Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Best All-Around Fighter of World War II
sentinel28a    10/13/2009 3:38:03 PM
Let's try a non-controversial topic, shall we? (Heh heh.) I'll submit the P-51 for consideration. BW and FS, if you come on here and say that the Rafale was the best fighter of WWII, I am going to fly over to France and personally beat you senseless with Obama's ego. (However, feel free to talk about the D.520.)
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
45-Shooter       3/5/2013 11:26:01 PM

Thank you for making my points! Inspite of your wrangling, your post prooves that bombing at night was safer than bombing durring the day!
er yes thats why the RAF moved to it! and your point is?
No, the other and more likely reason is that the Lancaster is a much more fragile plane.

how does that work? on comparable missions the B17 lose more and somehow the Lanc is more fragile?
Exactly! The differance is how much effort the Germans put in to stopping the American raids and how much less they put into stoping the RAF!
 
I did notice this and that is why I asked the very important question about dates and times!
WO those criteria, any conclusion is worthless! If it was late in the war when German resistance was much diminished, then it scues the results. If it was early in the war, then the Germans were not geared up to fight at night and that also scews the results. So one more time what are the twelve dates and what were the times of those twelve missions?
look them up yourself but a hint all 12 compared were within a month (thats why the small sample finding missiions to the same target close together limits the sample size but gives a fair assesment)
Not at all! Because it still fails to address the realitive strengths of the German responce to both types of raids. WO those dates it is not possible to even attempt to look up the realivant data. So it brings us back to the original possit; That intercepting Night-time raids was according to your own admission above in yellow, much more difficult, so by reasonable deduction, the higher loss rates of RAF Lancs means that they were more fragile!  Why waist my time, if you have the data? Post it and lets have a look!
because at best, the Lancs were bombing at night and the -17 did it in broad daylight! So it would seem to me that you have cherry picked the data sets and then drawn the wrong conclusions from your data.
and your full war figures are comparable?
Certainly! Once you have data sets with a populations of 156,000 and 240,000, they will be infinetly better than any twelve sets of points! So yes, thye entire data set is always better than any sub-set!

 Only when the data sets are comparative and as you state in another posts they clearly are not
But they ARE comparable!

ONLY if the data is comparable So you can quote a rule or theorem which states that in the studdy of statistics, "a smaller population is better than a larger on so large?" Right!
only if the data set are comparative otherwise you have noise which prevents any reasonable anaylsis
But it is the size of the sample population that reduces noise the most! Reducing sample population increases noise and scews the results when compared to the larger and more accurate population results! Post the dates or any text on statistical analysis that supports your possition, or post the dates and targets! 
 List the dates and targets! which its not in the was you are using it, by using whol war figures you can only ernalise not use it for specifics like you are doing, this is your problem you have no idea about sampling, a large set of unlike data is worth far less that a smal set of compaable data, until you learn this you will never understand
Show me a text of this idea and then tell us how it applies to your argument.
During the entire war, the RAF lost more Lancasters on fewer missions. Until you can explain why that was, the larger sample population will always point to better and more accurate conclusions!

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/6/2013 3:10:07 AM
 er yes thats why the RAF moved to it! and your point is?
No, the other and more likely reason is that the Lancaster is a much more fragile plane.
Which CANNOT be assessed from this information
  on comparable missions the B17 lose more and somehow the Lanc is more fragile?
Exactly! The differance is how much effort the Germans put in to stopping the American raids and how much less they put into stoping the RAF!
yeah right and just how much defensive effort was placed round the ruhr/Berlin other major cities targets of BC not USSAF 
 
I did notice this and that is why I asked the very important question about dates and times!
 
Cant be that important as you refused to any research on it
  If it was early in the war, then the Germans were not geared up to fight at night and that also scews the results. So one more time what are the twelve dates and what were the times of those twelve missions?
 
but if this inormation skus the result they surely it invalidates the whole set of data? if they are not comparable at line level then they cannot be comparable at any level
 
Not at all! Because it still fails to address the realitive strengths of the German responce to both types of raids.
but again if this is the case ten it applies to the whole dataset and makes such comparasions invalid
 
 WO those dates it is not possible to even attempt to look up the realivant data.
but the sources are thier itwwhat makes up your data, if you cannot dill into the data to check then the data is useless for the type of comparason you are making
 
So it brings us back to the original possit; That intercepting Night-time raids was according to your own admission above in yellow, much more difficult, so by reasonable deduction, the higher loss rates of RAF Lancs means that they were more fragile! 
no it might but you have not shown this, it would only be the case IF the missions are directly comparable and the Lanc losses were higher but the data does not support this in fact the data suggest oterwise - look at the data, it would actaully say suggest that the B17 was targeted agaisnt easier targets and made the majority of its missions at the time when the defenses were weakest whilst the Lanc was targeted agaisnt the most heavily defended targets aand agaisnt defenses that were maintained right up to the end
 
Why waist my time, if you have the data? Post it and lets have a look!
why? are you completely incapable of doing such a asic it of research, just take youe overall figures drill down into raids agaisn tthe same target within reasonable timescales, check what the BC losses were and what the USAAF losses were, compair the two, as the timescale should be about a month the two raids can be compaired, your big number does not take into account that te B17 had 3500 aircraft in late 44/ early 45 to send on missions whilst thier were never more than 1000 lanc in service at anytime, so the bulk of B17 missins were late war and usually had 2/3:1 ratio of fighter escorts
 
So it would seem to me that you have cherry picked the data sets and then drawn the wrong conclusions from your data.
if you are not willing to do your research you cannot tell if I cherry picked the data or not, If you think I did then do your own research as mejust posting my numbers will not prove one way or the other if the data was cherry picked
and your full war figures are comparable?
Certainly! Once you have data sets with a populations of 156,000 and 240,000, they will be infinetly better than any twelve sets of points! So yes, thye entire data set is always better than any sub-set!
rubbish, that is pure rubbish, if that 12 set are the ONLY data that is comparable then the rest is just noise, you realy dont understand data anylsis do you
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/6/2013 3:23:01 AM
Only when the data sets are comparative and as you state in another posts they clearly are not
But they ARE comparable!
ONLY if the data is comparable So you can quote a rule or theorem which states that in the studdy of statistics, "a smaller population is better than a larger on so large?" Right!
only if the data set are comparative otherwise you have noise which prevents any reasonable anaylsis
But it is the size of the sample population that reduces noise the most!
 
not so, any data has a ratio of noise to data and that depends on the actual data not the sample size, if your noise to data is high then it does not matter what sample size you use the data is tainted, this is baisc analysis but seems to beyond you
 
 
Reducing sample population increases noise and scews the results when compared to the larger and more accurate population results!
 
no it doesnt, if you have comparable data then yes a large data set anlows for more accurate fiigures but that is NOT what you have here, if you take acutual instances and compair them then you you get accurate figure for that instance if you have a lot of thes ethen you have accurate data, what you have is two mainly incompatable datasets that you are using to propogate a theory the factthat the data set does NOT support such a conclusion
 
 Post the dates or any text on statistical analysis that supports your possition, or post the dates and targets!
List the dates and targets! which its not in the was you are using it, by using whol war figures you can only ernalise not use it for specifics like you are doing, this is your problem you have no idea about sampling, a large set of unlike data is worth far less that a smal set of compaable data, until you learn this you will never understand
 
During the entire war, the RAF lost more Lancasters on fewer missions. Until you can explain why that was, the larger sample population will always point to better and more accurate conclusions!
 
thats easy, the B17 were sent on easier missions with huge fighter escorts like bombing french comunication airfields defended by 2 light and 2 heavy flak guns is comparable to bombing the ruhr, the fact that USAAF had so many 17 in 45 to run missions skews the data heavily to the late war numbers, a lot of lightly defensed mssions of large numbers of B17  in 45 is being compaired agaisnt night bombing the ruhr in 43 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Skylark       3/6/2013 2:15:37 PM


Even by radial standards, the Wrights were crap. 

 

B.

 



 
Quote    Reply

Skylark       3/6/2013 5:04:37 PM

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/6/2013 9:56:35 PM

yeah right and just how much defensive effort was placed round the ruhr/Berlin other major cities targets of BC not USSAF 
A few dozen Night Fighters Vs several hundred day fighters? Yeah Right! 
 
 
Not at all! Because it still fails to address the realitive strengths of the German responce to both types of raids.
but again if this is the case ten it applies to the whole dataset and makes such comparasions invalid
No, if the German responce was 20% at night and 80% at day and the RAF still lost so many planes, then the only valid conclusion is that the Lancaster is not as sturdy as the B-17, and probably not as strong as the B-24 either! 
 WO those dates it is not possible to even attempt to look up the realivant data.
but the sources are thier? itwwhat? makes up your data, if you cannot dill? into the data to check then the data is useless for the type of comparason you are making
Not at all! The data I am using is so widely availible that it is not in question. Besides, the fact that encompases the entire war and ALL the missions makes it the best possible data set! 
So it brings us back to the original possit; That intercepting Night-time raids was according to your own admission above in yellow, much more difficult, so by reasonable deduction, the higher loss rates of RAF Lancs means that they were more fragile! 
no it might but you have not shown this, But, I have shown this! it would only be the case IF the missions are directly comparable Not at all! and the Lanc losses were higher But it is absolutely certain that they were! Why do you deniegh this fact! but the data does not support this It most certainly does support that finding! in fact the data suggest oterwise No, it does not suggest otherwise! - look at the data, it would actaully say suggest that the B17 was targeted agaisnt easier targets How can you make this suggestion? and made the majority of its missions at the time when the defenses were weakest Again, how can you make this assumption, when they were the most heavily opposed raids of all! whilst the Lanc was targeted agaisnt the most heavily defended targets aand agaisnt defenses that were maintained right up to the end But were still at night and thus much less likely to be shot down!
 
are you completely incapable of doing such a asic it of research, No, I just do not want to spend my very pressious time doing it! just take youe overall figures drill down into raids agaisn tthe same target within reasonable timescales, check what the BC losses were and what the USAAF losses were, compair the two, as the timescale should be about a month the two raids can be compaired, your big number does not take into account that te B17 had 3500 aircraft in late 44/ early 45 to send on missions whilst thier were never more than 1000 lanc in service at anytime, so the bulk of B17 missins were late war and usually had 2/3:1 ratio of fighter escorts
How about the fact that B-17s flew more missions in 1944 than the RAF did during the entire war? 
 
Certainly! Once you have data sets with a populations of 156,000 and 240,000, they will be infinetly better than any twelve sets of points! So yes, the entire data set is always better than any sub-set!
 
No, it is you who does not have a clue.

 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    If you are going to use MY data    3/6/2013 10:02:17 PM
and ideas, you thief, then make the correct interpretations (which MINE are diametrically opposite to your looney tune interpretations of the data.) and be HONEST as to whose data you stole. I don't want to be associated with your crap, Stuart.
 
B
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/6/2013 10:10:29 PM

ONLY if the data is comparable So you can quote a rule or theorem which states that in the studdy of statistics, "a smaller population is better than a larger on so large?" Right! I did read the book you quoted and it agrees with me! Larger samples are better when the results are so diverse! You were wrongand this book prooves it!
only if the data set are comparative otherwise you have noise which prevents any reasonable anaylsis
But it is the size of the sample population that reduces noise the most!
The book agrees with me in this too!
 
Reducing sample population increases noise and scews the results when compared to the larger and more accurate population results!
It states that you are wrong here too! 
 
 
 Post the dates or any text on statistical analysis that supports your possition, or post the dates and targets!
 
During the entire war, the RAF lost more Lancasters on fewer missions. Until you can explain why that was, the larger sample population will always point to better and more accurate conclusions!
 


Your assertion that the USAAF was sent on easier missions is pure crapola!  The differance in the numbers of interceptors availible makes that point perfectly clear!
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/6/2013 10:25:12 PM

and ideas, you thief, then make the correct interpretations (which MINE are diametrically opposite to your looney tune interpretations of the data.) and be HONEST as to whose data you stole. I don't want to be associated with your crap, Stuart. B I am forced to use your posted data against you because you refuse to list the source material. I have also drawn the correct conclusions, which you clearly have not! I have made a simple statement that disprooves your entire thesis that the missions were similar and that the RAF faced similar resistance to the USAAF, which they clearly did not. Using your own data and admissions, IE that night time bombing was safer than day light bombing and since that the the PRIME MO for both the RAF and USAAF, then the only valid conclusion is that the RAF flew the less dangerous missions and the USAAF the more dangerous ones! Since there is ample evidentuary and analitical proofs to same, then the only logical conclusion is that the Lancaster was a fragile plane at least compaired to the American types. Because there is no other way to explain why they lost more Lancasters on fewer missions other wise!
More than 150,000 night missions for Lancs and more than 240,000 missions for the USAAF B-17s prooves beyond any doubt that the B-17 was far and away the stronger of the two planes. Then there are both the hundreds of pictures of returning heavily damaged B-17s Vs NO pictures of returning Lancasters with the same level of damage, not to mention the fact that there are no maintenance records of repairing a single Lancaster with that mutch damage on it as there are hundreds of those type of records for repairs to B-17s that exceed any repair ever made to a Lancaster!
So you fave to be honest and face the facts that the Lancaster was the weak sister of the B-24 and not in the same league as the B-17!

 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    You lie, Stuart.   3/6/2013 10:49:21 PM
But that is all on you. The DATA speaks the REAL truth for itself.
 
B.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics