GC II/7 claims

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by keith A

Clostermann is another starting point for me, his victory tally is confusing …
Keith

Off-topic but if this interests you, I'd recommend the excellent article about his verifiable score in Avions #227 (Jan/Feb 2019)

[Stig Jarlevik]

Keith (Nick)

To be honest, I am not particularly interested in neither who-got-who nor how to interpret a pilot's one second
memory of what actually happened which on top was most likely coloured by the chattering on the way back.

The French situation however interests me more, since once something is written in stone from an official
standpoint, that is usually it. That means once SHAA committed itself through two authors, that would basically
be the official standpoint and since Pierre Closermann is untouchable (there was even a court order to that
effect) I can't help being curious who is allowed to change these "10 stone tablets"?

From a personal point, yes it is the usual fight in the duck pond, but in this case I can't help but being curious...

Cheers
Stig

[focusfocus]

Stig

It's not a question of "inflating","reducing" or inventing new "AS" for simple pleasure,but of correctly using ALL the informations available.

The Closterman "case" quoted by Nick is THE good example of the official version long peddled and "cast in concrete"...and yet!

In France,you have to be wary of the official version

ex:GCII/7
According to the huting inspection:40 vict and 10 prob'official version of the state and "cast in concrete".

According to SHAA GCII/7 (official):29 vict and 17 prob.

According to Jean Gisclon (historian):52 vict

According history of the 7° escadre published by the SHD-Air (ex SHAA),and still official:64 vic

That's a lot of different official versions but "cast in concrete"

So the work official for SHAA of Porret/Thevenet....good sources....coulée dans le béton?

Good headache!

Best Regards
Michel

[Stig Jarlevik]

Originally Posted by focusfocus

Stig

It's not a question of "inflating","reducing" or inventing new "AS" for simple pleasure,but of correctly using ALL the informations available.

The Closterman "case" quoted by Nick is THE good example of the official version long peddled and "cast in concrete"...and yet!

In France,you have to be wary of the official version

ex:GCII/7
According to the huting inspection:40 vict and 10 prob'official version of the state and "cast in concrete".

According to SHAA GCII/7 (official):29 vict and 17 prob.

According to Jean Gisclon (historian):52 vict

According history of the 7° escadre published by the SHD-Air (ex SHAA),and still official:64 vic

That's a lot of different official versions but "cast in concrete"

So the work official for SHAA of Porret/Thevenet....good sources....coulée dans le béton?

Good headache!

Best Regards
Michel

Thanks Michel

Unfortunately you loose me when you are talking about "inflation and inventing" stuff. I am talking about
re-evaluation and new interpretation, which is way, way different! So please don't invent words I have never
written!
Unfortunately I don't understand some words you use, such as AS and "huting inspection.

Not sure how I should interpret your example since what you are basically saying is that French official historians
have no clue what they are actually saying. Is that correct or am I missing something?

We all know about the weird system France used in 1939-40 (perhaps even longer with the Vichy) but by the time
we have reached 1943 I always assumed the French adopted the "Allied" way meaning their claims system was on par
with both the British and American Air Forces.

Finally, you unfortunately don't answer the things I am interested in. Are the re-evaluations done with
a) new found documents?
b) new interpretations of already known documents?
c) perhaps even by other means?
d) who is/are doing these re-interpretation/re-evaluations?
e) are they officially sanctioned or done privately?

My personal opinion is that if you change something which has been said in the past as the truth, you also have to
say why and which document/statement you base your new evidence on.
It is not good enough to just say new facts has come to light, or that everyone should believe in it just because
"I say so!". Mind you, when checking out the quoted sources, not everyone may agree with "these new facts".

As I said before, this is "duckpond" trivia, but since it is French I am simply curious, that's all.

Cheers
Stig

[focusfocus]

Hello Stig

Re-evaluation and new interpretation can drive naturally to inflating,reducing.

AS=ACE(Expert)
Huting=Hunting

No,J'm not saying that historians don't know what they're saying:my example is used to demonstrate that all these versions are official (same databases used,I think)....so why are they so different?....what happened?

I am willing to take one as the truth,but wich one?

It's obvious that there is a bad interpretation,analysis of the documents available

Best Regards
Michel

[Stig Jarlevik]

Yes I can see the problem.

Not exactly an ideal situation if the official interpretation changes "every 15 minutes"....

What exactly is the meaning of "hunting inspection"?

Anyone else among our French friends who has an opinion?

Cheers
Stig

[keith A]

I confess my interest is in the French air forces and the veracity of their aerial claims in WW2. 332 Wing has been astonishingly accurate in the victories they claim 1943-45. Gauthier is my main focus and I've been bowled over by the responses by the forum. I have bought "The Battle of France" T & N as a result of the discussions and information provided by Michel, Nick, Chris and others on this forum (awaiting it's arrival) and am going to spend many happy, frustrating and astonishing hours looking through it and all the other books.

best regards

Keith