Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: msmiller@gonzoville.East.Sun.COM (Mark Miller - Sun BOS Contractor)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Battle of Britain kill ratios
Message-ID: <11234@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 8 Nov 89 04:41:00 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Billerica MA
Lines: 29
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: msmiller@gonzoville.East.Sun.COM (Mark Miller - Sun BOS Contractor)
>
>
>From:  Brian Ross (bxr307@coombs.anu.oz)
>The biggest problem in trying to equate the different rate of 
>kills between the two sides in the war is the different methods 
>each had of recording kills.  The Germans were much more lax 
>about this and were willing to take the pilots word on the 
>matter.  

Check out a book called "The Messerschmitt Aces" (don't have the
publisher's name here at work). In it, they show copies of the forms a
Luftwaffe pilot needed to fill out to get credit for a kill. He had to
tell just about everything - how many rounds, where he hit, damage
assesment. He also needed witnesses. Also, unlike the Allied air
forces, the Luftwaffe gave no partial kills. It was either full credit
or nothing. One of the biggest misconceptions from the war is that the
Luftwaffe propped up their claims of air victories. Only years later,
when people started taking a more unbiased look at how the Luftwaffe
conducted itself did they realize that the claims were true and
usually quite well documented.
    -MSM

[mod.note:  If you've been following some of the claims I've reported
in 50 Years Ago, you'll see that *publically* claimed kills are always
exaggerated, by all sides.  These propaganda figures are easily confused
with the actual accredited kills. - Bill ]