Nice point Milo.
Gilbert's work is in a way the best work of WW2 History, and by far the most detailed on day-to-day events globalwise as well as little odds as Enigma, that I have yet seen. The book I have is a heavy read, and rather depressing really, but absolutely full of rather reliable data.
Deighton, - well, yes, he is a bit of a Luftwobble, - but he has man nice points. "Fighter" has some not-to-good patches in it, but also very many interesting points. "Blood, Tears, and Folly" is a very good read, - but since I have seen some cockups in his work, I rather read this with some awareness.
Shores is really good. Detailed and very reliable. Some of his work is a tad dry though.
John Alcorn's article of the top guns of the RAF is very much based on Shores work, with excessive extra work put into it. Some 20 years of research or so.
It must be valued how much work these guys have put into this. I mean, when you add it up, none of us here has enough lifetime to plough through what they did! On top of that, they have had first rate contact with both WW2 pilots and commanders, generals and planners, - both sides.
It all boils down to some conclusions of course, and to be able to look at this all with a clear head.
That said, I must mention Galland and Johnsson, Bader, Rall and the rest.
Their biographies cannot be so easily discarded as "a narrow view".
After all, they were, in the war and/or after, in contact, they had time to compare what they had been going through, they worked together, they were Generals, Air Marshals, Inspectors, and again, friends. They compared their notes, and reading the both sides, there is never the conflict of this thread............
