Sort of beyond the point, but I hafta disagree with u there... I've been attacked while flying the JU-88 on two occasions, once by a N1k and once by an F6F. The N1k hit me two or three times before I shot him down. The F6F was a little harder, he knocked out my lower guns and the two popguns in the top took awhile to kill him, but he must've hit me with more than 30 pings before he died. He wounded my pilot and knocked out an engine, but I made it back to base.
I have been attacked about 10 times and only once I have been the winner, I managed to kill A6M that attacked directly from my low six. But I think you would agree if I say that B-17 and B-26 are much better protected by defensive armament?
Back to the topic, I have to agree... if such high emphasis is to be placed on strateigic targets, those targets
1. Need better AAA protection. The current level is just pathetic, most fields have more guns then strat targets do.
Historically no AAA protection has been effective enough to prevent destruction of strategic targets, not in Germany during WWII or in Vietnam or in the Gulf. Fighters are the most effective way to protect strategic targets but if pilots are not willing to intercept incoming bombers it is fault when factories are hit.
But I agree that AAA cover in strategic targets should be strenghtened relative to other bases.
------------------
jochen Gefechtsverband Kowalewski
Units: I. and II./KG 51, II. and III./KG 76, NSGr 1, NSGr 2, NSGr 20.
Planes: Do 17Z, Ju 87, Ju 88A, He 111H, Ar 234A, Me 410A, Me 262A, Fw 190F, Fw 190G.
Sieg oder bolsevismus!
