GregP
Major
This seem like a good place to discuss what a "kill" actually is.
People in general seem to think that all losses are accounted for in after-war inventory reports, but that is simply not always the case. Look at the Bf 109 as a start.
1) Nobody is sure exactly how many were built because the records were lost in the war.
2) Some people claim to know, and have the serial number list to prove it. But, in reality, these people have a serial number list assigned by the German RLM. There is no proof anywhere that actual production ever matched the serial number list, and considerable proof it didn't. So, we will never have an accurate production number for the Bf 109 and, logically extended, Bf 109 losses. But there WERE a lot of Bf109 losses.
Think about being a logistics reporting person in the USSR. Stalin was known to kill people who brought him bad news. Do we really think the losses of equipment were completely accurately recorded to be reported to Comrade Stalin? Do we really think victories weren't embellished a bit? It's not a knock on Soviet soldiers, it's an indictment of butcher Joseph Stalin.
Anyway, what is a "kill" or victory?
1) Is a kill an armed enemy aircraft that was completely destroyed so that no part of it was ever used again? Who determined it was destroyed?
2) Is a "kill" an armed enemy aircraft that was shot out of a fight and seen to crash? Seen by whom?
3) Is a "kill" an armed aircraft from which the pilot was seen to parachute or at least jump out of? Why do we believe the airplane was a total loss just because the pilot jumped out?
4) Is a "kill" an armed enemy aircraft that was last seen going down in flames?
5) Is a "kill" an armed enemy aircraft that was last seen going down after having lost major parts in the air, like a wing or a tail or an engine, particularly if it is a single-engine?
What is a claim?
1) Is a claim an armed enemy aircraft that was completely destroyed so that no part of it was ever used again?
2) Is a claim an armed enemy aircraft that was shot out of a fight and seen to crash?
3) Is a claim an armed aircraft from which the pilot was seen to parachute or at least jump out of?
4) Is a claim an armed enemy aircraft that was last seen going down in flames?
5) Is a claim an armed enemy aircraft that was last seen going down after having lost major parts in the air, like a wing or a tail or an engine, particularly if it is a single-engine?
More likely, a claim is an armed enemy aircraft that was shot out of a fight by someone on a mission or observed to crash or have a mid-air and be considered out of the fight and either crashed or force-landed.
To me, the job of the fighter pilot depends on the mission.
1) If his mission was escort, then his job was to protect the bombers from enemy fighters. To that end, if he is at 20,000 feet and chases an enemy fighter all the way down to the ground to verify a "kill," then he has abandoned his job. If he shoots an enemy fighter aircraft from the fight, in flames or otherwise, he has done his job and should be awarded a victory. The actual enemy aircraft may or may not have been totally destroyed, but he certainly was chased from the fight, was last seen going down, and the mission proceeded. He makes a good-faith claim.
2) if his mission was fighter sweep and he shoots an enemy fighter down in flames and then chases him down to the ground to verify destruction, he stands a good chance of losing his unit since they likely didn't descend with him. So, he makes a good-faith claim of seeing an enemy fighter go down in flames or otherwise.
There are other missions, but the gist is obvious here.
There are any number of ways a pilot can make a good-faith claim and yet the "victim" managed to get away and force-land, and the aircraft was either recovered or partially recovered.
There is a modern case (1970) where an F-106 was in some difficulty and the pilot ejected (The Cornfield Bomber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornfield_Bomber ), and the F-106 landed itself in a cornfield with little damage and was soon returned to service. The F-106 was not a difficult airplane to fly, but was also not a good candidate to be able to land itself with little damage after the pilot ejected. Yet, it did exactly that. I bet it COULD have been recorded as a claim had it been in combat, but actually was flying again a month later.
I am inclined to believe that most, not all, claims were submitted in good faith. Yes, I'm sure there were some outright lies ... glory hunting. But not very many. And there will ALWAYS be differences between good-faith claims submitted and aircraft acknowledged as destroyed by the combatants some time after the conflict. And, the difference may very likely not from overclaiming.
It much more likely comes about because aircraft classified as completely destroyed by combat by an armchair quarterback who wasn't in the combat and aircraft shot from an actual aerial combat fight have different definitions. In most cases, the claims are all we have to go by as records from the war itself. Reports of destroyed aircraft are usually completed well after the war and are of questionable accuracy in some cases, particularly when the data are not publically available ... and that turns out to be a lot of the time.
People in general seem to think that all losses are accounted for in after-war inventory reports, but that is simply not always the case. Look at the Bf 109 as a start.
1) Nobody is sure exactly how many were built because the records were lost in the war.
2) Some people claim to know, and have the serial number list to prove it. But, in reality, these people have a serial number list assigned by the German RLM. There is no proof anywhere that actual production ever matched the serial number list, and considerable proof it didn't. So, we will never have an accurate production number for the Bf 109 and, logically extended, Bf 109 losses. But there WERE a lot of Bf109 losses.
Think about being a logistics reporting person in the USSR. Stalin was known to kill people who brought him bad news. Do we really think the losses of equipment were completely accurately recorded to be reported to Comrade Stalin? Do we really think victories weren't embellished a bit? It's not a knock on Soviet soldiers, it's an indictment of butcher Joseph Stalin.
Anyway, what is a "kill" or victory?
1) Is a kill an armed enemy aircraft that was completely destroyed so that no part of it was ever used again? Who determined it was destroyed?
2) Is a "kill" an armed enemy aircraft that was shot out of a fight and seen to crash? Seen by whom?
3) Is a "kill" an armed aircraft from which the pilot was seen to parachute or at least jump out of? Why do we believe the airplane was a total loss just because the pilot jumped out?
4) Is a "kill" an armed enemy aircraft that was last seen going down in flames?
5) Is a "kill" an armed enemy aircraft that was last seen going down after having lost major parts in the air, like a wing or a tail or an engine, particularly if it is a single-engine?
What is a claim?
1) Is a claim an armed enemy aircraft that was completely destroyed so that no part of it was ever used again?
2) Is a claim an armed enemy aircraft that was shot out of a fight and seen to crash?
3) Is a claim an armed aircraft from which the pilot was seen to parachute or at least jump out of?
4) Is a claim an armed enemy aircraft that was last seen going down in flames?
5) Is a claim an armed enemy aircraft that was last seen going down after having lost major parts in the air, like a wing or a tail or an engine, particularly if it is a single-engine?
More likely, a claim is an armed enemy aircraft that was shot out of a fight by someone on a mission or observed to crash or have a mid-air and be considered out of the fight and either crashed or force-landed.
To me, the job of the fighter pilot depends on the mission.
1) If his mission was escort, then his job was to protect the bombers from enemy fighters. To that end, if he is at 20,000 feet and chases an enemy fighter all the way down to the ground to verify a "kill," then he has abandoned his job. If he shoots an enemy fighter aircraft from the fight, in flames or otherwise, he has done his job and should be awarded a victory. The actual enemy aircraft may or may not have been totally destroyed, but he certainly was chased from the fight, was last seen going down, and the mission proceeded. He makes a good-faith claim.
2) if his mission was fighter sweep and he shoots an enemy fighter down in flames and then chases him down to the ground to verify destruction, he stands a good chance of losing his unit since they likely didn't descend with him. So, he makes a good-faith claim of seeing an enemy fighter go down in flames or otherwise.
There are other missions, but the gist is obvious here.
There are any number of ways a pilot can make a good-faith claim and yet the "victim" managed to get away and force-land, and the aircraft was either recovered or partially recovered.
There is a modern case (1970) where an F-106 was in some difficulty and the pilot ejected (The Cornfield Bomber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornfield_Bomber ), and the F-106 landed itself in a cornfield with little damage and was soon returned to service. The F-106 was not a difficult airplane to fly, but was also not a good candidate to be able to land itself with little damage after the pilot ejected. Yet, it did exactly that. I bet it COULD have been recorded as a claim had it been in combat, but actually was flying again a month later.
I am inclined to believe that most, not all, claims were submitted in good faith. Yes, I'm sure there were some outright lies ... glory hunting. But not very many. And there will ALWAYS be differences between good-faith claims submitted and aircraft acknowledged as destroyed by the combatants some time after the conflict. And, the difference may very likely not from overclaiming.
It much more likely comes about because aircraft classified as completely destroyed by combat by an armchair quarterback who wasn't in the combat and aircraft shot from an actual aerial combat fight have different definitions. In most cases, the claims are all we have to go by as records from the war itself. Reports of destroyed aircraft are usually completed well after the war and are of questionable accuracy in some cases, particularly when the data are not publically available ... and that turns out to be a lot of the time.
Last edited: