ERICH HARTMANN, NEVER SHOT DOWN??? 

Fantastic video, thank you so much! I flew Rall in my Cessna 206 in 2002. He took control at 300 feet, and flew the whole time! A great humble person!

Hartman's tactic was to approach his opponent as close as possible, to the point the enemy was almost covering full his targeting sights, before firing. This was dangerous as it was very difficult to evade all the debris coming from the plane ahead towards all directions. So, 14 times damaged from plane parts coming apart makes sense.

One Ace that is often forgotten but also deserves to be mentioned along the german super aces is Hans Joachim Marseille. All his 158 kills were against the western allies, his missions per kill ratio being pretty low at 2,46. He died early in the war (relatively speaking) meaning he could have easily increased his scores to even more impressive numbers. And also the cause of his death was not enemy fire, but the unrealibility of his Me 109 G.

It’s a good day when Greg puts out a new video

Absolutely fascinating! I really enjoyed the breakdown of the super aces.

This is fascinating Greg. Never seen these details presented before this way.

I wouldn't be entirely surprised about the crashing due to debris damage as Hartmann always claimed he wasn't a good shot so went in very close before firing. I believe he said something like, when the enemy fills my windscreen I can't miss. Regarding his kill count, given the number of missions he flew, in a fairly target rich environment, the total is not unrealistic.

If I recall correctly, Adolf Galland verified (or at least supported) a lot of this in his book "The First and the Last" - and held large amount of respect for Hartmann.

OH_ MY_GOD...Greg you are going to become a Y/T legend with this kind of content!!!!

Robert Dehaven (14 kills in PTO 49th FG 5th AF) told me that during one mission in mid-43 his P-40 got on the wrong side of a Ki-61 Tony. DeHaven had been caught napping and the Tony shredded his plane. DeHaven wasn't sure if the Tony ran out of ammo or thought the P-40 - properly smoking - was going down. Anyway, he nursed it back to base - crash landed the P-40 that was a total loss. DeHaven hoped the IJAF pilot claimed a kill because he gotten one: one US fighter ruined to never vex the empire. Of course DeHaven lived, but I'd guess a very high % of downed planes had pilots or crew that survived the encounter.

Thanks, Greg, for another provocative slide-show "video". I briefly met/spoke with Hartman at an Alton, Ill. airshow circa 1971. My dad spoke/interfaced with him while stationed at Wiesbaden, and Hartman was then in Bundeswaffe, circa 1960. Our mutual recollection that he was a somewat soft-spoken, self-effacing guy.. IIMO, a "shootdown" literally means shooting down (ergo, no "gray area" in this sense). However, if you make a decision leading to an empty fuel tank in combat, that leads to bailout/write-off of a/c, or you fly into ground in combat, then enemy a/c can be credited. Heck, there're stories of pilots just bailing out in combat. I never heard of official distinctions as "forced down-- enemy a/c totalled". In R.S.Johnson's story, he was shot to pieces by FW, but "landed" back at base, his a/c basically a write-off. FW probably not credited, but in a real sense a loss to US of one a/c. Lots of B-17's crash-landed in UK, to fly no more, after Schweinfurt--"grayer area"? I do think situation of Hartman's bailout qualifies as victory for Goebel, as pilot forced to bailout directly due to combat circumstances, even though Hartman/Richtofen literally correct--a distinction without a difference, except in personal accounting. In regard to question of Hartman's "honesty" in how he characterized his other non-bailout "events", it may be useful to check other sources (fellow JG 52 pilots, officers, ground crew, squadron logs/records), before concluding. These sources often revealing as to personality/character, if not outright facts. From my understanding, Luftwaffe personnel at unit level, like all nation's air forces, did not accept unethical behavior/reporting. BTW, excellent diary of fighting in the west, as Barr did, is "I Flew for the Fuehrer".

There is an account of the Hungarian pilot Tibor Tobak, who asked Hartmann, when Hartmann already was beyond his 300th kill, what is the most important thing after sighting the enemy. He said he wasn´t a good shot. Thus, aggressively approach the aircraft until the Revi (sight) is completely black (i.e. the enemy aircraft is completely filling the sight). Tobak was also a witness when 2 Mustangs strafed the Veszprem airfield, and Hartmann just returned from his mission and chased and shot down one of them. In another account, one of the Hungarian pilots asked about his "secret", he said, he will be the Hungarian pilot`s wingman at the next mission. The Hungarian just should select a target and he will take care about everything else. The Hungarian did so, selected his IL-2 and shot it down. During that, Hartmann shot down 3 JAK-9 behind the Hungarian.

I think that Hartmann was a very careful, conservative, ambush-style pilot, so a high mission/kill count makes sense and helped him survive.

It would be interesting to learn the various techniques these guys used to survive. Galland, in his autobiography, relates an incident when he had a 51 on his tail whom he couldn't outrun. His trick? He fired the cannons of his 190 and the smoke puffs streaming back behind him made the 51 pilot think he was being shot at by someone and he broke off. Galland says he used this trick in the BOB as well. Saburo Sakai said that he spent 70% of his time looking behind him. Another German ace had developed what I would call a level barrel role: in a turning fight to the left, with an enemy on his tail, he'd start a split S, then go full left rudder and forward stick (I think) which would bring him beneath and behind his pursuer for an easy shoot down. And Yeager and other Americans speak of putting their planes into spins, and pulling out close to the ground, etc. (maybe while also dropping the gear.) Anyway, the point is, these top guys didn't survive solely because they were "good pilots and good shots." They had a bag full of tricks they used to get out of trouble.

Günther Rall once quoted: In Germany during the war a pilot flew into combat, until he got an iron cross or a wooden one.

As for Hartmann's 4.14 number, keep in mind that it took him a while to get going. In his early days on the front, he wasn't scoring and (as most inexperienced pilots did) opened fire too far out. They said he was a good shot, but didn't get hard enough hits to take down the other plane. Once he was taught to get in close, his numbers soared. His first few hundred missions out of the 1400+ had almost no victories. He also had a period with few kills when he had the flower emblem on the engine of his plane. Once the Russians knew that was him he said his opportunities decreased to he went back to a plane with no easily identifiable markings and his numbers went back up. After the war as the commander of JG71 they put that marking on all of the Starfighters but the GAF forced it's removal. As for the not counting running out of fuel in the middle of action bail out as a shoot down, I'd say that if the enemy action forced you to run out of fuel or the action forced the other plane to crash for whatever reason, I'd count it as a victory. Loved the analysis in this video.

Thank you for the video Greg, It was very interesting to watch and a nice change of pace. Keep up the good work and I'm looking forward to the next P-38 Lightning video.

Attacking massive bomber formations, which are protected by swarms and swarms of fighters, Does tend to lower the life expectancy of a Luftwaffe pilot.

Great video, Greg. I want to add the fact that Rall also missed significant time after injuring his back crash landing his 109F in Russia.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, you need to reexamine your tactics.

Well done, Greg, as usual. That's a convincing story re: Hartmann being shot down. I vaguely remember reading something years ago wherein Hartmann admitted being shot down. Can't recall the details, but the Lt. Goebel story certainly fits well. The Johnson / Hartmann comparison seems - to me, a non-pilot - reasonable, as does the statistical chart. Opportunity plays a big - and often unrecognized - role in aerial kill totals, so I think you're spot-on regarding Hartmann's service on the eastern front - he didn't have to fly 200 or more miles just to meet an enemy plane. My dad's combat tour in the Pacific with VF-19 aboard the Lexington (CV-16) was from early July to early November, 1944, and included 46 missions - 27 strikes, 19 CAPs. He shot down 4 Japanese planes, all of them in October, 1944. A B5N "Kate" observation plane on a strike in the middle of the month, an A6M "Zero" on a CAP during the Battle of Leyte Gulf near the end of the month, and a pair of Ki-44 "Tojos" while escorting a bomber attack on the Japanese the same day he got the Zero - so three in one day. His squadron commander rated him as an "above average" combat pilot, but I have no idea what that rating might mean in practical terms. To my knowledge, his Hellcat was never hit by fire from a Japanese plane, though it was shot up on at least two different strikes by Japanese AA ground fire - so badly, in one instance, that the plane was pushed over the side as "unrepairable" after he nursed it back to the carrier. In any case, I absolutely agree - if you fly 1,400+ missions in a fighter plane and survive, there seems a good chance that you'll end up with a sizable number of kills, and 352 doesn't seem unreasonable given the number of missions Hartmann flew.

Brilliant. History how it should be taught. It did bring back a fond memory for me and something I got to cross off of my bucket list: In 2008, I rented a Smart car and drove it on what must be the slowest ever powered lap of the Nürburgring. Thanks for doing what you do.

The last enemy airplane to be "shot" down during WW2 occurred just before midnight in the Pacific on the last day of the war. when a P-61 Black window encountered a Japanese fighter over the ocean. The P-61 was our first purpose-built radar-equipped night fighter with a fearsome reputation. The P-61 had run out of ammo yet continued to chase the Japanese fighter which quickly dropped to the deck, hoping the P61 would lose it in the ground clutter (actually sea wave). It continued to fly hugging water when apparently a higher than normal wave slapped it down. The P-61, rather than "mother nature", got the credit for the last enemy plane to be lost in combat during WW2.

Truly educational content, I love it when your videos pop up, as it means that even serious aviation buffs learn something new. I found your reasoning on Hartmann to be persuasive, number one yeah I didn't buy the never shot down either, I think I also remember the Baleout, but the account by Goebel was uknown to me. Great work on matching those two up, that is the work a lot of historians and "journalists" should be doing, but a lot of them seem to be in name only. I agree on the Combat damage, it is very likely, especially as the 109 isn't the best at taking damage, although not as bad as the Spit. That one really makes attacking bombers dicey, especially with that oil tank at the front and the compressor driving everything. Spits are great to fly, and great against fighters, but everytime I have to deal with bombers or do fighterbomber missions, I wish for a Hurricane! He also flew G-Models which are suprisingly tough if you've ever got your hands on Emils or Friedrichs, although much more of a handful to handle. The Kill per mission are interesting, as it shows pretty reasonably as to why Hartmann got so many kills, this is a statistic often overlooked by "the professionals". Especially that one Russian "historian", if I remember correctly he was called out for his methodological errors by two of his american peers. According to them he mismatched the locations of the kills and the units to regions where Hartmann wasn't to produce those discrepancies. Another way the Eastern Front did add to Hartmann's survivila is that he wasn't on the Western Front in 1943-early/Mid-1944, when the 109 G-6 was the only 109 and the Spitfire Mk.IX, P-38 and P-47 were the main enemies, as well as the Typhoon and later Tempest. The 109 G-6 vs. the Mk.IX is not a comfortable fight, especially in the Early G-6. You can basically only use Boom & Zoom and no energy Tactics against Spitfire, because it not only turns better, it now has the better Engine and you have pretty much no energy advantage. On the Eastern Front however, the G-6 is still competitive, the problem the Red Air Force has is that both the Pilot Training and the Aircraft, aren't that good until very late in the War, when the Yak-3, Yak-9U or La-9 are introduced into service. Once those are in, the writing is very much on the wall for the 109, even the K-4. Also in 1943 the Luftwaffe was still able to create some local numerical superiority on the Eastern Front in some Circumstances, unlike the Western Front, where they were pretty much outnumbered in most theatres with major operational and tactical Combat operations, like the Mediterraneanfor example. The very hefty American impact on the "Super Aces" can be in part explained by them being a "new" enemy with new aicraft, the British flew broadly the same types in 1943-1944 than they flew in 1941-1942, mostly spitfires and then some Hawker Typhoons and some very few Tempests. In 1941 they flew the Hurricane in frontline Service, which was pretty much gone, in Europe and in the Fighter Role, in 1944, but they still had Spitfires and some early, unreliable Typhoons. Capable aircraft, but not much change. Now look at the USAAF in 1941 to 1943-1944, in 1941 the mainstay of the US Fighter Force where the P-39 and P-40, with some early P-38s. The First US Fighters the Germans dealt with where P-40s and P-38s, whereas in 1943 the P-47 goes into Theatre over Northern Europe and the Mediterranean and later the P-51, as well as heavily upgraded P-38s. The P-40s are not really in frontline service by then, with some noteable exceptions. That means a new aircraft to deal with twice in one year, and each time a pilot has to first recognize the new enemy, correctly identify it and then apply the correct tactics to defeat it or survive the encounter, if he misidentifies it, or fights it like he has every other aircraft he might just die. And the tough thing about the P-47 and the P-51 is that you have to apply the tactics you pretty much never used before, because they weren't successful in a 109, to beat them. Usually you should angles fight a P-47, and you should not try to Boom & Zoom it. Same goes pretty much for the P-51, although you can outclimb them in a Steep climb. Additionally it's mainly a question of you not being able to boom and zoom themusually, as both the Jug and the Pony are very fast, much faster than the G-6, and even G-10 or K-4. And don't even try to outdive a P-47 in a 109..... Nevermind trying to outclimb a P-38, or do a climbing spiral against them....... Now the Super Aces got where they were by using the "right Tactics" and exploiting their Aircraft's full potential, so they might've just done what Hartmann did here and employ entirely the wrong tactics against the P-47s and P-51s. It's not that they weren't adaptable, but that takes time and when it often only takes one slip up to kill you, well.... The British were a known quantity, the Americans were the Wildcards. Especially to the "Superaces" flying on the Eastern Front, which is the vast majority of them, most pilots on the Western Front scored lower, which could also explain the curious British absence. As for the Scoring Systems in Flight sims, well, IL-2 GB's seems to be a bit drunk at times, I've had kills awarded against me while still being able to fly home. So I was hit, the kill was awarded, and I was still able to fly home and land it. Admittedly, there was a time or two when I smashed up the aircraft on landing so a kill award then would've been fine. I like that one in IL-2 1946, a bit more, as it is quite accurate and with the later Patches/Mods, even allows for shared kills, even with historic limitations. Concerning the book on Manfred von Richthofen, the second title is the more correct one, as the original title is "Der Rote Kampfflieger" which means roughly "The Red Combat flyer", but you can easily use Battle instead of combat. Combat is der Kampf and Battle is die Schlacht, aka the big "major emotional event" ;) that involves multiple combat units. P.S. Walter Schuck* wrote a book in 2007, called "Abschuss! Von der Me 109 zur Me 262" which is a bit tricky to translate, as "Abschuss!" can both mean you shooting down someone, but also you being shot down. So the title could mean "Kill! From the Me 109 to the Me 262" or "Shot down! From the 109 to the Me 262". I don't think I'll have to point out that this is probably an intentional double entendre. ;) Now you could argue that "Shot down!" is the right translation as shown on the cover is him being shot down in his 262. helios-verlag.com/militaerische-zeitgeschichte/1918-1945/?tx_cartbooks_books%5Bbook%5D=154&cHash=4061c4c3cf10d8758449d95632247e67 www.zvab.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=22864769403&searchurl=an%3Dschuck%2Bwalter%26sortby%3D20&cm_sp=snippet-_-srp1-_-title1 *There seems to be typo in your Sources, giving him as Shuck instead of Schuck.

Hi Greg, unless I've missed someone else already pointing it out I'll point out that Walter Schuck did publish an autobio called 'Luftwaffe Eagle: From the Me109 to the Me262'. It's quite a good read, he seemed to be something of a joker and I believe it's his testimony about Erhler's last moments.

I'll stand correction, I thought he was downed several times - including one time when he escaped capture at the immediate outset. If he claims that battle damage did not put him on the ground, well, I doubt that. First, good pilots, no matter how good, did press attacks. Pressing the attack carries with it danger because in a world before onboard radar, nobody's eyes were everywhere. (I've interviewed dozens of fighter pilots from three different wars and when they're together they love to swap stories about "close calls." Everybody had them.) Also the LW found out what the RAF knew during the Battle of Britain. If you're defending your own air space, a downed pilot who bails in time, can be back in the air within a day or two. An attacker who is down is headed for the Stalag. That's why Gabreski and Zemke ended up in captivity and Gunter Rall - who was downed badly several times - did now. And never forget that Axis pilots (pick your country - certainly true for the Japanese after 1942 and Italian pilots depending up time & place) lived in a "target rich environment" by 1944 - and earlier in the Ost. Allied pilots could go for missions without seeing an enemy or at least engaging them. That's one reason that some of the "hot" P51 FGs of 8th AF got such high kill marks - they were in the middle of the mega battle deep over Germany after D-Day in 1944. For a LW pilot, you didn't have far to go to find an American, British or Russian foe. And if you run down the list of the top LW aces, check on how many ended up KIA regardless of fighting over their own land. What I know of Hartman almost reminds me of Richthoven. Hartman would engage only when at an advantage, and Hartman was willing to be very patient so he could get close. In other words he was a better mechanic than aerial acrobat. That doesn't make the guy a flunky. And he did make it through the war.

My Grandma told me a story about this great German ace pilot who asked her for a dance, she told him that she only danced with sailors... shot down! ;-)

I just started reading "The German Aces Speak" (vol 1), and am reading Walter Krupinski"s chapter (197 victories). He was in a leadership role and even taught Erich Hartmann early on. They flew 4 missions a day sometimes. It was a different war on the Eastern Front. While Germany was on the offensive, the Luftwaffe airfields were close to the front lines, so their missions were short hops to mix it up with poorly trained Russian pilots (except for the Red Banner Boys) who flew with no radios or even gun sights (at least early on). Krupinski described how strict the Luftwaffe was about confirmed kills, and shared kills were not shared, but given to younger pilots by the leaders. One day Krupinsky flew 4 missions and claimed 11 destroyed in the air and another 7 as probables. So it is possible that Hartmann had close to 400 kills, but we will never know, of course. Applying the same thinking to all pilots, it is possible many of the confirmed kills are lower than reality.

Thanks, great content. I enjoy these less technical videos a lot.

Well done. Loved to see a review of Joachim Marseille

I'm amazed and grateful how much historical research is being done on RU-vid. Your contribution is unique.

Krupinski, Page 58, Eric had a very good feeling about people, almost psychic, I guess you could say, just like the aircraft, I learned to trust his instincts. He had these same instincts as a pilot. Hartmann was a very gifted young pilot. and a very sensitive man. Flying with men like him, Rall, Hrabak, Steinhoff, Ewald Grasser, and the others was a great experience. You felt safe in that kind of company. Eric & I had a good relationship from the day we met.

Very good stats ,when put in the kills /mission and number of missions are a very believable tally.some interesting still photo too. Great work again 👏

Wonderful video Greg. I especially liked your discussion about how a round that didn't cause immediate failure may have been categorized as mechanical failure or debris. I find that in IL-2, I sometimes burn up my engines trying to evade an enemy. I wonder if in reality that would have been considered a kill, even if there wasn't a bullet hit.

Thanks for posting this. A really interesting and well argued presentation. Keep up the great work.

@Greg’s Airplanes and Automobiles Thank you for all of your work

Hello Greg. Thanks for your videos. Regarding this topic, I owned an Epic of Flight series of books, from Time Life. According to 'THE LUFTWAFFE , The Epic of Flight Series' (for sale on Amazon), Erich Hartman was shot down or crashed, 14 times. Most of the damage done by debris from his own victims. It's an excellent series and makes for good reading.

In Hartman’s book, he tells a humble story of his first combat in the 109. His wingman was behind him, Hartmann saw him in his mirror, thought it was the enemy and went full throttle trying to escape in a deep panic. His wingman was telling him over the radio to turn, slow down etc but Hartmann kept the throttled smashed, ran out of fuel and bellied in IIRC. So does that count as a self shoot down? 😁. Also he spent 10 years after the war in a Soviet POW (forced labor) camp before being released back to West Germany.

superb as always. especially liked the bit at the end. thanks for all these excellent videos, i've really learned alot here

great video again. Re: the built up area, I was in Sao Paulo, Brazil in 2007 and was amazed that it just seemed to go on forever when viewed from the top floor of a high rise. it reminded me of that planet in the Star Wars series whose surface is completely covered with built up areas

You make a good point about the relative lack of opportunities for allied pilots to score kills. For example, Johnnie Johnson scored 34 kills in 700 missions, but only engaged enemy aircraft on 57 occasions. So Hartmann's total is believable considering a far higher proportion of his missions resulted in engagements with the enemy.

Nice to see I made the same comparison ( mission-kill ratio ) years ago...😁 ( Don't forget Priller.. 101 kills ( mainly Spitfires ), on the western front..)

Great research Greg, and great to listen to. Thank you. I re-read all my pilot memoirs too... best books out there :) Rall's interview on here is very enjoyable, he sounded like a fun type.

Erich Hartmann's Blonde Knight of German has to be the best air warfare memoir ever.

i remember reading Hartmanns' book. His style was to wait til the aircraft "filled his windscreen" to fire. He was hit by victims debris quite often. i prefer Marseilles' style. Wish you'd do a vid on him...prolly the "greatest ace"

To be honest the fact that Hartmann survived 1400 odd combat missions is in itself pretty damned remarkable! Sure, much of it is down to luck I suspect, or lack thereof in the case of some other pilots, but the skilled often make their own luck...

To be honest Mr. Greg, I've learned plenty of stuff from your videos that otherwise I would need to seek specific materials for and most likely pay some serious money for that. Could be that I wouldn't even start to get into all of those details. I obviously don't remember all the stuff and knowledge that you output during the duration of the videos but I must admit that many times during your videos I found myself genuinely enlightened as to why certain design features were implemented. But I believe that what is making all that so special and meticulous in preparation is mostly shown in those short parts like the one by the end of this particular video. It is genuine attention to stuff and things we perceive as nothing abnormal, yet you do take your time to actually give them at least a few thoughts regarding how marvelous it is that something like those huge development areas even exist in the first place. I am truthfully happy to see such a mindset.

Great content as always Greg. Some people may call you biased, but you are entitled to your opinion, that doesnt make you biased. I also love the way you clearly distinguish facts from your opinion, many people dont.

Hartmann's low kills per mission is inline with what I'd always learned of him avoiding fights not to his advantage. Hartmann seemed much more cautious than most fighter pilots. Choosing his fights more carefully. This less aggressive approach was slow and steady, and safer in terms of long term survival.

I love this kind of content. Thanks Greg!

You are becoming one of my top go2guys 4 your authoritative research and clear delivery... keep up the good work and when my ship comes in you will be on my list of patreons for sure!!

Greggs video s are best when he mix's historical narrative with technical knowledge. This video is probably his best so far. It suppises me the discovery channel hasn't picked up on this.

I find Heinrich Bär to be interesting because in addition to his victories, he was shot down 18 times and survived! That is just spectacular luck. Wonder if they had an expert sky-diver ribbon or something? Anyway Greg, fantastic content!

The first time I read about the high German kill counts, the author tried to brush it off with easy "ground kills" in 1941. Then I later learned that Hartmann only got to the Eastern Front in the summer of 1942, an up until the battle of Kursk in July 1943 he had 20 kills or so. I wonder what the average mission per kill would be if you divided 330 by the missions from July 43 until the end of the war.

Greg, very interesting scholarship and commentary here! Thank you.

Man do I love a reasonable and well-read aviation historian, this is great stuff

I have a very good book : Aces of the Reich, including Tanks and submarines, but you probably have that, Greg. Wonderful video

I read about a personal account of Hartman having crash landed, where he was up on a hill, with machine gun crews shooting downward at Russian soldiers trying to take the mountain. He said the sight made him sick, because most of the doomed Russians were obviously drunk, and were forced ,at gun point, to climb up to the German gun fire. Also, Hartman was very "simple"in his technique of shooting down enemy planes.

Another great video! We have a ME109 at the American Heritage Museum painted like Hartman's plane and I love telling the story of the 352 kills, plus the ones he doesn't get credit for by "shooting himself down" getting too close to his targets. During one of event, which was a WWII reenactment called "Battle of the Airfield" we had one reenactor that was Eric Hartman. The official photographers tool some photo's of him next to our ME109. Then he was told he could get in the plane for more photo's. He tried to be serious, but the smile on his face was just too big. As was mine when I got in for pictures as well.

Excellent video Greg. I met Bob Goebel and his wife June at Reno in September of 2003 and bought his book “Mustang Ace”. Highly recommended. The last few paragraphs are brutally profound. I remember asking him what was his favorite plane that he flew during the war and he said the P-51A! He said it was a real hot rod.

I would enjoy your analysis of the Japanese super aces also. I would say that because Saburo Sakai was wounded so early in the Guadacanal campaign, he was able to survive the war.

Maybe will be nice a video Zemke's Wolfpack and similar German. Because often was a team effort and not everyone was a lone wolf.

As always an original view and discussion on a history topic that hasn’t been covered. Excellent!

Thanks, so happy I watched this to the end. Living in northern Europe I can't imagine that density of population

Great content as usual! Thanks Greg! The Soviets had some good pilots but they were concentrated into special Guards Units. The Germans were very cautious about engaging these elite pilots. On the eastern front Luftwaffe encounters were against small formations at low altitude with the Germans engaging from a position of advantage. Very different from having to climb to 20,000 feet and engage a hail of B17 fire and then getting bounced by superior fighter planes with highly trained pilots. The Patreon page is awesome BTW.

Erich Hartmann started off slow, and did have a nervous break down at the start. He then honed his skill, and was meticulous on how he did combat.

Great video again, thanks. I mostly agree with you. There's four things that I'm going to comment on... The first thing is that in the western front the missions the americans flew, were mostly escort missions into german aerial defences which means that the aerial combat during that mission was kinda guaranteed while the missions in the eastern front were most times like lets go to do some flying after the breakfast and many times they didn't see any enemy planes during that mission. I think it took quite while, like six months or so before Hartmann started to get the kills... The second thing is that there is a biography book of Walter Shuck, at least we had this in bookstores in Finland. The third thing is that Weissenberger flew mostly Bf 110 and they probably flew less missions than the 109 pilots. And I already forgot the fourth thing so I'm gonna make a separate posting about it if it comes to my mind.

Nice job. You provided an eye opening perspective on the high sores of the German aces.

24:00 "...he must have had amazing genetics..." Hoo, boy.... other guys who dressed like him were SUPER into that kinda thing...

An unexpected Greg video!? A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one.

Re- "Fair Fight" Somebody has said in the past, "if you find yourself in a fair fight, you've done something wrong!"

Wonderful info and video! I have been studying this subject for many years now but never really thought to do a sortie to kill ratio analysis. Great work now I am busy doing this for some of the other famous aces.

I really enjoyed this! I think your definition of a shootdown kill is a fair and accurate one. I've always thought "kills" were an odd standard to obsess over among aviation enthusiasts. Is one pilot who finds an unarmed, unescorted transport and shoots it down better than another pilot that braves heavy flak to destroy five enemy fighters on the ground? The first is not difficult, but accepted by any airforce as a kill, the second was extremely difficult and dangerous to do, and was accepted as a kill only by within VIII AF of the USAAF. People obsess and get territorial over what is definitely a nontrivial, but ultimately kind of arbitrary number.

Yikes this will be most interesting! Erich the undisputed greatest WW2 fighter ace in history and the guy was basically a kid.

Speaking of top aces one should mention Finland's Ilmari Juutilainen who got 94 confirmed out of 126 claims (in 437 sorties). What makes him so special is that his plane never once got hit by the the fire from opposing aircraft. Also, always fighting a numerically superior enemy and, perhaps half the time one that has better quality planes. Donwed: 2 with Fokker D.XXI, 34 with Brewster B.239 and 58 with bf 109G. Check out Double Fighter Knight, the (abbreviated IIRC) translation of his memoirs, Punalentäjien kiusana.

Another great video. Thanks, Greg.

Thanks for the very informative video. I was lucky enough to have attended a presentation by Hartmann at Ramstein Air Base, Germany in the 1980s. During his presentation he stated that his proudest achievement wasn't his 352 kills. It was that he never lost a wingman. I actually have a lithograph of a Bf-109 autographed by him in my office.

Thanks for a great video, Greg! There is a thing about Walter Schuck I think should be corrected: there is a book from his wartime experiences: ”Abschuss! von der Me 109 zur Me 262. Erinnerungen an die Luftkämpfe beim Jagdgescwader 5 und 7” (2007) (Recommended reading I must add, my copy is a translation to my native language, but I hope amd believe there is a translation to english too.)

My mate and I are both pilots so we often chat about aviation history. Was telling him about Erich Hartmann being the highest scoring ace for Germany, possibly for all of WW2. He turns to me and say “what? The guy from South Park?”

I flew around S. Korea in '86-7 in a helo. I've always imagined what it would look like now. Thanks for sharing. Once, we flew from Seoul to Inchon at maybe 300ft AGL, the smog was overwhelming and the visibility barely SVFR. I was so impressed by the people and their industriousness, I'm not really surprised. When i win the lottery i will return and be speechless.

Excellent! Would love to hear more about the mental issues pilots got.

I don’t know who believes this but we here in Germany generally know that he was shot down nine times and one time escaped captivity by jumping out of a Russian truck and running back to the front for two days. I have never heard the claim that he was NOT shot down

The logic of kills per mission ratio also checks out for Soviet aces. Both Pokryshkin and Kozhedub had it in the aame region as Hartmann and other German aces. So the number of kills generally reflects the number of sorties, which in turn often depended on pure luck.

Excellent comparison of German WW2 aces, very informative & never seen their information presented in this format.

Greg, another excellent video with solid analysis. Given the uncertainties of air combat and demonstrated inaccuracies in claims, I would hesitate to endorse any specific number by anyone, anywhere. However, you make an excellent case that the Experten's totals are reasonable. Indeed, you could make a case that Hartman's total is low since some damaged Soviet aircraft crashed--or were abandoned--on the way home. Another factor to consider with Hartman. Totals are something like over 1400 missions, over 700 encounters with the enemy, and 352 kills. On many missions, Hartman scored multiple kills. That means that on many other encounters, Hartman scored no kills. He discusses his method of attack which included an assessment of the situation followed by a high speed attack combined with close range shot and rapid disengagement. In short, Hartman never got greedy since he knew the kills would come if he just stayed alive. Many encounters resulted in no kill indicating that Hartman either declined to attack or broke off the attack if the situation did not stay favorable. That tactic just would not work against the Americans, especially when defending against American raids. German fighters were committed to engaging the bombers or defending the fighters engaging the bombers. You are at high altitude where the P-47 enjoyed an engine advantage and even your speed advantage over the bombers is reduced. German fighters made themselves very vulnerable attacking the bombers and getting bounced from above by a P-47 while positioning for an attack on the bombers was a common fate. Historians frequently quote the U-boat arms casualty rate of over 70% fatalities. However, I saw a quote somewhere (need to track it down) that over 90% of the German pilots who flew fighters failed to survive the war. Darwinian selection. Experten with potentially hundreds of kills or dead.

Hartmann himself stressed the point on how flying on the Eastern Front for prolonged periods of time put him in the situation to rack up that many air victories. In the book he even mentioned a factor of three to one for kills against adversaries on the Western Front.

it is realy phantastic to listen to your videos. they are pleasantly narated and so fully packed with informations and conclusions on topics i have sometimes never even given a thought...

That was fascinating and informative. I wouldn't mind hearing you do more of this sort of well researched pilot video sometime. Sort of gives a personal touch to your mostly technical posts..

Hartmann: I had to mail out because u ran out of fuel. Hartmann’s fuel tank: I ran out because I was turned into Swiss cheese. The significant difference in eastern vs western front performance is fascinating. Makes you wonder what would the air battle be like of operation unthinkable actually happened.

War, of course is an unfortunate event, but it does test the warriors on both sides of the battle. It seems to be that Robert Goebel was an honorable guy for shooting film at Erich Hartmann instead of 50 cal bullets. And Erich Hartmann was lucky, and lived to tell his story. Great story with a great ending.

Another outstanding Vid Boss! Thank you!

Greg great video! I'll impart something my then lawyer said to me years ago in regards to your perceived "bias". He said, " A small percentage of people will dance on the head of a pin singing your praises. Another percentage will dance and sing on that pin whaling woe at you. Just be mindful of those in the middle and you'll be fine." It already sounds like you've accepted the vocal minority's penchant and have evolved from it.

This is great. I think “super aces” is a useful concept.

Wow those shots of Incheon were impressive, the scale is unbelievable.

Another well done video. Thank you Greg !!

another Super Ace video. As always extremely analyzed, thought through and delivered spot on

I would live to hear more about other pilots of the war. Hans Joachim Marseille was supposed to be insanely good 😁

I didn't realize that all of Johnson's kills were flying a P-47.

Hahahaha! Amazing! I just waited the end of your argument and was prepared to comment exactly that story from "the red battle flyer" and quote Richthofen. Also, I very much appreciated the disclaimer in the beginning, regarding the photos.

great breakdown, thanks for the content