took place. And take also into account that some kills could not be confirmed.

ViktorViktor
11-29-2007, 05:03 AM
Hartmann was a BnZer.

I (try to) do alot of BnZing when I fly online and to me it's often difficult to identify a plane type and subsequently verify that it was destroyed (without consulting the Il2 stats site) when I make a pass and then bug out of the area as fast as possible. (Online I have the luxury of 'dying' many times but Hartmann didn't and so probably bugged out quickly as a rule.)

If I had to keep track of my own kills and couldnt rely on a server to do it for me, and at the same time had only 1 life to spare for my online flying time, I think my logbook would have a lot of discrepancies in it, don't you ?

Rood-Zwart
11-29-2007, 06:47 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
To all those seeking to tear FPSOLKOR a new one over this; remember that this is a man who has been inside TsAMO; who has done hugely important work in trying to capture the oral histories of VVS pilots whose stories might otherwise never have been told; and what is more, he has very generously translated those to English and made them available for us to learn more about those times and places, essentially for free.

He has earned the right in this community to be listened to without the knee-jerk reaction being seen in this thread. Do him that courtesy at least. History changes all the time, as new information comes to light about those dark days. The western allied records and the German records have been extant for years; the Soviet records only recently. It would behove us to keep our minds open while the work is going on.

Read what he has to say and think about it; you may think what you like but don't flame him automatically because he says something that challenges your accepted notions. He is the man at the sharp end. Whether you agree or disagree with him, at least treat him with some respect.

+1

M_Gunz
11-29-2007, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by ViktorViktor:
Hartmann was a BnZer.

I (try to) do alot of BnZing when I fly online and to me it's often difficult to identify a plane type and subsequently verify that it was destroyed (without consulting the Il2 stats site) when I make a pass and then bug out of the area as fast as possible. (Online I have the luxury of 'dying' many times but Hartmann didn't and so probably bugged out quickly as a rule.)

If I had to keep track of my own kills and couldnt rely on a server to do it for me, and at the same time had only 1 life to spare for my online flying time, I think my logbook would have a lot of discrepancies in it, don't you ?

Good point. By Hartmann's writing that I have seen he took his shots point-blank and exited as
a matter of his own form, did not stick around. He was aerial assassin, not dogfighter, and
very good at it. HOWEVER that does not say his kills were not confirmed and it does not say
that he made unconfirmed kills or did not leave enemies too damaged to complete their mission.

IMO the man deserves a LOT of respect as a fighter pilot.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
11-29-2007, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by Rood-Zwart:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
To all those seeking to tear FPSOLKOR a new one over this; remember that this is a man who has been inside TsAMO; who has done hugely important work in trying to capture the oral histories of VVS pilots whose stories might otherwise never have been told; and what is more, he has very generously translated those to English and made them available for us to learn more about those times and places, essentially for free.

He has earned the right in this community to be listened to without the knee-jerk reaction being seen in this thread. Do him that courtesy at least. History changes all the time, as new information comes to light about those dark days. The western allied records and the German records have been extant for years; the Soviet records only recently. It would behove us to keep our minds open while the work is going on.

Read what he has to say and think about it; you may think what you like but don't flame him automatically because he says something that challenges your accepted notions. He is the man at the sharp end. Whether you agree or disagree with him, at least treat him with some respect.

+1 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+2

Monty_Thrud
11-29-2007, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rood-Zwart:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
To all those seeking to tear FPSOLKOR a new one over this; remember that this is a man who has been inside TsAMO; who has done hugely important work in trying to capture the oral histories of VVS pilots whose stories might otherwise never have been told; and what is more, he has very generously translated those to English and made them available for us to learn more about those times and places, essentially for free.

He has earned the right in this community to be listened to without the knee-jerk reaction being seen in this thread. Do him that courtesy at least. History changes all the time, as new information comes to light about those dark days. The western allied records and the German records have been extant for years; the Soviet records only recently. It would behove us to keep our minds open while the work is going on.

Read what he has to say and think about it; you may think what you like but don't flame him automatically because he says something that challenges your accepted notions. He is the man at the sharp end. Whether you agree or disagree with him, at least treat him with some respect.

+1 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+2 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+3.76890...damn i'm carp at maths

ultraHun
11-29-2007, 07:55 AM
According to PRAWDA and Soviet authorities Hartmann achieved 345 aerial victories. (http://newsfromrussia.com/society/2002/12/13/40785.html)

FPSOLKOR
11-29-2007, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by La7_brook:
Claims get passed the German Air Ministry (RLM) Hitting same aircraft 7 times = 7 planes shot down.RLM will need too confirm the claim too have it pass logbook entries eyewitness testimony and map coordinates , a case like this never be filed bye the unit let alone get too the RLM Unfortunately, it happened and more then once. One example I brought up above. Let's see another example (less overclaim):
"Then there was Ibrahim Zhanteev, on 30 November 1941. He fell back from the group that was going to Leningrad. The Germans intercepted him right away and shot him down, but he managed to turn and land on the water. But it was 200 meters to the shore, and the depth there was 8 meters. He had passengers on board"”the children of the workers of "Lenenergiya" [Leningrad power utility]. There were 40–50 persons in all, and the Messers strafed those who made it out of sinking plane in several passes. Our forces did not find a single survivor. In general the fascists well knew whom we were transporting. Their reconnaissance loitered around our airfield all the time. How could one not call them child killers?

On this day, 11 PS-84s with evacuees on board, led by pilot Dmitriy Kuznetsov, took off without fighter escort from Leningrad to Khvoynaya. The group was left without escort because of low overcast and snow. They supposed that an escort was not necessary. But along the route over Ladoga, the weather suddenly improved, and the aircraft were attacked by a flight of Messerschmitts from 3./JG 54. Feldwebel Lautenschlager added two victories to his score in the first attacks (14:42 and 14:44), however the Germans were not able to break up the formation of transports.
Only one aircraft"”pilot I.U. Zhantiev"”fell behind because of damage inflicted, and as a consequence was lost, apparently to Ostermann, who counted a Douglas to his score at 1445. This airplane was carrying children of workers and staff of the plant "Elektrosila" from blockaded Leningrad"”a typical load on an Li-2 at that time was 30–40 persons. All these children perished.
Of these aircraft, one that was damaged made a forced landing (commander N.P. Chervyakov), and two other damaged aircraft safely landed at their own airfield. [Commentary by A. Dikov and M. Bykov]"
3 claims against 1 loss.

FPSOLKOR
11-29-2007, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by KIMURA:
Can you pick out maybe some 5 specific Airacobras claims which are claimed by Hartmann but you failed to find in Russian archives?

As a example to mention is the very strange behaviour the RAF owned to rate their own fighter losses during BoB. Many RAF fighter losses you'll not find in any of the RAF-Sqn.books simply of the fact that the damaged a/c was kept in the unit log because in could be repaired by Sqn intern repair units.
1. I already shown Aircobras claims in my first post in this topic
2. If an aircraft is damaged, it is not shot down, in this case a claim is not verified. But we can suggest that this claim had some grounds under it.

FPSOLKOR
11-29-2007, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I have to call bullocks on this. Loss records of all LW units are even available fully online up to 31 december 1944. That`s what we can all directly access online - but records of loss for 1945 are quoted partially by many authors in their various works.

According to German archive workers 1944 losses are complete by 2\3rds and 1945 losses are complete by 1\6th. That is a substantial gap, don't you think? The main problem is that a complete statistics is present, but many reports are missing. If i know that unit X lost a fighter, without knowing the reason, time and location of loss, will it help me a bit?

FPSOLKOR
11-29-2007, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
If he only shot down some 30+ planes, why did the soviets put a price on his head? For overclaiming? There must be a reason.

Then I have the question, why did Toliver and Constable wrote propaganda in your opinion? And who says that they are not a serious source?

Last point. Göing also didn't belive the high scores, so he ordered to exactly log all kills with at least one other person to confirm. Pilots had to write in their reports how they hit the target, the amount of damage, the way they lost sight of it and where and when it took place. And take also into account that some kills could not be confirmed.
1. I had never seen an order by Stalin stating that someones head worth something.
2. H. might have shot down 200+ aircraft (which is also 30+), it's not me limiting him at 30 claims
3. T. and C. wrote a book on the data they had access to. Now there is new data available. Besides, their book is more of a thriller then of a historical work. In my opinion if Prillers 101 claim are all verified by British sources - it's remarcable! But it is not a reason to extrapolate this achievement in truthfullness on ALL LW aces.
4. Over 50 % of claims credited to LW pilot can't be confirmed because even if they shot enemy plane down, it fell to the territory held by Soviet or Allied forces. Still, they are credited. In reality, very few of the fighter pilots actually saw where enemy plane fell (if fell at all). We found airplanes tenth of kilometers away from the place of their official crash sites, and sometimes were are spending years to establish what actually happened to the aircraft.
2 UltraHun
isbn 5-7117-0081-2
In this book (BTW, it so much resembles Blonde Knight...) an author states that a pilot Fedorov was sooo coool that he shot down over 100 german planes, and even was awarded by RK by Hitler personally! In archives his claims were a bit less enthusiastic: 17 planes shot down!

Kurfurst__
11-29-2007, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I have to call bullocks on this. Loss records of all LW units are even available fully online up to 31 december 1944. That`s what we can all directly access online - but records of loss for 1945 are quoted partially by many authors in their various works.

According to German archive workers 1944 losses are complete by 2\3rds and 1945 losses are complete by 1\6th. That is a substantial gap, don't you think? The main problem is that a complete statistics is present, but many reports are missing. If i know that unit X lost a fighter, without knowing the reason, time and location of loss, will it help me a bit? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would make in kinda difficult to confirm late-war Allied and Soviet claims (a difficult task even if all reports are readily available, given the size of air battles of 1944/45), not German ones, don`t you think?

I doubt the case would be much different for other airforces though. After all, what was recorded for fighters that lost in the confusion of combat without a trace...? 'Did not return from mission'? 'Last seen over X', when it can be easily the case the pilot who saw the other was wrong, and X was really another place, Y?

In any case, I do not see a reason why Hartmann`s 352 (or so) claims can`t be taken with the same seriousness, or compared to the, let`s say, Kozhedub`s 68(IIRC) claims. How many of that was confirmed? How many of that can be traced via enemy archives...?

A claim is a claim. At the very least, it gives an idea how many times a pilot was victories over his foe (not neccesarily shooting him down, mind you), got into a good firing position etc. It`s still a valid meter of a fighter pilot`s performance, even if it may not match 100% the material damage done to the enemy.

FPSOLKOR
11-29-2007, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Good point. By Hartmann's writing that I have seen he took his shots point-blank and exited as
a matter of his own form, did not stick around. He was aerial assassin, not dogfighter, and
very good at it. HOWEVER that does not say his kills were not confirmed and it does not say
that he made unconfirmed kills or did not leave enemies too damaged to complete their mission.

IMO the man deserves a LOT of respect as a fighter pilot.
H. States that he usually shot at distances less then 100 meters, while having speed greater by 100km\h. Calculate yourself how long a burst will be, if H. has to do something in order not to ram the plane he shot at.

FPSOLKOR
11-29-2007, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
That would make in kinda difficult to confirm late-war Allied and Soviet claims (a difficult task even if all reports are readily available, given the size of air battles of 1944/45), not German ones, don`t you think?

I doubt the case would be much different for other airforces though. After all, what was recorded for fighters that lost in the confusion of combat without a trace...? 'Did not return from mission'? 'Last seen over X', when it can be easily the case the pilot who saw the other was wrong, and X was really another place, Y?

In any case, I do not see a reason why Hartmann`s 352 (or so) claims can`t be taken with the same seriousness, or compared to the, let`s say, Kozhedub`s 68(IIRC) claims. How many of that was confirmed? How many of that can be traced via enemy archives...?

A claim is a claim. At the very least, it gives an idea how many times a pilot was victories over his foe (not neccesarily shooting him down, mind you), got into a good firing position etc. It`s still a valid meter of a fighter pilot`s performance, even if it may not match 100% the material damage done to the enemy.
Agreed on a "claim is a claim" bit, although it is interesting to know what actually happened. The most difficult part in establishing who is the author of the victory is an overclaim level. Most common situation that at the same plane there are well more than one pretenders. I see no reason why Grafs claim is less worthy than Hartmanns... That's why we end up with situations when we have XX undisputed victories, + XX that can't be fully credited to one pilot. Oh, yes... 2\3 of those LaGGs are actually Yaks...

Kozhedub had 63 planes on his account, but keeping in mind that his victories were mostly in 1944-45...

Loco-S
11-29-2007, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
Unfortunately, it happened and more then once. One example I brought up above. Let's see another example (less overclaim):
"Then there was Ibrahim Zhanteev, on 30 November 1941. He fell back from the group that was going to Leningrad. The Germans intercepted him right away and shot him down, but he managed to turn and land on the water. But it was 200 meters to the shore, and the depth there was 8 meters. He had passengers on board"”the children of the workers of "Lenenergiya" [Leningrad power utility]. There were 40–50 persons in all, and the Messers strafed those who made it out of sinking plane in several passes. Our forces did not find a single survivor. In general the fascists well knew whom we were transporting. Their reconnaissance loitered around our airfield all the time. How could one not call them child killers?


for the same reason Stalin, who killed 21 million Russians is not called "Genocide"

War is nasty, and in order to fight a vastly superior enemy, in size and resources, you have to do things normal people (Today's people) think is inhuman.

JG14_Josf
11-29-2007, 01:52 PM
at least treat him with some respect.

Respect?

Like this:


Raymond F. Toliver and Trevor J. Constable are not a source to be mentioned in the serious historian community - most of their words are propaganda, not even close to the reality.

Most of their words are propaganda and most of their words are not even close to the reality. How many is most; say out of 100 percent of ˜their words' most is 60 percent of their words?

How about this:


1. I had never seen an order by Stalin stating that someones head worth something.

Has anyone here read Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago"? The price for a critical word was a tenner.

How many words are false, propaganda, or not even close to the reality?

I can't say. I didn't do a tenner. I didn't shoot down any airplanes either. Toliver and Contable, as false as they are, managed to find time and energy to propagandize the reality into book form. Is that jerking on the knee excessively?

Please take the criticism of Toliver and Constable with a grain of salt if you have the opportunity to peruse one of their books; you may form an opinion of your own – heaven forbid (or Stalin).

FPSOLKOR
11-29-2007, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Has anyone here read Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago"? The price for a critical word was a tenner.

How many words are false, propaganda, or not even close to the reality?

I can't say. I didn't do a tenner. I didn't shoot down any airplanes either. Toliver and Contable, as false as they are, managed to find time and energy to propagandize the reality into book form. Is that jerking on the knee excessively?

Please take the criticism of Toliver and Constable with a grain of salt if you have the opportunity to peruse one of their books; you may form an opinion of your own – heaven forbid (or Stalin).

I'm tired of trying to show people what they don't want to see... I don't care if anybody respects me or not, and I don't deal with beliefs. I work with documents. If documents show that an idol on any side is actually an arese hole - so be it. I know of a lot more facts about both, German and Soviet pilots, then you can imagine. I know real claim list of Alexandr Pokryshkin, I know what POW LW pilot wrote about each other to NKVD officers, I know enough to have my own oppinion, that there was no difference between LW and VVS pilots. I haven't got my hands on Hartmanns file yet, but I'll get it some time soon, if such file still exists, and I have a feeling that alot of interesting things can be found there. But it is clear, that people here will be of no interest of truth, they have built a church of their BLONDE IDOL. I will state one more time - Priller with his 101 victories is a more respectable fighter pilot then Hartmann. Fullstop.

waffen-79
11-29-2007, 02:49 PM
Was this thread meant to debunk Hartmann?

LMAO the guy with the redstar avatar sez he has sources http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

name the codes, books or scan your interrogation reports

Got Proof?®

FPSOLKOR
11-29-2007, 02:58 PM
You may start (for your ease) by looking here:
http://www.obd-memorial.ru/Memorial/Memorial.html
Luckily, these documents were scanned, and you can look through them without leaving your home now... After you will end sorting 12 million soviet losses I will give you directions for your next step.

Loco-S
11-29-2007, 03:06 PM
http://www.obd-memorial.ru/Memorial/Memorial.html
its commie propaganda.

FPSOLKOR
11-29-2007, 03:11 PM
its commie propaganda.
It's archival records with data of when, how, and where (if known) people lost their life or were wounded. Just enter in Cyrillic a surname, for example Ivanov and enjoy (for some reason I think you will) 20 000 peoples fates...

waffen-79
11-29-2007, 03:18 PM
well after we finish that, what's next?

1.Make a revision of Gunther Rall victories?
2.Say Gen. Chuck Yaeger wasn't an ace in a day?
3.Debunk Eric Brown's opinion about captured LW planes?
3.Will you debunk the tuskegee squadron saying they actually loose bombers?
4.Minize the Russian Losses to the Finns?
5.Say it was the P-51 that won the war and not the P-47 and P-38?

oh boy so much research to do


I think what's bothering you are Hartmanns statements, about Galland beign the best Ace they had

ultraHun
11-29-2007, 03:22 PM
Given some of the diatribes in this thread, it seems I need to excuse for sarcastically posting here a page back.

The Russian war-dead deserve better.

FPSOLKOR
11-29-2007, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by waffen-79:
well after we finish that, what's next?

1.Make a revision of Gunther Rall victories?
2.Say Gen. Chuck Yaeger wasn't an ace in a day?
3.Debunk Eric Brown's opinion about captured LW planes?
3.Will you debunk the tuskegee squadron saying they actually loose bombers?
4.Minize the Russian Losses to the Finns?
5.Say it was the P-51 that won the war and not the P-47 and P-38?

oh boy so much research to do


I think what's bothering you are Hartmanns statements, about Galland beign the best Ace they had
Actually, all I wanted to know, is who killed my Gramps... And after 7 years of research I still don't know. Meanwhile, I went through a lot of documents, and eventually I got interested in other aspects of air warfare, and of course - who was resposible for whos death. Don't worry, I will not disband American claims - I have no valid data to do so.

JG14_Josf
11-29-2007, 03:32 PM
If documents show that an idol on any side is actually an arese hole - so be it.

FPSOLKOR,

Why does your quote above follow your quoting me? What does your disrespect for two historical authors (Trevor and Constable) have to do with your quest to show people an arese hole?

Do you claim that Tevor and/or Constable are arese holes? What does that have to do with accurate historical documentation? Are arese holes incapable of accurate historical documentation or shooting down airplanes; both, neither, or what exactly is your point?

Do you have a more accurate accounting of something or are you just trying to discredit people?

Please leave me off your hit list. I tried to point out how Trevor and Constable have written books worth reading; just in case someone believed in your discrediting of Trevor and Constable.

My other point was to point out that pointing out the Trevor and Constable published at least one good book isn't a Knee Jerk Reaction to the published personal attack upon those two historical authors. I thought about the personal attack on those two authors, I took out one copy of one of their books and I took the time to quote from one of their extensively researched books that happen to be well thought out and written – with many good pictures.


But it is clear, that people here will be of no interest of truth, they have built a church of their BLONDE IDOL.

OK, here we go, the above quote (which happens to follow my quoted words), is a clear example of propaganda coming from the person who attacked Trevor and Constable as propagandists. Is black white?

There is a fact that people may or may not accurately perceive and that fact is that one human being shot down more aircraft than any other human being – ever.

That fact can be known or that fact can be falsified where the actual person who actually did shoot down the most aircraft is not the one on record as the one person who actually shot down the most aircraft.

This is as simple as math. There is no need to ˜believe' or ˜propagandize' and distort the facts – at all. Either the person who shot down the most aircraft is known or the person who shot down the most aircraft is not known.

Do you know or are you merely propagandizing?

I will state one more time - Priller with his 101 victories is a more respectable fighter pilot then Hartmann. Fullstop.


By ˜respectable' does the ˜claim' suggest that Priller shot down more aircraft than Hartmann or does ˜respectable' measure someone's opinion of personal character?



If someone during the war did doubt the 'respectability' of Hartmann (or Priller) there existed (at that time) a way to measure that 'respectability'. Now the measurement depends upon an ability to objectively read the historical record to find a disinterested opinion.

If the idea is that anyone here on this forum idolizes a person who is responsible for killing other human beings, then, that idea could be confirmed at this time. I am not one of those people so please do not associate me with that ˜idea' again – please.


I have not killed anyone so I have no way of relating to that business with any measure of accuracy. I do have a measure of experience with flying and shooting and I also have an attraction to military things. Competition is also one of my interests.

The person who shot the most aircraft down is the person who shot the most aircraft down. That fact can be known. It can also be known as to how that person managed to shoot down the most aircraft more so than not at all. These things are interesting. Interest in these things does not automatically convict someone of a nebulous crime such as hero worship if that is the innuendo being spewed.


a church of their BLONDE IDOL

joeap
11-29-2007, 03:40 PM
Oh goodie, finally a real "red vs. blue" history whine thread.

joeap
11-29-2007, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Loco-S:
http://www.obd-memorial.ru/Memorial/Memorial.html
its commie propaganda.

Brilliant analysis professor. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

waffen-79
11-29-2007, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
Actually, all I wanted to know, is who killed my Gramps... And after 7 years of research I still don't know. Meanwhile, I went through a lot of documents, and eventually I got interested in other aspects of air warfare, and of course - who was resposible for whos death. Don't worry, I will not disband American claims - I have no valid data to do so.

Very well then, I will retire from this thread as I see you have a very personal agenda on this matter and I respect that

And this is just a hobby for me, But I just don't think attacking the image of Hartmann will help you meet your goal

You were the one claiming to have sources, I think in the interest of all the WW2 aerial combat enthusiast you should post them

Regards

stalkervision
11-29-2007, 03:44 PM
I hate to spoil the fun here but most of hartman's flight logs were lost or captured by the Russians and went missing long ago. Even he didn't remember all the planes he shot down.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JZG_Thiem
11-29-2007, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
Actually, all I wanted to know, is who killed my Gramps... And after 7 years of research I still don't know. Meanwhile, I went through a lot of documents, and eventually I got interested in other aspects of air warfare, and of course - who was resposible for whos death. Don't worry, I will not disband American claims - I have no valid data to do so.

My gramps was killed in winter ´41 in the outskirts of Moscow. Thats enough info for me. No reason tho for me to personally hunt down any russian soldier of WWII who cannot defend himself anymore, in order to try to relieve me from some sort of pain.
But thats only my personal take on thse things.

M_Gunz
11-29-2007, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Good point. By Hartmann's writing that I have seen he took his shots point-blank and exited as
a matter of his own form, did not stick around. He was aerial assassin, not dogfighter, and
very good at it. HOWEVER that does not say his kills were not confirmed and it does not say
that he made unconfirmed kills or did not leave enemies too damaged to complete their mission.

IMO the man deserves a LOT of respect as a fighter pilot.
H. States that he usually shot at distances less then 100 meters, while having speed greater by 100km\h. Calculate yourself how long a burst will be, if H. has to do something in order not to ram the plane he shot at. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I must have read more than you. I read to learn a technique and practiced it in sims.
Yes he came down with more than 100kph higher speed which for every 100kph is 27.8m/s closing.
BUT he did not approach directly but rather to 150m off one wing, to the side, very important
in both approach and exit. When he reached that point he would make "the rude turn" onto the
target and trigger from so close it is not aiming, just timing the shot.

You understand that from that close and so far to the side that every hit counts fully?
You have about 1 second of shots, more than enough if you do it right to kill engine, pilot
and controls. Then you are still pulling through the turn to pass behind the forward speeding
target and exit at a wide angle to the path of target and any wingmen.

It works in sims but is more difficult than real due to limited view angle, but possible
with a lot of practice. The hardest parts are getting the shot right which is timing like
playing music notes once you learn and to not collide with the target, in sims I did crash
many times learning and it is difficult but very, very effective.

How come you don't want to say that he had unconfirmed kills and how many not-kills that did
take an enemy out of their mission?

FPSOLKOR
11-29-2007, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:

- Doctor! I can't do anything with women, but my 90 y.o. neighbour claims that he does it 5 times a night!
- Hmmmm... I see no reason why you can't claim!

I'm not against CLAIMS. I just want to know how justified those clames are. You seem to not understand: regardless of what will be told by me or any other researcher H.'s kill list will still have 352 positions. It is an OFFICIAL record.

I explained that C. and T.'s book was written based on one side documents only. If I will write a book , let's say, about Konigsberg operation without looking at German archives You among the first will say that I'm a propagandist, not a historian. And that is exactly the reason why I'm not writing any books. If T. and C. would write a book about JG\26 using both sides documents (like Bergstrom, for example), I would have prayed on them. They chose to write a book about sensation, conclusion of which at the time of publication could not be checked. It was a good time for that. Everybody wanted to know that Soviets are weak, and there will be no war, and here we have it - Hero, who single handedly defeated VVS! That is why I feel no respect towards them. And yes, I am not willing to believe that my Grandfather was one of the "hordes of dirty Ivans" and an untermensch.

P.S. I really wish that you went through war and stayed alive... I really clears ones mind...

FPSOLKOR
11-29-2007, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by JZG_Thiem:
My gramps was killed in winter ´41 in the outskirts of Moscow. Thats enough info for me. No reason tho for me to personally hunt down any russian soldier of WWII who cannot defend himself anymore, in order to try to relieve me from some sort of pain.
But thats only my personal take on thse things.
I just want to know... If I will be lucky, I want to go to that man and ask him two questions:
- Why did this happened? Why is it still happening?

FPSOLKOR
11-29-2007, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
How come you don't want to say that he had unconfirmed kills and how many not-kills that did
take an enemy out of their mission? I readily agree on this... If the planes he claimed to shoot down were at least in the air.

JZG_Thiem
11-29-2007, 04:19 PM
I dont know if i really understood you here.
But i would say it happened because people were stupid, and it still happens because people are still stupid enough.

FPSOLKOR
11-29-2007, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by waffen-79:
You were the one claiming to have sources, I think in the interest of all the WW2 aerial combat enthusiast you should post them
Regards
TsAMO is open for research by anybody now. Fill in the form, and the garden is yours. But be prepared - TsAMO is a small city with tens of millions of documents.
If you want a trustworthy book on Soviet 10+ aces of PVO and VVS with complete claim lists find this book:
ISBN 978-5-699-20526-4
by Mikhail Bykov

FPSOLKOR
11-29-2007, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by JZG_Thiem:
I dont know if i really understood you here.
But i would say it happened because people were stupid, and it still happens because people are still stupid enough.
Apparently, that's not the reazon. Somehow a single person in normal state of mind will not attack someone without an extremely serious reason, but why crowd can start a war on a matter of loosing a footbal game?

JG14_Josf
11-29-2007, 05:09 PM
I explained that C. and T.'s book was written based on one side documents only.

FPSOLKOR,

I read your claim and it is on this web page. Why do you think I need a review of it?

Here it is:


Raymond F. Toliver and Trevor J. Constable are not a source to be mentioned in the serious historian community - most of their words are propaganda, not even close to the reality. It is easy to write a book without any research done in the OPPOSITE sides archive. What is backing my words is TsAMO (RF central archive of the ministry of defence ). This year it was opened for free access for everybody, if you have free 3-4 years, you can come and make a research by yourself. An article is being prepared for publishing on this matter by Nikita, but i'm not sure when exactly it will come out - for example a complete article about "Ossi " Ostermann can't be published for various reasons for 4 years already.

This is a review:


I explained that C. and T.'s book was written based on one side documents only.

Are you fixated on the accuracy of the kill claims and if so how many words did it take Toliver and Constable to propagandize a number? If not, then, does your criticism of hero worshipers extend toward anyone having anything to say about one particular German person who is now dead?

The Blond Night of German is a historical record of a person's life or is it merely a false record of aircraft shot down by one person?

What is your contention now? The Blond Night of Germany has the numbers wrong?

This:


Raymond F. Toliver and Trevor J. Constable are not a source to be mentioned in the serious historian community - most of their words are propaganda, not even close to the reality.

That is what you wrote.

Most of their words are propaganda and not even close to the reality. Did you read the book? Have you read any books by Raymond F. Toliver and/or Trevor J. Constable?

Some info on Raymond F. Toliver:

In 1937 he was commissioned a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army Air Corps at Kelly Field in Texas. He subsequently was a pioneer test pilot at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio. Col. Toliver's twenty-seven year USAF career included tours of duty at Air Defense Command and the Pentagon. He is a graduate of the Air Command and Staff College, and also of the Air War College. Col. Toliver is also a former C.O. of the USAF's 20th Tactical Fighter bomber Wing. He served for twenty-five years as historian of the American Fighter Aces' Association.


Trevor J. Constable is a freelance writer and aviation historian, who served twenty-six years as a Radio-Electronics Officer in the U.S. Merchant Marine. Born in Wellington, New Zealand, Mr. Constable is a man of international background and wide, often unconventional interests, including weather engineering. He is the author of several books outside the aviation field, and is a video producer. Mr. Constable's literary partnership with Col. Toliver has produced a string of classing books on fighter aviation.

Both authors have enjoyed a long friendship with the Luftwaffe's General of the Fighter Piltos Adolf Galland, as well as with the international fraternity of aces.


Those are not claims. That is historical record. It may be false.


Raymond F. Toliver and Trevor J. Constable are not a source to be mentioned in the serious historian community - most of their words are propaganda, not even close to the reality.

That is patently false. It is an example of hyperbolic propaganda 101.

DIRTY-MAC
11-29-2007, 05:24 PM
I say close this thread, it just got personal, no more serius history discussions in here.
CLOSE IT PLEASE http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Loco-S
11-29-2007, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">its commie propaganda.
It's archival records with data of when, how, and where (if known) people lost their life or were wounded. Just enter in Cyrillic a surname, for example Ivanov and enjoy (for some reason I think you will) 20 000 peoples fates... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I doubt I would enjoy it, both sides made atrocities lets just say that soviets killed half my family...they were civilians.

JG4_Helofly
11-29-2007, 05:36 PM
Some more arguments against the overclaiming:

1. Even if Hartmann did not see all enemys going down there was still the wingman who had to confirm the kill. And they both had to write very precisely how the kill was done ( damage, how they lost sight, ... ). If both pilots only saw some hits and nothing more, the okl would never credit the "kill". The high command of the Luftwaffe and especially Göing were very strict with claims. I think there was more overclaiming with 1/4 kills and 1/2 kills systems.

2. Hartmann was not the usual shooter with a precision of 3%. He was a sharpshooter and only fired at very close range ( 50m ). At this distance a 20mm gun really hurts, even if you hit only twice. I read about Hartmann that he often saw the enemy plane loosing vital parts or just exploded.

FPSOLKOR
11-29-2007, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:

This will be my last reply in this topic.
Yes, I read 2 versions of this book, Russian and English. In both cases authors show that they have no idea about structure of USSR, no idea about VVS structure, no idea about menthality, and reasons to fight of Soviet people. The book is full of standart cliches, which are still present today. If one would want to make a review of this book ONLY on terms of describing mistakes regarding USSR, it would take quite a substantial space. I, as a representative of the "Soviet" (I was born and raised in the Soviet Union) people was greatly offended not by kill tolls stated in this book (war is war, and casualties are unavoidable), but by the fact that these 2 men were writing about things that they have no idea about, and their writing almost word by word repeated what American propaganda said at the time. Among my friends - archive dwellers "Blond Knight" is a standart book to have laugh at, and sometimes is referred to as "stoma" (this name originates from Hartmanns operation) because of piles of craap it pours onto the reader. It may be accurate in terms of H.'s life description, but when it comes to describing Eastern front... No comments. BTW! Rudels (In Russian historians community he has nick Vrudel - game of words Vrat' means to lie) memos seem to be as problematic in terms of historic accuracy as "BK"... I tried to be honest. You can start tearing me apart now.

P.S. Both books were forbidden in SU on the basis that they were pro-nazi and inspired racial hatred. And I fully agree.

harryklein66
11-29-2007, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
The Blond Night of German

Sorry but this book is mostly a Roman, it's a POS Historically.
According to Hans Ring, even Hartmann himself had Collaborate reluctantly to this book.

harryklein66
11-29-2007, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by stathem:
To all those seeking to tear FPSOLKOR a new one over this; remember that this is a man who has been inside TsAMO; who has done hugely important work in trying to capture the oral histories of VVS pilots whose stories might otherwise never have been told; and what is more, he has very generously translated those to English and made them available for us to learn more about those times and places, essentially for free.

He has earned the right in this community to be listened to without the knee-jerk reaction being seen in this thread. Do him that courtesy at least. History changes all the time, as new information comes to light about those dark days. The western allied records and the German records have been extant for years; the Soviet records only recently. It would behove us to keep our minds open while the work is going on.

Read what he has to say and think about it; you may think what you like but don't flame him automatically because he says something that challenges your accepted notions. He is the man at the sharp end. Whether you agree or disagree with him, at least treat him with some respect.

+1

Loco-S
11-29-2007, 09:14 PM
lets say that after 70 years of "workers paradise", with its personality suppresion, government dictated way of thinking, and a politruk on every supervision position to sell you to the "ideologycal police" if you dared to be yourself, coming to terms with the reality of the rest of the world comes as a shocker.

Waldo.Pepper
11-29-2007, 10:53 PM
If I may interrupt this fascinating 'debate' I have a question inspired by the following quote.


I wouldn't deny there was the posssibility for a small margin of error but Luftwaffe procedures for verifying Abschuße were extremely rigorous regardless of theatre.

Now my question is this ...

Why does the existence of a claims procedure which is rigorous (on paper) impress anyone so much?

We all know that Germany was governed by a dictatorship right?

We all remember J Goebbels and his propaganda Ministry right? Hardly a paragon of truthfulness, right?

So again, why does this rule, in a rule book impress you so much?

Anyone can write a rule. Sticking to it, is the hard part.

Rammjaeger
11-29-2007, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:

This will be my last reply in this topic.
Yes, I read 2 versions of this book, Russian and English. In both cases authors show that they have no idea about structure of USSR, no idea about VVS structure, no idea about menthality, and reasons to fight of Soviet people. The book is full of standart cliches, which are still present today. If one would want to make a review of this book ONLY on terms of describing mistakes regarding USSR, it would take quite a substantial space. I, as a representative of the "Soviet" (I was born and raised in the Soviet Union) people was greatly offended not by kill tolls stated in this book (war is war, and casualties are unavoidable), but by the fact that these 2 men were writing about things that they have no idea about, and their writing almost word by word repeated what American propaganda said at the time. Among my friends - archive dwellers "Blond Knight" is a standart book to have laugh at, and sometimes is referred to as "stoma" (this name originates from Hartmanns operation) because of piles of craap it pours onto the reader. It may be accurate in terms of H.'s life description, but when it comes to describing Eastern front... No comments. BTW! Rudels (In Russian historians community he has nick Vrudel - game of words Vrat' means to lie) memos seem to be as problematic in terms of historic accuracy as "BK"... I tried to be honest. You can start tearing me apart now.

P.S. Both books were forbidden in SU on the basis that they were pro-nazi and inspired racial hatred. And I fully agree. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny, I have read the same line of reasoning on other forums as well. It roughly goes like this:

"Hartmann and Rudel were notorious Nazi liars who had spread their pernicious anti-Soviet Cold War propaganda in the West in the form of memoirs with the consent of American imperialists who benefited from their popularity since their memoirs served to mock the performance of the Red Army in WW2"

La7_brook
11-30-2007, 12:01 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64ZCfr8uGJc

jadger
11-30-2007, 12:24 AM
so what was the point of this thread again? The only thing it proves is that FPSOLKOR is a revisionist who likes the good ol' days of the USSR when you could be repressed and like it to.

kid_SA
11-30-2007, 01:56 AM
hum. An interesting debate in a way. It's always hard to have your accepted view upset like this. As I started reading, I also thought that FPSOLKOR could not possibly be right. Surely. The...claims. And the... hum... testing. And the... hum... yah. It's a nasty shock to find out these facts about a pilot whom I idolise (I freely admit) and on whom I try to base my flying, but once we get past that, FPSOLKOR offers some straightforward data. He's been quite polite to people whom I would not (after reading) give the time to.

What do we really know? People here are starting from a "prove that he's lying" argument where H. is accepted and everything else follows. And look, FPSOLKOR is Russian. Oh my, he's surely biased towards communism.
This is ridiculous. If you don't trust the man's voice, say so outright and fully, but otherwise shut up. All scientific arguments must start from a position of scepticism. We look at both sides FIRST and then we draw a conclusion. We can't just accept one view as true and then defend it from our lofty throne. That's textbook illogical.

Rather, what we should also be asking is: what proof is there that H downed 352 enemy planes? His claims and the idea that the LW testing was "rigorous" which is oft quoted, but never substantiated by the people who ask (harshly) for substantiation from the other camp. He did not have the luxury of finding the wrecked planes, and the rest is pilot judgment (even assuming that he did not lie) which is obviously fallible.

Over the western front, it is common practice to check claims made by checking figures of the opposing side, and they almost always differed. As a rule (check it yourself) the attackers over claim. The defenders fighting over their own land (sorta) have the massive benefit of checking actual wrecked planes. The Germans over claimed flying over Britain, and the English over claimed flying over France. The Americans probably did too, by the same rule, but I haven't read up on that yet.

It is JUST NOT POSSIBLE to know exactly when an enemy will die or not, more so from altitude, more so when you are attacking a vastly numerically superior force from above. You have to bug out, pronto. Yes, a kill can definitely be made in under 100m at high speeds, but checking the extent of the damage? Forget it. At most, you'll see the start of a wing drop, which could mean anything. A pilot could black out and loose control, go into a spin, panic, or do a thousand things to make an attacker think that he was sure to die. We've all seen these stories about a pilot who was hit, lost the fight, went into a spin/blacked out/whatever only to recover at very low alts and simply fly home. It did happen.

So what's left? We have one bunch of people saying that H. did get those kills because the records say he did. Now THAT is unsubstantiated.

Nowhere is FPSOLKOR saying that the total kills number 30, he's saying that 30 are definitely attributable to E.H. and 200 could be his. The point is that there is not enough data. Understand, 352 is more than 30. Yah? Ok, good start. Then we continue like this, checking each kill and coming to an accepted figure. Upwards. Scepticism first, two sides, and all that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Now saying that someone who is doing nothing but giving us the result of read documents is trying to revise history as he is a Stalinist... wow. It adds nothing whatsoever to this discussion, is completely unsubstantiated, and generally ruins the thread.

So now a subject that could be really interesting has been lost, because the person who would have given us a crucial side to the story has been chased off by people shouting about propoganda without any kind of argument. What a waste.

If there is an argument about why the Russian records would be wrong, then say so. Clearly. "Propoganda" would be the quick answer, but not even stalin (ruthless as he was) could run the VVS without even knowing how many people are left alive in it, surely. So the records would have to have been doctored after the war. Proof?

Now, I do find interesting what a poster said a while back, about air forces not recording destroyed planes. I'm quite sceptical, but it would make a very interesting read. Can we have more?

Ok, so I'm a bit riled http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
Sorry.

FPSOLKOR: Good luck finding out about your Grandfather. Harsh questions you want to ask though.

P.S: There is no question that E.H was an excellent fighter pilot, and many of those "kills" might have been victories (though perhaps not resulting in the destruction of the plane). His plane crash-landed multiple times from damage that debris of his target inflicted on his plane. That being said, I'm quite interested in his actual amount of kills.

P.P.S: there is no excuse for the killing of civilians. At all, and ever. There is no justification about "war is nasty" or that it had to be done. The allied carpet bombing raids on cities accomplished nothing. The "moral of the enemy" was not broken. In fact, it was reinforced. There is NO REASON to shoot children, or gas jews, or kill prisoners, or keep people in jail for decades after the war if they had no hand in the decision-making process against civilians. Let's not even try to justify this sh!te.

M_Gunz
11-30-2007, 02:47 AM
When you open the door wide saying "it was mostly propaganda" then you may find your own
house is also made of glass.

There is enough to say keep some doubt but the same kind of things that applies to claims of
kills applies to claims of only so many losses. And stories of atrocities to motivate people
to become soldiers... should I also believe that Polish attacked a certain radio station that
provided Hitler excuse to attack Poland? At the time, that was believed by a lot of Germans.

And please don't ask about more recent in history only because if I agree or not it is beyond
the rules of the forum -- and I do mean only, you might be surprised how little I trust men
in high places.

M_Gunz
11-30-2007, 02:52 AM
You know that Russia did give Germany a secret place to develop the very weapons and techniques
they turned against Russia? Even the wheels have wheels inside, look well into the buildup
that was going on under Stalin. The true aim of the 5 and 10 year plans was not peaceful.

BaronUnderpants
11-30-2007, 03:53 AM
To make a accurate comparison between claims ( EH`s in this case ) and losses ( USSR in this case ) "everyone" seems to naturaly assume russian loss records are 100% accurate while EH`s is anything but.

Everything iv heard and read about russian "tradition" during this timeperiod has lead me to belive that pretty much any record made during WWII by russia is to be taken with a grain of salt, as in: if it isnt recorded it hasnt happend kind of a deal. As i understand it Russia/stalin was even more devoted to propaganda than Germany/Hitler was. For ex. There is a treadh here somewhere about a interwiew with a russian ace (cant remember wich one) who was "given" an X amount of kills to boost moral and for propaganda purposes. ( not saying anything about the pilot in question though, IIRC he refused the "gift" )

As for German claims? Well, its well known that "they" where extremly into recording EVERYTHING, i mean, everything. U need to be a fair bit anal to record down to the letter your own people commiting orgenized murder. And "they" where.

Anywho, all im saying is: if u are gonna assume claims to be overdone it is in this case only natural to assume recorded losses to be toned down for the same reasons.

Personally i would lean towards losses beeing toned down more than kill claims beeing exaggerated. Knowing what i know about the 2 sides in genaral and all that.


Not trying to step on anyones toes, its just my own personal wiew on the matter.

Are there claims that isnt correct? Highly likely..are there inaccurate claims in the hundreds? Highly unlikely.

joeap
11-30-2007, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:

Personally i would lean towards losses beeing toned down more than kill claims beeing exaggerated. Knowing what i know about the 2 sides in genaral and all that.


Bollox, we're not talking about public propaganda but official military records. Armies have to know what is going on if they want to run and win a war. If they don't they lose. I think Lebillfish posted here that the Japanese military believed their own wildly overestimated claims of losses inflicted on Allied forces in the South Pacific...which came back to bite them in the you know where.

There are well respected historians like Glantz and Erickson used material from the Soviet archives, and know how to use it properly and in context.

Boandlgramer
11-30-2007, 06:29 AM
Maybe a good read on the subject.

http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/bc-rs/dymich.html

I guess, most of us highly respect Christer Bergström .

ultraHun
11-30-2007, 06:29 AM
quote:
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:

Personally i would lean towards losses beeing toned down more than kill claims beeing exaggerated. Knowing what i know about the 2 sides in genaral and all that.



Bollox, we're not talking about public propaganda but official military records. Armies have to know what is going on if they want to run and win a war. If they don't they lose. I think Lebillfish posted here that the Japanese military believed their own wildly overestimated claims of losses inflicted on Allied forces in the South Pacific...which came back to bite them in the you know where.

There are well respected historians like Glantz and Erickson used material from the Soviet archives, and know how to use it properly and in context.

Afaik the Luftwaffe diaries have been falsified months after in order to excuse the bombing of Guernica. Now, that is the Wehrmacht and not the Red-Army, and it was about a raid publicly comdemned as atrocities and not just some inconvenient losses. However some inconvenient losses might as well be explained away as pilot error, plane failure ...

Are you a manager or department head in some big company? Then do you trust the reports you receive?

kid_SA
11-30-2007, 06:30 AM
If you get your kills wrong, then no real harm done (so long as the leaders have a rough idea of the truth. Churchill is quoted as saying [during BOB] something like "to get accurate figures, we'll need to divide the claims by 3") but if your own deaths are wrong, then that's a problem. If you've got a bombing force coming for you, you'd better know how many fighters you have, or you might end up sending 3 men against a legion. That's why (regardless of nationality) kill numbers are trusted less than death numbers. Propaganda notwithstanding, but propaganda can't just be assumed because of some notion of "knowing the regime" with no questions asked.

ultraHun
11-30-2007, 06:39 AM
If you get your kills wrong, then no real harm done (so long as the leaders have a rough idea of the truth. Churchill is quoted as saying [during BOB] something like "to get accurate figures, we'll need to divide the claims by 3") but if your own deaths are wrong, then that's a problem. If you've got a bombing force coming for you, you'd better know how many fighters you have, or you might end up sending 3 men against a legion. That's why (regardless of nationality) kill numbers are trusted less than death numbers. Propaganda notwithstanding, but propaganda can't just be assumed because of some notion of "knowing the regime" with no questions asked.

You need the actual numbers right, because some controller or staff officer might show up to count what is there. You do not need to tell the proper reasons for why the numbers are the way they are ...

Schwarz.13
11-30-2007, 07:10 AM
OK, i decided to retire from this thread after my initial post (which BTW i wrote after waking up and wasn't very well-worded) but...

@ FPSOLKOR - You come across as an intelligent, patient & analytical guy who has been pretty polite and respectful to everyone here - i am quite disgusted at some of the personal remarks made towards you, especially when we consider the amount of older forum users here.

For the record - i am NOT some Luftwaffe/Hartmann fanboy (despite my sig/avatar)! I am an avid reader of 'proper' military history (I have never read The Blonde Knight of Germany so i am not qualified to comment on it's content/validity) and an avaition enthusiast. As to someone's comment about 'cherished notions' - i have NO cherished 'notions' as you would call them and am only interested in truth, regardless of whether i like it or not!

At the moment Hartmann's final tally of 352 is still accepted as fact by the military history and aviation community therefore i have no reason, until i see conclusive evidence to the contrary, to believe otherwise. However if FPSOLKOR was to PROVE otherwise from his research - and consequently rock the world of military history - then i am perfectly happy to accept his findings.


Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I wouldn't deny there was the posssibility for a small margin of error but Luftwaffe procedures for verifying Abschuße were extremely rigorous regardless of theatre.

Now my question is this ...

Why does the existence of a claims procedure which is rigorous (on paper) impress anyone so much?

We all know that Germany was governed by a dictatorship right?

We all remember J Goebbels and his propaganda Ministry right? Hardly a paragon of truthfulness, right?

So again, why does this rule, in a rule book impress you so much?

Anyone can write a rule. Sticking to it, is the hard part. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

@Waldo - indeed, but Soviet wartime reports can also be considered to be equally dubious, if not more so. Let me try to give an example (the only i could find without hours of sifting through my books):

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">"In official circles the tale of heroic socialist struggle against the fascist demon remained intact down to 1991. Soviet writing on the war was carefully censored, and the central archives of the conflict remained closed or were restricted to only the most priveleged of officially favoured historians. To give but one example: in the 1960s Marshall Zhukov, Stalin's Deputy Commander in Chief for much of the war, wrote two volumes of memoirs. They were heavily doctored. The first edition edition took three years to prepare and was shown, briefly, to Leonid Brezhnev, the Soviet leader, for final approval. Zhukov was told to include the fiction that Brezhnav took part in an incident on the southern front. When the first edition was published Zhukov complained, 'That book, it is not mine'. Even the smallest changes were insisted upon. Where Zhukov wanted to call the failure in the summer of 1941 a 'rout', he was made to write 'retreat' instead."</span>

My point is, while this is with regards to writing for the masses and not military reports, this happened to Zhukov one of the Soviet Union's most powerful men, AFTER the death of Stalin. Now imagine the lowly unit commander in the VVS, after Stalin's purges of Red Army, writing reports with the shadow of Kommissars,NKVD,Gulag etc hanging over him!

and later...

<span class="ev_code_yellow">"Even where greater candour has prevailed - the publication of official casualty statistics, for example - there remain frustrating gaps. The figures published in 1993 by by General G.F. Krivosheyev give the fullest account yet available, but they omit three operations that were complete failures. The official figures themselves must be viewed critically, given the difficulty of knowing in the chaoes of 1941 and 1942 exactly who had been killed, wounded or even conscripted. If the word 'alleged' or 'suggested' or approximately' appear with disarming regularity in what follows, this is testament to how much work still needs to be done to provide even an agreed-upon narrative for the war years."</span> - both exerts taken from introduction in Russia's War by Professor Richard Overy.

Schwarz

P.S. With regards to John Erikson, Richard Overy, Anthony Beevor et al you have to remember that they have a lifetimes career of being academics of history and were also very wary of official Soviet reports (with heroic slants) - they would cross-reference them with others and still be very cautious before making educated assumptions to be committed to paper...

TgD Thunderbolt56
11-30-2007, 07:46 AM
Very well said Schwarz.13

I too feel that if there is fool-proof evidence that contradicts current historical record, then so be it. I always welcome a good civil debate and think that's only a healthy thing (what can I say, I was raised by Hippis).

I've read Stalingrad and The Fall of Berlin 1945 by Antony Beevor and can honestly say that his level of detail in his research and skepticism in the validity of some records has convinced me that his writings are more accurate than not. Even as a detailed reference material, I found both books absolutely compelling reading that I couldn't put down until I had finished them (and I've read them both twice).

FPSOLKOR already is a respected member of this community and is entitled to his thoughts and opinions...and that is exactly what they are. I find them interesting and intriguing but hardly sound enough to rewrite history.

Sadly, we are at a point in time where historical record of WWII is passing from memory to actual history and the opportunity to accurately get it recorded (whether written, on audio or video) is rapidly slipping away.


TB

ViktorViktor
11-30-2007, 07:56 AM
I have read 'The Blonde Knight of Germany' and in my opinion the book title pretty much sums up what sort of a work it was - a rah-rah account of Germany's highest-scoring ace.

It was not IMO meant to be a dispassisionate, scholarly look at Eric Hartmann, and so shouldn't be compared with the works of Bergström and other historians.

Also, the standards for historical scholarship have seem to have really risen since the time this book was written (early 60s). It was impossible to get documentation from Soviet sources at that time (because of the Cold War going on) so of course any books in this genre from that time period would be by default, one-sided.

Today, we expect more because we have access to documents from all the combatants during WW II - and heck, we don't need to buy or loan a book (like they had to in the 60s) in order to read about WW II aviation, we can look it up ourselves on the Internett!

By the way, I believe Hartmann must have shot down more than 250 aircraft. He had two logbooks - the first one was used as a basis for Hartmann's claim list in 'BK of Germany', but the second logbook was confiscated by the American military personnel he surrendered to in 1945 (who then in turn handed him over to the Soviets) and has never been recovered.

Waldo.Pepper
11-30-2007, 09:30 AM
Waldo - indeed, but Soviet wartime reports can also be considered to be equally dubious, if not more so.

I didn't think it was a competition between whose murderous despicable dictatorship kept more accurate records. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Here is something to consider for those who would assert that the Luftwaffe procedure was the most accurate of any of the major powers.

There was NOTHING in Nazi Germany that could not be subverted for political purposes.

"On August 28, 1940, according to von Werra, he saw six Hurricanes lining-up to land at a RAF base in Kent. Von Werra joined the circuit and watched them land. As the third touched down, he opened fire on the Hurricane immediately in front of him and it crashed. He then fired on the next aircraft in the circuit, this too went down in flames. Not content with two, he went for a third as it landed, he claimed to have hit this too, but did not see it crash as he was making his way out of the circuit.

Von Werra then told the interviewer on the radio that he flew over another part of the airfield and strafed it, destroying another five Hurricanes for certain and possibly one more. So on his return to base, unharmed, he reported nine Hurricanes destroyed. He was now an 'ace' and when his Bf 109 was shot down it had thirteen 'claims' painted on the tail fin. From his broadcast it seems that the only reason he left the airfield before destroying any more aircraft, was that his fuel situation was getting critical.

This broadcast was picked-up by the BBC on August 30 and passed on to the RAF. Initially von Werra tried to bluff his way out of the story, but eventually had to admit that the story was his. The RAF have no records of almost a full squadron of Hurricanes being destroyed in a few minutes by a lone German aircraft. To be fair to von Werra, he was not alone in these sort of fantastic claims, many other Luftwaffe pilots also claimed such victories, usually unconfirmed by a witness."

jadger
11-30-2007, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Waldo - indeed, but Soviet wartime reports can also be considered to be equally dubious, if not more so.

I didn't think it was a competition between whose murderous despicable dictatorship kept more accurate records. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Here is something to consider for those who would assert that the Luftwaffe procedure was the most accurate of any of the major powers.

There was NOTHING in Nazi Germany that could not be subverted for political purposes.

"On August 28, 1940, according to von Werra, he saw six Hurricanes lining-up to land at a RAF base in Kent. Von Werra joined the circuit and watched them land. As the third touched down, he opened fire on the Hurricane immediately in front of him and it crashed. He then fired on the next aircraft in the circuit, this too went down in flames. Not content with two, he went for a third as it landed, he claimed to have hit this too, but did not see it crash as he was making his way out of the circuit.

Von Werra then told the interviewer on the radio that he flew over another part of the airfield and strafed it, destroying another five Hurricanes for certain and possibly one more. So on his return to base, unharmed, he reported nine Hurricanes destroyed. He was now an 'ace' and when his Bf 109 was shot down it had thirteen 'claims' painted on the tail fin. From his broadcast it seems that the only reason he left the airfield before destroying any more aircraft, was that his fuel situation was getting critical.

This broadcast was picked-up by the BBC on August 30 and passed on to the RAF. Initially von Werra tried to bluff his way out of the story, but eventually had to admit that the story was his. The RAF have no records of almost a full squadron of Hurricanes being destroyed in a few minutes by a lone German aircraft. To be fair to von Werra, he was not alone in these sort of fantastic claims, many other Luftwaffe pilots also claimed such victories, usually unconfirmed by a witness." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

there's a major difference there though. That is a propoganda story used in the public by Herr Doktor Goebbels. We are talking about Erich Hartmann's official records, not publicly available information at the time. You can tell the public one thing, but when it comes to your actual records you want to be as accurate as possible in order to be able to effectively wage the war.

I would like to reiterate, has there been any scholarly published sources that seriously doubts Hartmann's claims and proves to the opposite?

Boandlgramer
11-30-2007, 11:39 AM
Yes Waldo, there were some tale-teller among the german pilots.
But even http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif the RAF had their own.
According to John Weal, the RAF claimed for the latter half of 1941 not fewer than 731 german fighters.
In fact the Luftwaffe lost 103 fighters .
RAF losses were 411 fighter .
So i think overclaiming was not only a moral boost for the Luftwaffe.

Xiolablu3
11-30-2007, 01:17 PM
The whole 'culture' of fighter squadrons was different in the Luftwaffe.

Rather than all pilots hleping each other, what oyu had in the Luftwaffe, was the whole flight going out to protect their best 'Ace' as he tried to add to his score.

As such, for example, you had the top two aces of the squadron and their wingman at the forefront of the attack, while the other pilots of the squadron flew top cover.

This is another reason for some of the insane scores run up by a few of the Luftwaffe aces.

Remember that overclaiming was rife in all Air forces.

JG14_Josf
11-30-2007, 01:30 PM
He's been quite polite to people whom I would not (after reading) give the time to.


Huh?

Can anyone else see the hypocrisy? A claim has been made concerning military history. Then a counter-claim is made rebuking (and not politely) the military history claim. If a false claim is made on purpose, then, the obvious intent is to lie; and of course the claim will be baseless or based upon lies – of course. The person making the false claim lies – on purpose.

See this?

Person A claims something.

Person B claims that person A is a liar. Person B does not claim that Person A is merely misinformed or merely exaggerating, rather, Person B is claiming that Person A is outright lying, or, fabricating ˜propaganda' in order to deceive – on purpose.

This is the part that gets me:

If person B were to be face to face with person A, then, person B may tone down the hyperbolic rhetoric that insults person A – out of respect.

Example:

Person B to person A:

"Your claim is inaccurate and here is the evidence (provides evidence); therefore – the question that I am asking now concerns the cause of the error. I ask because the error could be misinterpreted as a lie, on purpose, in order to accomplish something like propaganda or brainwashing; therefore – can the question be answered accurately? Why did the error occur?"

My point (and that is why I participate in this exchange) is to point out that a public conviction of pre-meditated falsification has been aimed at two historical writers.

Here are the public convictions (not just accusations):


the fact that these 2 men were writing about things that they have no idea about, and their writing almost word by word repeated what American propaganda said at the time. Among my friends - archive dwellers "Blond Knight" is a standart book to have laugh at, and sometimes is referred to as "stoma" (this name originates from Hartmanns operation) because of piles of craap it pours onto the reader. It may be accurate in terms of H.'s life description, but when it comes to describing Eastern front... No comments. BTW!

Here is the contradiction or the irony (if you use irony to mean this type of situation):

Two historians (Toliver/Constable) write detailed historical accounts in a biography (a historical work). A person convicts those two historians in public as liars – in fact – according to the person who is publicly convicting these people of lying.

The two historians footnote or reference (edit - I cannot confirm this since my copy was given to someone else) their sources and the book in question is published and available for anyone to read and judge for validity. If one error exists (such as a claim of 352), then, a correction of that error can be shown, with supporting evidence, and a comparison between the evidence backing the 352 claim and the more accurate evidence can be shown.

The same method of making the public record more accurate can be done concerning any published record to date; including anything reported about the former Soviet Union.

Person B (the person convicting person A of lying on purpose) can quote a false statement concerning the former Soviet Union and provide the evidence proving the error of the statement quoted. How much better are all the readers who have an interest in accurate history?

On the other hand; person B can claim that person A is lying on purpose and avoid quoting any actual lie, avoid providing any supporting evidence that proves a lie to be a lie, avoid correcting the lie told, and avoid the provision of evidence exposing the intent of the lie by the liar.

Which is it?

I've read The Blond Knight and it stands as a historical record. Knowing any errors in that historical record is better than fabricating a belief of evil intent attached to the authors of the book. It is unreasonable to convict people of crime based upon hyperbole and that is the most polite word I can think of to use in this case.

Waldo.Pepper
11-30-2007, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by jadger:
You can tell the public one thing, but when it comes to your actual records you want to be as accurate as possible in order to be able to effectively wage the war.

Too bad for Germany that this wise course of action was perverted so readily, to their obvious detriment.

You seem to be implying that there was some tangible difference between the exploits of Von Werra and those of other aces (like EH.)

Pray tell me what you think these were? What quality(s) of EH made him immune to the pressures of the needs of the state? I am seriously - SERIOUSLY - interested in hearing your answer to this.

It seems to me that you may be implying that you think that EH and others WERE NOT used for propaganda purposes!


Originally posted by jadger:
I would like to reiterate, has there been any scholarly published sources that seriously doubts Hartmann's claims and proves to the opposite?

Hmmm I guess that I am a little confused here. I thought that it was up to the claimant (or his supporters) to prove the claim. Not to the skeptics to disprove them.

Scholarly efforts to disprove claims are not what is needed. What is needed are scholarly efforts to prove them, in my view.


Originally posted by Boandlgramer:

Yes Waldo, there were some tale-teller among the german pilots.
But even http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif the RAF had their own.
According to John Weal, the RAF claimed for the latter half of 1941 not fewer than 731 german fighters.
In fact the Luftwaffe lost 103 fighters .
RAF losses were 411 fighter .
So i think overclaiming was not only a moral boost for the Luftwaffe.

I think this (the introduction of Allied (in)accuracy of claims to a discussion of Axis (in)accuracy of claims) is a rather irrelevant avenue to introduce. Especially if in your opinion you think this does something/anything to bolster support for Axis claims.

Hearing you say (in effect) "Oh yeah well your guys were pretty lame in their counting too ya know ... " only cheapens your argument/opinion to my ears.

There is no truth in wartime, or perfectly accurate claim system operated by any side in any war. Does this satisfy you enough? Cause it does me.

To sum up;

1. I think that few pilot claims from WW2 can be fully substantiated.

2. I think that the odds of obtaining accuracy decrease, often times substantially as the number of victories rise.

3. I think that the German claims system was great! (on paper) And lousy in practise.

(I think it was as lousy and riddled with political interference as the USAAF claims for their bomber gunners over Europe or as lousy as when Churchill allowed BOB defenders to over claim to bolster morale when the UK as a nation needed it.

(Hope that last little bit helps sooth the ruffled feathers of those who pray at the temple of EH. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

La7_brook
11-30-2007, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jadger:
You can tell the public one thing, but when it comes to your actual records you want to be as accurate as possible in order to be able to effectively wage the war.

Too bad for Germany that this wise course of action was perverted so readily, to their obvious detriment.

You seem to be implying that there was some tangible difference between the exploits of Von Werra and those of other aces (like EH.)

Pray tell me what you think these were? What quality(s) of EH made him immune to the pressures of the needs of the state? I am seriously - SERIOUSLY - interested in hearing your answer to this.

It seems to me that you may be implying that you think that EH and others WERE NOT used for propaganda purposes!


Originally posted by jadger:
I would like to reiterate, has there been any scholarly published sources that seriously doubts Hartmann's claims and proves to the opposite?

Hmmm I guess that I am a little confused here. I thought that it was up to the claimant (or his supporters) to prove the claim. Not to the skeptics to disprove them.

Scholarly efforts to disprove claims are not what is needed. What is needed are scholarly efforts to prove them, in my view.


Originally posted by Boandlgramer:

Yes Waldo, there were some tale-teller among the german pilots.
But even http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif the RAF had their own.
According to John Weal, the RAF claimed for the latter half of 1941 not fewer than 731 german fighters.
In fact the Luftwaffe lost 103 fighters .
RAF losses were 411 fighter .
So i think overclaiming was not only a moral boost for the Luftwaffe.

I think this (the introduction of Allied (in)accuracy of claims to a discussion of Axis (in)accuracy of claims) is a rather irrelevant avenue to introduce. Especially if in your opinion you think this does something/anything to bolster support for Axis claims.

Hearing you say (in effect) "Oh yeah well your guys were pretty lame in their counting too ya know ... " only cheapens your argument/opinion to my ears.

There is no truth in wartime, or perfectly accurate claim system operated by any side in any war. Does this satisfy you enough? Cause it does me.

To sum up;

1. I think that few pilot claims from WW2 can be fully substantiated.

2. I think that the odds of obtaining accuracy decrease, often times substantially as the number of victories rise.

3. I think that the German claims system was great! (on paper) And lousy in practise.

(I think it was as lousy and riddled with political interference as the USAAF claims for their bomber gunners over Europe or as lousy as when Churchill allowed BOB defenders to over claim to bolster morale when the UK as a nation needed it.

(Hope that last little bit helps sooth the ruffled feathers of those who pray at the temple of EH. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Whats hard about counting shot down Allied planes in occupyed Europe ,they had the plane ?

M_Gunz
11-30-2007, 03:10 PM
So for July to December 1941 the Luftwaffe lost 103 fighters?
That includes the main action of trying to defeat the RAF.
And they really didn't lose as many bombers as thought, just a fraction of those.

If true then I'd say that they gave up pretty easily.

stalkervision
11-30-2007, 03:19 PM
I lost 99.999% interest in this post five pages ago...

BSS_Sniper
11-30-2007, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
I lost 99.999% interest in this post five pages ago...

Maybe if there were modded fast and the furious drifting cars you'd comprehend. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifAnother pointless post by SV..............

Xiolablu3
11-30-2007, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
So for July to December 1941 the Luftwaffe lost 103 fighters?
That includes the main action of trying to defeat the RAF.
And they really didn't lose as many bombers as thought, just a fraction of those.

If true then I'd say that they gave up pretty easily.

Are you thinking of 1940?

In late 1941, they were on basically a defensive mission at this time, but with some nuiscence daylight raids by Jabo fighters, and night bombing. Russia was the main action. All the Western front had to do was defend, they all thought Britan would sue for peace anyway.

Rememeber the RAF tried to get them up to fight by using the disastrous 'rhubarbs' and circuses.

The Luftwaffe was playing cat and mouse with its fast FW190 fighters. They would attack and then as soon as they lost the initiative they would dive away and outrun the Spitfires which they had the speed to do.

Its pretty well documented that the RAF was having trouble getting the Luftwaffe to stay and fight at this time.

And why would they bother? Their tactics were working great, they were inflicting heavy losses on the RAF as they had technological superiority at this time too. The Brits had given the Merlin XX to the Hurricane, so now both frontline fighters were inferrior to the Me109F and especially the FW190.

They would have to wait for the SPitfire IX to start hitting back properly. Until then they were in a position of inferiorty.


"We are now in a position of inferiority. There is no doubt in my mind, or in the mind of my fighter pilots that the FW190 is the best fighter in the world today."

- RAF Air Marshall Sholto Douglas,

stalkervision
11-30-2007, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by BSS_Sniper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
I lost 99.999% interest in this post five pages ago...

Maybe if there were modded fast and the furious drifting cars you'd comprehend. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifAnother pointless post by SV.............. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



If that is the case then it fits right in here.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I'll add a "point" if you want.. Does anyone know that when the germans and Russians were sharing secret technical information on tank development a Russian delegeation of weapons experts visited germany and saw the latest german armor prototypes. The Russians were really pissed at the germans and insisted that the germans weren't showing the Russians their latests designs. This mystified the germans until the appearence on the battlefield of the quite superior to the german armor designs Russian T-34.

Boandlgramer
11-30-2007, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:

I think this (the introduction of Allied (in)accuracy of claims to a discussion of Axis (in)accuracy of claims) is a rather irrelevant avenue to introduce.


Aha. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
The original Discussion was about Hartmann, not the Luftwaffe as a whole.
You brought in von Werra .
It´s not just your " Spielwiese ". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
So I feel no sorry to quote John Weal.

Waldo.Pepper
12-01-2007, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
The original Discussion was about Hartmann, not the Luftwaffe as a whole.

If you can somehow magically use the evidence of RAF over claiming to support EH 352 claims then you are right, bringing it up is relevant.

Now here is why I mentioned Von Werra. Mentioning Von Werra is directly relevant, I think, as it nicely refuted those who would put too much stock in the vaunted (on paper) claims procedure of the Luftwaffe. (Which EH also operated under) Do you understand now?

Show me ANYWHERE that I mentioned that the Luftwaffe was unique in over claiming, or underreporting their losses. Indeed I think I have taken great pains to NOT do that. I am
not picking on any one nation here, nor am I supporting any one nation, unlike others in this thread who have invested great swaths of their egos in supporting some pilots claims.

jadger
12-01-2007, 12:22 AM
You seem to be implying that there was some tangible difference between the exploits of Von Werra and those of other aces (like EH.)

Pray tell me what you think these were? What quality(s) of EH made him immune to the pressures of the needs of the state? I am seriously - SERIOUSLY - interested in hearing your answer to this.

It seems to me that you may be implying that you think that EH and others WERE NOT used for propaganda purposes!


you yourself said that the von Werra story was picked up via radio by BBC. not that it was an actual combat report. If you will read about von Werra, he was known to "enhance" his stories quite a lot if you know what I mean. Even his escape from captivity in Canada he greatly exagerrated.

trying to connect him with Erich Hartmann because they both flew for the same nation is disgusting. Because the one is a liar that means all other members of that nationality are liars as well? that's called petty racism, you know.

I am not saying Hartmann's story is not used for propoganda, but his stories were not complete BS like von Werra.


a quick description of von Werra "often boisterous 'playboy' behavior and a degree of self-promotion (he was pictured in the German press with his pet lion Simba he kept as the unit mascot at the aerodrome). He also used the title Baron, although he was not entitled to it." from wikipedia. Now, can you find any description of Erich Hartmann of being anything like that? please, be my guest, I'm all ears.

Boandlgramer
12-01-2007, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
The original Discussion was about Hartmann, not the Luftwaffe as a whole.

If you can somehow magically use the evidence of RAF over claiming to support EH 352 claims then you are right, bringing it up is relevant.

Now here is why I mentioned Von Werra. Mentioning Von Werra is directly relevant, I think, as it nicely refuted those who would put too much stock in the vaunted (on paper) claims procedure of the Luftwaffe. (Which EH also operated under) Do you understand now?

Show me ANYWHERE that I mentioned that the Luftwaffe was unique in over claiming, or underreporting their losses. Indeed I think I have taken great pains to NOT do that. I am
not picking on any one nation here, nor am I supporting any one nation, unlike others in this thread who have invested great swaths of their egos in supporting some pilots claims. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are just one of these people where always find hairs in other peoples soup , while in your own is a whole toupe.

If you feel uncomfortable with John Weal´s quote, then simple ignore it . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Waldo.Pepper
12-01-2007, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by jadger:
[QUOTE]you yourself said that the von Werra story was picked up via radio by BBC. not that it was an actual combat report.

I am so sorry that you have not understood what it is I wrote. To be clear I will do this in point form.

1. Von Werras 'claims' were broadcast for consumption by the German population, and intercepted by the British.

2. In addition to these claims being used as propaganda, THEY WERE ALSO ACCEPTED, and HE WAS ALSO GIVEN CREDIT FOR THEM!

(Despite the vaunted on paper procedure which EH also operated within).

3. When he was downed over Britain, the ludicrous Hurricane claims were included in the marking on his tail.

Therefore the procedure in the Luftwaffe was just as flawed as any other.

How is pointing this out racist?

=====


Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
I think you are just one of these people where always find hairs in other peoples soup , while in your own is a whole toupe.

I note with some considerable satisfaction that you could not do what I asked - "Show me ANYWHERE that I mentioned that the Luftwaffe was unique in over claiming, or underreporting their losses."

And I think that when you rely on such weak statement that use such phrases as "I feel" then this certainly shows that your arguments are lacking.

[Have you not read what it is that I have written. About how I first mentioned that the British wildly overclaimed during the BOB, and how the USAAF gunners wildly overclaimed during the air battle over Europe?]

If I were as you say - "one of these people where always find hairs in other peoples soup , while in your own is a whole toupe." - then why would I do that?



Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
If you feel uncomfortable with John Weal´s quote, then simple ignore it . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

On the contrary I support the John Weal quote. It in no way makes me feel uncomfortable. It is however, and I have taken pains to point out, not Germain to the issue of whether or not EH claims should be accepted as facts.

EDIT - multiple typos!

Boandlgramer
12-01-2007, 03:40 AM
Back to topic.
Erich Hartmann´s claims are what they are : "claims ". Nothing more.
How much reality is behind them ? We may never know.
Why ?
Please allow me to quote Christer Bergström:

" A large amount of both the German and the Soviet documents from WW II are relatively unreliable. "Date messes" are quite frequent on both sides."

JG14_Josf
12-01-2007, 04:26 AM
I am so sorry that you have not understood what it is I wrote. To be clear I will do this in point form.

1. Von Werras 'claims' were broadcast for consumption by the German population, and intercepted by the British.

2. In addition to these claims being used as propaganda, THEY WERE ALSO ACCEPTED, and HE WAS ALSO GIVEN CREDIT FOR THEM!

(Despite the vaunted on paper procedure which EH also operated within).

3. When he was downed over Britain, the ludicrous Hurricane claims were included in the marking on his tail.

Therefore the procedure in the Luftwaffe was just as flawed as any other.

Anyone,

Logic suggests a need to connect 1 with 1 to get 2. I mean; a plus sign can connect 1 with 1 and then there are 2 together in one spot. One downed airplane added (with a plus sign) to one downed airplane is two – see?

Now take one away and what happens?

Did I lose you? Anyone? One minus one makes zero.

If, say, someone like Werner Molders or Robert S. Johnson painstakingly documented the number of airplanes that were downed during their respective tours of duty, then, they did so and one airplane may have actually gone down because Werner Molders or Robert S. Johnson (Fred Garvey or Hans Oppenheimer) actually did (they actually caused the aircraft to stop flying like an airplane or some other such description of an event occurring during the tour of duty) they actually did something (aim, shoot, and shoot down) causing ONE airplane to cease being an airplane – somehow – then two.

These people did the shooting; then the record keeping stuff.

See here?

How about this angle:

After the shooting down stuff and after the record keeping stuff done by the people doing the shooting down stuff there are other people involved in the record keeping stuff – no?

Something has to connect one with the other one – no?

One meticulous lie (or record of an actual combat situation where one plane is no longer flying like an airplane in some manner or other) has to connect to one other link in the chain arriving at this forum.

I don't see the connection between 3 and the last sentence as follows:


I am so sorry that you have not understood what it is I wrote. To be clear I will do this in point form.

1. Von Werras 'claims' were broadcast for consumption by the German population, and intercepted by the British.

2. In addition to these claims being used as propaganda, THEY WERE ALSO ACCEPTED, and HE WAS ALSO GIVEN CREDIT FOR THEM!

(Despite the vaunted on paper procedure which EH also operated within).

3. When he was downed over Britain, the ludicrous Hurricane claims were included in the marking on his tail.

Therefore the procedure in the Luftwaffe was just as flawed as any other.

I don't normally associate myself with meticulous record keeping; however – the saying goes – ˜the devil is in the details'.

I got as far as 3 but I couldn't quite make it to this:



Therefore the procedure in the Luftwaffe was just as flawed as any other.

From here:



2. In addition to these claims being used as propaganda, THEY WERE ALSO ACCEPTED, and HE WAS ALSO GIVEN CREDIT FOR THEM!


To here:



Therefore the procedure in the Luftwaffe was just as flawed as any other.

Have you ever played a game with someone who cheats? For example – you play IL2 and find someone on-line with an ˜enhanced' flight model and the track file records this enhancement in all its gory detail.

Like this:

2. In addition to this cheating IT WAS ALSO ON THE SERVER and THE SCORE WAS ALSO GIVEN TO HIM (or her)!

Therefore IL2 is just as flawed as any other game.

See what I mean?

I don't get the connection between the people who cheat and the system (code or procedure) that merely keeps the record (and has no choice in the matter).

In other words; the connection isn't the systems or the procedures and the connection isn't the false records passing through the systems, no, I think the connection is cheaters.

How about this angle:

The Werra and the Hartmann tours of duty test the procedure for recording ˜official' military record keeping accurately. Is the flaw in the ˜official' record the same flaw in both cases?

Does anyone here know why Alexander Hamilton died?

Waldo.Pepper
12-01-2007, 04:41 AM
Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
Erich Hartmann´s claims are what they are : "claims ". Nothing more. How much reality is behind them ? We may never know.
Why?

I don't think I could be more in agreement with these words you have just written, had I written them myself. Thank you! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

==


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Is the flaw in the ˜official' record the same flaw in both cases?

There maybe no flaw at all in the EH claims. Once again ... my point in citing the Werra claims was to show that the Luftwaffe procedures COULD be subverted. That they were not flawless, as some so readily assert.

Ratsack
12-01-2007, 04:52 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
I hate to spoil the fun here but most of hartman's flight logs were lost or captured by the Russians and went missing long ago. Even he didn't remember all the planes he shot down.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Haven't read the whole thread yet, so apologies if this is covered later.

I thought Hartmann's missing log books were stolen by one of his American captors. He was handed over to the Soviets afterward. If that's right, the missing volumes are either ploughed under by now, or sitting in somebody's WWII collection in the U.S.

cheers,
Ratsack

JG14_Josf
12-01-2007, 04:56 AM
There maybe no flaw at all in the EH claims. Once again ... my point in citing the Werra claims was to show that the Luftwaffe procedures COULD be subverted. That they were not flawless, as some so readily assert.

Waldo.Pepper,

I think I have that part understood; like trying to make something idiot proof - no?

Boandlgramer
12-01-2007, 04:57 AM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
Erich Hartmann´s claims are what they are : "claims ". Nothing more. How much reality is behind them ? We may never know.
Why?

I don't think I could be more in agreement with these words you have just written, had I written them myself. Thank you! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh my Dear. My life was so empty before i have read your words.
I love you . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Maybe it would be good if we use in the future the term " claims " instead of Kills / victories.

Waldo.Pepper
12-01-2007, 05:17 AM
I love you.

Get in line then. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

stalkervision
12-01-2007, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
I hate to spoil the fun here but most of hartman's flight logs were lost or captured by the Russians and went missing long ago. Even he didn't remember all the planes he shot down.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Haven't read the whole thread yet, so apologies if this is covered later.

I thought Hartmann's missing log books were stolen by one of his American captors. He was handed over to the Soviets afterward. If that's right, the missing volumes are either ploughed under by now, or sitting in somebody's WWII collection in the U.S.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hartman had one logbook left after the war and it didn't cover very much I am afraid.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

jadger
12-01-2007, 12:11 PM
How is pointing this out racist?

because that is not the only thing you are claiming, you are claiming that because one German may be lying about his kill rate, then all other Germans that are in the same system do as well. Just because one man misuses the system doesn't mean everyone else does.


When he was downed over Britain, the ludicrous Hurricane claims were included in the marking on his tail.

proof? citations anyone? that wasn't the only flight von Werra flew, he could of shot down others in other sorties.

Again, his story was pure propoganda, he was not a high scoring fighter pilot, he did not win his fame by actually shooting down enemy aircraft. trying to draw a comparison with Erich Hartmann is ludicrous.

Waldo.Pepper
12-01-2007, 02:30 PM
Sorry to prolong the agony Jadger, but I really must respond to
your false assertion of racism.


Originally posted by jadger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> How is pointing this out racist?

because that is not the only thing you are claiming, you are claiming that because one German may be lying about his kill rate, then all other Germans that are in the same system do as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

NO I did not, do this! This was your false assumption assertion that I did this!

To reiterate - yet again -

There maybe no flaw at all in the EH claims. Once again ... my point in citing the Werra claims was to show that the Luftwaffe procedures COULD be subverted. That they were not flawless, as some so readily assert.

Could be IS NOT WERE!

Clear now?

Schwarz.13
12-01-2007, 04:43 PM
This will be my last (somewhat drunken hehe) post in what has become a rather tiresome thread...

A little food for thought:-

Josef 'Pips' Priller is officially credited with 101 victories. Every one of those victories is verified by RAF records (a fact that FPSOLKOR has admitted he himself finds remarkable). However this verification could only have taken place AFTER the war's end (obviously).

Therefore is it not reasonable to assume that Hartmann's final score is equally as valid? The only problem was that there was no way to verify these claims with Soviet records after the end of hostilities due to the Iron Curtain and the ongoing Cold War.

And something i wanted to say earler with regards to Hartmann's B&Z tactics (or B&Z tactics in general) - someone suggested that Hartmann may not have seen what happened to his quarry (entirely possible of course) after his attack run but they seemed to assume that he would use his energy to zoom away, perhaps with some sort of tunnel vision. Is it not more likely that he used his energy to zoom up again to see the results of his attack? He would also have at least his wingman with him too, who would be required to verify any victory. One final point is that of the vastness of the eastern front - It would not be teaming with aircraft (unless of course directly over some sort of ground offensive or major bombing raid), as was more often the case in the West. Therefore Hartmann, who was a stalker and chose his targets very carefully, would not be required to bug out immediately and so have a little time to finish off many of his victims.

As i have already said i am perfectly willing to accept any new evidence contradicting his 352 victories (which may indeed contain a margin of human error) but i can see some people are just happy to play Devil's Advocate (pardon the pun) just for the sake of it...

Schwarz

La7_brook
12-01-2007, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
Back to topic.
Erich Hartmann´s claims are what they are : "claims ". Nothing more.
How much reality is behind them ? We may never know.
Why ?
Please allow me to quote Christer Bergström:

" A large amount of both the German and the Soviet documents from WW II are relatively unreliable. "Date messes" are quite frequent on both sides." Christer Bergström all so puts Hartmann total at 352 in his Graf and Grislawski

M_Gunz
12-01-2007, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Schwarz.13:
And something i wanted to say earler with regards to Hartmann's B&Z tactics (or B&Z tactics in general) - someone suggested that Hartmann may not have seen what happened to his quarry (entirely possible of course) after his attack run but they seemed to assume that he would use his energy to zoom away, perhaps with some sort of tunnel vision. Is it not more likely that he used his energy to zoom up again to see the results of his attack?

Just assuming that he made strike and exit in the fashion he himself wrote of.

FPSOLKOR
12-01-2007, 06:31 PM
http://vif2ne.ru/nvi/forum/files/Kostja444/(071117163352)_Titovich_u_Il-2.jpg
This plane brought it's pilot, future HSU Titovich from 872nd ShAP home after getting 5 direct hits by 37mm AAA.

Loco-S
12-01-2007, 08:54 PM
This airplanes also made it home in way worst condition...what is what you are trying to say?

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/contents.htm

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/body/waist1.gif
The B-17 flown by Lieutenant Kenneth R. Bragg, its fuselage and tail almost severed, made its way home.
SOURCE: B-17 Flying Fortress by William Hess

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/body/enginer2.gif
A ground launched rocket missile caused this damage to 388BG's "Panhandle" during an attack on a V-weapon site, June 15, 1944. The missile struck number 3 engine, ricocheted into the fuselage and exploded, leaving Sgt Biggs, the top turret gunner, with nasty burns. Despite extensive damage to various control lines Lt McFarlane brought the bomber down safely at Manston.
Source: Mighty Eighth War Diary by Roger A. Freeman

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/body/sidehole.jpg
This B-17 took a direct flak hit in the waist over Debrecen, Hungary which killed three crewmen and wounded two others. Threatening to come apart in mid-air the pilot nursed it home to a safe landing, but the weakened fuselage collapsed on touchdown.
Text and photo source: Air Classics magazine, July 1972

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/body/underside_gone.jpg

FPSOLKOR
12-01-2007, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by Loco-S:
This airplanes also made it home in way worst condition...what is what you are trying to say?
Nothing

M_Gunz
12-02-2007, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Loco-S:
This airplanes also made it home in way worst condition...what is what you are trying to say?
Nothing </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

hop2002
12-02-2007, 08:15 AM
Josef 'Pips' Priller is officially credited with 101 victories. Every one of those victories is verified by RAF records (a fact that FPSOLKOR has admitted he himself finds remarkable).

Priller's claims are not really verified by RAF records.

The picture is complex, because every time Priller made a claim, so did other German fighters. It's hard to say which of them actually shot down the enemy.

I don't have the information to compare Priller's claims in 1940, but here are his first 5 Spitfire claims in 1941:

16.6.1941 Priller claimed a Spitfire. The Jagdwaffe claimed a total of 13 single engined fighters. The RAF actually lost 5 single engined fighters.

21.6.1941 1 Spitfire. Jagdwaffe claimed 21 SEF. The RAF lost 6 SEF

23.6.1941 1 Spitfire. Jagdwaffe claimed 12 SEF. RAF lost 4 SEF.

25.6.1941 1 Spitfire. Jagdwaffe claimed 19 SEF. RAF lost 6 SEF.

27.6.1941 1 Spitfire. Jagdwaffe claimed 9 SEF. RAF lost 8 SEF.

Just to prove 1941 wasn't a fluke, Priller claimed 4 Spitfire kills in 1943:

20.1.1943 1 Spitfire. Jagdwaffe claimed 4 SEF. RAF lost 2 SEF.

8.3.1943 1 Spitfire. Jagdwaffe claimed 9 SEF. RAF lost 3 SEF.

4.5.1943 1 Spitfire. Jagdwaffe claimed 4 SEF. RAF lost 4 SEF.

13.5.1943 1 Spitfire. Jagdwaffe claimed 7 SEF. RAF lost 8 SEF (2 to flak, 1 to engine failure)

Now these aren't taken at random. Tony Wood has records for the RAF starting from November 1940. I've taken Priller's first 5 Spitfire kills in that period, which were in 1941. I've taken his last 4, which were in 1943 (i'd have used his last 5, but he only scored 4 Spitfires in 1943).

On these 9 days, Priller claimed 9 Spitfires. Luftwaffe fighters claimed 98 RAF single engined fighters. The RAF lost 46 single engined fighters.

Now, all Priller's claims might be true, but as a whole the Luftwaffe was claiming 2 kills for every plane the RAF lost (and when you consider some of these RAF planes were lost to flak and mechanical failure, the actual rate is well over 2 claims for every 1 actually shot down)

Every air force overestimated the numbers of enemy aircraft they were shooting down. Claims that any particular force had a completely accurate tally are silly.

tools4foolsA
12-02-2007, 10:20 AM
Sure, overclaiming on all sides.

but too many people take 'admitted losses' as the ultimate truth and I think that's plain wrong.

- Pilots shoots down plane, claims rightly kill. Plane is however recovered and repairable, therefore won't show on 'losses' for that day...

- manipulating losses to own sides advantage...
qoutes like 'did not teturn, presumably shot down by flak' are complete BS as nobody saw what happened. But 'presumably shot down by flak' almost excludes enemy aircraft and will make your air-to-air kill stat look better...

And you want to look good... everybody wants to look good...

- Think about it, the pilots who did the overclaiming are the same ones relying information back for lost planes...
And then somewhere miles away from the front there are fellows who type lists of losses and kills and do the statisitics...
Whoooo, whole hornets nest for inaccuracies...

At the end of the day those statistics can be used as 'guidelines', all of em, but NONE is the truth...

Just my 5 sadang...
****

joeap
12-02-2007, 11:38 AM
Well, a loss is a loss. What do you mean by "admitted losses"? Is it what is recorded as aircraft that didn't return, including missing planes that may have been crashed due to mechanical reasons/weather, that is tracked by the military administration? You don't mean propaganda broadcasts during the war that downplay or hide losses and exaggerate those of the enemy?

waffen-79
12-02-2007, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by tools4foolsA:
- manipulating losses to own sides advantage...
qoutes like 'did not teturn, presumably shot down by flak' are complete BS as nobody saw what happened. But 'presumably shot down by flak' almost excludes enemy aircraft and will make your air-to-air kill stat look better... ****

That sig material right there

You got to remember there was a war going on, and noone wants to admit he's losing

DarthElvis
12-02-2007, 12:59 PM
Just a thought,
It's pretty amazing what you record or don't record if people get shot for saying or writing something that Uncle Joe doesn't like. Stalin era records are useless.

stathem
12-02-2007, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by DarthElvis:
Just a thought,
It's pretty amazing what you record or don't record if people get shot for saying or writing something that Uncle Joe doesn't like. Stalin era records are useless.

By that rationale, so are all records from Nazi Germany.

So where does that leave us?

HuninMunin
12-02-2007, 03:31 PM
That kind of oppression was not often seen within the Wehrmacht until the dawn of '45.
There is definatly a difference between the Red Army and the Wehrmacht in that regard - whatever it means to the discussion at hand.

M_Gunz
12-02-2007, 04:21 PM
If one is approach claims from other than the claimed self-objective-view of many historians
and I dunno how many amateur historians then perhaps:

What really happens on any battleground is Intelligence subject to fog of war. I only say that
because when it's going on that is exactly how it is. It's only later that someone can tally
up records and dispute or affirm them as if the data is an absolute thing describing the action.

The big gray elephant moves on the sea and in the sky as well as on land. It's not like the
planes are easy to tell apart in guncam movies, is it?

joeap
12-02-2007, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by DarthElvis:
Just a thought,
It's pretty amazing what you record or don't record if people get shot for saying or writing something that Uncle Joe doesn't like. Stalin era records are useless.

BS where did you get this info really. Who was shot for telling it like it is to Uncle Joe? Zhukov and many others told unpleasant facts to Stalin who was forced to listen or lose the war.

M_Gunz
12-02-2007, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by joeap:
Well, a loss is a loss. What do you mean by "admitted losses"? Is it what is recorded as aircraft that didn't return, including missing planes that may have been crashed due to mechanical reasons/weather, that is tracked by the military administration? You don't mean propaganda broadcasts during the war that downplay or hide losses and exaggerate those of the enemy?

It's supposed to be each side's internal accounting. They want to know how many planes and pilots
they have, in what condition and WTH happened to the ones they don't.

But you know, things that got reported to Hitler when bad news could mean your life... I'd rather
see the records he never did!

mortoma
12-02-2007, 05:15 PM
What we know as the LaGG was relegated more to back line and not front line activity after mid 1941. So most of those LaGGs must be LA-5s and 7s of various flavors.

tools4foolsA
12-03-2007, 03:32 AM
Well, a loss is a loss. What do you mean by "admitted losses"?


Well, yep, a loss is a loss...

Still those 'loss statistics' are not necceasrily 100% correct...

So on day 314 of the war some fighter pilot claims a X-plane shot down.

However on that day there is no loss recorded of an X-plane.

next loss is on day 316 and it says 'presumably shot down by Flak'

So pilot who claimed victory is a liar?

Well no neccsecarily.

Of enemy flight noone saw X-plane going down on day 314. Squadron commander was wounded in said battle and didn't get to do the record for the day. Two days later on second in command realizes that loss missing in reports. Puts it down two days later as 'presumably shot down by Flak'.
Loss record is up-to-date in regards of numbers, but when and how plane got lost might not be so accurate anymore...

Indeed there was a war going on out there and that's exatly why those 'loss records' have to be take with a grain of salt as well - not only the kill claims.

Other cases: kill claim by pilot, plane damaged and crash landed outside of airfield. Rightful claim on pilots side me thinks.
But plane was found to be reparable and therefore did not show as 'loss' in the records - but someone else claims 60 years later that pilots was a liar, you see no loss recorded that day...

Bottom line is:
Everything that was written down during the war has to be taken with a grain of salt.
Fog of war having a big influence indeed.

So it's kind of ridiculous to point at certain documents of that time and shout 'I got proof' and the pointing at another one and saying 'that's full of lies'....


To get back to the topic: anyone noticed the absence of Il-2's in that list? Did Hartman never attack IL-2's being afraid of Oleg's rear gunners or did he simply never stumble upon Il-2's? I mean there were only few http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif around, no?

*****

luftluuver
12-03-2007, 03:51 AM
To get back to the topic: anyone noticed the absence of Il-2's in that list? Did Hartman never attack IL-2's being afraid of Oleg's rear gunners or did he simply never stumble upon Il-2's? I mean there were only few Big Grin around, no?

Hartmann's IL-2 claims

1
5.11.1942 - Il-2 - 7./JG 52

5
24.3.1943 - Il-2 -7./JG 52

18
5.7.1943 - Il-2 m.H. - 7./JG 52

22
7.7.1943 - Il-2 - 7./JG 52

23
7.7.1943 - Il-2 - 7./JG 52

24
7.7.1943 - Il-2 - 7./JG 52

89
20.8.1943 - Il-2 - 7./JG 52

90
20.8.1943 - Il-2 - 7./JG 52

319
22.11.1944 - Il-2 - 4./JG 52

320
22.11.1944 - Il-2 - 4./JG 52

321
22.11.1944 - Il-2 - 4./JG 52

336
I.-II.1945 - Il-2 - Stab I./JG 52

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/hartmann.html

ultraHun
12-03-2007, 05:14 AM
I admit I was very sceptical concerning the revision of Hartmann's victory list intially. I searched the web for similar threads res. sites, pandering back and forth but not reaching an ultimate conclusion.

The list on the Czech site (http://www.luftwaffe.cz/hartmann.html) does contain two Mustangs. Could these be related to allied losses?

BaronUnderpants
12-03-2007, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by tools4foolsA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well, a loss is a loss. What do you mean by "admitted losses"?


Well, yep, a loss is a loss...

Still those 'loss statistics' are not necceasrily 100% correct...

So on day 314 of the war some fighter pilot claims a X-plane shot down.

However on that day there is no loss recorded of an X-plane.

next loss is on day 316 and it says 'presumably shot down by Flak'

So pilot who claimed victory is a liar?

Well no neccsecarily.

Of enemy flight noone saw X-plane going down on day 314. Squadron commander was wounded in said battle and didn't get to do the record for the day. Two days later on second in command realizes that loss missing in reports. Puts it down two days later as 'presumably shot down by Flak'.
Loss record is up-to-date in regards of numbers, but when and how plane got lost might not be so accurate anymore...

Indeed there was a war going on out there and that's exatly why those 'loss records' have to be take with a grain of salt as well - not only the kill claims.

Other cases: kill claim by pilot, plane damaged and crash landed outside of airfield. Rightful claim on pilots side me thinks.
But plane was found to be reparable and therefore did not show as 'loss' in the records - but someone else claims 60 years later that pilots was a liar, you see no loss recorded that day...

Bottom line is:
Everything that was written down during the war has to be taken with a grain of salt.
Fog of war having a big influence indeed.

So it's kind of ridiculous to point at certain documents of that time and shout 'I got proof' and the pointing at another one and saying 'that's full of lies'....


To get back to the topic: anyone noticed the absence of Il-2's in that list? Did Hartman never attack IL-2's being afraid of Oleg's rear gunners or did he simply never stumble upon Il-2's? I mean there were only few http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif around, no?

***** </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


+1

Holds true for all sides.

tools4foolsA
12-03-2007, 05:51 AM
luftluuver,

yep, that's it, just 12 Il-2 among 352...
15 on that other site.

Is surprisingly few in my opinion.

Maybe he preferred to stay high and hunt the fighters only?
Or flew high cover while the others went after Il-2's?
****

luftluuver
12-03-2007, 06:03 AM
Originally posted by tools4foolsA:
luftluuver,

yep, that's it, just 12 Il-2 among 352...
15 on that other site.

Is surprisingly few in my opinion.

Maybe he preferred to stay high and hunt the fighters only?
Or flew high cover while the others went after Il-2's?
****
Barkhorn didn't make that many Il-2 claims either.
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/barkhorn.html

Neither did Hermann Graf.

tools4foolsA
12-03-2007, 07:05 AM
32 for Barkhorn.
About 10 for Graf.
94 fro Kittel.
16 for Grislawski.
24 for Nowotny.
46 for Batz.
39 for Lipfert.
55 for Hafner.
11 for Krupinski.
12 fro Gollob.
58 for Rudorffer.
17 for Lang.

Looks like Hartmann was really after fighters most of the time. In fact most of the pilots above considering their totals.
Possible that shooting up unescorted Il-2 didn't happen too often? Getting tangeled up with escorts most of the time?
Which would show a good escort effort for the Russian side...
****

HuninMunin
12-03-2007, 11:08 AM
From reading I have gathered the notion that the 52nd was ( by it's elite character) very often ( sometimes exclusivly in larger battles ) used as the air superiority spearhead or a kind of fireguard if you wish.

Rall in particular reports a whole lot of Freie Jagd missions; wich in a way seem unappropriate in context with battles like Kursk or the retirement battles during the massive southern retreat.

So maybe the nature of Hartmann's record is grounded in the operational usage of his unit.

ViktorViktor
12-03-2007, 12:13 PM
What finally convinced me once and for all that the Luftwaffe had some really for real high scorers was reading Lipfert's war diary.

Lipfert had about 203 kills and described about one third of these combats in good detail in his diary. Alot of these combats sounded exactly like a debriefing from an IL-2 sortie.

This guy knew exactly what he was doing (after awhile) - he was definitely 'experten' and was perfectly capable of shooting down 200 planes.

He even describes combats where he was not awarded a kill for not fulfilling the technical requirements (no witnesses etc.), and combats where he might have shot down a plane but didn't dare hang around to confirm the kill.

This fellow definitely shot down at least 100+ aircraft. And he does not question the scores of the pilots he flew with who had higher totals (like Hartmann).

FPSOLKOR
12-03-2007, 09:30 PM
Claims by Wisenberg
http://eismeerfront.com/eis_html/teo.htm

Losses of VVS RKKA and VVS SF
http://eismeerfront.com/eis_html/poteri.htm

La7_brook
12-04-2007, 12:48 AM
My Translation not working but thinking your talking about sept 42 with jg5? there was bad weather in that month , what were soviet losses in accidents in this time zone ? i see that one of jg5 flyers reported claiming 13 and soviets confirm 7 of these , did the weather claim 6 here in soviet losses? good case for the fog of war in the battle

FPSOLKOR
12-04-2007, 02:28 AM
I'm not saying anything. I just provided the information, that you can use for your pleasure.

La7_brook
12-04-2007, 02:39 AM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
I'm not saying anything. I just provided the information, that you can use for your pleasure. Fog of War , if go into the deak in combat were shot down or did crush because of the bad weather, one sides say weather the other says shot down , in 5 years of air combat there will all ways be cases like this

La7_brook
12-04-2007, 02:56 AM
Forcing the enemy too make a move in combat that he can not do is a win to the victor is it not? shot down or not , victor claiming combat kill or should he not ?

ViktorViktor
12-04-2007, 03:14 AM
On a lighter note, can you imagine what kind of changes Oleg would have to make to the AI if it turns out that it is true that many aces overclaimed - or made false claims ?

You'd probably see at the ace level of AI, the ace pilot often miss the opponent with a burst then run for home, yet get rewarded a kill later after landing. While other AI pilots (the ones simulating conservative, honest flyers)would only be awarded kills for legitimate shood downs.

Perhaps this could be incorporated into BOB ?

ultraHun
12-04-2007, 03:31 AM
Doesn't come BoB with a much more complex AI which pilots have somekinw (whatever) of "character" modelled?

I want the following feature:

You are not automatically credited with your victories, but you need to fill your claims report. This then gets evaluated, based on whether an AI plane was near, what kind of situational awareness they had, etc.

Example 1: four-ship-formation. You shoot one bogey but file three claims. Every AI comrade remembers one plane going down. Three kills credited http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif.

Example 2: You shoot one bogey. Veteran AI from higher ranking element nearby remembers to have shot at a plane of similar type at rougly similar time as well. No victory credited to you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif .

That would greatly add immersion and enhance player satisfaction.

Feathered_IV
12-04-2007, 05:42 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif