[Franek Grabowski]

Stig
A human nature in military?
Any system may have flaws and might be prone to frauds, for sure. Nonetheless it is rather hard to assume that a reporting system was created to generate frauds. It is the purpose of propaganda to provide lies on purpose, well, more less.
I have went through hundreds of combat reports of Allied pilots mainly ETO but also MTO. I have never seen anything in kind of what you are implying, ie. writing them to satisfy the command. Quite to the contrary, they contain a lot of information about various deficiencies like imrpoper radio communication, tactical or technical advantages of the enemy, etc. Just recently I have re read a report claiming that Me 109F was a far superior aircraft in every respect, outperforming Spitfire. It is a completely different thing, what higher levels of command did with those reports, of course. Nonetheless reading intel bulletins, I had an impression, that the information was thoroughly digested, and combined with other resources to produce tactical instructions. Yet another thing is about claimed successes and reviews of those reports. Given that the Fighter Command noted, that several victories were reported despite firing from beyond the range of effective fire, there was certainly a sort of scepticism towards the reports. Still there was some policy in regard of awarding victories, seemingly quite liberal at first. I guess the command knew of actual enemy losses, and considered victories as a morale booster rather than information about enemy losses. This is my assumption only, however.
Basically, there was no interest of accepting fraudulent information on this low level, as the only one to make a profit from a fraud was a pilot filing a report for a victory that did not happen and which could give him some benefits. Another question is, if a fraud could be identified, and if it could be proven tobe intentional and not a result of a confusion.
That said, reports and memories are apples and oranges. Certainly, some are clear science fiction, and some are extremelly accurate for various reasons, either failing memory, self-promotion or even a demand of a publisher wanting a sensation. We should not consider memories relevant here, however, as we are interested in the system and not psychology.
As I undestand the point made by Johannes is, that certain pilots claimed excessive number of victories at certain conditions, well above their average. This obviously make them suspect. My point is, that victories of pilots in question should be evaluated against available documents of the other side, and if not valid a question mark should be put on victory crediting system in general. If the system bothered to investigate claims for years before crediting fraudulent claims as legitimate victories, it was not worth much, was not it?
I think it is enough and we should not detract from the original question, indeed.

Cheers
Franek

PS What is Polish way of handling work?