% of Verfiable Victories

[Rob Romero]

54 WWI Central Power Aces
1) 74 of 80 Claims ( 92.5%) Manfred von Richthofen -Source Norman Franks
2) 46 of 48 Claims ( 95.8%) Werner Voss -Source Norman Franks
3) 33 of 33 Claims (100.0%) Kurt Wolff -Source Norman Franks
4) 33 of 40 Claims ( 82.5%) Lothar von Richthofen -Source Norman Franks
5) 32 of 45 Claims ( 71.1%) Fritz Rumey -Source Barrett @
6) 30 of 30 Claims (100.0%) Karl Allmenröder
7) 30 of 37 Claims ( 81.1%) Lt. Max Ritter von Müller (1Verified Victory was an Unconfimred Claim) -Source Norman Franks
8) 30 of 62 Claims ( 48.4%) Ernst Udet
9) 28 of 31 Claims ( 90.3%) Paul Billik
10) 27 of 54 Claims ( 50.0%) Erich Lowenhardt
11) 25 of 44 Claims ( 56.8%) Rudolf Berthold
12) 25 of 48 Claims ( 52.0%) Josef Jacobs
13) 26 of 28 Claims ( 92.9%) Friedrich von Roth
14) 26 of 40 Claims ( 65.0%) Franz Büchner (Possibly 34/40 Claims 85%)
15) 25 of 30 Claims ( 83.3%) Karl-Emil Schäfer
16) 24 of 44 Claims ( 54.5%) Bruno Loerzer
17) 23 of 40 Claims ( 57.5%) Oswald Bölcke (Verifiable Victories (VV) OBSCURED by insufficiency of French loss records!)
18) 22 of 35 Claims ( 62.9%) Goodwin Brumowski positive or possible ID –Top Austrian WWI Ace
19) 22 of 43 Claims ( 51.2%) Paul Baumer
20) 21 of 24 Claims ( 87.5%) Hptm. Adolf Ritter von Tutschek (also Credited 3 Balloons) -Source Norman Franks
21) 20 of 24 Claims ( 83.3%) Oblt. Erwin Böhme-Source Norman Franks
22) 15 of 32 Claims ( 46.9%) Julius Arigi -(15+ Verified) Austrian - O'Connor's Air Aces of the Austro-Hungarian EWmpire 1914-1918
23) 14 of 15 Claims ( 93.3%) Max Immelmann (2-3 additional Verifed Victories not claimed as Kills by Immelmann) -Norman Franks
24) 13 of 25 Claims ( 52.0%) Lt. Walter von Bülow-Bothkamp (also Credited 3 Balloons)
25) 12 of 13 Claims ( 83.3%) Oblt. zur See Friedrich Christiansen
26) 11 of 12 Claims ( 91.7%) Sebastien Festner -Paul Forster
27) 11 of 20 Claims ( 55.0%) Lt. Ernst Hess (2 of 3 Unconfirmed Claims were Verified Included in Tally)
28) 11 of 44 Claims ( 25.0%) Hptm. Rudolf Berthold
29) 9 of 12 Claims ( 75.0%) Lt. Hans von Keudell
30) 9 of 22 Claims ( 40.9%) Minimum: Hermann Göring:
15 of 22 Claims ( 68.2%) Possible: Hermann Göring: Possibly 14 of 22 Claims (63.6%)

31) 8 of 10 Claims ( 80.0%) Lt. Max Ritter von Mulzer
32) 8 of 14 Claims ( 57.1%) Oblt. Hans-Georg von der Marwitz (also Credited 1 Balloon)
33) 8 of 14 Claims ( 57.1%) Lt. Georg Schlenker
34) 8 of 19 Claims ( 42.1%) Lt. Kurt Wintgens
35) 8 of 28 Claims ( 28.6%) Benno Fiala Ritter von Fernbrugg –Austrian
36) 7 of 9 Claims ( 77.7%) Lt. Gustav Leffers
37) 6 of 7 Claims ( 85.7%) Lt. Gisbert-Wilhelm Groos
38) 6 of 8 Claims ( 75.0%) Lt. Karl Gallwitz (also Credited 2 Balloons)
39) 6 of 8 Claims ( 75.0%) Lt. Ludwig 'Lutz' Beckmann
40) 5 of 5 Claims (100.0%) Lt. Joachim von Bertrab
41) 5 of 7 Claims ( 71.4%) Lt. zur See Paul Achilles (also Credited 1 Balloon)
42) 5 of 7 Claims ( 71.4%) Hptm. Otto Hartmann
43) 5 of 8 Claims ( 62.5%) Lt. Kurt Monnington
44) 5 of 8 Claims ( 62.5%) Lt. Viktor Schobinger
45) 5 of 9 Claims ( 55.5%) Vizefeldwebel Karl Pech
46) 5 of 36 Claims ( 13.8%) Rittmeister Karl Bolle
47) 4 of 4 Claims (100.0%) Lt. Alfred Ulmer (also Credited 1 Balloon)
48) 4 of 5 Claims ( 80.0%) Oblt. Heinrich Lorenz
49) 4 of 5 Claims ( 80.0%) Hptm. Martin Zander
50) 4 of 6 Claims ( 66.7%) Lt. Otto Walter Höhne
51) 4 of 7 Claims ( 57.1%) Lt. Gerhard Bassenge
52) 4 of 8 Claims ( 50.0%) Vizeflugmeister Hans Goerth
53) 4 of 8 Claims ( 50.0%) Offizierstellvertreter Willi Kampe
54) 4 of 8 Claims ( 50.0%) Oblt. Hans Schilling

5 WWI ALLIED ACE RECORDS
1) 33 of 34 Claims ( 97.1%) Francesco Baracca - KIA 19 Jun 1918
2) 31 of 46.5 Claims ( 66.7%) James McCudden (46.5 Credited Kills / 57 Official Victories) (Possibly 36 of 46.5 Claims 77.4%)

Edward 'Mick' Mannock (38.28 Credited Kills / 61 Official Victories)
15 of 38 Claims ( 39.2%) -as per DEM 2 Oct 06

Eddie Rickenbacker (?? Claimed Kills / 26 Official Victories)
11 of 26 Claims ( 42.3%) -including 2 "grounders" -2 Crash Landed?

Lanoe Hawker (3 Credited Kills / 7 Official Victories)
1 of 3 Claims ( 33.3%) -as per DEM 2 Oct 06

Raymond Collishaw (29.2 Credited Kills / 60 Official Victories)
0 of 29 Claims ( 00.0%) - as per DEM 2 Oct 06


10 WWII Aces
1) 81 of 151 Claims ( 53.6%) Minimum: Hans-Joachim Marseille (158) 151 Afrika + 7 Battle of Britain -Source Wikipedia
127 of 151 Claims ( 84.1%) Possible: Hans-Joachim Marseille (158) 151 Afrika + 7 Battle of Britain -Source Wikipedia

2) ~80 of 345 Claims (~23.2%) Erich Hartmann (352) -Ace of Aces? -based on 'research' of Dimitri Khazanov
3) 74 of 121 Claims ( 61.2%) Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer -Top NJG Ace (much higher verification % has been indicated)
4) 66 of 111 Claims ( 59.5%) Helmut Lent -2nd NJG Ace (49 Consecutive VV -Therefore higher verification % indicated)
5) 25 of 40 Claims ( 62.5%) Richard Bong USAAF PTO Ace of Aces -unknown Web post.
6) 21 of 28 Claims ( 75.0%) Francis 'Gabby' Gabreski USAAF ETO Ace of Aces -Source a 56th FG History

7) 16 of 51 Claims ( 31.4%) Minimum: Otto Schulz -Pilot Identified (Including 7 Aces -3KIA!!) -Source Kacha's Web Site
26 of 51 Claims ( 51.0%) Possible: Otto Schulz -Pilot or Unit Identified -http://www.luftwaffe.cz/schulz.html

8) 15 of 64 Claims ( 23.4%) Saburo Sakai -top scoring surviving IJNAF ace -Henry Sakaida post?

9) 13 of 39 Claims ( 33.3%) Minimum: Rudolf Sinner -Pilot Identified -Source Kacha's Web Site
22 of 39 Claims ( 56.4%) Possible: Rudolf Sinner -Pilot or Unit Identified -Source Kacha's Web Site

10) 11 of 63 Claims ( 17.5%) Minimum: Gerhard Homuth -Pilot Identified -Source Kacha's Web Site
42 of 63 Claims ( 66.7%) Possible: Gerhard Homuth -Pilot or Unit Identified - [url=http://www.luftwaffe.cz/homuth.html]Aces of the Luftwaffe - Gerhard Homuth

11) ~9.5 of 26 Claims ( 36.5%) Gregory 'Pappy' Boyington - PROPORTIONAL METHOD JoeB
12) 9 of 31 Claims ( 29.0%) Heinz Knocke (-research continuing @ heinzknokewebsite.com)
13) 6+ of 7 Claims ( +85.8%) Lt. Hans -Leopold Henkemeier -Source Andrey Dikov

14) 5 of 6 Claims ( 83.3%) Minimum: Kurt Necesany -Pilot Identified -2 Unconfirmed/Shared Claims Verified
6 of 6 Claims (100.0%) Possible: Kurt Necesany -Pilot or Unit Identified

15) 6 of 8 Claims ( 75.0%) Minimum: Dieter Meister -Pilot Identified
8 of 8 Claims (100.0%) Possible: Dieter Meister -Pilot or Unit Identified
7.08/11 Individual/Shared Claims ( 64.4%) Minimum: Dieter Meister -Pilot Identified
10.08/11 11 Individual/Shared Claims ( 72.7%) Possible: Dieter Meister -Pilot or Unit Identified

Korean War USAF Aces –Source Korean War Aces
1) 13.5 of 15.5 Claims ( 87.1%) Capt. Manuel J. 'Pete' Fernandez
2) 13 of 15 Claims ( 86.7%) Maj. James Jabara 1.5 WWII Credits
3) 13 of 16 Claims ( 81.3%) Capt. Joseph M. McConnell
4) 11 of 13 Claims ( 84.6%) Col Royal N. Baker 3.5 WWII Credits
5) 10 of 14 Claims ( 71.4%) Maj. George A. Davis 7.0 WWII Credits
6) 5 of 6.5 Claims ( 76.9%) Maj. Winton W. Marshall
7) 5 of 6 Claims ( 83.3%) 1/Lt. James H. Kasler
8) 5 of 5 Claims (100.0%) Capt. Richard S. Becker
9) 3 of 5 Claims (60.0%) Maj. Richard D. Creighton
10) 2 of 5 Claims (40.0%) Capt. Ralph D. 'Hoot' Gibson

Korean War Russian Aces -Source Russian Aces of the Korean War
1) 12 of 19 Claims (63.2%) Yevgeni G. Pepelyayev
2) 10 of 17 Claims (58.8%) Lev Kirilovich Shchukin
3) 7 of 13 Claims (53.8%) Sergei M. Kramarenko
4) 5 of 6 Claims (83.3%) Anatoly M. Karelin
5) 5 of 8 Claims (62.5%) Semen A. Fedorets
6) 5 of 11 Claims (45.4%) Stepan A. Bahayev
7) 4 of 6 Claims (66.7%) Nikolai I. Ivanov
8) 4 of 8 Claims (50.0%) Aleksandre P. Smorchkov
9) 4 of 8 Claims (50.0%) Serafim P. Subbotin
10) 4 of 10 Claims (40.0%) Dmitri A. Samoylov
11) 3 of 5 Claims (60.0%) Boris S. Abakumov
12) 3 of 5 Claims (60.0%) Grigorii N. Berelidze
13) 3 of 6 Claims (50.0%) Arkadii S. Boitsov
14) 3 of 6 Claims (50.0%) Grigorii I. Ges
15) 3 of 9 Claims (33.3%) Mikhail I. Mihin
16) 3 of 11 Claims (27.3%) Grigorii U. Ohay
17) 2 of 6 Claims (33.3%) Fiodor A. Shebanov
18) 2 of 6 Claims (33.3%) Nikolai M. Zameskin
19) 2 of 7 Claims (28.6%) V. N. Alfeyev
20) 2 of 8 Claims (25.0%) Grigorii I. Pulov
21) 2 of 9 Claims (22.2%) Dmitri P. Oskin
22) 2 of 10 Claims (20.0%) Pavel S. Milaushkin
23) 2 of 11 Claims (18.2%) Mikhail S. Ponomaryev
24) 2 of 11 Claims (18.2%) Konstantin N. Sheberstov
25) 2 of 12 Claims (16.7%) Ivan V. Suchkov

Vietnamese Aces -Source Vietnamese Aces
1) 7 of 9 Claims (77.8%) Nguyen Van Coc
2) 5 of 6 Claims (83.3%) Nguyen Doc Soat
3) 5 of 6 Claims (83.3%) Vu Ngoc Dinh
4) 5 of 7 Claims (71.4%) Nguyen Van Bay
5) 3 of 6 Claims (50.0%) Nguyen Danh Kinh
6) 3 of 8 Claims (37.5%) Nguyen Hong Nhi
7) 2 of 6 Claims (33.3%) Nguyen Ngoc Do
8) 2 of 6 Claims (33.3%) Nguyen Nhat Chieu
9) 2 of 6 Claims (33.3%) Le Thanh Dao
10) 2 of 6 Claims (33.3%) Le Hai
11) 1 of 5 Claims (20.0%) Nguyen Van Nghia
12) 1 of 6 Claims (16.6%) Nguyen Tien Sam
13) 1 of 6 Claims (16.6%) Luu Huy Chao
14) 1 of 7 Claims (14.3%) Dang Ngoc Ngu
15) 1 of 8 Claims (12.5%) Pham Thanh Ngan

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I dont buy some of that. While I agree that many of Hartmanns kills are questionable I seriously doubt that it was as low as 80 kills.

Now having said that there is no way that we will ever be able to verify the majority of WW2 kills by any pilot.

 

[Hunter368]

I dont buy some of that. While I agree that many of Hartmanns kills are questionable I seriously doubt that it was as low as 80 kills.

Now having said that there is no way that we will ever be able to verify the majority of WW2 kills by any pilot.

Hartmann's kills have been varified......can't remember the exact number that were 100% proven with Russian help....it was around 260-280 kills proven and of course many kills cannot be proven....but that does not mean they never happened.

But again "proven" needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Proven by who? etc. The matter is most pilots of all nations made claims in good faith, mistakes were made.

All nations over claimed. Over claiming increased when kills happened over enemy territory (or ocean), more accurate claiming happened over friendly territory. These percentages mean little to me.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Agreed, thats basically what I am getting at.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Likewise - we're splitting hairs here. At the same time we could look at the same aces listed here that had probables which "could of" been actual kills. We all know the numbers games but history tells us the final outcome....

 

[Lucky13]

Speaking about kills fellas....
What is the kill ratio for some of these aces? Hartmann had 352 kills during x amount of missions, what would his kill ratio be you think? I'm sure that he flew some mission where he didn't even see an enemy.

 

[Hunter368]

Speaking about kills fellas....
What is the kill ratio for some of these aces? Hartmann had 352 kills during x amount of missions, what would his kill ratio be you think? I'm sure that he flew some mission where he didn't even see an enemy.

I am at work now but I do have all that information at home.

 

[Rob Romero]

I had to severly curtail my post, as it was too long. In it's original form, it began with:


CAVEAT: I've started what I think is an interesting and potentially important thread: While I recognize this endeavor will be imperfect (in some cases highly), it may provide a SENSE of the actual success of various aces. Hopefully, it will expand and eventually (perhaps WELL into the future) provide us with a fairly comprehensive and reliable database. I am relying on the contributions of others and cannot vouch for the authenticity of submissions -I am relying on the web community to keep tabs and bring debatable data to light. Perhaps in cases of great controversy, a range could be established (i.e., pilot X claimed 100 aircraft and the documents/records STRONGLY SUGGEST he shot down 40 with another 30 Possible and of these 'Official' Victories 20 were really only Damaged etc. and 10 were Phantom (No Historical Basis) Claims).

NOTE: Just because we can verify only a portion of a pilot's claims, it does not necessarily mean that they did not actually shoot down more aircraft (though in a few throuroghly researched cases, this seems highly probable) -it means only that so many have been confirmed by the historical record to date.



If you noticed I put the 'Research' of Dimitri Khazanov in quotes. According to Christer Bergstrom (sp.) JG52 had a very high reliability in its claims (especially in 1944 when Hartmann did most of his damage). However, I would not be surprised if there were some aces who GREATLY exaggerated their success. For instance Andrey Dikov whose research seems very thorough gave Lt. Hans-Leopold Henkemeier credit for 6 if not all 7 of his claims. However, he can only support 1 of Walter Nowotny's (258) first 10 claims.

IN ANY CASE, I WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IN RESEARCH VERIFYING THAT HARTMANN ACTUALLY SHOT DOWN 260-280 OF HIS CLAIMS -A LEAD OR REFERENCE IN THAT DIRECTION WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED!

Thanks,

Rob.

 

[Hunter368]

Wow Rob,

You are asking me to dig very deep in my memory....I will see what I can do but no promises. But like I said I am not sure what the point is.

 

[Erich]

well Dimitri's so called research has been blasted by quite a few German historians and has been even covered on TOCH and LEMB Rob. you probably have read it. I'm not going to get into a nit pick here as probably every kill as a total for all higher scoring aces is probably off. Hartmann may well have gotten 300 , probably no more. JG 52 volumes could possibly shed some light further by Nikko Fast

one curiousity will be Kurt Welter whom we will cover like no other author in our night fighter book. His kills should actually read more like claims. In some cases where he claimed a Mossie he did not even fly that eve.........

another note, the monster work by Dr. Theo Boiten in 2008 - Nachtjagd War Diaries should put to rest the Lent, Schnaufer and every other high score NJ pilots record against the RAF with cross-referencing where applicable

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Hartmann. Yeah, they are just trying to knock him down unfairly.

But in a way, Hartmann himself might not care. He was most happy that all his differant wingmen survived on missions with him, not the kills.

 

[JoeB]

Rob, I've seen your list, and responded to it a little, on other forums. Now it's grown. Which is good. But (as I've said before) I think the problem will always be standardizing the method of research.

Let me give a clear example that's come up in one of the growth areas of the list since I last saw it: the US and Soviet claim %'s for Korea that you got from the "Korean War Aces" and "Russian Aces in the Korean War" links. You are reporting what's on a link so I'm not trying to give you grief directly, but per my own findings, both those lists are bogus.

I studied Nikolai's Sutyagin's score (highest claiming Soviet ace in Korea) carefully, using original US records and a very detailed source of Soviet claims (with times and places, not just date). I found his score by my 'proportional'* method to be around 1.5, not 12 as in that list. With the 'benefit of the doubt' method** his score was a maximum of 5. There's OTOH no incontrovertible evidence he shot down any US planes (all 5 times one US plane was actually downed with multiple competing Soviet/Chinese claims).

*proportional: if 5 pilots on the ace's side, including him, each claim 1 enemy plane but only 1 enemy plane was downed altogether, each pilots receives a 'real' score of 0.2
**benefit of doubt: in the same case as above, we say the ace's claim is verified (implying all the other claims on his side were overclaims), because it *could* be true. I think proportional gives a more accurate picture.

That's a big variation 1.5, 5 or 12. Here's a link to details claim by claim. 12 must be fudged, there are too many errors all stacked one way for it to be an accident.
Korean War Ace Sutyagin's Score

Btw the problem with the US aces Korea list is a) it doesn't use absolutely complete Russian loss data but b) it assumes where Chinese and NK a/c may have been involved, the US claims were *100%* correct. In fact it's simply not possible to evaluate US ace claims in Korea day by day after September 1951 (when the Chinese became a major factor, because we don't know their day to day losses, only a total and some individual cases), and that affects almost all US aces' scores. Soviet ace scores can be evaluated because we *do* know their claims and US losses in great detail.

I think (I know in some cases) there would be parallel issues of data in other wars, and probably fudging in some cases. Very fascinating topic, very important one IMO. "All sides overclaimed so let's just forget it and treat all claims equally" is BS, just IMHO. But it's quite difficult to nail down, especially on an individual level. *I'm* reasonably sure ~1.5 is the fair number for Sutyagin, and therefore the other numbers on that Korean sublist are not to be trusted, but just looking at the whole list how can I know how those numbers were calced?

Joe

 

[Bf109_g]

Hi Rob!

Just wondering, why are there not that many Vietnamese "aces"?

James.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Hi Rob!

Just wondering, why are there not that many Vietnamese "aces"?

James.

The NVAF did have several aces. They dd not possess a whole lot of aircraft until 1972 when Operation Linebacker II went into effect. At that point the US changed policy and tactics and fighter pilots had more latitude where and when they could engage the NVAF and did so with success. The US Navy claimed about a 10 to 1 kill margin, the USAF a lot lower, but those numbers are reflective of sporadic engagements from May through August 1972. IMO the few aces that emerged from the NVAF were more or less "survivors," pilots being in the right place at the right time to ensure their victories but to also ensure their survival. Had the air war over Vietnam continued into 1973 the NVAF would of ceased to exist as it was getting pounded on the ground and in the air.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Rob, I've seen your list, and responded to it a little, on other forums. Now it's grown. Which is good. But (as I've said before) I think the problem will always be standardizing the method of research.

Let me give a clear example that's come up in one of the growth areas of the list since I last saw it: the US and Soviet claim %'s for Korea that you got from the "Korean War Aces" and "Russian Aces in the Korean War" links. You are reporting what's on a link so I'm not trying to give you grief directly, but per my own findings, both those lists are bogus.

I studied Nikolai's Sutyagin's score (highest claiming Soviet ace in Korea) carefully, using original US records and a very detailed source of Soviet claims (with times and places, not just date). I found his score by my 'proportional'* method to be around 1.5, not 12 as in that list. With the 'benefit of the doubt' method** his score was a maximum of 5. There's OTOH no incontrovertible evidence he shot down any US planes (all 5 times one US plane was actually downed with multiple competing Soviet/Chinese claims).

*proportional: if 5 pilots on the ace's side, including him, each claim 1 enemy plane but only 1 enemy plane was downed altogether, each pilots receives a 'real' score of 0.2
**benefit of doubt: in the same case as above, we say the ace's claim is verified (implying all the other claims on his side were overclaims), because it *could* be true. I think proportional gives a more accurate picture.

That's a big variation 1.5, 5 or 12. Here's a link to details claim by claim. 12 must be fudged, there are too many errors all stacked one way for it to be an accident.
Korean War Ace Sutyagin's Score

Btw the problem with the US aces Korea list is a) it doesn't use absolutely complete Russian loss data but b) it assumes where Chinese and NK a/c may have been involved, the US claims were *100%* correct. In fact it's simply not possible to evaluate US ace claims in Korea day by day after September 1951 (when the Chinese became a major factor, because we don't know their day to day losses, only a total and some individual cases), and that affects almost all US aces' scores. Soviet ace scores can be evaluated because we *do* know their claims and US losses in great detail.

I think (I know in some cases) there would be parallel issues of data in other wars, and probably fudging in some cases. Very fascinating topic, very important one IMO. "All sides overclaimed so let's just forget it and treat all claims equally" is BS, just IMHO. But it's quite difficult to nail down, especially on an individual level. *I'm* reasonably sure ~1.5 is the fair number for Sutyagin, and therefore the other numbers on that Korean sublist are not to be trusted, but just looking at the whole list how can I know how those numbers were calced?

Joe

So Joe, are we finally accepting the fact that the Russian claims were a bit more than "highly" over stated? As previously stated, I think the Soviet pilots who flew in Korea claimed something like 630 F-86s destroyed when in actuality about 635 F-86s actually rotated through Korea. The same for the F-80, they claimed almost the entire amount that was deployed in country...

By the Russian's own admittance, when one does the math they still were defeated by at least 2 to 1, but as previously stated the over all exact score will never be known.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

How many jet kills have there been through all history?

Double post. sorry.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

How many jet to jet kills have there actually been since........well since fighter jets first flew off the runaway? In all the wars involving jets?

I'm thinking of air to air kills, and not on the ground kills by jets.

50?

100?

200?

More?

 

[Rob Romero]

May list all known Jet air-air victories -many matched with victims -make sure you check out the lists.

Articles

-Rob

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I think ACIG is an excellent site as well.....

 

[JoeB]

So Joe, are we finally accepting the fact that the Russian claims were a bit more than "highly" over stated?

Who's "we"? I keep researching but haven't found anything that's changed my basic conconclusions in the last few years.

Also re: your other post, ACIG is an *interesting* site, but their Korean War lists are riddled with errors. The lists of Soviet claims in Korea give a quite misleadingly high impression of Soviet claim accuracy. They do that two ways: first the ACIG lists credit Soviet pilots with *all* US losses of the same general type lost the same day to *any* cause, no matter what US sources say was the cause. Second, those list simply omit many of the Soviet claims.
Example
Soviet Air-to-Air Victories during the Korean War, Part 1
This list, Soviet claims in Korea 11/1/50-8/29/51 gives 140 Soviet claims, crediting them with 46 specific UN a/c (serial no), though in some cases with a "?"'; plus 22 other apparently claim verifying references like "pilot POW", "admitted", "crashed in the bay" etc but no specific plane, so up to 68 total.
In reality there were (at least) 221 Soviet claims in that period, and my incident by incident research in original records showed 19 UN a/c lost in air combat outright, 2 others possible (losses not attributed to air combat that may have been, it *did* happen, just not very often), 3 returned but never repaired, so up to 24 total. That is, like the Soviet ace score, a big discrepancy, 68 v 24.

But surprise! the same guy who wrote those lists of Soviet and Vietnamese aces mainly did the KW lists at ACIG, and contributed to some other lists there. Note he uses some of the same techniques on the Vietnamese ace list: if a US plane of same type was lost to *any* cause over NV the same day as a VPAF ace claim, it's credited as verifying his claim (regardless of the cause given in US records, *and* regardless of claims made by other VPAF pilots).

What analysis leads you to state instead that ACIG is an "excellent" source? I don't know if all their lists are as biased and fudged as the above, just curious to know what research has led you to your conclusion.

Joe