Lazs, that was precisely the point I was making. They would attack with locally superior numbers on a specific portion of the formation, usually the low, rear formation known as "tail end charlie".
Pepe, precisely right about the formation. The first try was not up to snuff defensively. That is why they changed it to provide better protection. P-38s were used in the escort role prior to 44 as I remember, but either way they were removed from this role as soon as possible as they were not up to the task against LW fighters.
I agree that most of the bomber losses can be attributed to fighters. That was not what I was trying to say. My point was that bombers were not sitting ducks and it took extensive work and specific tactics to do so effectively. Fighters were better equipped to the task then shooting artillery shells 15-22k feet into the air and hoping you hit something. Shotgun at range vs. rifle.
I wish I could find a link to the table showing the confirmed kill stats by aircraft type, but the fact that bombers were in the 1st and 2nd place with a large seperation before the fighters in 3rd shows they were not sitting ducks. I realize this point looses some vailidty without a source to point to, but... Hopefully someone can find it.
Either way, I guess we just have to disagree on the "sitting duck" notion of heavy bombers.
