Butt, you are wrong about this too! The original document is availible for research. Go buy a copy from the Historical Documents Section! It clearly states that the figure is "SHORT TONS", so mlive with it, or post a link, which you have never done to an Official source that disputes it from the time period in question, not some fan-boy's home page!
  But no-one has changed them since! They are the original documents! No-one has changed them. Learn to live with it.

then why do you only refere to wiki if there are so many other sources? could it be that they dont agree with you?
Because they are very well documented and the original source documents state short tons! If there are so many "Original Source Documents" out there, why don't you post some of them? Instead you continue to claim they are gospel. Secondly, some other poster actually posted excerpts from the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit's findings! That original document listed "Short Tons" So on this very thread if you go back and read the original docs they agree with me, not you. Do your homework or go home and play with yourself.

 

oh diddum's needs his mummy, I have had my say and know what those documents say so pettiness wont work.

Even IF we add the casualties from the much longer missions flown from Italy to those number that resulted from those missions flown from England in aid of the RAF-BC, it is still under 30-32,000! How does that help your cause? Longer missions flown to more heavily deffended targets, etc...
No, it all boils down to this; The RAF-BC and only the Bomber Command lost ~55,000 men sneaking around in the dark. The equivilant American unit, the much larger and more heavily manned 8th USAAF only lost about 26,000 men while flying three and a half times as many missions in broad daylight!

These are very big differances. Huge! They can not be explained away by blaiming different targets, more heavily deffended when the 8th flew over 900 planes to Berlin in broad daylight less than a month before the same mission was flown by the RAF-BC. There were similar missions to far eastern Germany and Prussia in the same time fraim. The only rational explanation comes from two facts;

1. The R%AF-BC flew at much lower altitudes than the USAAF's 8th AF as a mater fo course. This made them more suceptable to Flak and they lost more planes because of it!

2. The Lancaster was a much more fragile and unforgiving aircraft than the B-17 which suffered very many fewer casualties out of many more and larger crews flying many more missions, plus more casualties per mission and more casualties per loss!

All of the above is true and can not be disputed in honest discussion, because we all agree, more or less on the number of missions and the total casualties.

 

The comment I made about your misuse of the data I supplied, remains valid along with its reasons for why I said it. 

 

You misquoted me, and tried to twist what I said to support your lies about what I said. That makes you a liar, shooter.

 

 

 

 

The British used IMPERIAL measurements  for military ordnance-for EVERYTHING until they went metric.

Not true! They, and the rest of Europe and the world used Short Tons for explosives because E. I. DuPont DuNamours, Dynamite Nobel and all others sold all explosives this way from the late 1700s or very early 1800s.

ONLY to the US from the late 1890 Sweden was metric and sold in metric tons before that they used the skeppspund , however all countries tend to BUY in their own measurements but you seem to think you know otherwise yet as usual provide no proof

What has any of that to do with British military methods?

 

Where did Britain measure raw explosive fill with American weight and measure, after they filled their own projectiles and shells with chemical purchases made from all over the world? 

 

What has CIVILIAN sales to the American commercial market to do with British ordnance measure and methods?

 

Are you that stupid, one called shooter, that you do not see this?

 

Your claims about comparisons were founded on lies. Then you used my numbers to support those lies. I told you exactly where you lied and yet you continued to lie. This is your moral defect, not mine. Now unless you include 15th air force heavy bomber numbers, you are a liar. Unless you include ALL 8th air force numbers you are a liar.

 

That is the case. I did include ALL those numbers (79,000+).    

This is not true! They buy whatever container/packaging the stuff comes in! Dynamite to this very day comes in standard paper cartridges which are, IIRC, 2" by 15" and weigh/Mass 2 pounds!

 

While it is sold in Kilograms, the cartridge still masses 907 grams of explosive! You just get more of them if you buy a metric tonne!

 They still fit in the same bore holes and wooden boxes as they did 200 years ago!

You see it was marketing and packaging that set the size and weight of the containers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nobels_Extradynamit_label.jpg">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nobels_Extradynamit_label.jpg

 

It all goes back to this in 1802! E. I. DuPont was the largest maker of explosives in the world until 1890, or so. They set the trends that continue to this very day!               See this link; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamite
Note that the smaller cartridges sold to civilians are still to this day are half a TROY pound, or 187 grams! This was done to be able to advertise a "Half pound" legaly in America WO comming afoul of the CONSUMER PROTECTION laws! It was Marketing that drove that choise, not packaging or consideration of how much it weighted/massed in metricnumbers! 

See the I. E. Du Pont Du Namoures Historical web site at; http://www2.dupont.com/Phoenix_Heritage/en_US/index.html" target="_blank">http://www2.dupont.com/Phoenix_Heritage/en_US/index.html" target="_blank">http://www2.dupont.com/Phoenix_Heritage/en_US/index.html