Drei „Falken" der II./JG52 auf der Krim im Luftkampf um die Kertsch-Halbinsel 1943-1944

[Dénes Bernád]

I wrote my opinion earlier, but I will repeat it. While working for several years on the book on Bulgarian fighters, including the air war of 1943/1944 between Bulgarian (and German) fighters and USAAF warplanes, it stuck me in how few cases the loss, or damage, of a particular aircraft was acknowledged by US documents as due to enemy interference. Many (most?) losses were labelled as due to mechanical failure, the pilot lost orientation, fuel starvation, or aircraft lost due to unknown circumstances, etc. However, in many cases the aircraft was lost in an area where a claim was filed by the defenders. I assume - without having proofs, which I believe don't exist - that it was a deliberate instruction to report a loss, when possible, to causes independent to enemy activity, in order to increase morale and not to confirm the efficiency of enemy activity (counter-intelligence manoeuvre).

Therefore, in my opinion, if one indeed wants to get closer to reality (complete truth cannot be reconstructed anyhow), he/she must consider lost AND damaged aircraft to ALL causes and compare them with ALL claims (incl. anti-aircraft artillery claims). Moreover, if possible, it should be established if a claim was filed against an already damaged aircraft, that left formation, or lagged behind, for some reason, because in this case double claiming can be valid. Otherwise, I am afraid, one will simply say: there were X number of claims, but only Y number of aircraft were lost to enemy activity, thus the ones who filled the claims overclaimed by X/Y*100 percent. This is even more prominent, if politics get involved in an author's history work, namely if he/she wants to show, by all means, that the claimers (in many cases German, i.e., "Nazi", or "fascist", pilots) were actually lying and the whole "hype" around them is no more than Nazi propaganda. Or, the other way around, related to claims of Soviet pilots and Communist propaganda. I observed both versions, but the first one is more prominent.

Please note that my observations are not aimed at any particular writer, or source, it's only a general remark that I drew during my personal experiences accumulated in the past twenty years or so.