Chris Mark wrote:

I think we need to be careful getting too detailed with loss rates as
indicating anything significant about aircraft types because there are so many
unknown variables, everything from accuracy of squadron records to how many dud
rounds an anti-aircraft battery fired on one day compared to another.
The safe conclusions are merely that low-level missions will cause losses to
soar, whatever the aircraft type, and that single-engine performance is
important in reducing losses. Both the B-25 and B-26 were good airplanes with
slightly different attributes.

No disagreement from me - I'm not the one who's been arguing that the B-26 was used
in the ETO exclusively because the B-25 was inferior, was less able to take damage,
had a higher loss rate, etc., in the face of all the evidence and ignoring all the
factors you mention above. It's always bugged me that the B-26 is trumpeted as
having the lowest loss rate in the ETO, when it was the _only_ medium bomber in the
ETO (operated by the US). Since there's nothing to directly compare it to in that
theater, attempting to draw conclusions about its relative survivability are
meaningless.

That is not the case in the MTO, which is why I would still like to know if you can
break down the MTO numbers for the B-25 and B-26, excluding North Africa. I've got
the North African data somewhere, but only have overall "European War" data on
bomber sorties and losses, rather than the more specific post-North Africa MTO
numbers. If you can supply sorties and losses for the B-25 and B-26 for that
period, I'd be much obliged, because I haven't been able to find that anywhere
else.

Guy