Ah yes, the wipe the slate clean approach again.

WalterM140 wrote in message ...
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.

Seen the bomb photographs from the USAAF strikes on Switzerland?
Or do you subscribe to the theory the raids were some sort of deliberate
message to the Swiss?

Note how Walter deletes my words so he can pretend I agree with him.

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.

The 8th air force mounted around 1,000 missions during the war, I have
no idea of the average number of groups per mission but say it was 20.
So 20,000 results, Walter is reciting the results of 2 groups that came
under heavy attack and did well, at least one received a unit citation,
apparently they were handed out for average results. The May 1944
raid the example group under heavy attack lost 1 aircraft MIA,

"So the USAAF formation that loses 1 aircraft MIA is used as the
guide to how well a USAAF formation does when under "almost
fanatic resistance". Says it all really. Last time this quote was
trotted out it was an attempt to prove how good the unescorted
B-17 was."

Bomber Command launched over 1,000 raids in WWII, Walter finds
a raid description, and tells us all how only the nightfighters affected
accuracy that night.

Now for Regensburg, remember we are talking about "almost fanatical
resistance", affecting bombing accuracy. There were146 B-17s sent
with 127 credited with bombing the target, 24 lost and 1 written off.
Every group participating received a unit citation. All the information is
in the Mighty 8th War Diary, a work Walter claims to have.

There were 7 bomb groups sent.
The 96th lost no aircraft, claimed 5 kills and had 19 out of 21 bomb the target.
The 388th lost 1 aircraft after bombing the target and claimed 7 kills.
The 84th had 20 out of 21 bomb the target, lost 1 and claimed 13 kills.
The 385th had 19 out of 21 bomb the target, lost 3 and claimed 48 kills.
The 95th had 14 out of 21 bomb the target, lost 4 and claimed 25 kills.
The 390th had all aircraft bomb the target, but lost 6 and claimed 6 kills.
The 100th had 14 out of 21 bomb the target, lost 9 and claimed 36 kills.

Walter wants to claim the entire 4th wing did well after encountering
heavy resistance. The numbers indicate the candidates are the 95th
and 100th, in terms of number of aircraft lost before the target and the
385th in terms of kills claimed.

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.

You see, when I post the USAAF bomb reports, and so on they are
deleted.

"We know the airmen were human, so when the 8th air force bombing
accuracy report for the period 1 October 1943 to 1 March 1944 reports
39.7% of error due to "nerves", reduced efficiencies due to flak evasion
and an extra 21.7% error due to the increased bombing altitudes, we know
this is men reacting under the greatest stress possible, being human. Not
super human. Or the 8th air force report that noted an increase in bombing
error with an increase in the flak defences."

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?

By the way folks the undefended bit is dropped when the USAAF attacks
the target. And the difference between a shallow and deep penetration
is going to be ignored.

But over Germany, the accuracy dropped dramatically.

Walter has one raid in France and one raid in Germany to prove it so.

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.

Yes folks, the Renault plant becomes defended when the USAAF
appears and undefended when the RAF appears. Regensburg
is dealt with above.

To the next "" is simply my material that had to be deleted,

"This is quite amusing, apparently the attacks on Billancourt are
an accuracy measure, a base line for how much the defences
affected accuracy, but only for the RAF, not for the USAAF.

Not surprising really, if the claim is 498 out of 500 USAAF "fell
on the factory". This was 4 April 1943.

Now go to Huls, in Germany, 22 June 1943, it was a 541 acre site,
0.845 square miles. The bombs fell over a 12 square mile area,
with 20% within the factory fences, not on the factory.

Given the amount of open space in the factory area we have gone
from 99.6% to around 5% or less accuracy. And under the rules being
used this must all be due to the effects of the defences.

Just ignore the attacks on Billancourt were much more effective
mainly because of the weak defences, both fighter and flak, enabling a
lower bombing altitude. Choosing them as a baseline is bad enough,
using it as a baseline for only one air force shows the standard agenda.

It is simple really, take a couple of quotes on the RAF strategic
situation, pretend they are about bombers on the tactical level,
a quote from a master bomber on an area raid and ignore the
problems master bombers had with such raids and the other
problems that night. Having done that go find a couple of the
well documented missions where USAAF bombers performed
above average. Announce this as the USAAF standard and
ignore the USAAF and USSBS reports on bombing accuracy
and, in particular, the way defences degraded accuracy. If one
RAF bomber crew flinched once it is the RAF standard, it one
USAAF formation took heavy losses but bombed accurately it
is the USAAF standard.

Just like before when USAAF success is based on the Luftwaffe
moving 4% of its fighter force but RAF success is measured on
the effects on the German economy, the output of tens of millions
of workers. Walter must really hate the USAAF to smear it like
he does, the way he claims it needs the contest rigged to look
good.

Think of it this way, go find the stories of the RAF bombers that
continued on to attack the target despite heavy damage on the
way out, then go look for the times USAAF bomb groups missed
their target, use these to compare the effects of the air forces.

The men who flew the missions do not need this sort of damage
to their reputations."

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.

Translation, Walter cannot answer them, so they need to be ignored.
Meantime I go on collecting nice emails about my posts.

WalterM140 wrote in message ...
I didn't do that, and I don't think it applies. Unless you can show that the
night fighters were more likely to fight in their flak than the day fighters
were.

Walter you really need to understand the way the JG300 series of units
operated, they had no radar, they intercepted over the target.

And you -know- that when they did that, they was supposed to operate above the
flak, which was only supposed to fire up to a certain altitude when the wild
boars were operating.

Walter is always good for a great laugh. After trying to claim the
nightfighters were not intercepting over the target, despite the
quote he posted stating it, the claim has to be deleted.

Remember the whole point is the claim the nightfighters reduced
bombing accuracy, and willingness to approach the target, which
means must have been attacking over the target.

People can now go and read the many complaints made about the
Luftwaffe flak units ignoring any flak ceilings, in contrast to the
admired Naval flak units. See Aders in his History of the German
Nightfighter force.

Walter will now show us the documentation that shows no flak kills
on the night, and/or the way all RAF aircraft were above the flak
ceiling and/or they knew they were above the flak ceiling, all after
proving there was a flak ceiling in place that night and it was
adhered to.

WalterM140 wrote in message ...
"He could deride the flak, but Main Force crews harrassed by fighter
attack were not always inclined to listen."

Translation Walter will go looking through the archives for stories of
USAAF units doing well under heavy fire, and will then compare these
as "typical" to the worst raids he can find run by the RAF, as "typical".

You're welcome to show the opposite. Instead you just carp.

Translation, when I include the reports they are ignored or deleted.

US raids on 8/17/43, 1/11/44, and 5/12/44 -- just off the top of my head -- had
good effect on target despite heavy German resistance and severe loss.

I like the "off the top of my head" line, implying Walter has actually done
some sort of research as opposed to committing to memory the really
good results ("boys own flying adventures") and then trying to claim they
are typical. Major Bigglesworth for the RAF anyone?

If you can find some US raids that were not effective due to flak and fighters,
as opposed to weather, poor navigation, poor bomb aiming, or some other factor,
go for it.

This is just cut and paste from the current thread.


"The 14th October 1943 raid, 16 bomb groups, 229 bombers, 459
1,000 pound, 663 500 pound, 1,751 100 pound incendiary
bombs or 482.8 tons of bombs, 18.1% incendiary. 3 groups
missed the targets, 5 had less than 10% of bombs within 500
feet of the aiming point, overall 10% of bombs within 500 feet
of the aiming point, the 351st with 29% was the best, there
were 63 direct hits out of 2,873 bombs or 2.2%.

The disorganisation caused by the defences was a major cause
of the errors. I only have to show the airmen were human, not
super human to refute the fiction."

Keep your postings refuting Walter, and it is simple to cut and paste
the same, unanswered, replies when the same junk claims are made
using the same junk "proof".

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email