Cheers, Nick.
I still think a loss is being linked to a claim in the first three instances irrespective of it being brought together in a later publication. No way does a Blenheim look like a Defiant in any world I inhabit. Distance, light, weather conditions or what have you it seems more likely he was "line-shooting". If he was close enough to his victims to shoot them down then he was close enough to identify a twin-engine light bomber as distinct from a single-engine nightfighter/trainer. A Hurricane I could believe, a Master also but a Blenheim? If his eyesight is that bad should he be piloting a plane or indeed driving a car
Likewise a P-47 doesn't look like a P-47 from any angle so a claim of one for the other doesn't fill me with confidence. It's equally possible that in both cases at the presumed distance the claims were made (on the pilots evidence) that they were Fw190s! I know there a well-argued instances of RAF pilots claims being questioned where a Fw190 is lost but a Bf109 claimed but again I think it's making one event fit another.
The claim for a Lancaster when it's a Condor strikes me as evidence for a court-martial if true. The distinctly non-Lancaster like tail of a Condor is the size of Devon! If he got away with that then he must have been sleeping with Hermann Goering!
I wonder why we accept LW claims as verbatum nine times out of ten? Thrill of combat, disorientation, call it what you like, this makes claims less substantive not allowable because it's a dangerous situation requiring split-second timing. In this case in at least two instances if true the winning pilot wasn't facing any return fire, and was able to stooge around until he got his man. He could have got close enough to hit them with a hammer.
I won't argue further Nick, I have too much respect for your opinion, but we'll have to agree to differ
Sorry Stig, your argument that "we haven't been there so we don't know" is true but it doesn't mean any old nonsense is acceptable because the claimant is brave. I could recite many instances, so could you, where it's been proved that fighter pilots have lied. The nature of fighter pilots is to claim victories on evidence as shallow as a sparrow's hip-bath. Argue facts and accept when they don't match. Don't accept it's a Rhode Island Red if it actually looks very like a duck with a rubber glove on it's head making chicken noises...
regards
"Armchair Eagle" (Keith)