B24 ceiling vs. B17 ceiling

[spicmart]

Sorry, what does "Category E" mean?

 

[muskeg13]

Has anyone else read "Unbroken" by Laura Hillenbrand, the biography of Louis Zamperini whose B-24 went down on a search mission for another missing B-24? Former Olympic runner Zamperini was a B-24 bombardier, who survived 47 days in an inflatable raft and the next 2 1/2 years as a Japanese prisoner. Zamperini expressed extreme disappointment at not being assigned to B-17s and had absolutely nothing flattering to say about the unsafe B-24, considering it deathtrap even without encountering the enemy. I no longer have the book to re-read for reference, but believe it reinforces the many stories about the B-24s' notorious unstoppable hydraulic and fuel leaks and its complete inability to ditch without breaking up.

 

[33k in the air]

Sorry, what does "Category E" mean?

That means an aircraft which returned but was damaged beyond economical repair. In other words, it was written off after return.

 

[MIflyer]

November 1942 RAF stats:
Chance of survival
One Tour Two Tours
Light Bomber 25.5% 6.5%
Fighter Recon 31% 9.5%
Bomber Recon 42% 17.5%
Day Fighter 43% 18.5%
Heavy and Medium Bombers 44% 19.5%
Light General Recon Landplane 45% 20%
Medium General Recon Landplane 56% 31.5%
Heavy General Recon Landplane 71% 50.5%
Catalina Flying Boat 77% 60%

 

[SaparotRob]

Go Dumbo!

 

[JDCAVE]

Depends on circumstances.

Statisticians calculate values that have everything to do with aggregate numbers and almost nothing to do with your circumstances. Being an engineer, I should know. Statistics can be correctly calculated and still have nothing to do with your circumstances; they're just statistics that generally predict outcomes. They don't predict YOUR outcome. They only predict probability if 1) the original assumptions are correct and 2) you try the experiment MANY times randomly. After a certain number of random trials, your outcomes should generally reflect the probabilities IF 1) and 2) are correct. There is almost nothing random about a wartime aircraft mission.

So, in general, the more time you spend over enemy territory, the greater the chance you will be found and attacked ... true. But, you can seriously affect the outcome by changing the circumstances. We all know that large streams of bombers were detected and attacked with flak and fighters, sure.

Go research how many times a flight of ONE fast photo-reconnaissance aircraft was successfully found and attacked and get back with me. It isn't very often. So, sure, I'll agree with you for large formations of escorted bombers. But I disagree strongly with your contention for small formations of fighters and/or fast bombers with a specific target. They almost always got through, and were planned so they also usually got through with the element of surprise.

Well, I was a quantitative biologist in my former life, and used Bayesian methods to explore probabilistic outcomes. So you said

So, in general, the more time you spend over enemy territory, the greater the chance you will be found and attacked ... true.

Thanks for agreeing! It is a simple functional response of the number of bombers shot down as a function of bomber density and time spent over enemy territory and available to fighters. Flak is fixed, unable to move and the response is different to fighters and entirely related to density and handling time (ability to load, range a target, load again, hit or miss a target, and them move to the next target. A flak gun is no longer effective once a bomber force leaves the area. If your focus is entirely on flak, then fine, time over enemy territory in areas where there are no flak defenses does may not result in higher losses. However a night fighter force could/would follow a bomber force as far as resources would allow. Losses on deep penetration raids at night were higher than similar attacks on the Ruhr, even late into the war. Although less frequent, than in 1943-spring 1944, night fighters continued to inflict severe losses on bomber command on certain raids late into the war.

Jim

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I wonder if the problem is similar to the 'Where should we put the armour" question and answer?

In the nose, of course.

 

[SaparotRob]

I was wondering who'd be first.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I was wondering who'd be first.

Oh, you knew it'd be moi!

 

[Snautzer01]

Flak is fixed, unable to move

No they moved around quite a lot. Think trains ships barges lorries etc. I posted a while back a war time doc about this. In other word you cannot see it as an unmovable item in this i think.
Now i get itches on not to name places on my body just thinking of statistics , so this will be my contribution to this discussion.

 

[pbehn]

No they moved around quite a lot. Think trains ships barges lorries etc. I posted a while back a war time doc about this. In other word you cannot see it as an unmovable item in this i think.
Now i get itches on not to name places on my body just thinking of statistics , so this will be my contribution to this discussion.

In the stuff posted about RAF Mustangs operations doing tactical recon. they were constantly changing their routes in response to constantly changing flak positions.

 

[MIflyer]

In the stuff posted about RAF Mustangs operations doing tactical recon. they were constantly changing their routes in response to constantly changing flak positions.

On his first mission over the Balkans a new P-51 pilot was shocked to find that his flight was making sudden random sharp turns. When he found that the abrupt turns were causing his drop tanks to unport and the engine to sputter until the fuel flow resumed, he punched off the tanks. The he barely made it home because the other three in the flight were just letting the engine sputter momentarily so they could use all the fuel in the drop tanks.

In Europe, one reason the B-26 had such a low loss rate is that the RAF advised them to not fly on one heading for more than 5 minutes, because that was how long it took the Germans to set up an AAA barrage.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

No examples of flak causing casualties like fighters? You must be looking at a different war than I am. Check the Statistical Digest of World War Two, Table 159. It's official USAAF numbers.

Definitely, I am looking at the one that happened. Explain how a request for "heavy bomber formations mauled by flak guns like they were mauled by fighters" becomes the all war figures for all sorties. No example of a given formation, or even say a raid, that took more than say 10% casualties from flak? Instead of doing the feet in fridge, head in oven, average temperature normal approach. Remember go play with bears, not horses, bears are safer, they kill fewer people each year is amusing but not correctly reading the statistics.

Just in case you don't HAVE the Statistical Digest of World War Two, you can download it at:
While not exactly error free (the tables were before spreadsheets were invented), it's a great primary research tool ... as long as you read between the lines and look at their definitions. Cheers.

Alternatively try USAF STATISTICS which contains links to more than just WWII and the supplement, having much data on things like Korea.

I put the Statistical Digest into spreadsheets years ago and have been comparing its data to those in other reports, usually from the various archives, plus things like a near complete B-17 loss list for the 8th Air Force, making sure I understand what their definitions are and what they actually measured. It is why I could easily calculate the figures showing the change in 8th Air force bomber losses to fighters with time. Something averaging hides.

Your ideas about all aircraft production statistics being equal and your attempts here remind me of a statistician walking into to a meeting announcing understanding statistics means you understand engineering, here is the building design. Reading between the lines being code for making the figures fit the ideas, not the other way around.

Hey Geoffrey, your posts are generally chock full of numbers, Maybe post some of your source links, too?

There seems little point when the data is ignored.

 

[GregP]

Well, I was a quantitative biologist in my former life, and used Bayesian methods to explore probabilistic outcomes. So you said

Thanks for agreeing! It is a simple functional response of the number of bombers shot down as a function of bomber density and time spent over enemy territory and available to fighters. Flak is fixed, unable to move and the response is different to fighters and entirely related to density and handling time (ability to load, range a target, load again, hit or miss a target, and them move to the next target. A flak gun is no longer effective once a bomber force leaves the area. If your focus is entirely on flak, then fine, time over enemy territory in areas where there are no flak defenses does may not result in higher losses. However a night fighter force could/would follow a bomber force as far as resources would allow. Losses on deep penetration raids at night were higher than similar attacks on the Ruhr, even late into the war. Although less frequent, than in 1943-spring 1944, night fighters continued to inflict severe losses on bomber command on certain raids late into the war.

Jim

I was an electrical engineer in my former life and eventually moved into engineering management. I used statistics in an electronic manufacturing environment on test data to zero in on what manufacturing operations needed to be improved to maximize production test yield. It was largely Normal probability, but some binomial crept in there, too. I was also in the original Six Sigma push at Motorola. In the end, we went from 6.5% customer returns down to close to 0.2% customer returns using statistical techniques to tweak production. Interestingly enough, a big chunk turned out to be caused by electrostatic discharge (ESD), and that was another push to eliminate ESD damage. Putting in conductive floors was EXPENSIVE but paid for itself within a year!

 

[GregP]

Definitely, I am looking at the one that happened. Explain how a request for "heavy bomber formations mauled by flak guns like they were mauled by fighters" becomes the all war figures for all sorties. No example of a given formation, or even say a raid, that took more than say 10% casualties from flak? Instead of doing the feet in fridge, head in oven, average temperature normal approach. Remember go play with bears, not horses, bears are safer, they kill fewer people each year is amusing but not correctly reading the statistics.


Alternatively try USAF STATISTICS which contains links to more than just WWII and the supplement, having much data on things like Korea.

I put the Statistical Digest into spreadsheets years ago and have been comparing its data to those in other reports, usually from the various archives, plus things like a near complete B-17 loss list for the 8th Air Force, making sure I understand what their definitions are and what they actually measured. It is why I could easily calculate the figures showing the change in 8th Air force bomber losses to fighters with time. Something averaging hides.

Your ideas about all aircraft production statistics being equal and your attempts here remind me of a statistician walking into to a meeting announcing understanding statistics means you understand engineering, here is the building design. Reading between the lines being code for making the figures fit the ideas, not the other way around.


There seems little point when the data is ignored.

Did we get up on the wrong side of the bed? Perhaps actual discourse is indicated. I'm willing if you are. Sounds like we both have a lot of data.

Of course, I have the statistical Digest in Excel, too. Well. most of it, anyway; at least the data I am interested in. Again, as an engineer, the stats tell us general outcomes, not the outcome for any single mission. And the stats may or may not be normally distributed since the basic premise of randomness if not there. It should be more like a truncated Normal distribution centered around the mean. Unfortunately, much of the data we want to see is missing from the data sets.

However, when the losses to AAA equal losses to fighters for the entire war in the ETO for the U.S.A. heavy bombers, who is ignoring the real outcome, me or you? There is not another data set that shows other than approximately equal losses to fighters and AAA for US heavies in the ETO that I have found to date. Do you have such a data set? If so, please post it or at least a link to it.

Basically, it sounds like we have largely the same data in computer files. Mine total quite a few Gb and it looks like yours do, too. I used to spend a lot of time in the data, but have tapered off these days since I spend a lot more time working on warbirds (2 - 3 days a week) than researching WWII, and people argue way too much over what the data mean rather than discourse about it.

Be happy, Geoff. Cheers.

 

[Snautzer01]

How about you 2 love birds do that? And without the peeing fartest contest? Both are well informed it seems.
Get together, create a brief. If you can work it out it will be worth reading. I would and many among us here.
If not i will set the pole to pie on, near the out house.

 

[GregP]

Love birds? Surely you jest!

I'm not too sure either one of us called the other one anything against forum rules, but I get your point.

Might as well talk about it offline and present a united front without all the gnashing of teeth, huh?

PM to Geoffrey sent.

 

[special ed]

Don't call him Shirly.

 

[Snautzer01]

Love birds? Surely you jest!

I'm not too sure either one of us called the other one anything against forum rules, but I get your point.

Might as well talk about it offline and present a united front without all the gnashing of teeth, huh?

PM to Geoffrey sent.

I only jest a little.
I do think there can be something good comming.
As i said, you both seem to have weight in arguments.
Why not try to get a paper out about this?
If plus and minus can get together in agreement on points on this (all will be futile to expect) it will be a very strong one that will stand a long time. In your names. Now wouldnt that be something?
I think it it can be.

 

[SaparotRob]

I only jest a little.
I do think there can be something good comming.
As i said, you both seem to have weight in arguments.
Why not try to get a paper out about this?
If plus and minus can get together in agreement on points on this (all will be futile to expect) it will be a very strong one that will stand a long time. In your names. Now wouldnt that be something?
I think it it can be.

You can write the Dedication page.