Erich Hartmann was one of the best fighter pilots ever, both from skills point of view as well as decision making during air combat.
I wonder why some folks want to make it appear as if he was some kind of idiot.
There is a question: what is a criterion of a fighter pilot's skill?
Number of air victories? No, it is not, even inside one same airforse.
Because of different service conditions of fighter pilots. You cannot say, that Eastern Front pilots were more skilled, then Western Front pilots, judging only on air victories. Free hunter will always have more victories, then interceptor (Reich Defense), and interceptor will always have more victories, then escort fighter. Albin Wolf (JG1, JG54) flew olmost 200 boring North Sea patrol missions with JG1 without a single victory, and then got 144 victories on Eastern Front.
And there iseven less connection of a skill with a benefit of a fighter pilot for his Army.
Hans-Joachim Marseille and his brilliant friends from JG27 were amazing in fighter-versus-fighter duels, most of their victories in summer-autumn 1942 were Hurricanes and Spitfires. But what was the benefit for ground troops? Zero. Rommel failed because of wiped-out supply routes, wich were terrorised by Allied Bombers. But JG27, as other fighter units in North Afrika, cared only about number of victories, awards, glory e.t.c. Result in was poor, ended in april-may 1943 in Tunis.
If we will look into air aerobatiks and pilotage part of a "fighter skill", so Erich Hohagen was not a Luftwaffe top ace, and more other pre-war aerobatics champions were shot down and killed by less skilled, "average" pilots of opponent side.
Again, what is a criterion of a "fighter pilots" skill?