soc.history.war.world-war-ii

"Michael Emrys" wrote in message
news:C3E4C11F.17C60%emrys@olypen.com...
> in article OPJvj.58096$Ft5.20619@newsfe15.lga, Robert Sveinson at
> rsveinsn@mts.net wrote on 2/22/08 4:40 PM:
>
>> Perhaps the B-26s had the lowest losses in the USAAF but it was not
>> better
>> than the Mosquito.
>
> You may well be right, but in any event, I believe it is my post that set
> off this particular sub-discussion and in it I said, "It suffered the
> fewest crewmen lost on a percentage basis during the war of any American
> bomber..." No reference was made to British or any other Allied bombers.
>
> Michael

My comment about the B-26 was a result of the following
paragraph written by Dave Smith.


" In reference to comments about the B-26 having the lowest losses, I
found a site that made the claim, but was unable to find anything
about
the nature of the operations on which they were used that might
explain
that. They seem not to have been used much in the skies over Europe
where heavy concentrations of flak batteries and fighter
interception
accounted for high losses. However, several sites discussed the
problems with the B-26 that caused a lot of training accidents. It
had a
very high stall speed that meant fast landings. It also had a
problem
with the propeller pitch adjustment that led to sudden feathering,
and
with the two large engines so far out on the wings it often caused
sudden loss of control at low altitude."

It was not intended to question your statement on the loss
of crew men.
Sorry for the confusion

Robert
>