A look at German fighter Ace kill claims (2 Viewers)

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well I think it's the same as when GregP said "Get real"

I don't think that was necessary from GregP

If he can say "Get real" then Luft.4 can say what he said.

if you will notice, I have made repeated attempts to moderate everyone without directly calling anyone out. To no avail…

After being ignored repeatedly, I start calling out individuals. If Greg were to ignore me again, I would.

I'm taking no sides, so lets leave the he said, she said, at the Kindergarten door.

 

[Luft.4]

it just means your premise is flawed in the extreme, in my opinion.

State for us fact by fact,
a) supported with evidence (hopefully primary sources not opinions),
b) now knowing the German definitions of a claim and the RLM directives as previously posted in this thread so you know what the Germans were tracking,
c) knowing that the military's goal is to assess the long term material damage inflicted on the enemy even today as described by the fighter pilot,
why your opinion on what is a claim and what is a victory is correct?

Keeping in mind your post #49 "I consider this closed unless we find some proof that a claimed airplane didn't explode, force-land, crash-land, or otherwise get somehow sent from the air to the ground and out of the fight he was involved in. If we can find THAT, then we may have cause to revisit Erich's victory score." <- because this is exactly what VV has done for 8 pilots, if you even bothered to read the sample pages before typing. Also, keep in mind what the RLM defines as a victory when this assessment is completed.

You want it both ways. Your position is incoherent.
Self stated that you cannot find the German docs (post #4), not being well read on German aces (post #85), yet want date/time/location info (post #35, #49) and when that is most graciously provided you repeatedly fail to read the sample pages. It does not get easier than reading the pages posted. After your lack of follow through is pointed out repeatedly, you then write that we need to get real (post #84), well there is nothing realer than this in research.

If you personally believe (based on no research?) that a victory occurs when a pilot makes a claim of shooting down another aircraft, then I suppose Erich Hartmann is next in line to all the allied gunners. That is clearly not the case, because the Germans did not loose that many aircraft. Aaaand bingo, we are back to the premise of the book (based on RLM directives and solid research) that for claims you need to look at losses. Why is VV unique? Because after 80 years we were the first to publish this depth of information on Soviet losses. These were unatainable until 2 decades ago, so I am not surprised that when people talked to VVS pilot even they did not know their own losses. Moreove many of them do not research their war, they read books written on it. We have talked to a number as well, you don't see 80+ year old VVS pilots in the archives. I have binders of TsAMO files declassified as late as 2005. It is from these that the information was taken. We know they are correct because military specialists use these to exhume remains and the data matches 100% with physical evidence in the ground (this is also described and illustrated in the book).
You are welcome to continue to post your personal opinions and disregard documented evidence, but just know one ever growing camp works with real documents, military professionals, real historians and lectures. That is why there is serious advancement in this field and many flaws from the past 80 years are coming to light.
Victories and claims are 2 different things, both can exist at the same time, this is even explicitly stated in the book (again, chapter 1). This is the case because they measure 2 different things. For that very reason, the OKL had to have checks in place which I described earlier.

 

[Luft.4]

Looky here, Official USAF protocol for claiming, notice how they too set the bar at destruction?

 

[Luft.4]

From the Soviet side, USSR NKO Order No: 299 I.4: "For the destruction of enemy aircraft on the airfield fighter pilots are awarded and presented to the government award". Once again the key word is destruction with these nations.

 

[rochie]

there is very little to be gained in continuing this disagreement, as both sides don't even agree what the main point of contention is.
neither are going to be swayed so around in circles we go !

the above points could also have been made without the pointed jabs at the other side, you have all been warned already by DerAdlerIstGelandet please heed his advice.

 

[Luft.4]

as both sides don't even agree what the main point of contention is.

The main point of contention in the thread is very clearly what defines a victory. 7 pages of it. Lets not being to misrepresent that too now by injecting a mellow tone feel-good statement.
One side says a victory does not equate to a loss, the other side says yes it does.
I have put forward ample primary evidence. Awaiting what the other side can do with primary evidence.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Lets not being to misrepresent that too now by injecting a mellow tone feel-good statement.

Sigh…

 

[special ed]

Looky here, Official USAF protocol for claiming, notice how they too set the bar at destruction?

I don't like getting involved in these, however I point to item No.2 "enveloped in flames".
There has been more than one victory credited when a plane was seen diving away "enveloped in flames", trailing smoke, and yet the fire goes out, the plane keeps flying, out of sight of the furball and returns the pilot home.

 

[rochie]

The main point of contention in the thread is very clearly what defines a victory. 7 pages of it. Lets not being to misrepresent that too now by injecting a mellow tone feel-good statement.
One side says victory doe not equate to a loss, the other side says yes it does.
I have put forward ample primary evidence. Awaiting what the other side can do with primary evidence.

ok, my bad for putting it that way i am at work and rushed that.

i wanted to say wont ever agree on the main point of contention (what is considered a Kill)

but again with the jibes, you just can't help yourself !

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

ok, my bad for putting it that way i am at work and rushed that.

i wanted to say wont ever agree on the main point of contention (what is considered a Kill)

but again with the jibes, you just can't help yourself !

Its growing rather old…

 

[Luft.4]

ok, my bad for putting it that way i am at work and rushed that.

i wanted to say wont ever agree on the main point of contention (what is considered a Kill)

but again with the jibes, you just can't help yourself !

I really appreciate the honest approach, understood that typing from work, like many of us, one may not gain the entire context of the thread especially if they pop in suddenly. You are genuine enough to address that.

Meanwhile I await a real counter backed by evidence (primary if possible).

 

[Luft.4]

I don't like getting involved in these, however I point to item No.2 "enveloped in flames".
There has been more than one victory credited when a plane was seen diving away "enveloped in flames", trailing smoke, and yet the fire goes out, the plane keeps flying, out of sight of the furball and returns the pilot home.

I'm in total agreement. That is exactly the problem creditors faced back then. My post #97 address this too from the Luftwaffe's side. There too they explicitly stated that trailing smoke is the weakest indicator and that other supportive evidence is required.
That is why you need to look at losses.