Doing it German style

"Unconfirmed by Army means UNCONFIRMED!"

*slams shut a file*

Maybe what is at issue here is the definition of "confirmed". It seems that the Germans and the English had very different interpretations of that word.

Al

Nope.

Groundfire got that hun.

But the RFC did put in a claim

regards,

MDD

Oops. RAF.

The German system was typically efficient, and clearly was more accurate than the system used by the Brits. Germans were able to verify claims because most of their victories occured over or near German-held positions.

While the British system of verification was not nearly as efficient, it was a system designed, accepted, and utilized by RFC-RNAS/RAF command.

Alex seems to see very clearly that the two sides utilized completely different SYSTEMS for verifying enemy aircraft destroyed.

Craig states that character assassination and thuggery occur when this topic arises here. While that is often true, my arguement has not been personal, but rather to point out that the victories awarded to British pilots met the requirements set up by their command. As a result, such "victories" are a part of the "confirmed" record. Did all such victories result in the death of a German or the destruction of a German plane? The answer is most certainly NO. The same argument applies to Craig's statement "the RFC overclaimed by a hilarious margin". Really Craig? It appears to me that claims entered reflected "victories" as defined by RAF command (OOC, DD, etc).I think it is more accurate to say that the number of victories awarded to British pilots is significantly higher than the actual number of German planes destroyed. This is the fault of the inefficient system used, not a reflection on the integrity of British pilots.

Finally, as before, I ask: How does the latter day investigator reconcile the disparity between "RAF awarded victories" and "actual victories/casualties in the historical record"?

To state that the British did not destroy as many planes as were confirmed is one thing. But how can this be correctly quantified on a pilot-by-pilot basis? Who in the year 2000 gets to decide which of the multiple claimants in a shared victory gets the single credit? How is to be verified, on a day when 40 British claims were entered for the actual loss of 20 German planes, which 20 claims are accepted or rejected? These are just a few questions which need to be answered correctly if we are to accurately reduce the scores of the British pilots. IMO, this can not possibly be done with certainty, but that probably wont keep someone from trying.

Mark,
The most common argument that the IGAF claims proponents use is that one top scoring Entente ace or another one lied. That is where I have to draw the line. Whereas I completely agree that the Germans had an easier time of confirming kills, hence their stricter system may have been more accurate for THEIR causes, it wouldn't work for the RFC/RAF. But it takes completely away from one's credibility about their argument, when the best they can come up with is the lame excuse ... "obviously he lied." It's easy to try and file it away in a neat package as such, however I truly believe that Entente Pilot's made their claims in good faith, and their claims DO NOT have to be corroborated by German records in order to be valid. These other proponents FAIL to take into account the vagaries of war/combat, and political "sanitizing" of records for propaganda purposes. Think about this ... it's 1917 and your country's been at war for three years. You're starving and you see the toll the war is taking on your neighbors. Would you want to hear that your Army/Air Force/Navy is doing poorly, and you're suddenly in danger of possibly losing the war? Propaganda is always a tool used by politicians to sell a cause, and if you can support it with doctored records (i.e. more enemy casualties than friendly losses) then you'll have public support for much longer. How do you think the US was able to keep Vietnam going so long? Doctored body counts to where John Q. Public bought the fact that we were making progress. But the realities are, the actual combattants made good faith claims, and what happens to the official record after that is left in the hands of the system. I feel that Bishop, Fonck, Mannock etc. all made their claims in good faith, they didn't have to lie, they WERE that good. There is no one side that is all pure when it comes to accuracy, and overclaiming happened on both sides of the trenches, it's just the fact that the Germans had easier access to prove kills owing to the fact that 85% of the aerial combat happened on their side of the lines. But I know there are those waiting out in the wings who feel that I'm as wrong as the day is long and want to tell me all about it. I can hear the patter of their tiny feet now. OH NO ... they're heeeeere, the LEMMINGS!

Regards,
Jim 'ACE'

[wings]

Bishop was not THAT good.

Bishop was good enough to score and survive.

Jasta,

At what time and date did you encounter Bishop to note: "He wasn't THAT good?"

Also, did he shoot you down, or did you trick him by falling OOC?

I'm sick and tired of the fact that almost every time I ask a question, the thread turns into a flame war! I'm simply asking for facts here! What are the scores of the Entente's top aces based on the German scoring system, provided they may keep the same procedure of confirmation? Is that clear enough?