[softcactus]

> I read that it took 16,000 88 flak shells to bring down one bomber. I infer the success of the flak was due simply to quantity.

I am not trying to be pedantic, just wondering out loud. 16,000 shells per bomber sounds like a lot, but I am sure you are familiar with the statistic that 250,000 small-arms rounds were fired for every insurgent killed in Afghanistan, and 25,000 rounds fired per kill in WWII. I can't find an actual hard source on the ratio of bullets per kill though. Bombers obviously cant hide behind cover, but I wonder if that 16,000 number isn't as unreasonable as it seems.

> I well know the death rate for B-17 crews - my father flew 32 missions in 1944 in one.

He sounds like an amazing man. I get queasy in light turbulence. I can't imagine the stress and horror of even a single bombing run. That's more than anyone should ever have to go through.

[WalterBright]

He said many of the men cracked under the strain. Some would deal with it by drinking themselves to oblivion.

> He sounds like an amazing man.

He was, but I'm rather biased :-)

He told me once he wouldn't trade that experience for anything, and wouldn't do it again for anything. He also said that when he felt down, he'd think of the men he knew who didn't get the chance to live, and would fix his attitude.

[WalterBright]

> 250,000 small-arms rounds were fired for every insurgent killed in Afghanistan

To be fair, only a small part of that is aimed. Much of it is "covering fire", the intent of which is to cause the enemy to hide while your guys advance. There are also soldiers who do not wish to kill, and do not aim their shots.

The larger point is that if the accuracy of the flak were doubled with radar guidance, it would have been impossible for the 8th AF to continue the mass bombing campaign. If 5% are lost on a mission (and that did happen now and then) repeatedly, then it ain't long before there isn't an Air Corps left.