[keith A]

Para two of my reply, it should read P47 for Typhoon.

Sorry Franek, prove your Me110 was a Liberator (blue on blue?) or your Mosquito was a Lancaster and I will retract. By this I mean not that wreckage for one fitted a combat for the other but that the claimant identified the claim definitively. Markings, crash site. If so then I don't understand why the claim is misidentified. I don't doubt the fallibility of fighter pilots claims is proved but the attribution of loss of their opponents may be.

Show me how a radial engine Fw190 looks like a Bf109? Different engine, wings, tailplane, armament, fuselage....cockpit? Gun camera footage is able to be interpreted I agree but to allocate damage requires distinct circumstances. For example a single target (usually a bomber or recce aircraft) attacked in isolation by one or several fighters. If you are close enough to claim damage then surely you are close enought to identify your target?

I have seen a lot of gun camera footage and the only time I have been in doubt has been when it is impossible to identify an opponent or that the footage was so distant that it shows the claimant may have contributed to the destruction of the object but was so far away that evidence was not conclusive.

regards

Keith