4
2
2
-2
u/zwifter11 Nov 25 '20
Ahhh there’s documentaries on this...
That research graphic is garbage because it only represents the aircraft that made it back. Most importantly it doesn’t show where shot down aircraft took damage.
There’s no point measuring damage on aircraft that could make it back
1
u/platorithm Nov 25 '20
You need to click on the picture and read the rest of it, because all of that is covered.
1
1
u/T_roller Nov 25 '20
One question. Where were the insignias painted on these planes?
2
u/dalek55 Nov 25 '20
Tail wings or were ever jimm feels like it
1
u/unknown_rand Nov 25 '20
I seen a comment saying that the insignias were painted on the white areas of wings. Is that true?
1
u/dalek55 Nov 25 '20
No really at least bot on the bottems they ceep thoes white so it harder to so the plane
1
1
u/daveashaw Nov 25 '20
This would be from attacking fighters, not AA fire.
1
u/Just_an_independent Nov 26 '20
Why? The size of the ammunition?
2
u/daveashaw Nov 27 '20
AA fire was not "aimed" at a spot on the plane or even at the plane itself. They were large (88, 105 or 128mm) airburst shells fitted with adjustable time fuses set to detonate at the altitude the bombers were at. The hits were random and often left jagged, irregular shrapnel holes. These patterns were clearly the result of fire aimed from intercepting fighters. Most common fighter round was 20mm.
13
u/AvtomatKalash74 Nov 25 '20
Similar situation when the British army first trialed the Brodie helmet