Less commas

[Walter Bright]

Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> 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.)

Battle damage on aircraft was not random. Pilots tended to know where the weak 
spots were, and the most effective angles to attack from. They also knew where 
their own machines were vulnerable, and would adjust their attacks to minimize risk.

For example, the most effective attack on a B-17 was head on, and they'd aim for 
the pilot (the B-17 later got a chin turret to help with this). It was also the 
least risky for the Me-109 pilots, as the heavy engine block would protect them 
while head on, and it was a nearly impossible deflection shot to hit them while 
they passed.

One example of learning from battle damage is they switched bundles of wires 
from being encased in metal conduit to being just loosely tied together. Hitting 
the conduit would take out the whole bundle, while if they were just tied 
together, only the wires directly in the path were cut.