[Barrett]

A welcome topic, and a welcome change from the plethora of personality-driven threads of late.
No question that the Brits had the right strategy, but in large part it was because they could afford to. The Germans were nearly always outnumbered in the air, which of course is why they produced the top aces--the smaller air force inevitably "benefits" from having more targets.
Even Robin Olds liked to say that if he'd been a Hanoi-based MiG-21 pilot, "I'd have got 50 of us."
Let's remember the origins of aceology: it was a French concept, evidently arising from the prewar enthusiasm for sports "aces" in bicycling, boxing, yadda-yadda. Air-air combat was easily grasped in that context, Pierre LeVin understood it, or at least thought he did. Same with his cousins Nigel Pintobitters and Joe Sixpack. Hence the greater coverage accorded fighter guys.
However, recconnaissance had a strategic effect on the conduct of the war (Tannenberg and all that) and heavy bombardment came on rapidly toward the end, as technology improved. Personally, I'm more interested in the ground attack aspect than Gothas and 0-400s, and I suspect there's a couple of books waiting to be written on the Schlastas and their allied counterparts. (Still want to man up with Boom in our BrisFit and straff the Bray-Corbie Road one fine morning.)
Anyway, about this matter of Bishop shooting down von Richthofen...