Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Sorry, what does "Category E" mean?
Well, I was a quantitative biologist in my former life, and used Bayesian methods to explore probabilistic outcomes. So you saidDepends on circumstances.
Statisticians calculate values that have everything to do with aggregate numbers and almost nothing to do with your circumstances. Being an engineer, I should know. Statistics can be correctly calculated and still have nothing to do with your circumstances; they're just statistics that generally predict outcomes. They don't predict YOUR outcome. They only predict probability if 1) the original assumptions are correct and 2) you try the experiment MANY times randomly. After a certain number of random trials, your outcomes should generally reflect the probabilities IF 1) and 2) are correct. There is almost nothing random about a wartime aircraft mission.
So, in general, the more time you spend over enemy territory, the greater the chance you will be found and attacked ... true. But, you can seriously affect the outcome by changing the circumstances. We all know that large streams of bombers were detected and attacked with flak and fighters, sure.
Go research how many times a flight of ONE fast photo-reconnaissance aircraft was successfully found and attacked and get back with me. It isn't very often. So, sure, I'll agree with you for large formations of escorted bombers. But I disagree strongly with your contention for small formations of fighters and/or fast bombers with a specific target. They almost always got through, and were planned so they also usually got through with the element of surprise.
Thanks for agreeing! It is a simple functional response of the number of bombers shot down as a function of bomber density and time spent over enemy territory and available to fighters. Flak is fixed, unable to move and the response is different to fighters and entirely related to density and handling time (ability to load, range a target, load again, hit or miss a target, and them move to the next target. A flak gun is no longer effective once a bomber force leaves the area. If your focus is entirely on flak, then fine, time over enemy territory in areas where there are no flak defenses does may not result in higher losses. However a night fighter force could/would follow a bomber force as far as resources would allow. Losses on deep penetration raids at night were higher than similar attacks on the Ruhr, even late into the war. Although less frequent, than in 1943-spring 1944, night fighters continued to inflict severe losses on bomber command on certain raids late into the war.So, in general, the more time you spend over enemy territory, the greater the chance you will be found and attacked ... true.
I wonder if the problem is similar to the 'Where should we put the armour" question and answer?
I was wondering who'd be first.
No they moved around quite a lot. Think trains ships barges lorries etc. I posted a while back a war time doc about this. In other word you cannot see it as an unmovable item in this i think.Flak is fixed, unable to move
In the stuff posted about RAF Mustangs operations doing tactical recon. they were constantly changing their routes in response to constantly changing flak positions.No they moved around quite a lot. Think trains ships barges lorries etc. I posted a while back a war time doc about this. In other word you cannot see it as an unmovable item in this i think.
Now i get itches on not to name places on my body just thinking of statistics , so this will be my contribution to this discussion.
On his first mission over the Balkans a new P-51 pilot was shocked to find that his flight was making sudden random sharp turns. When he found that the abrupt turns were causing his drop tanks to unport and the engine to sputter until the fuel flow resumed, he punched off the tanks. The he barely made it home because the other three in the flight were just letting the engine sputter momentarily so they could use all the fuel in the drop tanks.In the stuff posted about RAF Mustangs operations doing tactical recon. they were constantly changing their routes in response to constantly changing flak positions.
Definitely, I am looking at the one that happened. Explain how a request for "heavy bomber formations mauled by flak guns like they were mauled by fighters" becomes the all war figures for all sorties. No example of a given formation, or even say a raid, that took more than say 10% casualties from flak? Instead of doing the feet in fridge, head in oven, average temperature normal approach. Remember go play with bears, not horses, bears are safer, they kill fewer people each year is amusing but not correctly reading the statistics.No examples of flak causing casualties like fighters? You must be looking at a different war than I am. Check the Statistical Digest of World War Two, Table 159. It's official USAAF numbers.
Alternatively try USAF STATISTICS which contains links to more than just WWII and the supplement, having much data on things like Korea.Just in case you don't HAVE the Statistical Digest of World War Two, you can download it at:
While not exactly error free (the tables were before spreadsheets were invented), it's a great primary research tool ... as long as you read between the lines and look at their definitions. Cheers.
There seems little point when the data is ignored.Hey Geoffrey, your posts are generally chock full of numbers, Maybe post some of your source links, too?
Well, I was a quantitative biologist in my former life, and used Bayesian methods to explore probabilistic outcomes. So you said
Thanks for agreeing! It is a simple functional response of the number of bombers shot down as a function of bomber density and time spent over enemy territory and available to fighters. Flak is fixed, unable to move and the response is different to fighters and entirely related to density and handling time (ability to load, range a target, load again, hit or miss a target, and them move to the next target. A flak gun is no longer effective once a bomber force leaves the area. If your focus is entirely on flak, then fine, time over enemy territory in areas where there are no flak defenses does may not result in higher losses. However a night fighter force could/would follow a bomber force as far as resources would allow. Losses on deep penetration raids at night were higher than similar attacks on the Ruhr, even late into the war. Although less frequent, than in 1943-spring 1944, night fighters continued to inflict severe losses on bomber command on certain raids late into the war.
Jim
Definitely, I am looking at the one that happened. Explain how a request for "heavy bomber formations mauled by flak guns like they were mauled by fighters" becomes the all war figures for all sorties. No example of a given formation, or even say a raid, that took more than say 10% casualties from flak? Instead of doing the feet in fridge, head in oven, average temperature normal approach. Remember go play with bears, not horses, bears are safer, they kill fewer people each year is amusing but not correctly reading the statistics.
Alternatively try USAF STATISTICS which contains links to more than just WWII and the supplement, having much data on things like Korea.
I put the Statistical Digest into spreadsheets years ago and have been comparing its data to those in other reports, usually from the various archives, plus things like a near complete B-17 loss list for the 8th Air Force, making sure I understand what their definitions are and what they actually measured. It is why I could easily calculate the figures showing the change in 8th Air force bomber losses to fighters with time. Something averaging hides.
Your ideas about all aircraft production statistics being equal and your attempts here remind me of a statistician walking into to a meeting announcing understanding statistics means you understand engineering, here is the building design. Reading between the lines being code for making the figures fit the ideas, not the other way around.
There seems little point when the data is ignored.
I only jest a little.Love birds? Surely you jest!
I'm not too sure either one of us called the other one anything against forum rules, but I get your point.
Might as well talk about it offline and present a united front without all the gnashing of teeth, huh?
PM to Geoffrey sent.
You can write the Dedication page.I only jest a little.
I do think there can be something good comming.
As i said, you both seem to have weight in arguments.
Why not try to get a paper out about this?
If plus and minus can get together in agreement on points on this (all will be futile to expect) it will be a very strong one that will stand a long time. In your names. Now wouldnt that be something?
I think it it can be.