The point you were trying to make was to negate the Spit 16 effectiveness. Had those been Spit 9's over the fleet then the 190F8s most likely would've taken much lighter losses.
If you had not seen the first attack then I struggle to see what your point was in mentioning the fleet attacks? You seem to be trying to paint a picture of the 16's have nil effect on the fleet attacks, now you admit you only saw a small portion of the engagement. If you don't have the full picture of what happened maybe you should just zip it boy.
Negatory on both accounts. I not once negated the effectiveness of the Spit16. Please quote where I did. Also, I only ever mentioned the second attack, and I did not once mention how the Spit16's had nil effect on the battle. The absence of them, yes. But them in particular, no. Two very different things. You're throwing stones for what reason? Calling me a liar for what reason?
Witnessing half of the attack, and actually the half in which far more devastation was done counts for a bit more than "a small portion" wouldn't you agree? That isnt an admission in the least bit, that is what I've been saying all along. Again, you're peein' into the wind. You need not do that. You're scrambling to find words to keep an argument going that you have created and I'm not sure why.
