This subject has been beaten to death in here and elsewhere in other forums.
To me, the task of the fighter pilot is to protect the bombers he is escorting so they can deliver the bomb load or to shoot down such enemy fighters (and other aircraft) that he encounters on his missions if possible. If he shoots a Bf 109 out of the fight and it bellies in and is recovered, I count that as a victory. The fighter pilot did his job.
I have gotten some grief over this, but it isn't coming from fighter pilots. Seems some want each victory to match up with an enemy reported loss. That isn't EVER going to happen. The reports of over-claiming are WAY over stated in many cases, given the rules at the time. If a plane was seen on fire, spinning out of control or diving out of control into a cloud bank, it was reported as specified by the service at the time.
Strict accounting of losses as only for total destruction would result in fighter pilots abandoning their mission to pursue victims to the ground, and that could not and cannot be allowed to be common practice.
Looks like this one will stay a hot argument for many years.
I use the scores awarded during the conflict, without any regard to post-war revisionists. If a score was good enough for the service at the time, it is good enough ... assuming good, honest intentions that are largely, but not always, there.
If we want to discuss something that probably matters to many, we could discuss whether or not ground victories should be awarded with the same credit as air victories. I say no way, but the data to eliminate them entirely probably do not exist, so we are left with what we have, less than wonderful though it may be.
I'd bet this will NEVER be a solved to everyone's satisfaction. Discussing it is fun, but seems to wind up in emotional fights a lot of the time. Perhaps it is age; I find the discussion fun but do not wish to get ugly about it at all or ever again. The war is so long decided that argument over the subject is rather absurd to me. Better to find the existing data and make up our own minds, with our own justifications.
All I can say is that if I shot down a plane that bellied in, I'd claim it as a victory forever, and would consider a ground victory as destroying a ground target, not a victory over an aircraft. While it IS an aircraft, if it is on the ground it is not being operated by a pilot. Ergo, not an airborne victory for credit.