Mostly against primitive fighters particularly on the Russian front. Assuming similar exaggeration of successes by each sides publicity offices you can probably divide the figures by 2 or 4.
Even if all these had been against night heavy bombers it's a tiny part of the losses
Similar to the famous Boston cemetery study. It shows the age at death of people in a cemetery drops linear as you approach the current date. whereas people 100years ago all died in their 60-80s
Places I have lived where more people cycle the drivers have a better attitude. Cambridge, Amsterdam and Vancouver are great to cycle in, London reasonable, smaller industrial cities where cycling is rare = terrible
I used to commute on a motorbike and the cars to be very careful of were:
SUV with mom in the front and a kid in the back, BMW with guy wearing suit, hot hatchback with 4 teenagers in - you just gave any of those a wide berth!
For bombers thats the main cause of aircraft losses, fighters of WWII were pretty ineffective, especially at night.
It's difficult to believe a WWII era fighter diving into a stream of bombers, at night, while the multiple gun turrets on 100s of bombers were returning fire - were making precise tactical decision about which part of the airframe to target.
The nice thing (statistically) about AA fire is that it's rather uniformly random.
Can't remember the name but an experiment by a prof from UCL showed that cars approached him more closely when he was wearing a helmet - but they gave him more space when he was wearing a long blonde wig.
So the safest solution is a transvestite without a helmet.
The astronomer Freeman Dyson was doing similar work for the RAF (I had heard this story attributed to him)
Two of his calculations weren't acted on because of illogical users.
Very few bombers crashed because of airframe failures as opposed to enemy attacks. Logically it would make sense to make the aircraft weaker but lighter/cheaper/faster the loss of a few % crashing due to breakups would balance being able to escape enemies faster.
Gunners on bombers very rarely hit incoming fighters, it would make sense to remove some or all of the gunners and instead train them as pilots and build more aircraft. The RAF's main problem was losing skilled crews and gunners were just extra wasted human resource when a plane was shot down.
Unfortunately the enemy are rarely cooperative in allowing your aircrash investigators to visit the site and examine crashed aircraft.
You could examine enemy bombers that you had shot down but apart from the design and vunerabilites being different you would miss those that had exploded leaving little wreakage or had been crippled and crashed over the sea on the way back. You would still select for a set of damage that allowed an enemy place to crash reasonably intact
Might not be possible, it's not the format or algorithm thats patented - in many cases it's the concept.
A patent on compressing an image by only storing some spatial frequencies gets you however you code the DCT.
It can also be used by good (or at least inquisitive) people.
The back door isn't going to be built into super encrypted military stuff, but a lot of government traffic travels over commercial links, using commercial hardware and software.
Since this government backdoor is going to be leaked or hacked about 3.2 femtoseconds after it's introduced then every internal government memo, every cell phone/sms between a politician and their mistress or lobbyist and every conversation between lawyer and client is going to be on wikileaks.
Just out of interest - do the top level DNSs look at the entire address or is Greenland's main internet supplier going to melt under the load of redirecting everything to Google?
Even if all these had been against night heavy bombers it's a tiny part of the losses