Talk:Erich Hartmann

Personal life

Might this article benefit if a little detail of his personal life was included? The information that's there is a little scattered, so it's hard to know much about his life outside of work -OOPSIE- (talk) 05:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and add a few more things of interest over the next few days. We had to slim down the size of the article to get the article to GA - one of wikipedia's irritating limitation policies. Dapi89 (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Dubious statement

How exactly does the common cold "progress to" angina pectoris? Last time I checked one's a minor upper-respiratory disease caused by viral infection, and the other's not even a disease; it's a painful symptom of mid-stage obstructive heart disease, caused by cholesterol blocking blood flow to the heart. I'm not sure what kind of medical science they have in Germany, but this is ridiculous and anti-scientific and I'm going to reword it if nobody objects. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Find an alternate source that supports your contention. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC).

Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angina_pectoris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.183.236.96 (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Years of service

Years of service ignore the time spent in Soviet captivity. Hartmann, as every other Wehrmacht POW, would have been in continuing service until such time as he returned to Germany to be de-mobilised. This is an odd and glaring error. Perhaps the author has some reason for having included it? Gr1bble8s (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Wehrmacht ceased to exist in 1945. The Luftwaffe was officially disbanded in 1946. There was no German military in existence until 1955. So there was no military for him to demobilised from. Yours is the only 'odd glaring error'! Dapi89 (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

On the picture with the caption Oberleutnant he is a Hauptmann. On his right Kragenspiegel you can see three wings. On the Schulterklappen on can see a button and two stars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.19.97 (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Transfer to Galland

According to Toliver / Constable Hartmann asked Gallands Successor as COG Fighters General Gollob to return to his old unit.

One reason for the wish to return to the eastern front was that in the "defense of the Reich" many German fighter aces were killed or wound by supirior, in number and quality, American and British fighters. --176.199.13.235 (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Quote by Hartmann from a conversation with Eric "Winkle" Brown on page 10 here: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.216.123 (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hypocoristic

MisterBee1966, could you please provide me a more detailed reason for reverting my edit? Such as why we need an unwieldy and little known term like 'hypocoristic' which even my spellchecker doesn't know, and why, in addition to the reason I gave in my edit summary, in the lead of an article about a famous fighter ace we even need to include the definition of an aerial victory? I'm reverting as I think these are unnecessary complications for the lead. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I gladly give the reason. The term aerial victory was once mandated to have a stand-alone explanation. The terminology we agreed upon was aerial victory = an aerial combat encounter resulting in the destruction of the enemy aircraft. I can't comment on the quality of your spellchecker but the term is known to me and again was used and passed the various reviews. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

That mandate seems to be coming from a peer review for another article on Helmut Wick ( '(...)it would be helpful to briefly explain what exactly is meant by "aerial victory". This might best fit in a note (...)', no suggestion that it belongs in the main body of the lead, is there?), and the lead for that article (like all other articles on major fighter aces) doesn't include this mangled definition of an aerial victory that you insist on keeping for this article. You and me might be familiar to the word 'hypocoristic', but I bet the vast majority of the people who consult WP don't, so, as outlined in our MOS, let's write for them, not the technicians.

Referring to '352 aerial combat encounters resulting in the destruction of the enemy aircraft', I'm fairly sure that Hartmann encountered more than one aircraft on each occasion, often downing more than one in each encounter, and therefore he had 'less than 352 aerial combat encounters resulting in the destruction of the enemy aircraft', right? Otherwise among the top scoring aces of all time he would be notable for being the only one who limited himself to one kill per combat encounter. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

What is being referred to here is 352 successful dogfights. In each air battle a pilot participates in a separate and distinct dogfight whenever he engages a different individual opponent. Umpteen dogfights can occur in a single mission/encounter, but not all of them result in a claim for a victory. Misterbee1966 has correctly explained this, albeit to the "Nth" degree. Each victory counts as a successful (and separate) dogfight, or "encounter". Dapi89 (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

LaGG-5 or La-5

Hartmann's notes say he shot down an "LaGG-5." No doubt the Luftwaffe thought (incorrectly) that's what it was called, given the LaGG-3 designation of its predecessor. However the article is stating what Hartmann shot down, not what his notes say, therefore "LaGG-5" is incorrect. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

No, the sentence and the reference are about a LaGG-5 and that should be shown (maybe with an explanation). The link goes to the correct page. LaGG-5 was a correct designation by this time as that's how the germans called these machines. --Denniss (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

No, LaGG-5 was not a correct designation, even if the Germans though it was. It wasn't a German design after all. The sentence was not about an LaGG-5 because there was never any aircraft of that name. I agree with BilCat that unless it's a direct quote the correct designation should be used.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 11:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless it's a direct quote, we should use the designation that our WP article uses, La-3, though noting in a footnote that LaGG-3 appears in the source is probably fine. I think the equivalent of using "LaGG" here would be allowing US-related articles to use Me 109 or 110 in certain cases, and we don't generally do that either. - BilCat (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency - Hartmann feared to be attacked a second time?

The chapter Civilian life states: " However, fearing a second attack, he became cautious and limited his appearances at public events. He stated: "I am retired and I am a civilian, and now I like to have my rest and peace. I do not live for exhibitions."[50]". I can nowhere find a detail about the first attack, apparently it's related to someone publicly attacking him for having been a Luftwaffe ace. Where has this bit of information went from the article? --Pudeo' 20:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

? The sentence above refers to an attack of angina pectoris. It is in the line above the one you quoted. Dapi89 (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying. Perhaps it was just beyong my comprehension that angina pectoris is referred as an "attack" (as it is not rather as severe as an heart attack for example) and that it has something to do with limiting public appearances. But perhaps if I wasn't the only one, it could be edited to (directly) refer to the medical condition. --Pudeo' 20:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Ashamed of war service

Why should he have been "ashamed of his war service", he should be proud of his achievements. And what does this have to do with his opting "to go on a hunger strike and starve rather than fold to "Soviet will", as he called it"?Royalcourtier (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It reads "Hartmann, not ashamed of his war service, ..." MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Glorification

We can all appreciate an achieving soldier, but is this article seriously more concerned with mocking the Soviet Union than with him being the most deadly Nazi pilot, having shot down and undoubtedly killed many of the pilots of the 352 Allied aircraft he shot down? The introduction reads as if he even needed to be convicted of War Crimes in the SU when he was one of the staunchest tools of Hitler. But no, 10 years in a labour camp is what the article portrays as inhumane... Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I've observed this glorification of WWII German officers, pilots and tankers -- in some cases, even members of the SS -- is par for the course in Wikipedia. Similarly, the Soviet Union's army is usually described as being incompetent and brutal to their own men. Germans: brave, if mistaken. Russians: incompetent, brutal fools. I guess Wikipedia loves its Germans! 190.194.216.151 (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment expressed, even though it's been a while. The sourcing is problematic as well:

• a coffee-table book by Philip Kaplan Fighter Aces of the Luftwaffe in World War WWII -- 18 citations
• Work by Toliver, Raymond F.; Constable, Trevor J. (1986). The Blond Knight of Germany. -- 20 citations

From The Myth of the Eastern Front: The Blond Knight of Germany is a "hallmark of romanization", with its "insidious" title suggesting medieval chivalry that "not only fails to characterize the conduct of the German Army in the East, but, indeed, marks its opposite".

Trevor James Constable does not appear to be a serious scholar; the wiki article describes him as:

• "an early UFO writer who believed that the UFO phenomenon was best explained by the presence of enormous amoeba-like animals inhabiting earth's atmosphere.

References

Any feedback or opinions? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

This author indeed sounds like he has an abnormal mind, UFO and all. But as authors on aviation combat, both seem to do alright, with Zabecki and co recommending them multiple times, Kaplan and Mitcham too

I don't think Smeler and Davies, who themselves wax poetic mainly on the name of the book (at lengths!) without pointing out which specific details are wrong historically, can be used as a good basis to judge the book either. As for the name, well, it was a nickname of Hartmann, already used during the war, like Bubi, Black Devil...etc (likely even more famous than those two, considering that the Soviet aces seemed to know him more by that one, according to the bio of the famous woman ace Litvyak. The Soviets in this bio seemed to be impressed by the nickname. Perhaps Toliver and Constable thought it was edgy and sounded like something which helped to sell books - and you cannot blame authors for that). To be fair, aviators, dark types or not, are easy to romanticize, even the Litvyak book does that to Hartmann, with a tinge of romance (not as knight in shining armour of course). Deamonpen (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Erich Hartmann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070526032108/http://members.aol.com:80/falkeeins/Sturmgruppen/hartmannclaims.html to http://members.aol.com/falkeeins/Sturmgruppen/hartmannclaims.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110902010742/http://www.hartmannerich.com/?page_id=9 to http://www.hartmannerich.com/?page_id=9

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

HI, just a quick note about a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (WWII content: Otto Kittel, other GA/FA articles) that editors of this page may be interested in. K.e.coffman (talk)

Further reading

I trimmed the list -- some would not be considered RS and some in foreign language and unlikely to be helpful to Eng language readers. Some of the books are discussed here: Unreliable sources, from MilHist archives. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

What is a "precision board clock"?

Can any experts explain what is a "precision board clock"? mentioned in section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Hartmann#Knight.27s_Cross_of_the_Iron_Cross ...Hartmann shot down two enemy aircraft before his fighter was hit by debris and he was forced to make an emergency landing. He then, in accordance with Luftwaffe regulations, attempted to recover the precision board clock. As he was doing so, Soviet ground troops approached... Or perhaps it is a "precision bombing clock"? 68.35.173.107 (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)