So why are you comparing aircraft losses between fighter pilots and attack (bomber) pilots?
Kind of an apples to oranges comparison, isn't it?
Well, the primaries are over and, whether we like it or not (barring a Hillary RFK wish), the next President of the United States will be either Barack Obama (who has promised to lose the war) or John McCain who was championing the Surge that is now winning the war when even Rumsfeld and George W. Bush were against it.
Until November, it might be prudent for the future of America to table the constant McCain bashing until Obama is defeated. In lieu of that, I feel that it is prudent for me to defend McCain against unjustified ridicule.
So why are you comparing aircraft losses between fighter pilots and attack (bomber) pilots?
Because comparing the aircraft loses of combat pilots from training until the day they retire or "Go West" is a legitimate comparison regardless of whether or not they are VA or VF pilots. It is especially legitimate if a pilot's aircraft losses are being used to ridicule him. The comparison brings the discussion back to historical realities.
Comparing the percentage of enemy bridges destroyed and enemy aircraft shot down between VA pilots and VF pilots is not a legitimate comparison and serves no purpose other than to try to mock John McCain's combat service.
In fact, it is not legitimate even if the enemy was never hit. You might as well be ridiculing the men of Torpedo Squadron 8 who perished to the last man, save for one, at the Battle of Midway with out scoring a single hit. Because of VT-8, however, the Japanese CAP was down on the deck slaughtering them thereby making it possible for the dive bombers of Bombing Six to come in, unopposed, devastate the Japanese carriers and turn the tide of the war right then and there.
Kind of an apples to oranges comparison, isn't it?
The second one sure is.
The first one is comparing Red Delicious to Granny Smith.