A look at German fighter Ace kill claims

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Ok DerAdlerIstGelandet , I am going to be civil about this. Please read posts. Don't call people asses. Your a mod, be above that.
This is the second time you think I'm going after you or want to insult you (post 103). IDK why but you do. Never thought of it, nor will I. I have no beef with you.
You were not part of post 228, the other mod was. If you read the post you would see this clear as day.
My post 296 could have been better worded to direct it at the party which dismisses the archival evidence, not solely at yourself. Sorry. Not everything is directed against you.
From your post 260 I guess you align yourself with the dismissive part. If yes, then post 296 partly applies to yourself then too.

Its OK to not agree on what constitutes a victory. One side has the documented evidence, the other side does not. One is welcome to choose which one they wish to stay in.

lol

You responded to my post saying to post up some evidence.

For someone who claims to do otherwise you have a habit of doing it.

As for the last part of your post, data does not prove anything definitely, in this particular topic for reasons already discussed by many, so its not a matter if choosing a side to stay in. Thanks though…

 

[Luft.4]

Did you again fail to read post #300 before you began typing? Truly unbelievable.

"My post 296 could have been better worded to direct it at the party which dismisses the archival evidence, not solely at yourself. Sorry. Not everything is directed against you."

For someone who claims to do otherwise you have a habit of doing it.

? Have I not been posting evidence this entire thread ?

While you are at it, please point out to me where are you present in post 228?

Keep calling people asses though.

 

[Luft.4]

data does not prove anything definitely, in this particular topic for reasons already discussed by many

Oh boy...

Data does prove things definitely. You may need more than 1 piece of data to do so. But to get the data, you need to do more than sit around and think up an opinion.
This idea of yours on data is perhaps second only to yours about people not caring if an aircraft was repaired.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Did you again fail to read post #300 before you began typing? Truly unbelievable.

"My post 296 could have been better worded to direct it at the party which dismisses the archival evidence, not solely at yourself. Sorry. Not everything is directed against you."

? Have I not been posting evidence this entire thread ?

While you are at it, please point out to me where are you present in post 228?

Keep calling people asses though.

Sure, I read it, but my post was made before your post 300. My post (295) and your post (296) are the ones in question. Not hard to understand how this miscommunication happened. News flash: it takes two here.

Now, I do apologize for saying you were being an ass (at the time you came across as such), as you admitted that your post should have been better worded. Had it been better worded, there would be no issue or problem.

Maybe we both can agree that we should read/think about our posts before submitting them.

 

[Dimlee]

Unfortunately I don't know much about missiles and fighter jet combat and how they work, but why is the loss 300km away?

Because, as explained above, the Ukrainian pilot didn't know his true position. However, some coordinates were required to be filed in the report.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Oh boy...

Data does prove things definitely. You may need more than 1 piece of data to do so. But to get the data, you need to do more than sit around and think up an opinion.
This idea of yours on data is perhaps second only to yours about people not caring if an aircraft was repaired.

And there is that condescending attitude again… lol

No, the data tells one part of the story. Data, especially combat data, can be flawed. Just as a claim can be false, so can loss reports. Are you 100% certain that loss reports are 100% accurate? I have my doubts.

Also as someone who actually crewed aircraft in combat, I will never agree that a shot down aircraft that was repaired is still not a victory that should not count for a pilot.

You can keep waiting for me to change my mind. Hell will freeze over first.

 

[Dimlee]

The above example is probably poorly worded and is the reason why it seems fantastical. 300km is a BIG distance to travel without crew. Going off this hypothetical example, the pilot ejected. Go back to back to post 97 (many people on this thread would benefit from reading those directives), if the entire crew abandons the plane mid flight then that is grounds for a victory because this will cause the aircraft to crash (fast forward 50 years when aircraft are remote controlled this may change, we are not there yet).

I'm so sorry for my poor wording.
Let me try again. Let's skip the PVO-PRO claims to simplify the picture.

Ukrainian aircraft is shot down when the pilot has no idea about his actual position.
Afterwards, he hardly remembered the time and altitude and couldn't identify the weapon used against him. The Ukrainian report is based on guesses, - just because it was required to put some numbers in.
There is a claim from the Russian pilot. Compared to the Ukrainian report, time, altitudes, and coordinates are off by a certain measure.
Can we say with confidence, that the Russian claim is 100% wrong just because the Ukrainian report has different details?
If I have no idea about the circumstances and I believe that every Ukrainian report contains true figures, I'm tempted to say - yes, the claim is wrong.
If I happen to interview the surviving Ukrainian pilot and I understand that the reporting system is not perfect, I will have to think again.

Now, I bring the modern war in only due to the coincidence, as said. However, one can find similar real incidents in WWII history. Loss of orientation, stress, errors, shock, loss of conscience and memory - on the side of the pilot.
Bureaucratic requirements, human and technical errors, self-interests, corruption (in various forms) - in the office on the ground.

And once again, don't take it as a critique of your book or the research related to Hungary. After all, the topic is much broader.

 

[CHen10]

Why are you calling me out? No need to be an ass. I'm NOT disputing your research, nor do I disagree that there was definitive over-claiming.

I just don't agree with what constitutes a victory, and that there will always be a corresponding loss recorded to a claim, and therefore you and I will not agree with the outcome/analysis. That's it, and nothing will change that.

How was he being an ass? He asked if you could prove your point with evidence. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[CHen10]

Now, I do apologize for saying you were being an ass (at the time you came across as such), as you admitted that your post should have been better worded. Had it been better worded, there would be no issue or problem.

Maybe we both can agree that we should read/think about our posts before submitting them.

I hadn't read this yet lol

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And once again, don't take it as a critique of your book or the research related to Hungary. After all, the topic is much broader.

And I agree with this statement. I have zero issues with the research pertaining to the data that was used. I think the research is well done and meticulous. L Luft.4 , I commend you on your research and work. Honestly.

I just think we are starting with a flawed definition of a victory, simply because nothing is certain in combat, and I question the accuracy of loss reports.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

How was he being an ass? He asked if you could prove your point with evidence. Nothing wrong with that.

Except, I have nothing to prove. I'm not disputing his work. And his response had zero to do with my post he was responding to.

 

[CHen10]

Are you 100% certain that loss reports are 100% accurate?

I'd say they are 95% accurate. They might have a different cause of the crash, the time or location could be slightly wrong, but it is accurate enough to decide overclaims or kills.

I think I said this before but the Soviet archives in 1943-45 are the most detailed and accurate of any archive I have seen.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I hadn't read this yet lol

And it clearly applies to more than just the two of us…

 

[CHen10]

I will never agree that a shot down aircraft that was repaired is still not a victory that should not count for a pilot.

Just curious, do you consider it a victory if the plane that was attacked didn't get hit by the attacker but was still claimed as a victory?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I'd say they are 95% accurate. They might have a different cause of the crash, the time or location could be slightly wrong, but it is accurate enough to decide overclaims or kills.

I think I said this before but the Soviet archives in 1943-45 are the most detailed and accurate of any archive I have seen.

How can you be certain that its 95% or is that just your opinion?

And if the data is not 100%, how it can be "good enough" to decide anything. All it does is confirm confirmation bias.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Just curious, do you consider it a victory if the plane that was attacked didn't get hit by the attacker but was still claimed as a victory?

I think that depends. In general no, but lets say a pilot flies his plane into the ground trying to evade an opponent I think there is am argument it could be a victory.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think I said this before but the Soviet archives in 1943-45 are the most detailed and accurate of any archive I have seen.

But how can you definitely be certain of their accuracy?

 

[CHen10]

How can you be certain that its 95% or is that just your opinion?

And if the data is not 100%, how it can be "good enough" to decide anything. All it does is confirm confirmation bias.

Well the time of the loss could be 1217 hours but the claim is at 1207 hours. The time is close enough.

The location of the loss could be Várpalota but the claim is at Csór. (You can use google maps to see the close proximity of these locations)
The location is close enough

It's clear the losses are linked to the claims

So my guess is 95% because that's how close I consider the differences

 

[CHen10]

But how can you definitely be certain of their accuracy?

When the Soviets filed the reports, it would be impossible to lie.

Ammunition, pilots, planes, crew are all accounted for.

Soviet high command would question and say:
"Why is it loads of our aircraft are missing? You made no mention of their loss in your reports?"
Or
"Where have these pilots gone? You made no mention of their loss"

If anything, they were incentivised to tell the truth because they wouldn't want to get in trouble with the Soviet higher ups for lying!

They are also reliable because the Soviet losses always have a matching claim by the Axis.

If it was all fake, why do the losses all match up to Axis claims?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well the time of the loss could be 1217 hours but the claim is at 1207 hours. The time is close enough.

The location of the loss could be Várpalota but the claim is at Csór. (You can use google maps to see the close proximity of these locations)
The location is close enough

It's clear the losses are linked to the claims

So my guess is 95% because that's how close I consider the differences

No, let me make myself more clear. How are you 100% certain that all losses are in fact recorded?