Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!unmvax!uokmax!occrsh!fang!att!cbnewsc!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: patterso@ADS.COM (Tim J. Patterson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Bombing accuracy in the Gulf
Message-ID: <1991Jun28.022247.26594@cbnews.cb.att.com>
Date: 28 Jun 91 02:22:47 GMT
References: <1991Jun27.013820.28408@cbnews.cb.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.cb.att.com (william.a.thacker)
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems
Lines: 14
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: patterso@ADS.COM (Tim J. Patterson)

I would doubt that he acutauly had access to the BDA reports but just
got a summary.  The 70 % could come from all sorts of aritficial ways
of counting.  Since most of the bombs were dropped on areas rather
than specific targets, clearly most of the bombs will not have hit a
particular target such as a tank.  I would dispute this presentation,
since most of the bombs were dropped into areas and not onto specific
targets, I would claim that the majority hit their target.


Tim