Acceptable loss rates vs. pyrrhic victories?

[kalender1973]

Originally Posted by Felix C

Have been reading regarding anti-shipping strikes in the Med. and ask if there was an acceptable loss rate/exchange rate for sinking a merchant ship or warship type.

Example being the strike which resulted in the loss of the transport Rohna expended eight He-177s. I guess at the time the Germans would have only believe they sunk a merchant ship, not also 1000 lives. So would one merchant ship be acceptable loss rate for eight aircraft?

I read where the Allies acknowledged an acceptable loss rate in heavy bomber strikes and so ask if the Ger/Ital powers had similar. I realize the Allied heavies were used strategically and a convoy strike is tactical. But I note the campaign on Malta and Med convoy strikes could be quantified in terms of how many sorties could be launched before the squadron was ineffective.

I guess that also leads to the next question if there was an operational resarch section established for extended fronts. I am thinking in terms of Malta which was repeatedly bombed and is a relatively small target. Was there a calculus done of how many bombers/sorties would be required to neutralize a specific target or targets?

From my point of view the anti-ship / anti-convoi operation are the kind of strategic operation or at least semi strategic. Even you paid a high price, you could solve the problem of strategic cutting of suppy lines (isolation of whole theater of operation) and prevent the reinforcment arrives on the front. The tanks on the ship deck are unprotected harmles piece of steel. If these tanks arrive on the front, there are the potential weapons which caused high losses by own people. The 1000 soldier on the landing ship are soft target, the 1000 soldier in their trenches are havy to fight. Therefore, even the anti-ship operation caused the highest loss rate for the atacking planes, the overal result will be positive, as with your sad sample: 1000 soldger vs 8 bomber crew.