[edwest2]

Gentlemen,

Look at any original documents, Allied or Axis. That's all you have to work with. That's it. There is a short list of reasons as to why an aircraft is lost. If the document reads: "Lost. Cause unknown." That's it. It may sometimes be the case that another pilot saw the aircraft go down over a certain spot but under combat conditions, that exact spot might be difficult to pinpoint on a map once all pilots have returned from a mission. Perhaps the mission report states that flak was observed. That never means anyone thinks: A ha! There you have it!" NEVER.

Think of historical research as being like preparing for a court case. You must present a series of facts to the jury. The jury being your readers. And like a court case, you are not allowed to guess or to bring in some irrelevant information.

Just because you have a THEORY, that is never as convincing as: "Aircraft seen to go down over X. Parachute observed."

Again, a theory should not be added even if marked as such. It is perfectly alright to state that the loss is due to unknown causes.

Yes, as has been pointed out here, some Luftwaffe entries are either not fully legible or just plain wrong. But the correction should be based on something more than a guess.

I find it wrong to go on and on about "meaning" or why something happened as it did without some evidence to support the claim. Accounts from pilots who were actually there are most helpful, but it boils down to Pilot A shot down Pilot B and that's that. No meaning is required. No further analysis is required.

If there are indeed conflicting pieces of information then present both to the reader. "Aircraft A was listed as lost due to mechanical failure while another account states that it was attacked by an enemy fighter." For all anyone knows, both could be true. The aircraft was suffering from engine trouble and losing altitude when it was also attacked. This does NOTHING to establish a fact for the historical record.

I find I have to stress the point that no one buys a book for its lack of information. Books about air combat are expected to be accurate just like posts here are expected to be accurate, followed by the relevant document reference.

And if there is a large gap for any unit then that's that. Perhaps more documents will turn up, perhaps not. In the meantime, a book is written about that unit which includes: "Actions of this unit for 1943 are unknown due to a lack of documents."