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?

I don't know if you are being obtuse or not.

The Americans carried their targeting systems with them. Shallow or deep, it
made no difference.

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,


I'm saying you can't show that German opposition degraded the accuracy of the
USAAF attacks, the way the nightfighters drgraded the accuracy of Bomber
Command over Germany.

"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".

That wasn't the only example. As I indcate, you are getting so over the top
ridiculous, you can almost be ignored.

Just because that formation lost only one aircraft doesn't mean they were not
heavily attacked. As Freeman indicates, the formation at one point was in some
disorder. They still bombed accurately.

In part of your note of yesterday that I didn't feel warranted a response, you
indicated that the experience of the 303rd on the 1/11/44 raid was invalid
--because they were not under attack -- in the target area--. That is so
completely ridiculous. You seem to have your little coterie of supporters
hovering around who won't post themselves, but will make up little funny
stories about pickle barrels. Maybe you are impressing them.

Says it all really. Last time this quote was
trotted out it was an attempt to prove how good the unescorted
B-17 was."


Unescorted B-17's could get good effect on target despite the worst the Germans
could do. Not so the RAF, as the official history shows.

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.


Walt saw a lot of anecdotal evidence of that and was interested to learn that
the offical British history confirmed it.

Now for Regensburg, remember we are talking about "almost fanatical
resistance", affecting bombing accuracy.

--Not-- 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.

Yeah, found it on the remnants table. Cheap.


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.

Walt said no such thing. You're a lying son of a bitch, aren't you?

Walt wants to say there was good effect on target. You are making things up
from whole cloth. But doubtless your buddies are glad you are defending the
right.

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.


And all this pedantry shows what exactly?

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.


Address the point, Sinclair. Can you show that flak or fighters degraded USAAF
accuracy?

The answer is no, you cannot. So you just carp and parade your pedant's
pedigree.


"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.

We know the Germans are clear that the USAAF hurt them much worse than the RAF
did.


Not
super human. Or the 8th air force report that noted an increase in bombing
error with an increase in the flak defences."


Which you don't quote.


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.

It was dark, right? There was good effect on target, right? It was
undefended, right?

It helps establish a baseline for accuracy. And as I indicated the other day,
we can see clearly that over German targets, that accuracy was seriously
degraded by the German defenses in a way that has no parallel in the USAAF
experience.

And the difference between a shallow and deep penetration
is going to be ignored.


As I said earlier, the USAAF took their targeting systems with them. You're
confirming that the vaunted RAF had an accuracy problem due to its technology.

Okay, fine. Too bad they didn't have better aircraft. Then they could have
attacked by day.

Too bad they didn't develop a better heavy machine gun for defense, or a
bomber with a very strong stucture, or very forgiving flight characteristics,
or one that could fly in tight formations above the worst of the flak. Too bad
they didn't have an aircraft like the B-17.

But over Germany, the accuracy dropped dramatically.

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


You don't deny it. As I suggest above, Mr. Wiltshaw, I believe it was, started
the ball rolling on this by showing that that RAF could get pretty could
concentration on an undefended factory. But over Germany where there were
flak, fighters and searchlights, they had to settle for attacking whole cities
and burning out the workers, not burning down the factories.

The Americans didn't have to do that.

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.

The Renault factory was undefended when the Americans hit it. After they left
the target area, they were attacked by JG 26. The point is that when the USAAF
-and- the RAF hit it, it was undefended. And the Americans could get good
effect on target despite the worst the Germans could do. Not so the RAF.

Regensburg
is dealt with above.

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

A lot of your material is over the top ridiculous.

You delete a lot of my material; I don't mind.


"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.


I think you are lying. I think you took my meaning perfectly.

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.


Huels was badly damaged. But I don't see the point. You don't address the
point.

Can you show that USAAF accuracy was degraded by flak and fighters, or even by
fighters, the way the official British history shows that the RAF's accuracy
was degraded when intercepted by the NJG?

No, you can't. You can only carp.

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.


Huels was badly damaged.

Just ignore the attacks on Billancourt were much more effective
mainly because of the weak defences,

I have actually addressed the attack on the Renualt plant at Billancourt quite
a bit. but we can see on one hand accuarcy against an undefended target --
Billancourt-- and the accuracy over German targets and we can say,
"hmmmmmmm....big difference."


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.


Both Air Forces attacked it. But the USAAF could get the same accuracy despite
the worst the Germans could do; RAF accuracy was degraded when the defenses
made a strong reaction.


It is simple really, take a couple of quotes on the RAF strategic
situation, pretend they are about bombers on the tactical level,

Yeah, well. The German night fighters were not harrasssing British bombers
over Germany on a strategic level. It was pretty personal.

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.

It was noted on enough missions to be noted in the official history.

You're boring me, Sinclair.

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.

I haven't seen anything that indicated that fighters degraded the accuracy. On
many raids, the bombing was very accurate no matter how the Germans reacted.

You are welcome to lay aside your charts and abstracts and cite some actual
raids where the RAF had good concentration on target despite being heavily
engaged by the NJG. Seriously, I think there was at least one.

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.

But that wasn't the case.

If one RAF bomber crew flinched?

"The night was clear. Bomber Command's
Operational Research Section later examined 468 bombing photgraphs and
concluded that only five aircraft had bombed within three miles of the correct
Aiming Point, that only a quarter of the force bombed the vulnerable area of
Berlin, and that most of the remainer bombed lightly built up suburban areas."

Five aircraft out of 468? Who do you think you are fooling Sinclair? That's
a lot of flinching.

I cite one raid. As far as i know, you've -never- cited a good raid by the
RAF, one that had pretty good effect on target. Of course the targets were
whole cities. That should make it easier. Can you cite such a raid or raids?
Besides raids that resulted in the random firestorm, or the advent of window?
I've cited several raids. Thanks for mentioning Huels. That raid had good
effect on target, as did the others I named.

Now you name some significant Main Force raids of equal effect. And you have
this advantage -- the RAF targeted whole cities, typically.



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.

What I showed there was that after more than a year of Harris' command, the
effect of British bombing on the German economy was nil. On the other hand,
the Germans were very concerned over USAAF operations and after a period of
less than a year were giving them priority in the defense.

Now, if we extrapolate, we see after a year of USAAF operations the double
strike raid against Regensburg/Shweinfurt on 8/17/43 -- a year after the first
raid. What sort of effort was Bomber Command having on 9/1/40, a year after the
war started? Or maybe we can add 8 months, the time between the attack on
Pearl Harbor and the first USAAF raid. Let's see, that takes us to the Summer
of 1941. What effect was the RAF having on German industry in that time frame?

Almost none.

Isn't that about the time the Butts report came out? So given the same time
frames to develop, the USAAF is wrecking the Regansburg ME-109 factory, the
British were trying to improve on getting 3 aircraft out of 100 within five
miles of the target.

This just gets better and better. Or more embarrassing for you.

Walter must really hate the USAAF to smear it like
he does, the way he claims it needs the contest rigged to look
good.


Do you remember that thread on the moderated WWII group called "Was the
daylight bombing campaign necessary?"

We've come a long way since then, haven't we? Now the question is, since you
seem to agree that RAF accuracy over distance was so poor, why was the RAF
wasting its time dropping so many bombs so inaccurately at night? I mean, the
accuracy over Germany, when compared to that raid on the Renault plant -- it's
sort of pitiful, isn't it?

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

On the way out, the target had already been attacked.

, then go look for the times USAAF bomb groups missed
their target, use these to compare the effects of the air forces.


The Americans sometimes missed, and missed wide. You're dodging the question
that we have wandered on to. Did the German fighter defenses degrade the US
bombing the way it did the British bombing?

I think the answer is no, and your dodging seems to confirm that you have no
information to the contrary.

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.

People can judge for themselves.

Meantime I go on collecting nice emails about my posts.


I've no doubt you do. If you are hishonest enough to post it, there are those
hopeful enough to buy it.

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.

I'm right; you tried to fool people.

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.


See above. You lied, and as is often the case, you got caught.

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.


It doesn't mean that at all; you are blatantly lying. I even provided the
quote:

"Fauquier [the master bomber] devoted most of his efforts to encouraging
the Main Force to press right on into the target and not to release their bombs
prematurely. It was not easy. He could deride the flak, but Main Force crews
harrassed by fighter attack were not always inclined to listen."

-- "The Berlin Raids p.65 by Martin Middlebrooks

What you know damn well was the case, was that the bulk of both day and night
fighter attackes happened well before the target. Ever hear of the Kammhuber
line?

You are so easy to show as a liar. You're pitiful.


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.

That wouldn't be the point, would it? Why didn't you post that before in this
thread? The German flak was supposed to moderate their fire when the wild
boars were around. Most of the fighter activity took place away from the
target cities, for both forces.


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.


I don't have to. What you posted was complete bull****.

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".

It somehow made its way into the official history.


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

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


And blah blah blah. You can't show it, so you just carp.


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?

Are you saying those raids didn't have good effect on target? Or that they
were not heaviy opposed, or what exactly?


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."

Where do you show the defenses caused the errors?

The ball bearing plants at Shweinfurt on 10/14/43, to quote Freeman were
"heavily hit." The 351st group placed all bombs within 1,000 feet of the
aiming point. This, in spite of heavy fighter opposition.


Walt