Less commas

[Adam D. Ruppe]

Walter wrote:
> I think this was successful, as from what I understand US
> aircraft were significantly more resistant to damage.

I remember reading about something interesting with regard to
that (don't remember where though): they looked at planes coming
back from combat, and the places *without* bullet holes are the
places they worked on - adding armor, etc.

Why? The planes that got shot in those areas didn't make it home,
so damage there must be more critical than the other hits!

(Naturally, this is based on the assumption that the gunfire
was generally random and they had a large sample size, but those
assumptions worked for WW2 planes.)