No doubt. I was only refering that the claim system seems realistic to me. I never have nor ever will confuse a flight sim with real life. There are many types that go into real combat. The ones that are "just doing their job", the ones that just want to survive, and a few, very few, that enjoy, and most come out a changed man.
I think you are right on the money Cromwell.

There were several pilots, and one I am reading about now, who, when he shot down a German plane, he would report it but not seek "confirmation" or a "official claim" on it.
Having been in that position (though not in a WW1 fighter obviously) I have no issue with whatever psychological crutch people need to get it right in their own head.
An enemy, in whatever form, is doing his damnedest to kill you and, thru luck or skill or both, you got him first. I have never seen anyone, in my personal experience, who has had a problem with it. They are damn glad they are the one still standing. Almost giddy in fact. Inner reflection and making it right to yourself comes later. And they always do but perhaps this is a different time and society certainly has changed from the early 1900's. I always think of the quote by Churchill, and to paraphrase "A prisoner is a man who just tried to kill you and failed."
And you are right cCromwell this is just a game but so is combat: Situational Awareness, Luck, and Skill are all you need.
The problem is in real life there is no restart.
People like kill confirmation in real life just as they do in games. It is not an accident, or a "cool factor" that all range targets, both in the military and the police, are made to look as "human" as possible.

cCromwell, my dad fought in WWII and to his dying day he was adamant that he never killed anyone. I don't really know how he knew that for sure because he did see quite a bit of action, maybe that was how he handled that terrible aspect of war.

That's interesting. Because I read somewhere sometime ago (sorry to be vague)that a survey of WW2 infantry veterans was undertaken in the 50's or 60's. It was found that a surprising low percentage stated that they had fired their personal weapon in action, a low percentage of those who had said when they had it was "In the general direction of the enemy" and a very small percent stated they had taken aimed shots. I am not sure how they worked this out as I am sure certain roles such as sniper would most certainly be taken aimed shots.

Very interesting never the less.

Many moooons ago I too was a service member. During my infantry training we had the privalige of having one instructor who actually was in Korea. Anyway, we were told that generally the avarage guy in combat is under so much stress that he cant aim properly and just shoots towards what he thinks is the enemy. Only very few men were able to keep a cool head and properly look at what was going on around them....and they usually were the section leaders. So 1 man in 8 took aim if possible.

I didn't want to add to this subject as I have probably said too much already but the figures that everyone is talking about came out in, IIRC, the '50's from a study by famed military historian/researcher S.L.A. Marshall who stated that during WW2 only 20-25 percent of men in a infantry unit "actively" took part in combat.
I wasn't there and while that figure seems quite low to me I am in no position to refute it.

My final word will be things have changed. Don't confuse the imperfectly trained draft-based mass conflict armies of the past for what is occurring now with the carefully groomed and trained volunteers from a very different society. The military has learned much from history and the psychology of combat.

Generally speaking, humans don't like to kill each other. There have always been individuals who enjoy it, but they're in the minority. The psychological challenge for the military lies in finding ways to overcome this natural aversion to deadly violence. Apparently modern armies are somewhat better at training killers than the armies of the past.

IIRC, Marshall claimed in his study that only about 25% of all the men in combat actually fired their weapons with the intention of killing somebody.

Marshall's study was based on the experiences of the US Army in WW2.

However, I imagine that the results depend heavily on the circumstances of the battle. For example, troops defending their own land and homes or fighting against a particularly hated enemy will be much more eager to kill people. I find it hard to believe that the figures would have been so low among American troops fighting against the Japanese in the Pacific, for example. The Japanese were hated enemies; I don't think many American felt such hatred towards the Germans in Europe.

The Eastern Front of WW2 was also a particularly brutal environment. The fighting in the West was more like the "Krieg ohne Hass" (War without hate) as described by Erwin Rommel. I don't mean to say it wasn't bad or lethal, just different from the other theatres of war.