[Kjetil Aakra]

I just needed to say my part in this.

Franek, I cannot understand why it is so important that Skalski never made an observational error during his long and successful carreer?? I don't think we should insist on claims/kills as a yardstick for achievment and skills; there's so much more to it. Skalski was just so much more than his aerial victories, however many they are! That goes for all pilots, btw.

And I wouldn't call an observational error a false claim; that is, one that is deliberately and knowlingly claimed when there is no reason or basis for it. If Mr. Emmerling states that he did so, I think he is wrong, but on the other hand, you Franek, should realize that Skalski's own observations could be wrong, without it being a "false claim".

It is a sad fact that these pilots are now leaving this world, but at the same time, I think, morbid it may sound, this allows us to more or less objectively look at the truth behind the aerial battles of WWII in terms of losses and claims. This puts a high demand on us researchers however, and we must not do what Franek does; take a stand which we will not leave because of national pride, personal opinions or feelings and so on. That will get us nowhere.

Your attempt to bait Andreas (and me) by saying that perhaps a Norwegian pilot made a deliberate false claim, is fruitless and a bit childlish. I have no problem accepting such an event if there is no corresponding German loss record, although I would first subscribe it to observational errors rather than a "liar, who invented the story just to cover up damage to his aircraft"! No doubt such things happened on all sides, but they need to be substantiated then.

The question may be asked; can we get an objective picture of claims/actual losses of various WWII encounters? In many cases lack of records will preclude that, but with a little research and creative digging into various types of archives suprisingly accurate results can be obtained. And I would put it as strongly as this; if there is no corresponding loss records to be found for a certain claim, then the claim needs to be re-evaluated (providing that the records are resonable trustworthy). Telling people to f**k of from certain pilots is unacceptable in serious research, we do not need holy cows here,, Polish, Russian; Commonwealth, certainly not Germand or any other nationality.

Mr. Warrener mentiones that "famous French ace" (we all know who that is) and indicates that discussions of his claims during WWII can lead to prosecution (doesn't scare me).

That is exactly the situation we don't need, people quarreling about what the truth is, when we do have scientific methods to find out. I must say I am a personal fan of that "French Ace" as his books brought me much joy and got me interested in this topic to begin with (I owe him a lot), but isn't it a well-established fact that his self-proclaimed claims are wildely exaggerated? In Osprey's Aircraft of the Aces No. 27 it is clearly stated (page 73-74 and 86) that his offical achievments are 11 destroyed, 2 probables and 9 damaged in the air, as well as 6 destroyed and 6 damaged on the ground.

Has this publication been sued because of this remark, I wonder? Any French reader care to comment on this? I'd also like to know if French aviation historians dismiss the Osprey author's research results and stand by the oft-quoted claims of the "French Ace"!?

Now, does this reduction in kills attributed to that "French Ace" diminish him in my eyes? Certainly not, he is still a hero in my eyes.

Kjetil