Not to take sides in any personal pissing matches
, but I'd put in my usual two cents about claims or credited victories v actual losses on the other side. The key point is not that claims or credits tended to exceed real losses. The key point is that the *degree* of overstatement was highly variable, between air arms, and even for the same air arm in different theaters and periods. So it's almost entirely meaningless to compare claimed/credited kill ratio's unless it's claims by the same or very similar air arm in the same period. Otherwise 100 credits by one AF in one theater and period could typically mean 75 real enemy losses, and 100 credits could typically mean 12 enemy losses in another AF, time or place. There are historical examples everywhere within that range for fighter claims/credits, or even outside it.
There is therefore no valid basis for taking claims from different AF's, or greatly different times and situations even for the same AF, at face value relative to each other. Either we know the claim accuracy from enough relevant examples documented from both sides, same AF, same theater, same period of time, or we can't compare them reliably.
And, besides data, different researchers' methods and assumptions, and sometimes biases, can lead to different answers for the claim accuracy, even when data exists from both sides. That's the other problem, in some cases (not saying any cases here) there turns out good reason for skepticism about what people have said they've found about claim accuracy.
Joe