Two on Twenty

[Craig]

Many of the Forumites - including Dan-San Abbott, and the Grub Street authors, and Alex Revell, among others. Actually, it is I who agree with them, as they know more and have been at it longer.

I seem to recall that Mister Observer is NOT among those who believe that the British overclaimed wildly. It seems to require a considerable suspension of disbelief to avoid that conclusion. Those who disagree seem to be less objective about it. They seem to be defending a particular hero.

It sounds like a good question for the Opinion Poll, if it hasn't been in the past.

Going by your non-evidence Craig (as you must DISPROVE the report) I will counter with more non-evidence.

Yes I can go all day with you on this particular action.

So why do you suppose the formation(shall we say 15-20? unless you want to come out and say they lied), did not pursue this foursome after they inflicted no damage on the enemy in the course of more than 1/2 an hour? Sounds like they had them COLD dead then. I think most Jasta commanders might pursue...

[Craig]

Kory, you might be able to go on all day, but what good would it be when all you can manage is an illogical argument? In the face of no objective, corroborating evidence, such claims must be PROVED, and not the other way around. This is true also with the Billy Bishop nonsense - the burden of proof is on those who make the claim(s).

One can believe anything one pleases. But when one's beliefs turn into an insistence that others follow suit, and that those who disagree are either unpatriotic or stupid, then you'd best have a little more ammunition than blind faith and hot air.

[Craig]

More specifically, the scrap need not result in the destruction of ANY aircraft from EITHER side. More often than not, this was the case - an inconclusive combat.

Craig, You recall incorrectly. It has always been clear to many of "us" that even "hard claims" (flamer, crashed) made by British Empire flyers are far in excess of documented German losses. This is to say nothing about total claims of all types, which do nothing to correct the noted discrepency.

That the above is almost certainly a fact is not the point. What must be carefully and simaltaneously considered are the following: (1) There is absolutely no proof that a complete picture of German records exists today, (2) There is no way to determine beyond doubt whether or not the Germans included damaged but recovered planes and severely injured but surviving personnel in their tally of losses, and most importantly, (3)the APPARENT FACT that British "overclaiming" is directly related to
their inability to verify claims. If you, as most historians do, allow for the arguement that the British offensive policies resulted in the great majority of all conflicts over German lines, then it must be asked: Which side is expected to be able to aquire hard evidence and which side must rely on recalled observations made some time after combat?

Wouldn't any reasoning individual expect British claims to be significantly more prone to error, given the circumstances of war? Why all the implications about lying? Some men are truthful, some men lie. This was also true in the early 1900's.

You have got to be kidding me! Blindfaith!!!?? I have the combat reports of 4 officers in the RFC!

4 "seen in flames", 4 "seen to crash", 5 or so disengaged(under other circumstances these could be legally claimed, but in this case why bother??). Math was NOT done with a calculator in their day.

You are just picking my ass, because you don't have the guts to come out and say you think these men LIED!

Basically the infailable german records are inaccurate for this "day" "action" "jasta" or they lied.

Well ok, sigh, much as i like to scrap with Craig...

If it would please his "Sources", if they happen to wade through all my "hotair" to this post...to weigh in on this Issue?

Asking honestly for your honest opinions Dan-San and Alex.

[Darryl]

Observer,

Whilst I agree with your position, it should be noted by all that the very nature of aircombat is enough to produce overclaiming. Therefore it is true to say that fighting EOL directly contributed to PART of the overclaiming, not the whole lot.

The Brits had home ground during the Battle of Britain and still managed (by later admission) to overclaim horrendously.

To all,

The honesty of the pilots is NOT the issue in the vast majority of cases.Can a single man or two man crew (or even a pair of crews)keep track of 20 opponents in a fight? Absolutely not!!

5 Aircraft make a crowded circuit, and that is in a situation where people are usually where they are supposed to be, not darting all over the sky.

Do 3 reported SCUDS and a whole bunch of Patriots wasted ring any bells? And that was WITH the assistance of sophisticated radar. Battle, realtime, is a confusing place if most recorded history is indicative.

I am fond of saying "perception is reality", that should probably be modified to "perception becomes reality"

very best regards

Darryl

[rammjaeger]

Killration,

I am value your knowledge and experience but I have one little question.

The often used "homeground"-argument has a degree of justification but one thing should be considered: The amount of confusion and wrong evaluation of airbattle situations should be nearly the same on both sides - or not? If yes, than the Germans would report at first a very highly overclaimed number of victories too if coming back from the show. Only the (later!) comparison with really existing wrecks and ground reports would show the number of errors. The result would be (necessarly!) an enormous high number of unconfirmed victory claims. That would be visible in any documents. BUT that is not the fact, the number of u/c is very low.

As well the claim "It is so easy th count the wrecks in the own garden" is incorrect because this garden is covered by forrest, lakes etc. etc. and it is often hard to find the leftover.

For All,
Gunnar reported recently about an air combat showing 2 losses in the documents on both sides. The Germans reported 3, but the Britons 16! That kind of reports is rather the rule than the exception! Now many of the "patriots" in former Allied countries are expecting 14 hidden German losses. At least these people expect the real result somewhere in the middle, e.g. near 8 or 9 German losses. I think that is ridicilous - despite of missing documents is it senseless and unjustified to multiply the know losses with factors like 2, 3 or 4 to satisfy the annoyed patriots.

BTW how is telling some forumites that an aircraft with some hits in the wing or similar unimportant hits has to be recorded as "lost"?
Also the number of (partly unrecorded) "walk aways" will never fit the "Allied needs" for claims.

Fighting 20 enemies a half hour is not very likely. The most air combats lasted only seconds or minutes. If I understood correct the 2 crews claimed 8 or 9 of 20? ???

I can not imagine that so many flying fools - inexperineced as pilots and tacticians - were serving with the Luftstreitkräfte.

Pilots of both sides could accidently run in bigger formations and some (but a minority) were searching such a challenge. Those pilots showed guts and were really bolt - it is already a good performance to survive that with a more little success than the often misinterpretad number of victories.

VBR
Hannes

My two cents worth:

Recent statistical analysis of remaining records shows that Allied victory claims vastly exceed corresponding German losses. No argument from me there. I have read that these claims in fact exceed total German production of aircraft during the war, let alone losses.

The reasons for many of these discrepancies have been well-covered here: the difference between a victory and a kill, the fog of war, a single aircraft credited to multiple pilots, "accounting" errors on the German or Allied side (date/time don't match), missing records and so on.

Where the research has to target itself, IMHO, is those claims where a German aircraft is clearly claimed as destroyed or captured and there is no corresponding loss in the German records. If we have multiple witnesses to the destruction of a German aircraft, or the body of its pilot in Allied hands, or the aircraft itself sitting in an Allied hangar, and there is no corresponding German loss reported, then we have to question the accuracy of those records. I don't know that this has been done yet.

I don't believe that the answer to this issue has to be that one side or the other were deliberate liars. Overclaiming is to be expected for victories and underclaiming is to be expected for losses, if you ask me. The real issue is deliberately lying about it, and the destroyed aircraft are the key to this.