[Kjetil Aakra]

Oh, my god, now you're really being unreasonable, Franek!

Let's just examine your claims one by one:

1. "I see no evidence that 315 performed badly on this mission. "

Hm, escort not seen by enemy nor the bombers, seems to me they did performed rather badly!! Or do we have different understanding of what "escort" means?

2. "I see the mission did not went entirely according to plan, but perhaps those were planners responsible, who send only one Squadron to escort such a big formation?"

If they had BEEN there that would surely have helped, no?? Or do you blame the bombers who outran their escort or wouldn't stay in formation with them?? This is getting stupid, Franek. Besides, you have not a shread of evidence that there was fautly planning here, yet you want us to forego all the evidencewe have presented to support our side have and beleive your "perhaps"???!! Not gonna happen, Franek.

3. "The fact that some people have not seen them is no proof of anything."

Kind of proves they were not there, doesn't it?? Or would you claim they were there but did not attack??! I dare not make such a claim myself.

4. "Standard procedure was to climb into the sun to avoid surprising attack and orbit. It is obvious this tactics could not work with so many Lancasters flying on their own and the escort was not adequate. Comparison to other attacks is not fair either. Any daylight attack involved several Squadrons flying diversions, sweeps, close escorts, top covers, etc."

Flying on their own!????? Are you really suggesting the Lancaster did not want escort and wanted to be left alone? But at least you now admit the escort was not adequate. Also see below.

5. "Daylight and night flying were two entirely different things and generally RAF BC pilots lacked experience in this regard."

But not the Squadrons in question here as I tried to tell you. This argument doesn't hold water, Franek.

6. " Nobody is going to cover anything but there must be some proofs and not conclusions drawn on vague arguments."

We have interviews with allied and German aircraft who were there that dy, we have ORBs, we have statements and circumstantial evidence up or asses - hardly vague arguments, Franek. Except to you.

I have read quite a lot of the threads and discussions you have participated in, Franek. You have a quite unfair and scientifcally very unsound way of arguing. You repeatedly claim that you oponent has weak evidence that cannot really prove anything and excel in drawing attention to things that cannot be proven and then you take that to mean that your point of view is supported, often without ever quoting actual sources or evidence supporting your claims. You also tend to present strawman and ad hominem arguments.

I'll let this rest now, as I find Olve more than proved his case. I think only you have a problem with that.

Kjetil Aakra