Warbird Information Exchange

I got my copy, a 1969 Fourth Printing, and on page 237 the authors compare the number of missions that German and Allied flyers flew (1,000 to 2,000 missions for the Germans compared to 250 to 400 missions for the Allies) but I could not find anything specific to a number of aircraft averaged destroyed per mission. The authors comment being that the Germans consequently had greater opportunity to score kills. They go into a variety of other details, but it seems most of you are familiar with the book.

JMC

By the time Hartmann faced Mustangs he had over 200 kills at least. His personal attack tactics were highly honed. I don't know which model 109 he flew but if it could have been an example with nitrous or other supplemental fuel injection giving his 109 at least parity in some circumstances. (Versions of the G6 had that as well as the G14 and K models that he flew.) In any event book performance figures are not the primary factor in determining success in air combat. Pilot skill and experience can negate opposing aircraft superiority in performance to a degree. Hartmann is generally considered to be a superb all around pilot. He was known to make demanding off angle shots on occasion, but he preferred his close in attack. He didn't care for manuevering combat but could if he had to turn with the best of them. When he did it was at a time when he was disadvantaged and he did it only long enough to break away. I don't know who the Luftwaffe high scorer against Mustangs was but I doubt the 7 or so kills that Hartmann is generally credited with were even close.

There is an author that has come up with statistic that he calls the Strike Ratio being the ratio of combat flights versus confirmed kills. Hartmanns 1400 combat missions versus 352 confirmed kills I recall puts him in the middle of the pack. The leading strike ratio is a German pilot with 71 victories in 70 missions.

_________________
"I can't understand it, I cut it twice and it's still too short!" Robert F. Dupre' 1923-2010 Go With God.

_________________
"If its red or dusty - DON'T TOUCH IT!

_________________
"If its red or dusty - DON'T TOUCH IT!

Others in Hartmann's group like Gunther Rahl also had top results. They were good and had a lot of chances for combat, and I think 7 of them had about 1000 kills. In Russia they were attacking, not on long bomber escort missions.Eric wrote that he often saw the enemy first, dove at high speed until he could come up from behind and below, and one close in pass was usually all that was needed. Gen. Rahl told me that at the start of the war it was easy to defeat the Russians, as their tactics were bad, ( using fighters like artillery to support the troops) as well as pilots and planes not being as good. By the end of the war, the Russians were better, and had many more planes. By the way, Eric did not enter at the start of the war, so he did not run up a big score that way.
As a pilot, after the war the was able to fly the early jets, like F-104 just fine, that other pilots had trouble with.
As for P-51D speed at altitude, I think many of the combats in Russia were at lower altitude.A light 109 might be a formidable opponent there, and it did have the cannon. Again, it was not bomber escort. While Eric did not prefer close in turning dogfights, he was able to hold his own in close combat with P-51s when needed and when outnumbered. His level of skill and experience would have been invaluable.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

Willi Steinmann bested Mustangs 12 times.

Here are a few others:

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

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

While you bring up a good point also remember that before an aircraft left the factory, it had to be accepted by the government and there was a tolerance for performance numbers. I would guess that if not every Mustang flew 437, most of them out of the factory came very close. the same holds true for those in service.
True

I believe the Mustang had the advantage at higher altitudes against the Bf 109 (Most "G" models) in almost all performance category. Bill M. (Drangondog) can give a pretty detailed assessment on this

_________________
"If its red or dusty - DON'T TOUCH IT!

There are so many variables in play in any given engagment that aircraft performance really wouldn't be much of a factor. A highly experienced pilot in an inferior aircraft is capable of many things. Considerations:
- experience of the pilot, fatigue level, etc)
- how much fuel on board (total weight at time of engagement)
- relative positions at start of engagement (altitude, sun position, etc)

Most aircraft have positive and negative traits. Maximizing the positive traits of your aircraft against the weaknesses of an opponents aircraft is a mix of training, experience, and the ability to 'read' your opponent. Highly honed skills in deflection shooting are traits of high scorers of all nations.

If you removed the names I would think you're mentioning Réne Fonck

There is a soviet author, D. Khzanov, who put to question Hartmanns victories, claiming a cross-check against soviet records (read it in french mag, Fana de l'Aviation). His article is counter-argued here: http://web.archive.org/web/200702091538 ... laims.html

(I had to go to archive.org wayback machine because AOL sites don't exist anymore...)

there is a summary in the wikipedia page about Bubbi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Hartmann):

"One Soviet historian, Dimitri Khazanov, has attempted to prove that Hartmann did not score anywhere near 352 victories. Khazanov quoted Hartmann having shot down 70-80 Soviet aircraft. However, Khazanov has been heavily criticised by Jean-Yves Lorant and Hans Ring for faulty research. Ring and Lorant both point out that the missions that Khazonov tried to use to prove Hartmann's claims false were riddled with false and misleading information. For example, Khazonov claimed that on a mission on 20 August 1943, Hartmann claimed two victories west of Millerowo but not a single Soviet aircraft was lost. German records show not a single claim was made in that area. Hartmann's victories were recorded east of Kuteinikowo, some 160 kilometres away.[54] On 29 May 1944, Khazanov claimed Hartmann reported three La-5s shot down over Roman, Romania. This was also false. Hartmann claimed a single P-39 over Iaşi.[54] Hans Ring said the mistakes in Khazanov's work "serve to expose the superficial nature of Khazanov's assertions and confirm that his only goal in compiling his article was to discredit Hartmann and his record."[54] Even Khazanov points out in his article that during Hartmann's show trial, one of the Soviet charges was the destruction of 352 (the actual number was 345) Soviet aircraft.[55]"

_________________
rreis

If you want pictures, see rreis@flickr

Direct comparison of aircraft capabilities is not always a useful yardstick in explaining why one particular individual was successful in air-to-air combat. Recall that the MiG-15 was actually a better performing aircraft than the F-86, yet the kill ratio in Korea did not reflect the "superiority" of the MiG.

A pilot in a Piper Cub could down an F-16 if the timing and conditions were right.



This. Doesn't matter if you're in a platinum-plated toy if you get popped unaware.

_________________

They figure 80% of the Hurricanes lost during the BoB were bought down that way..

_________________
Those who think it,s impossible should leave the ones doing it alone..
http://www.spitfireprojecta58-27.com/

I took Stocky Edwards flying in the P-40, and during the lead-up to that (3 years of occasional conversation) I asked him if he thought Hartmann shot down 352. Stocky replied, "Of course -- he had the targets!"

I don't think there was any question in his mind -- if he'd had the same opportunities (if you can call them that), he'd have had similar results.

Stocky is Canada's leading surviving fighter ace -- most of his victories being scored in the Western Desert, from positions of tactical disadvantage, in a P-40.

As for P-51D vs Bf-109whatever, I don't think it matters much. It's the man inside.

It's about fighting, not flying.

Dave

Erich Hartmann's last Bf 109

A Bf 109 G-10

Here's a quote from the artist of the rendering below.
"A month ago I would have sworn to anyone that would listen that there was no way that Erich Hartmann's last Bf109 would be wearing the black tulip on the nose as it would have been too dangerous to wear and too time-consuming to paint given the situation on the eastern front. Then a man finds a photo album at a market and by a stroke of luck he knows the significance of the photo he's got in front of himself and all the sudden there's proof that Hartmann's G-10 did indeed have a black tulip painted on the nose!"

Below the blog where the photos and explanation were posted.
http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/2011/09/e ... -g-10.html

Also some interesting discussion on Hartmann's victory total.
http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/2010/03/e ... or-80.html
















The artists blog here:
http://theprofilepaintshop.blogspot.com ... label/JG52

_________________
Zero Surprise!!...

This is probably a stupid question and has an obvious answer. I've always wondered how the US ground kills were actually confirmed as a kill versus a probable since I would imagine just because you have gun camera evidence of hitting a plane on the ground, unless it blows up or is on fire how do you know it was "killed"? In an aerial kill the victim crashes, but when they're on the ground you don't necessarily get that kind of evidence.