[glider1]

What a site.

Tony
Items 1 and 2 I will look into and thanks for the suggestion

Item 3 - If the GA attack aircraft were not put on standby then I don't see why Dive Bombers would have been

Item 4 - On this I believe you to be wrong. An AP or hollow charge bomb would simply punch a hole through the span and do little if any damage. Bridges of this type were notoriously difficult to destroy. If people wanted to get serious then the only more or less guaranteed way of destroying this type of bridge would be to use a Tallboy. You have chastised the 2 TAF for not destroying a target that they never attacked without saying how the Russian Airforce would attack them.

Item 5 - This is hyperbole and very wrong. You have assumed that the reduction was due to losses, without proof. The facts that squadrons were out of service for good reason and that aircraft need to be maintained, crews rested is very different to the reduction being due to losses.

Item 6 - Your approach is almost from the Napolionic Wars , when the scale of your Victory was measured by the size of your losses. The fact that the IL 2 had such severe losses seems to prove to you that this was because they were more effective and operated a higher standard of support to the Army. To me its quite possible that the huge losses were due to the IL 2 being getting shot down, the effectivness of the attack compared to the losses we don't know.