[Andreas Brekken]

Hi, Jens

Sorry, but it is ignorant fools like yourself that make long standing errors like this available on the internet and in publications.

Luckily, your example nicely underline the fact that you must be totally illiterate when it comes to studying losses of the Luftwaffe.

In the original records by the Luftwaffe this loss is noted as a category 2:

durch Feindeinwirkung durch Flakbeschuss total

or in english as I guess you have to get this translated:

Destroyed due to anti-aircraft gunfire

The detailed loss record states that the aircraft was damaged 80%, and that Krupinski was wounded, and the loss reason is stated as 'Flakbeshuss'.

In fact I get a bit sad, if you are going to show examples to underline your position on this, at least TRY to find something that has not been translated or edited by an author, and please... try to find some losses that at least are a bit questionable when it comes to facts, in this case you have just shot yourself in the foot....

I have said this so many times to people now that I end up getting bored - you have to check contemporary references. If for some reason you can not do this, it would at least be wise not to state that the original documentation is erronous, while some large scale numbers published by one or more authors MUST be correct.

There are numerous clerical errors in the original documents also, not strange considering the amount of information... but it is the best references we have. So - if you want to do something useful, stop reading coffetable books and start reading original documentation.

Sorry, Jens if you think I am being to harsh on you, but this message of yours really irritated me a lot!

Regards, and do not be too offended!

Andreas