As can be seen from the remark Walter is going to ignore the difference
between a shallow and deep penetration
As we've seen, and you seem to confirm, that applied to the RAF, it didn't
apply to the USAAF.
The USAAF force on 8/17/43 at Regensburg had good effect on target. That was a
deep penetration. It was heavily attacked. So did the raid of 1/11/44. That
raid was heavily attacked but still had a very successful bombing, and so did
the various raids of 5/12/44 which were also heavily opposed. There were many
others.
If you could show that some US attacks had poor effect on target because of
flak or fighters as opposed to clouds, haze, bad navigation or just poor bomb
aiming, then you might have something. But I don't think you can do that.
You'll just continue to carp at the Americans.
This raid on the Renault plant shows what the RAF could do against undefended
targets. I mean, after all, it -was- dark, wasn't it?
But over Germany, the accuracy dropped dramatically.
But the Americans could and often did get really good effect on target as at
the Renault plant on 4/4/43, and they could do it on the 8/17/43 Regensburg
raid -- no matter what the Germans did.
This is a progression we've seen before; your notes, and this is a good
example, get so over the top ridiculous that I am willing to leave them
largely unaswered. They won't sway anybody worth swaying.
Walt
|