Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-08 Curtiss P-40

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	P-40
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Grant65, Binksternet, MisterBee1966
Mediator(s)	Kevin Murray
Comment	Parties are happy with closing this case

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|P-40]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|P-40]]

Request details

The article about the P-40 has a section called "combat performance". In it we learn that a certain german fighter unit has reported more enemy airplanes shot down, than they actually did shot down. This is called "overclaiming". The specific case is well documented. It is also well documented that fighter pilots of other nations, in other theatres and at different times did the same. (contributed by Markus Becker02)

Who are the involved parties?

Please list the specific parties:

• User:Markus Becker02
• User:Grant65
• User:Binksternet
• MisterBee1966

What's going on?

We can not agree if mentioning "overclaiming" was not uncommon worldwide is needed to put the statement about the one specific german units into perspective to aviod giving a wrong impression -my position- or if it is an irrelevant generalty. The issue has been repeatedly discussed in the past, reamains unresolved and both sides can not reach a compromise. see: Talk:Curtiss P-40 (contributed by Markus Becker02)

What would you like to change about that?

I´d very much like to end this endless reverting of content that goes on from time to time. I hope previously non involved users can find a sollution acceptable to all parties, or back one side so clearly that the other backs down. (contributed by Markus Becker02)

Mediator notes

• I'm happy to serve as meditator in this dispute. Over the next few days I will read through the article and associated talk pages to familarize myself. In this time, both sides should submit comments stating their position on the matter. I look foward to a speedy resolution. Please sign all of your posts. --Kevin Murray (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'll be signing off for the evening heading to the fridge for a chilly IPA or four. Maybe you energetic people not bound for better entertainment could take a stab at answering my questions below. Thanks for a very productive and enjoyable first day of cooperation. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediator questions

(1) Is the bold portion of the following statement actually pertinent to the P-40 article: "Werner Schroer, who would be credited with destroying 114 Allied aircraft in only 197 combat missions, referred to the latter formation as "bunches of grapes", because he found them so easy to pick off."?

(2) Is it possible that this is being used to establish his credibility for the "bunches of grapes" comment, but it gives us no specific information about the performance of the P-40, since we have no idea how many P-40s were included in the 114 kills?

(3) Might it be better to establish Schroer's specific statisitcs at the Werner Schroer article, and refer to him here as a "leading ace", "top ace", etc.?

(4) If the answers to the above questions were, no, yes and yes respectively, could we eliminate all need for discussion and counter discussion of over-reporting at this article?

Discussion

The issue of over-claiming seems to hover over every article pertaining to aerial warfare. The problem, as I see it, is that a multidimensional problem is reduced to two factors, these are aerial victories claimed by one side compared to the losses on the other side. Are these two factors symmetrical in nature? Whenever they don't match a case of over-claiming is assumed.

The no-brainer: A pilot shoots down another pilot and the shot down pilot is killed in action and the plane is a total write-off. In this instance the records should match. The claim can clearly be mapped to a loss on the other side. I would assume that good bookkeeping on both sides allow historians to confirm the claim.

However, not every aerial combat leads to the death and defeat of a pilot. The victorious pilot shoots at a plane and the engine goes up in flame. The defeated pilot disengages and crash-lands his aircraft. Is this a valid aerial victory? How is this reflected in the statistics of the defeated unit? Is this a loss or not? Was the "victorious" pilot given credit for this feat?

Due to the nature of this problem, asymmetrical records are to be expected and fall into the generic problem of over-claiming. I believe that from an encyclopedic point of view specific instances where an "unnatural amount", whatever that may be, of over-claiming occurred must be mentioned. To my understanding Russel Brown has identified specific instances where members of JG 27 and JG 27 as a whole have made claims that are in strong contradiction with the actual losses of the DAF. This needs to be pointed out and requires no counterbalance by comparing this to the generic problem of over-claiming. To my knowledge, the reasons for these discrepancies remain unanswered. Was it deliberate lying for propaganda reasons? Have all the enemy units been identified? Personally I don’t like sentences like "He also lists several other dates on which there was significant overclaiming by JG27 pilots." This type of sentence generalizes over-claiming. Was it just one day, two days, every day? I don't like it because the unnatural extent of over-claiming was on specific instances only. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

MisterBee makes some good points, but even his "no-brainer" situation has its pitfalls: in the fog of war, too many factors are at play, each with its detrimental effect on accurate reportage. A WWII-era aerial dogfight was a wildly confusing environment where no one person would have the full picture. Enemy and friendly aircraft could come into view quickly and move out of view just as quickly. The same single downed aircraft could be claimed by two or more pilots who were not aware of the other's contribution, and a single adrenalin-boosted pilot might hit an enemy aircraft so hard that it was clearly disabled, then lose track of it during further dogfight maneuvers and re-engage it after its flames had been put out to claim it a second time. Some damaged aircraft that appeared mortally wounded might have limped back to land to be repaired. Finally, pilots relied on their faulty and all-too-human memory of the battle in recounting their kills.

The disagreeing editors here are all aware of the problems posed by the above-listed difficulties in counting kills. Such difficulties were present in all theaters of the war at all times. Specific to the argument in front of us is that the P-40 as employed by the Desert Air Force in North Africa has been unfairly judged as poor competition in relation to its adversary, JG27, due to significantly higher kill claims by JG27 pilots. At this point in the article, the only relevant citations about overclaiming should be limited to the time frame, the North African theater and, ideally, limited to JG27 and DAF.

A possible solution would be a reference to the political aspect. If a fighter group that was frequently in front of the public eye were encouraged to report their successes for public relations purposes, it can be imagined that normal oversight and correction by intelligence officers might ease off and that overclaiming could climb beyond the norm. I don't know if there is a reference for the overclaiming situation in regard to JG27 but if there is, it might help explain the situation. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediator comment Both MisterBee and Binksternet appear to be drawing conclusions from the information, in essense expressing POV of what might have distorted records, or doing primary research by syntheis from the published statisitcs (see WP:SYN). WP articles should not be going beyond verifiable information from credible sources. Is there a specific number of P-40 kills as claimed by the DAF and/or JG27 available in published materials? --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Kevin, see, for instance, the table included in the P-40 article, reproduced below:

Victory claims & losses, No. 239 Wing, Desert Air Force (June 1941–May 1943)
Squadron	3 Sqn RAAF	112 Sqn RAF	450 Sqn RAAF*
Claims with Tomahawks	41	36	–
Claims with Kittyhawks	74.5	82.5	49
Total P-40 claims	115.5	118.5	49
P-40 losses (total)	34	38	28

* Commenced training on P-40s in December 1941 and became operational in February 1942.
Source: Brown 1983, p. 259.

Grant | Talk 18:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Grant, that's great! We have half of the equasion. Now do we have a source for the German claimed kills of P-40's? --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I can offer to dig through

• Prien, Jochen & Rodeike, Peter & Stemmer, Gerhard. Messerschmidt Bf 109 im Einsatz bei Stab und I./Jagdgeschwader 27 1939 - 1945 (in German). struve-druck, Eutin. ISBN 3-923457-46-4

This book is the best and most detailed chronology of JG 27 I know of. Unfortunately I only own the first of three books and they are horrendously expensive. I do want to point out that German pilots have occasionally misidentified P-40s, Hurricanes and Spitfires in the heat of battle. I think we made a good job of pointing this out in the Hans-Joachim Marseille article. So I could dig through the statistics and list the claims made by Stab/JG 27 and I./JG 27 but not for II./JG 27 and III./JG 27, knowing that some are misidentified. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that we are slidding down a slippery slope of synthesizing primary research from secondary sources. But if you have the energy to give it a shot. I'll bear with you. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to point out that the three squadrons mentioned in the table above are not the only squadrons that operated the P-40 in North Africa. So when comparing the numbers I present here one should note that they were claimed against all squadrons flying the P-40. Having said that, the statistics of Stab/JG 27 are listed on pages 529-530 and not a single P-40 was claimed. I./JG 27 claims are listed on pages 561-576. In the timeframe 19 April 1941 to 15 November 1942 the following 58 claims were made in 1941(still counting 1942)MisterBee1966 (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, in North Africa there were also: Nos 94 (briefly), 112, 208, 250 and 260 Sqns RAF and; 2, 4 and 5 Sqns SAAF. Grant | Talk 15:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the Americans! 57th Fighter Group USAAF also operated in North Africa and flew the P-40.MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's all to easy to do ;-) The 57th FG comprised the 64th FS, 65th FS and 66th FS. Grant | Talk 06:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

17 June 1941: one Brewster (the Germans called the P-40 Brewster before they knew what they were)
18 June 1941: three Brewster
26 June 1941: two P-40
30 June 1941: one P-40
19 July 1941: three P-40
2 August 1941: two P-40
18 August 1941: one P-40
21 August 1941: two P-40
26 August 1941: one P-40
29 August 1941: one P-40
5 September 1941: one P-40
14 September 1941: two P-40
24 September 1941: one P-40
27 September 1941: one P-40
12 October 1941: five P-40
12 November 1941: one P-40
20 November 1941: two P-40
22 November 1941: four P-40
23 November 1941: two P-40
25 November 1941: one P-40
26 November 1941: one P-40
5 December 1941: two P-40
7 December 1941: two P-40
8 December 1941: one P-40
9 December 1941: three P-40
10 December 1941: one P-40
11 December 1941: one P-40
13 December 1941: four P-40
14 December 1941: two P-40
17 December 1941: four P-40
20 December 1941: one P-40

Okay I finished the counting. I counted 309 P-40 claims for I./JG 27 in North Africa. Putting that in relation to the 590 total claims submitted means that roughly 52.4% were P-40 claims. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If overclaiming was done deliberately or accidentally is not the point as no one accused either side of deliberately doing it. The whole debate is whether it is ok to mention JG27´s overclaiming was neither excessive nor unique. But Werner Schroer´s comment might shed some light on the actual or perceived shortcomings of the P-40. According to “America´s 100,000” by F.H. Dean the UK got 140 P-40, 110 P-40B and 930 P-40C. A P-40 / Tomahawk I had zero armour and no protected fuel tanks at all, a P-40B / Tomahawk IIB had 93 lb armour and the limited protection of the fuel system increased its weight from 171 to 253lb, while the P-40C had 111lb armour and a fully protected fuel system weighing 420 pounds. Now the P-40C or Tomahawk IIB did not arrive in NA before mid May 1941 and according to F.H. Dean no more than 90 P-40s were operational at any time. It would be interesting to find out how quickly the P-40C with it´s good protection was introduced and what was done with the 250 P-40/P-40B. If introduction of the P-40C took a while and the previous models continued to be used by DAF well into the second half of 1941 Mr. Schroer might be right because he refers to P-40 models with a substandard protection. The P-40 would not be the first war machine to have it´s reputation destroyed by flaws that were quickly/ultimately corrected. The Sherman tank comes to my mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman#Armor Markus Becker02 (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree about the nature of the issue: to me it's is whether or not the DAF — like JG 27 — also engaged in widespread overclaiming, due largely to negligent verification techniques. Russell Brown has a whole appendix about JG 27 claim veracity. I quote from material I added to Jagdgeschwader 27 some time ago:

Brown, who has researched the records of individual Desert Air Force squadrons, suggests that Luftwaffe claim confirmation in North Africa was less stringent than it had been during the Battle of Britain. Brown points out specific, documented examples of spurious verification, such as one "confirmation" by a Panzer commander, who merely saw a "cloud of dust", after an Allied plane passed behind a sand dune. He also lists several dates on which there was significant, demonstrable over-claiming by JG27 pilots. For example, pilots from JG27 were credited with destroying 19 or 20 P-40s from No. 239 Wing (No. 3 Squadron RAAF, No. 112 Squadron RAF and No. 450 Squadron RAAF) on 15 September, 1942. Marseille alone claimed seven kills in six minutes. However, the records of the individual Allied squadrons show a total of five aircraft lost to enemy action that day and one lost to friendly AA fire. This analysis is supported by other authors. Brown states: "clearly in the combat of 15 September, there could not have been seven accurate eyewitness reports, let alone twenty [emphasis in original], but Marseille's seven victory claims were accepted without question ... [and] other recognised Experten, Schröer, Homuth and von Lieres submitted a total of six further [accepted] claims between them."

I did not include another comment by Brown about 15/9/42, pointing out that the action took place over Axis-controlled territory and "all they had to do was count the wrecks".

If you include material stating that overclaiming was common in other theatres/air forces, it implies that the DAF may also have significantly overclaimed. Apart from an unreferenced statement by Kurowski, there are no sources indicating that DAF claims were as unreliable. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Grant | Talk 06:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Grant, except that I still need to be convinced that JG 27 was engaged in "widespread over-claiming" as you call it. So far I am convinced that on a few specific instances records show significant discrepancies between German claims and DAF losses and I am fine to call this a case of severe over-claiming. Calling it "widespread over-claiming" is a generalizing statement that I disapprove of until verifiable data is presented that supports this statement and indicates that this has happened on the majority (at least on a significant amount) of aerial engagements. Otherwise the reader gets the impression that German claims are generally unreliable, which they are no more or less than Allied claims.

I think that is the problem here, a few specific instances of over-claiming, are presented in such a way that they give the impression that widespread over-claiming was the normality. It is this impression that provokes a counterbalancing statement that over-claiming was a normal phenomenon by all air forces during World War II. Am I correct here?MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are and just for the record, Grant actually said he considers the german claims are less reliable: "The fact that the Luftwaffe was the air force of a totalitarian dictatorship should be enough to cause its records to be taken less seriously than those of the Allies.Grant65 | Talk 09:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)"Markus Becker02 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Mediator comment Gentlemen, we seem to be straying pretty far from the topic of the article which is about the Curtis P-40 not the DAF, not JG 27 and definately not about overclaiming. We seem to be digressing back the talk page discussion which brought us here. Please consider the questions which I've posed above. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Kevin/MrBee: OK, those are fair comments. I did not mean to suggest that there was systematic overclaiming. I included that material from the JG 27 article mainly because Markus does not seem to be aware of it and is now suggesting that the poor reputation of the P-40 was due to the fitting-out of the earliest models. Grant | Talk 13:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I find that to be excellent information. Perhaps the solution is to include that level of detailed information in a section pertinent to the evolution of the aircraft's performance. This is a complex article, and we might want to make sure that the sections don't begin to offer redundant information or purpose. --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me Grant, but how often do I need to tell you I´m not implying anything about your DAF, but merely telling the uninformed reader JG 27 getting it worng by 200% wasn´t unusual? If you interpret it was an attack on your DAF - it isn´t. Actually the way you always remove any background information might give one the impression you mean to suggest that there was systematic overclaiming.Markus Becker02 (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally find 15 September 1942 unusual. Being off by a factor of four cannot be explained by the normal influencing factors of aerial combat in World War II. I oppose generalizing severe over-claiming but I also oppose downplaying 15 September 1942.MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don´t, unless JG27 was usually super-accurate before and afterwards. Others weren´t: ′′Spitfire pilots claimed 13 German fighters shot down and P-47 pilots claimed 19. Gunners on the bombers claimed 288 fighters shot down, but Luftwaffe records showed only 27 lost.′′(from Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission) and given what I read here and in some books being off that much looks not exceptional to me.Markus Becker02 (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Markus, you are still making the mistake of assuming/asserting that claiming procedures and accuracy were uniform and sui generis across all air forces and theatres of World War II. It is abundantly clear that they weren't.

The only issue in relation to the performance of the P-40 in North Africa is whether or not the Luftwaffe overclaimed in an unusual way in North Africa. I have provided evidence that it did. Even if you found a reliable source saying that Desert Air Force P-40 pilots overclaimed, it might reflect on the reputation of the Bf 109E/F or Macchis, but not on the P-40 itself, since aircraft lack the virtues or failings of their pilots. Sources relating to WW2 in general or other theatres are meaningless in this context.Grant | Talk 00:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I´m not "assuming/asserting that claiming procedures and accuracy were uniform", merely stating/verifying overclaiming was not uncommon and why would I even want to find "a reliable source saying that Desert Air Force P-40 pilots overclaimed"? Like I told you again and again and again I never made such a statement, much less put it into the article. So, stop twisting my words! And that info of overclaiming in other theaters is not revevant in order to understand JG 27´s overclaiming was neither unique nor extreme is just your opinion.Markus Becker02 (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey folks, the discussion is going backwards here. I thought that we had established on reasonable terms that overclaiming falls into two categories. The first being what I refer to as "normal overclaiming" and the second what I call "severe overclaiming". We have evidence that JG 27 falls into both categories. In general both the Axis side as well as the Allies show records that are inline with "normal overclaiming". Both sides show instances of "severe overclaiming". Is this not acceptable to you? MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

IMO it is going in the right direction. Grant thinks "overclaiming was not unusual" means "DAF overclaimed, too" and keeps deleting any info about non-JG27 overclaiming. And this is the reason for me requesting mediation.Markus Becker02 (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

MisterBee comment The following questions were posed.

1) Is the bold portion of the following statement actually pertinent to the P-40 article: "Werner Schroer, who would be credited with destroying 114 Allied aircraft in only 197 combat missions, referred to the latter formation as "bunches of grapes", because he found them so easy to pick off."?

Yes, this information establishes him as an expert on aerial combat and given the number of claims he submitted should allow him to compare the performance of the P-40, their tactics against other opponents and their aircrafts.

(2) Is it possible that this is being used to establish his credibility for the "bunches of grapes" comment, but it gives us no specific information about the performance of the P-40, since we have no idea how many P-40s were included in the 114 kills?

Yes, my interpretation of the "bunches of grapes" comment is an indication that the aircraft was used tactically unwisely and as Caldwell indicated the units were not trained properly. So this is no specific information about the performance of the P-40 but about its deployment. Unless, the performance of the P-40 forced them to utilize the P-40 in such a way. I want to mention that Werner claimed 5 P-40s and 1 Spitfire on 15 September 1942. 15 September 1942 is the day that Russel Brown has identified as one of the days where the records may indicate over-claiming.

(3) Might it be better to establish Schroer's specific statisitcs at the Werner Schroer article, and refer to him here as a "leading ace", "top ace", etc.?

Yes. I find it much better to establish the credibility on the Werner Schröer article. This is also where I would like to see any criticism about 15 September 1942 be placed. I personally think, whether or not JG 27 is guilty of over claiming is irrelevant to the performance of the P-40. Unless the editor wants to counterbalance the impression that the P-40 has a poor combat reputation, which is largely due to false claims by the Germans. But then I would insist that we are more specific. I would doubt that the reputation of the P-40 is bad due to just a few instances of over-claiming.

(4) If the answers to the above questions were, no, yes and yes respectively, could we eliminate all need for discussion and counter discussion of over-reporting at this article?

So my suggestion would be as you indicated, refer to him as a "leading ace" and omit any information regarding over-claiming and move this information to the respective Schröer, JG 27, or any other German pilot that may or may not have over-claimed. Otherwise we have this discussion on the Spitfire, Hurricane, and etc. article as well.

MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break point - Grant's comments

Excspt that no-one is suggesting that Spitfires and Hurricanes have been unjustly maligned. Grant | Talk 11:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Grant, please give me your own answers to the questions before commenting on MisterBee's. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please forgive anything that appears terse on my part; my PC is being repaired and I'm using handheld device.

To be honest Kevin I don't understand what you see as the relavance of the Schröer passage to the actual dispute.

While Schröer's claim to fame could be described more succintly, IMO his status as major ace does not require us to establish how many P-40s he destroyed, in order to make his comments relevant.

Neither IMO does his anecdote explain away the poor reputation of the P-40 or the overclaiming documented by Brown, which BTW is barely mentioned (if at all) in other books on the air war over N. Africa. And I have read a few. The conventional wisdom is that the P-40 was significantly inferior to the Bf 109. I think there is now, post-Russell Brown a new reason to doubt that. Grant | Talk 15:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Grant, I see the crux of the issue being that this article/section may have become a coatrack for a discussion of the overclaiming issue. And I question whether we need to dicuss overclaiming in this section, beyond brief mention. A thought I have is that overclaiming may be notable enough to have its own WP article and then minor reference to the practice can be included here and elsewhere. Your thoughts? --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to comment but please allow me to express my concerns anyway. Overclaiming is an emotional and somewhat irrational problem to a number of editors and dependent on individual bias towards one or the other side it can trigger a heated discussion. I believe that we have reached consensus on the issue that all sides are guilty so to speak of some level of overclaiming. The reasons for this have been elaborated before. I also believe that consensus is reached on the fact that Brown has identified instances of severe overclaiming by JG 27 in North Africa. Yes, I know this discussion should not be about overclaiming but for me it boils down to this issue. To my understanding on what has been cited from Browns book only a few instances (meaning single combat engagements like 15 September 1942) of such severe overclaiming have been identified. Please correct me if I misunderstood. The majority of combat engagements follow the rules of normal air combat during World War II. IMO we need to be careful on how to communicate these few instances of severe overclaiming without letting the reader get the impression that JG 27 aerial claims are generally severely elevated. Personally, and the article already points a little in that direction, I would further analyze and compare the combat performance of the P-40 among the different squadrons that have deployed the P-40. To my understanding the South Africans suffered more losses than for instance the Australians. Wouldn't that be more indicative of the true P-40 combat performance? Just a thought. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Simply put, are you saying that we should or should not discuss overclaiming in this article/section? Yes or No please. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If the question is beiing directed to me, I would say "yes". A "brief mention" was was what we had, before Markus decided a "balancing" claim was needed.

Regarding the "coatrack" issue, I would also like to point out that even if a citation showing that P-40 pilots overclaimed can be found, it isn't relevant to the reputed qualities of the P-40 itself, whereas significant overclaiming by JG27 is relevant. Grant | Talk 04:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Answering Kevin Murrays question: No for now, for the following reasoning: The article intends to point out that the P-40s combat performance is perceived below par because the reputation of the aircraft is distorted due to severe overclaiming on behalf of JG 27. I argue that the presented data does indicate instances of severe overclaiming but I cannot derive from this data yet that JG 27s overclaiming was generally severe. The majority of aerial victories claimed in North Africa are currently not being disputed. However, if more verifiable data can be presented here to prove that JG 27 generally overclaimed severely than I take a different position. But we are not here yet. So far we have reference to one concrete instance of severe overclaiming (15 September 1942). I fail to see how this instance alone could attribute to the bad reputation.MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about this a second time I think Grant is right. I minor mentioning of the fact is indeed legitimate if put in the right context. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope it is okay for me to comment. I would agree with the last post by Grant and Mr B. Some time ago I was in discussion with Grant65 over the Bf 109 page, as he had added material regarding Marseille's and JG 27s overclaiming, which I felt had nothing to do with with the qualities of the Bf 109 itself. The same must be said here for the P-40 pilots, overclaiming should be listed on unit and/or individual pilots pages. Dapi89 (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Overclaiming as its own article

Is overclaiming a significant enough topic for its own article? --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ideally. Although a brief mention in the Operational sections of the relevant units/aircraft and pilots will not hurt. Dapi89 (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If an article is to be created on overclaiming it would have to be done carefully to avoid getting tangled up in great splurges of controversy. For instance, who would like to tackle the issue of whether or not the AVG overclaimed? Such a page would have to be strictly neutral and with a good explanation of the reasons for overclaiming - I don't think it would be an easy task, nor could it be tackled in a few paragraphs. (For interest I googled "over-claiming ww2 pilots" - first item up? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-05-08_Curtiss_P-40! )... Minorhistorian (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have sources that cover the Eastern Front and cases of massive Soviet overclaiming. I also have a considerable amount on the Defence of the Reich: Both German overclaiming and the much worse American overclaiming, particularly the P-51 units. I also have a detailed source on German/Western Allied overclaiming on 1 January 1945, in which the Germans were significantly worse. Dapi89 (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't let the expected controversy stop you from creating an overclaiming article. I think it would be a valuable addition to Wiki. Personally, I don't have the sources or breadth to tackle it but I'll help where I can. Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a slightly different opinion about an "Overclaiming" article. I think this topic should be dealt with separately but not in an article of its own but in an article about "confirming aerial victories" (no sure yet what a good name should be). Overclaiming is a side effect of taking credit for the outcome of an aerial engagement. The confirmation process differs from country to country. In some countries they gave shared victories to a number of pilots. In other countries it was one pilot per kill. These systems may or may not have, or have had, the same problems when it comes to verifying aerial victories. For instance a gunner in a B-17 flying in a combat box may claim a Bf 109 shot down. At the same time 4 gunners from 4 other B-17 also claim this Bf 109. In reality the Bf 109 pilot may have even nourished his damaged fighter to and airfield below. So potentially this Bf 109 wouldn't even show up as a loss. Assuming good faith all 5 gunners submitted a valid claim. In this example 5 claims were filed for no loss on the other side. To convey these kinds of problems to reader is not an easy task. As I said before, this kind of situation has to be conveyed in a neutral way. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to do it that way, I think we should only include instances of overclaiming that is more than 100%, because the article would get too long. We are just trying to give the reader a taster and some examples. At the same time, it should not be worded in a way that the reader becomes suspicious of every ace and his integrity Dapi89 (talk) 09:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That includes bomber gunners. I have some good stuff on B-17 gunners overclaiming. But it should also be remembered they were over enemy turf and could not ask their escorts if they wouldn't mind going down to check their bandit was destroyed!Dapi89 (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think so, but it´s not the point. The reason for the unresolved dispute is if it is ok to mention "overclaiming" was not a JG27-specialty.Markus Becker02 (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Your dragging us back to square one. I won't, and I am not sure anyone else will, change my opinion on that. JG 27 overclaimed and it is worthy of a mention in the article of the aircraft and unit it concerns. Naturally when the "overclaiming" article is produced it will be wiki linked in the P-40 article. Then reader can read all about the subject, and you can use up your citations. I think this is going to be the only solution. As it stands, as long as the P-40 makes it clear that Brown is talking about JG 27 in North Africa, at that particular point in the air war only, then that is fine by me. I don't believe the wording on the P-40 implies Germans chronically overclaimed in N.A. Dapi89 (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Once that article is finished and linked into the one about the P-40 it will indeed be made clear JG27 wasn´t a lone and extreme overclaimer.Markus Becker02 (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you, Markus, had expected as a potential outcome of this discussion. My expectation here was to find a compromise that is in the best interest of the article.

The excerpt from the article of concern is

Various other defensive formations were tried by Tomahawk units in 1941-42, including: "fluid pairs" (similar to the German ''rotte''); one or two "weavers" at the back of a squadron in formation, and whole squadrons bobbing and weaving in loose formations.<ref name= "Brown P. 26-29">Brown 1983, pp. 28–29.</ref> [[Werner Schröer]], who would be credited with destroying 114 Allied aircraft in only 197 combat missions, referred to the latter formation as "bunches of grapes", because he found them so easy to pick off.<ref name= "Brown P. 26-29"/> However, it should be noted that German pilots in North Africa may have significantly over-reported kills; DAF squadron records suggest that German units over-claimed by a margin exceeding 200% on some occasions.<ref>For example, on [[15 September]] [[1942]], JG27 claimed 19 P-40s destroyed from No. 239 Wing. Yet Russell Brown claims that DAF squadron records show only five aircraft lost to enemy action. He also lists several other dates on which there was significant overclaiming by JG27 pilots. (Brown 1983, pp. 281–282.)</ref>

The passage clearly speaks of "over-claimed by a margin exceeding 200% on some occasions". The only change I would deem necessary is that the phrase "may have significantly over-reported kills" should read "may occasionally have significantly over-reported kills". MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Markus: Nobody ever said it was Markus. Dapi89 (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Just for information: the artice Flying ace has a section called Flying ace#Accuracy which already makes a nice entry point into the overclaiming topic. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice! I think we put a link to that article in the controversial sentence. What about: "However, it should be noted that German pilots in North Africa have over-reported kills; DAF squadron records suggest that German units over-claimed by a margin exceeding 200% on some occasions." until the new article is complete? @Dapi89: What are you refering to? What was it nobody ever said I was?Markus Becker02 (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Not you Markus, "JG 27". - I think so, but it´s not the point. The reason for the unresolved dispute is if it is ok to mention "overclaiming" was not a JG27-specialty. Nobody ever said overclaiming was JG27s domain. Dapi89 (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediator note: It seems that we have a consensus for adding a new article, though not on the exact name or precise content. In the spirit of Wikipedia boldness, I suggest just getting something started at a sandbox location and let the progress dictate the course. How does that sound? --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"The Overclaiming of Aerial Vicories/kills" would be my choice. But I don't really care as long as it is done. Dapi89 (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also suggest we agree on the exact layout here before it is started though. Dapi89 (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well!!!??? Dapi89 (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I managed to buy a Russel Brown book! I have yet to read it but I did manage to visit those pages that are being quoted. I'm not sure if this has been stated before but I feel I need to repeat this bit of information here. Brown states.

While most of the claims submitted by experten (Note: he misspells Experten) such as Marseille, Homuth, von Lieres and Schroer (Note: Schröer is spelled with an Umlaut) can be substantiated the exaggerations of 15 September are difficult to explain.

A quick count of potential discrepancies between Allied losses and German claims render 24 engagements of various degree of "over-claiming". Now that is very much inline with my thinking and perception of the over-claiming issue. 15 September is a single severe instance of over-claiming plus 24 instances of lesser over-claiming. Again, I am quoting from Russel Brown's book here and not German sources. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Also noteworthy is that Marseille was only involved three times in this list of 24 instances of "over-claiming" or discrepancies. Of which the first was 12 October 1941, a day that Brown states more aircraft were lost than claimed by the Germans! Also of interest is the fact that the Australians also filed 4 claims plus 3 probables on 15 September 1942. When reading the German statistics only the midair collision of Pein and Hoffmann is reported, no losses due to combat damage.

The book gives a vivid account of the aerial battles of 15 September 1942 from the Australian perspective (pages 165 – 166). Brown uses words like "at this stage the Australians were fighting for their lives", and that the confusion was immense.

Also of interest, Brown reports that as of 14 August 1942 the USAAF 57th Fighter Group participated on joint missions, led by the DAF. On 14 August, 14 DAF and 6 USAAF P-40 flew on a bomber escort mission engaging in combat and aerial victories were claimed. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I took the freedom and started Confirmation and Overclaiming of Aerial Victories MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well done MisterBee and I congratulate you for your painstaking efforts in this matter.

Before we wrap up, I want to reiterate an important point that has been made before, but has perhaps been obscured by the volume of the debate. Which is that we have a very good source (Brown) in relation to No. 239 Wing, but almost nothing is available regarding the other half of the DAF P-40 units, being No. 233 Wing/No. 7 Wing SAAF. (While the South African Military History Society newsletter is available on-line and has some excellent articles on individual pilots, it does not seem to have any unit histories.) This may be because the North African campaign was a dark passage of history for the SAAF, characterised by appalling losses. Grant | Talk 05:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediator note While we do not yet have consensus on the content or format at Confirmation and Overclaiming of Aerial Victories, there is progress and good participation there, with no immediate attempt to AfD by our new-page patrollers. It looks like the contentious material which was the basis for this mediation, has been toned-down and/or removed from the P-40 article. Are all parties satisfied with the result? Are we ready to close this mediation? --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I am, well done. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think MisterBee´s article is what have been looking for.Markus Becker02 (talk) 10:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the present wording of the Curtiss P-40 article, and the creation of overclaiming article shows that positive results can come out of these disputes. Grant | Talk 05:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)