Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yep same with me. Good link pbfoot.DerAdlerIstGelandet said:Syscom I think it is funny here. You said you would not take Lancs simulation post into account because it was based off of statistics. What the hell have you been doing the whole damn time. That means absolutetly nothing you have said means anything.
Sorry syscom you have not proven that the B-24 was better than the Lanc. Contrary to me you have proven to me even more why the Lancaster is better.
Actually, Im going to calculate the number of Lanc sorties up to summer 1943
I will then apply the Lanc loss rate to those numbers and see what comes up
Of course you never thought of doing it
the lancaster kicks ass said:[
wait a minute syscom, isn't the loss rate a statistic? i mean i don't have a problem with statistics but i thought you were against them as you felt they didn't prove anything??
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:the lancaster kicks ass said:[
wait a minute syscom, isn't the loss rate a statistic? i mean i don't have a problem with statistics but i thought you were against them as you felt they didn't prove anything??
That is what you said Syscom. You said that Lancs simulation does not count because it is statistics.
I said statistics need to be put in context to be effective in analysis. All he is doing is quoting numbers with no additional information about it. Is he only comparing the B24 and Lanc in the ETO? Do the figures reflect all theaters? Hey, I can prove the B24 is far better than the Lanc if I only quote PTO statistics.
I have a sneaking suspicion that some of those stats made the Lanc look better than what they really reflect as there were more Lancs (in the first 1/2 of 1943) doing missions than there were B24's.
Im going to tally up the number of B24 missions in that time period and compare it with the Lanc numbers. Now since the B24 loss rate at night would be no different than the Lancs, we can more effectively compare loss rate per sortie and tonnage per sortie.
The numbers will speak for themselves.
So anything counts for you if it is for your argument but if it is good for someone else you do not allow it?
I look at statistics in any form with a sceptical eye, unless the background is explained on what data was collected and how it was "sliced and diced"
for interpretation. If he can show me more information about it, I will give it credit or request more information.
You yourself shouldnt be so blindly accepting of such data without asking more questions.
the lancaster kicks ass said:and we must listen to him because he has proved himself worthy of being an all powerful and wise aviation god
syscom3 said:All he is doing is quoting numbers with no additional information about it.
syscom3 said:I have a sneaking suspicion that some of those stats made the Lanc look better than what they really reflect as there were more Lancs (in the first 1/2 of 1943) doing missions than there were B24's.
syscom3 said:The numbers will speak for themselves.
syscome said:You yourself shouldnt be so blindly accepting of such data without asking more questions.
syscom3 said:Difference between you and I is I will admit when I am wrong or someone has proven their point.
I dont feel you have proven some of your points about the Lanc beyond a doubt. Sorry to make you uncomfortable when I bring up points about either bomber and you dont have data available.