Talk:Erich Hartmann
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||||||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
'Scored his 300th aerial victory and was thus awarded the Knights Cross.'
I have deleted the word 'thus' from para 4 in the article. It gives the impression that pilots were automatically awarded the Knights Cross because they had scored 300 victories.
84.130.121.234 16:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
What exactly did the USSR charge him with? - LamontCranston 06:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
As far as I know he was first charged with a vague charge of destruction of State property - then the more spesific charge of shooting civilians. However - the Soviets didnt really need to charge him, as they held thousands of Germans for up to 10 years as POW's - regardless of wheter they had commited war crimes or not. Abel29a 23:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Hartmann never shot down 352 aircraft. The Luftwaffe inflated all scores and since he was a leader of formation he had his score augmented in function to the total obtained by the pilots he led into combat.
Article found about the Luftwaffe's pratice of increasing victories which. This explains why the Luftwaffe had many high scoring aces during the war. Its mostly about Galland, but also mentions Hartmann. I also heard about this practice while watching a doucmentry on the History Channel about the Battle of Britain. I believe its safe to say Hartmann never scored 352. http://members.aol.com/geobat66/galland/coppens.htm
This assumption of inflated scores is incorrect; The luftwaffe ace's scores stand up to scrutiny far better than any other of the combatant nations in WW2; whilst inevitably there was alot of over claiming ( as happens in all air combat in WW2) Hartmann was the top scorer in an Luftwaffe fighter force that; - was outnumbered and therefore had plenty of targets -on all fronts, - was for the first half of the war at least tactically and technologically superior to all its opponents. - flew far more missions than Allied pilots ( Hartmann flew got his 352 in ~800 missions, Francis Grabreski, one of the highest scoring USAAF pilot got 28 kills in ~153) - did not have rest periods like Allied pilots- they flew until they were incapacitated or died. The 'points' system referred to was in fact dvised by the luftwaffe to 'even up' the gallantry awards system between the Russian Front aces -who were shooting down far more aircraft and getting far more 'gongs'- and their ertswhile comrades on the Channel coast, fighting a far tougher RAF and USAAF- hence a Russian fighter down was one point towards an Iron cross, Knights Cross etc , a B17 was 4 points, etc etc. This is often confused for actual shoot-downs, but certainly not by the Luftwaffe at the time!! [[[User:Harryurz|Harryurz]] 20:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)]
It is "Staffel Kapitän" if the "Staffel Kaptain" ought to be German. 80.109.198.157 08:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Fixed Abel29a 23:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Suggest all readers of this page check the writings of Col. Raymond Toliver, Validator of the U.S. Fighter Aces Association. Toliver examined the Hartmann data and concluded that "the Hartmann records are more accurate than ours [U.S.]." Gamahler 03:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
And yet his Mustang claims dropped down from 7 to 2 quite easily. Should the reduction % be kept for all his claims?
In your dreams! When Hartmann surrendered JG52 to the U.S. Army, all their logs were “captured” and retained before the personnel was handed over to the Soviets. These are the Hartmann records that show No. 265 and No. 347 as P-51 Mustangs. Just because he fought for a despicable regime seems to be sufficient reason for clubs of professional and amateur doubters to “feel” that Hartmann’s achievements must somehow be less than what they are.--Gamahler 20:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Another very problematic claim presented in the article is that he shot down "over 200 LaGG fighters". Apart from a very rounded number the La GG was an aircraft that was being gradually phased out of service in the Soviet Air Force from mid-1943, being replaced by La-5 (a not-so-similar aircraft since it used radial engine vs inline for La-GG). Hartmann flew from mid 1942, right? So why are ALL of his victories over the Soviet fighters La GGs? And where are the Yaks? They were the main Soviet fighters of the war and he shot down none? I`ve read a story that his last victory was a Yak (9 or 3) performing acrobations over the just-liberated Prague. And Il-2 s (and 10s) were also a very common aircraft on the Eastern front (also being the single most produced type of aircraft in WW2 and possibly in history). And he shot down only 15 out of his 352 victories? Sources, please or LOL!
The longer I`m investigating into the claims of aces from all sides, the more I`m convinced that they hardly shot down half of what they claimed.
go to http://www.luftwaffe.cz/hartmann.html and review the kill listings- there are plenty of Yak aircraft claimed there- as for the 'LaGG' issue these numbers invariably include LaGG3, La-5 and La-7 types all lumped into the same recorded category. The change in the Lavochkin LaGG abbrevation was due to the fact that one of the original LaGG designers was no longer with the programme.Harryurz 18:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ok so we agree! Hartmann's kill tally included some 200 LaGG-3 fighters La GG-3 is a specific version of the Lavochkin series of fighters so this is clearly wrong! I`m changing it to "various single-engined Soviet-built fighters".
I have absolutely no expertise on Soviet flying machinery and readily defer to your input. Some twenty years ago I attended a course on “Archival Research” at the National Archives, Washington, D.C. I recall a hand-out listing an inventory of massive amounts of “captured” records of the Third Reich, including most, if not all, Luftwaffe documents that survived bombing. If some of this was later returned to the former enemy, it was microfilmed. I assume that the JG52 logs in original or microfilm are part of this collection and are thus available as copies to enterprising fact-finders through some sort of inter-library loan. Should the opportunity present itself, I will visit the Regional Archives Branch, National Archives, San Francisco, make inquiries and report back. My contribution to wikipedia was simply to support Raymond Toliver and his opinion on Erich Hartmann - and it ends there. I am convinced Toliver’s credibility and standing in the air war fraternity is impeccable. That said, thank you for your info and your courtesy.--Gamahler 04:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Bear in mind that Toliver wrote his 1986. book without any accsess to the Soviet casualty records in their heavilly censored archives, so he had no way to actually verify the claims.
Here is a link that describes the difference between the "points" system (used for awards) and kill tally. http://members.aol.com/dheitm8612/score.htm I think it is perfectly plausable (and true, IMO) to say Hartmann did indeed shoot down 352 enemy aircraft. Besides, the claim that is score was inflated was investigated by the authors of The Blond Knight of Germany and found to be without merrit.
- Regardless of the distinction between kills and points, I find it difficult to accept that the Hartmann/Bf109 combination v Soviets was almost 10 times better than Dick Bong/P-38 v Japanese. The WW2 German practice of rewarding pilots in direct proportion to their number of kills provided a clear, material incentive to inflate claims.
- Here are the words of Maj Robert F. Tate USAFR, reviewing Desert Warriors: Australian P-40 Pilots at War in the Middle East and North Africa, 1941–1943 by Russell Brown (2000):
- In many books and articles on the desert air war, pilots of the desert air forces, primarily Australian and South African, are often considered second rate. When we view them through our typical ethnocentric American eyes, we often want to downgrade their abilities in order to justify the apparent kills of their German counterparts. It is apparent that the Australian pilots had their fair share of “Stuka parties” and drew blood against the Luftwaffe on a regular basis. However, they are often incorrectly portrayed as hapless pilots forced to cower for safety in the defensive Lufbery Circle while hotshot Luftwaffe pilots had their way with them, shooting them down in droves time and time again. In our minds, how else could the top Luftwaffe aces have achieved the victories they claimed if their opponents were anything but substandard? Not only does this book demonstrate the quality, professionalism, and tenacity of pilots within the Royal Australian Air Force, but also it debunks the myth of natural German superiority. Although the Germans did have very successful pilots in North Africa, the author is able to compare some German claims to actual losses on several occasions, demonstrating the not-too-uncommon habit of German overclaiming [emphasis added]. The author does this not to imply that German claims were widely distorted, admitting that overclaiming occurred on both sides, but to suggest that, on occasion, things were not as they necessarily seemed.[1]
- I'm thinking you could probably substitute "Soviet" for "Desert", "Australian" and "South African" there. Grant65 | Talk 02:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
In the case of the Western desert (although the same principles generally hold for many operations on the Eastern Front) the Allied Air Forces' sorties were tactical or ground-attacks directly subordinate to the ground Army's needs; this meant RAAF and SAAF fighter-bomber operations at low speed and low level- ideal for the available Luftwaffe pilots to ambush and build up large scores compared to the Allies. In the confusion of combat scores were inflated but rarely deliberately so; as with the Allied air claims.Harryurz 17:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- From that I guess you do think Hartmann+Bf109 v Soviets was almost 10X better than Dick Bong+P-38 v Japanese. Grant65 | Talk 07:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
By no means; I'm just pointing out that you cannot directly compare aces 'scores' in this overly simplistic way. Each theatre of war had its own unique opportunities and potential targets for certain pilots to build up different numbers of claims. Had Bong been German then he certainly would have been a top Luftwaffe ace- the fact he 'only' claimed 40 kills was due to the particular opportunities presented to him during his USAAF combat career in the Pacific.Harryurz 18:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Why couldnt Hartmann/Bf 109 be 10x more succesfull then Bong/P38? Bong flew in combat full time for a year and a half, dec '42-apr '44. Then had a six month leave and then flew in a semi-combat role from sep '44-jan '45. Compare that to Hartmanns sep '42-may'45 almost nonstop flying and you have a 1 year difference in "killing" time. In addition Bong flew in the pacific - meaning long distances(max one sortie per day if that), bigger chances of missing one's prey completely - looking for an elusive enemy. Hartmann on the other hand could fly two/three sorties a day and had a whole array of enemy targets all actively seeking the germans. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me to have a 10X advantage in kills under those conditions. Comparing the two aces is like comparing apples to oranges IMO. Abel29a 13:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I agree. When you read the combat histories of U.S. pilots like Bong or Thomas McGuire, you see long stretches where their sorties never encounter an enemy plane (particularly by 1944). By contrast, by 1944, the German pilots couldn't help but come across waves of Allied planes on each sortie. If you were a German (or Japanese) fighter pilot, it was a target-rich environment. Add on to that, at any given time the vast majority of pilots (on any side) were inexperienced. If you were good, and lucky, the opportunities awaited. Epstein's Mother 10:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
-
I hope this won´t become a "why dont we got the best aces?" "discussion". A "target-rich environment" means also a "thread-rich environment" cause fighting more enemies is not better, its worse. And flying allways nonstop aint good as well. Someone said they flew until they died while allied pilots had way longer rest periods and that will reduce a pilots efficency as well it produces enormeous stress. And to the "faked statistics". Those who win the wars fake their statistics afterwards to make it look good, not those who lost it. How could they, at least all of their documents where captured by the allies and if you have a faked statistic for the masses, you allways also have a real statistic for the insiders. To be a historian means much more then to be a wikipedia-author who read one or two books (in the best case)or saw one or two tv shows, proudly presented by the patriot-society and the US Airforce. You cant believe that thousands of historians from all over the world wouldnt have rewritten these facts when there were heavy doubts or facts who speak against it.
[edit] Downed Mustangs
OK, 2, 4 or 7? The number varies between the sources, but the 2 and 4 are both present in the article. Are we going to choose one number, or present all of them with references? The article contradicts itself as it stands. I personally think that lower numbers are mostly true when it comes to aircraft losses in general, but that`s just my oppinion.
[edit] Convicted or not?
In the After the War section it now states:
"Hartmann was charged with war crimes (specifically, deliberate shooting of Russian civilians) and was subjected to harsh treatment during the early years of his imprisonment, including solitary confinement in total darkness. Despite this, Hartmann refused to confess to these charges, which were later dropped"
Then in the last line:
"Russia exonerated Erich Hartmann in January 1997. It was stated that his conviction had not been lawful."
So was he convicted or were the charges dropped? As far as I know he was charged and convicted of a vague charge of destruction of state property, but it's been a while since I read the Blonde Knight of Germany or other reliable sources. Abel29a 13:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess being charged guilty for the destruction of "state property" is ridicolous in a war. Maybe it was some typical sort of winner mentality in soviet russia but even in modern russia (and remember he was exonerated in 1997), this wouldn´t be logical to convict someone. I mean as a fighter pilot you have a hard job if you´re into warcrimes, exept you enjoy it to waste you´re bullets on some villages or maybe cows out at feed. I mean soviet submarines sunk civilian or red cross ships full of refugees and weren´t court marshalled so it doesn´t matter if he was charged guilty or not cause it was clear winner justice. He would be a war criminal if there were facts (and if there were facts, he wouldnt have been exonerated.
