[Dénes Bernád]

It has already been demonstrated that Khazanov's findings in regards of Hartmann's claims in East can be forgotten, as they are sloppy and possibly motivated by politics. So any references to his 'study' should be discarded outright.

My opinion, based on several decades of activity in the aviation history field, is that one cannot have a fair enough picture unless goes to primary sources, untainted by day-by-day politics or fading memory. Even with these primary data there are many-many contradictions and ambiguous situation that need to be solved.

As for the amount of primary data available in the Soviet archives, I was shown samples from 1943 that appear to be more detailed and precise than the Luftwaffe's own system of tracking losses. As known, victory claims are many (most?) times uncertain, but losses almost always accurate (even if the cause of loss being misgiven). Therefore, there is hope that our Russian speaking colleagues will come up one day with accurate loss records (one should only live long enough to see this coming to print).

Therefore, bashing certain prominent pilots, regardless of their nationality, without having a strong evidence that can be shared, is nothing more than hearsay and should thus be discredited.

P.S. A final point, claims of anti-aircraft artillery crews and ground fire are usually overlooked in trying to assess one certain pilot's claims, even though about half of all shotdowns and damages to aircraft were caused by this branch.