Author Topic: thruth or BS?  (Read 1408 times)

Offline SFRT - Frenchy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5420
      • http://home.CFL.rr.com/rauns/menu.htm
thruth or BS?
« on: August 29, 2002, 07:44:44 AM »
Galant's kill score

Alternate Views on Adolf Galland's WW2 Kills

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sirs, I am submitting the enclosed material in response (more or less) to J. W. Urwin's fine article on Belgian Ace, Willy G. Coppens in the January 1981 issue of Air Classics Magazine, and to Thomas A. Young's comment in the June 1981 "Airlines" commentary column. Both speculated as to whether the last and greatest of Belgium's WWI aces was still alive. Well, the enclosed letter and related material should serve to show that at age eigthy-nine, Baron Coppens d'Houthulst is alive and indeed kicking.
Mr. Coppens asked me to translate a letter he'd previously published in a French magazine, and requested that it be submitted to an appropriate American journal for publication. I thought Air Classics Magazine appropriate since it has, in the past, done articles on the Luftwaffe aces, it has published an article recently on Belgium's air war in May 1940 (Michael Terlinden's "Eighteen Days of Hell", Air Classics 1978 Yearbook), and because Coppens himself has been the subject of Mr. Urwin's recent article.

There is no doubt about the controversial nature of Mr. Coppens' subject - although Terlinden's Eighteen Days of Hell article supports some of his arguments - and a strong anti-German bias shows it. But keep in mind, as a Belgian, Mr. Coppens has seen his country occupied and ravaged twice by the Germans ... that might tend to color one's feelings a bit.

I do hope you publish this direct translation of Mr. Coppens' own words, so that I can report to him that a promise has been kept. But in any case, this should answer the question as to whether he is around to read Mr. Urwin's story.

Sincerely,
Jon Guttman
Palisades, New York




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


WHY DOWNGRADE THE ACES OF FRANCE?
by Baron Willy Coppens de Houthulst
Reading in Paris Match Magazine of 20 December, 1975, an article devoted to two aces of the 1939-45 War, one English and one Nazi - Wing Commander R. R. Stanford Tuck whom Paris Match credits with thirty-five aerial victories (he officially counts twenty-nine, according to the list of the "Top Scoring Fighter Pilots Serving with the RAF during World War Two" which the RAF high commander sent to me), and General Adolf Galland who is attributed 104 - I regret once again, to see thus depreciated the aces of France - - their score belittled in proclaiming the unbelievable results of the aces of Hitler and of the conceited Goering.

In his book, Aerial Combat, Air Vice Marshal Johnny Johnson, who reported thirty-eight official victories during the 1939-45 war, remarks not without irony that during the Battle of Britain "the RAF fighters claimed an average of three victories for two planes actually shot down, but among the Germans it was six for two," a leveling having been carried out after the war.

In eleven published articles, I myself demonstrated a counter-truth of Adolf Galland, taking the pains to send them to his official address in Bonn. And the ex-general Galland, not admitted into the new Federal German Army (so the ambassador to Brussels tells me) since he returned from Argentina in 1952 after seven years of voluntary exile, Galland could not reply to my articles confining himself, as an excuse for everything, to writing to the General Delegate of the French Aces Association that I had it in for him. Would I be the only one?

In 1944 General Galland didn't protest at all -as did his compatriot and brother-in-arms, Walter Nowotny -when Hitler had fifty escapees from Stalag Luft III, unfortunately retaken by the Gestapo, executed. When Hitler gave an order, he always found some Germans to obey them. And Goering, ace of 1914-18, was nothing but a valet!

What to think of Galland? Returned from Argentina, received in Federal Germany as a hero by all who kept pride in the Third Reich, he flattered his conquerors, French and English. Marcel Julliand remarks in his book The Battle of Britain that Adolf Galland rings of such utterances - anti- Nazi - "when the war was over and Goering was dead."

In return, taking pen in hand, Adolf Galland cynically slandered the young Belgian aviators, describing the flight of a squadron of eight Hawker Hurricane fighters (forty-eight black, yellow and red cockades) attacked by he and his only wingman, Lt. Gustav Rodel, sole witness to the gold-plating of his general. Galland claimed to have shot down two of the runaways on the morning of 13 May 1940, the fourth day of the war in Belgium and a third Belgian Hurricane of a squadron of five, during the afternoon of the same day, the Belgian fighters never accepting combat despite their superiority in numbers.

This appears in the memoirs of ex-General Galland, published after his return from Argentina under the title whose French edition is prefaced by the aviator Emile Sternberg -the English edition reports these deeds, injurious to my countrymen, on the date of 12 May. The original German edition, describing the attack on the eight Belgians when he fired on one of them who took flight at that moment, says textually that "far from bringing help to their comrade, the seven others scattered to the four winds." Despite that, Galland caught the first in his diving descent and shot him down, then one of the seven others, shot down in its turn ... I would like Hitler's ace to make me a drawing, explaining how he did it, for our Hurricanes showed hardly less speed than his Messerschmitt.

My eleven articles had turned to account another argument, irrefutable. On 13 May 1940, the Belgian Air Force hadn't a single Hawker Hurricane left. Our other single-seaters were biplanes, which prevented any confusion.

On 9 May 1940, we still had eleven Hurricanes, all lined up on the field at Schaffen-lez-Diest, fifty kilometers from the frontier which the German Army crossed ten minutes after having destroyed nine Hurricanes on the ground in a surprise attack carried out by three German twin-engined planes flying at ground level, followed by combat planes and bombers circling at 2,000 meters. The last two were destroyed in the same manner, on the ground, the following afternoon, on the field at Beauvechain.

Then what would be the Hawker Hurricanes which General Galland claimed to have met in the Belgian sky on 13 May 1940? The Dutch didn't have any. And I challenge Galland to publish that they would be eight pilots of the RAF who took flight before him and his wingman -on 22 July 1966, the commandant of the Royal Air Force, Air Chief Marshal Sir Charles Elworthy, figures in hand, proved to me, that three Hurricanes were not lost on 12 or 13 May 1940.

The conclusion asserts itself: these three Hurricanes must be deducted from Galland's score. Should one believe that there remain 101 undeniable victories?

In his memoirs, Hunters in the Sun, prefaced by Douglas Bader, twenty-victory ace who was hosted by General Galland in France when Bader was a prisoner in 1941, Air Vice Marshal Johnny Johnson explains the means employed by Hitler's and Goering's propaganda to inflate the successes of their aces: an Allied twin-engined bomber shot down counted for two "points" to the victor, a four-engined one as three. The points were doubled when victories were reported at night. Furthermore, the leaders of formations had their points augmented in function to the total obtained by the pilots they led into combat -that was often the case with General Galland.

This grocer's accounting explains the 352 "victories" counted to Erich Hartmann. And also the fact that it sufficed for General Galland to produce the witness of his wingman, a subaltern sharing points with his leader if a success was confirmed, likewise three in one day!

The French and Allied aces had no reason to yield before the crushing imaginary superiority of the Nazi fighters. The survivors of 1914-18 were wrong to confirm in their turn the exagerated records of our adversaries of the second war, in making them members of their association. The chivalric spirit is particularly laudable on condition that it does not allow deceit.

The French and English must keep for Rene Fonck with seventy-five aerial victories, to William Bishop who reported seventy-two, and to Georges Guynemer who fell after his fifty-third, the admiration that proud people have for their heroes.

Regards,
Baron Willy Coppens de Houthulst
Dat jugs bro.

Terror flieger since 1941.
------------------------

Offline tofri

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 96
      • http://www.tofri.de
thruth or BS?
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2002, 08:05:20 AM »
:D  :D  :D  :D  :D
ROFLOL
:D  :D  :D  :D  :D

Frankly I don't give a damn about Galandts score or the reliability of status reports of the crushed Belgian Airforce.
The way of counting kills were too different to compare them.

But it is good to see, that there are whiners outside of AcesHigh.

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
thruth or BS?
« Reply #2 on: August 29, 2002, 08:16:44 AM »
"an Allied twin-engined bomber shot down counted for two "points" to the victor, a four-engined one as three. The points were doubled when victories were reported at night. Furthermore, the leaders of formations had their points augmented in function to the total obtained by the pilots they led into combat -that was often the case with General Galland.

This grocer's accounting explains the 352 "victories" counted to Erich Hartmann."


The article is stupid because it thinks the awards point system for medal counted towards the actual kill talley. How ignorant is this idiot?

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Re: thruth or BS?
« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2002, 08:41:47 AM »
Hi Frenchy,

I'd say that the doubts about the accuracy of Galland's combat record aren't particularly serious. Aerial combat records are generally inaccurate to a certain degree, and I'm sure Galland's is no exception, but there's no reason to assume it was deliberately faked.

There are some misunderstandings about victory counts in Coppen's letter:

The point count was mot equal to the victory count. It rewarded disciplined attacks on bomber formations and counted towards awards, but it did not replace kill counts. It wasn't used at the Eastern Front at all (so it never applied to Hartmann).

The victory counts announced by German propaganda were not equal to the total of the pilot's confirmed victories. Official confirmation took some time (sometimes months), so ad-hoc reporting would always be inaccurate anyway.

I think WW2 victories are much harder to verify than the WW1 victories were. All but 5 of Richthofen's victims are known by name and unit - I don't think such a degree of accuracy was possible with the greater numbers and much larger combat areas in WW2. (It's a bit ironic Coppen mentions Bishop - his famous "dawn patrol" kills were not even confirmed by a wingman, as far as I know.)

The Hurricane question remains unclear, but I don't think that files don't match each other is unique case, or limited to Luftwaffe claims.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline Ossie

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 105
thruth or BS?
« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2002, 09:51:07 AM »
HoHun, I was going to mention the same thing regarding Bishop. The debate over the legitimacy of his kills (I believe he may have had two kills either witnessed or cross-referenced) still rages to this day. The crappy part about aerial victories is that not even the pilots could be absolutely certain.

Offline J_A_B

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
thruth or BS?
« Reply #5 on: August 29, 2002, 01:21:32 PM »
WW1 victories were harder to verify.  Often if the wreck didn't fall in friendly territory it couldn't be claimed.

Rickenbacker had 2 kills he claimed but couldn't get confirmed.  Fonck has 75 confirmed but claimed about 120.  Since Fonk flew a lot of solo missions deep behind enemy lines that's not entirely impossible (although he was also something of a braggart), compared to Richthofen's strict squadron-based flights mostly over friendly territory or over the lines where kills could almost always be confirmed.    

Ball and Bishop also flew solo behind enemy lines a fair amount although the British/Canadians seemed more willing to count kills that weren't witnessed by friendly actions (Bishop was awarded the Victoria Cross for an action that no friendlies witnessed for example).    

In general, kills were easier to get confirmed in WW2 than in WW1, thanks to features like gun cameras and stricter squad-based flying.

J_A_B

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
thruth or BS?
« Reply #6 on: August 29, 2002, 01:49:21 PM »
Hi Jab,

>In general, kills were easier to get confirmed in WW2 than in WW1, thanks to features like gun cameras and stricter squad-based flying.

I was merely aiming at the positive identification of the unit, aircraft and pilot after the war. Richthofen surely is the best-researched example (and he did much to establish his victim's identity personally), but I don't think it would be possible to reach a similar level of completeness for any WW2 ace with a comparable kill count.

Galland couldn't even find out reliably who had shot down Bader, though it certainly had been a pilot of his unit.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline J_A_B

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
thruth or BS?
« Reply #7 on: August 29, 2002, 01:55:21 PM »
Well, in the sense of identifying WHO your victims were, you're absolutely right..

BTW, what ever happened to the small silver victory trophies Richthofen had made for his first 60 or so kills?


J_A_B

Offline Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9531
thruth or BS?
« Reply #8 on: August 29, 2002, 01:59:09 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
[BThe article is stupid because it thinks the awards point system for medal counted towards the actual kill talley. How ignorant is this idiot? [/B]

Perhaps not so ignorant.  There has always been a general uneasiness that the point system spilled over into kill claims.  Caldwell figures that German B-17 claims may be double the actual losses.

Frankly, I've never been able to believe that 100 Nazi pilots shot down 15,000 planes.

- oldman

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
thruth or BS?
« Reply #9 on: August 29, 2002, 03:27:27 PM »
The old guy seems inordinalty offended at the way that Galland described the scattering of the belgians. He should not be.
Doubting the accuracy of the German kill claims will get you no  where. They have been checked and double checked and are in fact more accurate than allied kill claims.
The allies at the time knew that the germans were counting fairly accuratly. They didnt put a reward on Hartmans head for lying about how many russians he shot down..They put it there for acctually shooting them down.
They knew that at the channel coast 2 wings of germans were contesting dozens of wings of allies...they knew how many planes they were losing...
If the germans  had been in the business of lying about kills they would have claimed far more kills durring the defence of the reich then they did. That was the place they needed the morale boost.
The russians have admitted to 44000 loses vs aircraft in ww2 I believe, 90 % of them were shot down by 10% of the pilots.. a stat that is pretty constant throughout the history of air warfare..
There is no conspiracy here. Just alot of enemies available to the top german pilots if they could stay alive and keep cherry picking...

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
thruth or BS?
« Reply #10 on: August 30, 2002, 07:05:24 AM »
"Frankly, I've never been able to believe that 100 Nazi pilots shot down 15,000 planes."


Why? Because they werent flying for a democratic, socialist or communist country? :D

Listen the big LW pilots were the most expereinced and most seasoned combat fliers in all of history. They fought for a very long time and achieved great success.  

And yes it is plainly out of ignorance that the point system is ever thought of as a kill talley. The LW knew their own system very well, incredulous and jelous french/belgian postwar writers do not.

Erich Hartmann had 352 confirmed victories. No amount of whining by some ignorant french writer will ever change that. :D

Offline Naudet

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 729
thruth or BS?
« Reply #11 on: August 30, 2002, 07:29:22 AM »
I can barrely believe that the german victory/point system is so hard to understand.
It works pretty simple.

The pilot claims a victory, if this victory is confirmed he will be credited with 1 victory to his score.
Medals and rank were given in the LW mainly due to victory scores.

But as war progressed the germans realized (especially against 4-eng-buffs) that also just the damaging of such a hard target was a success that should be regonized.

And so they introduced the point system.

1 point: fighter kill (counts as victory), final destruction of a 2-/4-eng-buff (counts as victory), formation-shoot-out of a 2-eng-buff(does NOT count as victory)

2 points: 2-eng-buff kill (counts as victory), formation-shoot-out of a 4-eng-buff(does NOT count as victory)

3 points: 4-eng-buff kill (counts as victory)


So you can see pilots could be credited with POINTS for damaging multi-eng-buffs, but would not than get a victory for that.

So Experts in breaking off B17 formations by damaging multiple B17 could earn points, so that they could progress in rank and earn medals, but could in extreme cases (which never took place i guess) score points without ever getting a single victory to their credit.

Offline Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9531
thruth or BS?
« Reply #12 on: August 30, 2002, 09:22:58 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
"Frankly, I've never been able to believe that 100 Nazi pilots shot down 15,000 planes."

Why? Because they werent flying for a democratic, socialist or communist country? :D


Nope.  Mainly because it was so contrary to the experience of every other country's pilots.  Allies, Axis, you name 'em, the top aces everywhere else maxxed out at 100 kills or so - and most weren't even close to that.  Nazis claimed to have 100 guys in this category.  Granting that the situations were different everywhere, I think this pushes the believability envelope.

Listen the big LW pilots were the most expereinced and most seasoned combat fliers in all of history. They fought for a very long time and achieved great success.  

And yes it is plainly out of ignorance that the point system is ever thought of as a kill talley. The LW knew their own system very well, incredulous and jelous french/belgian postwar writers do not.

Erich Hartmann had 352 confirmed victories. No amount of whining by some ignorant french writer will ever change that. :D


I'm open to re-education.  Seems to me that Caldwell, the guy who wrote the JG 26 series, has probably done as good an investigation into Nazi kills as anyone else.  According to him, there AREN'T ANY "confirmed" kills, because "at the end of the war, the Luftwaffe destroyed its master list of victory confirmations."  JG26, p. 405.  What you have left is kill claims submitted to the RLM by the various geschwader.

I note also that Caldwell (p. 171) found that "[r]esearch for this book revealed that many pilots' "separation" claims were ultimately awarded as "victories"; occasionally claims by other pilots were allowed for the "final destruction" of the same aircraft.  It is easy to see that the system led to claims duplication by a factor of as much as two."

That means, um, double, I think.  He continues:  "German claims for the destruction of heavy bombers (even when confirmed) are more difficult to reconcile with Allied losses than claims for any other aircraft type; it is probably that part of the explanation lies with the point system."

My own reading of German pilots' accounts - esp. during the 1944-45  period - certainly doesn't make me think that their claims were particularly accurate, in this period at least.  Those guys were getting swarmed in many, if not most, of their fights, and were still claiming kills here and kills there.  Check Wili Heilmann's book as an example.  Heh heh.  Note that his account of shooting down the American gliders is confirmed by Caldwell - at p. 233 - except that the gliders were on the ground (empty), were strafed by the Germans, and were claimed as kills.

Granting that the Russian skill level wasn't the same as the Western Allies', the Nazis were getting swarmed out there, too.

I would expect Johnnie Johnson, as a fellow fighter pilot, to call a spade a spade.  He thought the German claims were grossly inflated.

So, all this is by way of saying that I'd love to see something - by someone who backs it up - that would make me think the Nazi pilots really were supermen (this would probably exclude Constable & Toliver, who don't back up their conclusions with actual investigation).  

- oldman

Offline Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9531
thruth or BS?
« Reply #13 on: August 30, 2002, 09:25:25 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Pongo
The russians have admitted to 44000 loses vs aircraft in ww2 I believe, 90 % of them were shot down by 10% of the pilots.. a stat that is pretty constant throughout the history of air warfare..
There is no conspiracy here. Just alot of enemies available to the top german pilots if they could stay alive and keep cherry picking...


I go into this a bit more in response to Grunherz, Pongo, but the Nazis claim that their top 100 guys shot down almost half of these Russian losses.  I doubt that 100 pilots was 10% of the Luftwaffe fighter force during the course of the war.

- oldman

Offline Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9531
thruth or BS?
« Reply #14 on: August 30, 2002, 09:27:30 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Naudet
So you can see pilots could be credited with POINTS for damaging multi-eng-buffs, but would not than get a victory for that.

So Experts in breaking off B17 formations by damaging multiple B17 could earn points, so that they could progress in rank and earn medals, but could in extreme cases (which never took place i guess) score points without ever getting a single victory to their credit.


Heh heh, Naudet.  Theory v. practice.  See my post to Grunherz.  FWIW, I think the fact that the high command felt it necessary to introduce such a system indicates its willingness to go easy on claims.

- oldman