Bomber Command losses

[spicmart]

What are the reasons that Bomber Command had such an abnormally high loss percentage compared to other branches

 

[tomo pauk]

The 1st problem is the 'abnormally higher' qualifier.
The 2nd problem is that not all the branches were tasked with actually going against what was the premier war machine in the 1st half of the war, above that machine's-held territory.

 

[stona]

It didn't compared with the only other strategic bombing force to operate during WW2.
Figures for the 8th AF are always tricky to interpret, but it lost around 26,000 killed, and in much less time than Bomber Command's 55,500, and whilst operating for a higher proportion of time in the last year of the war when casualties were somewhat lower.
Bomber Command flew 389,809 sorties, the Americans like to list missions by Group (for a total of about 10,600 missions) and I don't have a number for their total bomber sorties in NW Europe. They also like to mix up missions by all types of aircraft jus to make things harder!
Cheers
Steve

 

[Shortround6]

Other Branches of the RAF or other branches of the Military (Navy/Army)?

Tomo has put it well.

Coastal Command aircraft often flew for months without coming into contact with enemy (in many cases they never engaged the enemy) and if they did the combat was brief and the flight home was over somewhat neutral territory. Or a neutral as a cold sea could be which meant a plane with a dead engine could fly low and slow on it's way home with little additional danger. A bomber trying to get back from Germany, especially in the early years with rather under-powered twins, could take additional damage from local AA guns or roaming fighters. Single engine ceiling, if the plane would stay in air on one engine, was in the low thousands of feet (like 2-6,000ft). The four engine bombers could do much better with a single engine out but the German AA had improved and/or increased in numbers.

 

[stona]

How about the submariners of the Kriegsmarine? Of the 37,000 who served on U-boats, 28,000 are listed as killed or missing, about 5,000 as prisoners. I think those are the worst odds on a life of any service in WW2 (unless the Japanese have something even worse).

It depends what you compare to what, and the only valid comparison is with the USAAF strategic air forces. Even here there are obvious differences.

Cheers

Steve

 

[spicmart]

Excuse me I don't quite understand. What do you mean with "qualifier"?

At the end of the war Bomber Command had lost 44 % of its bomber crews.
Isn't it so that is much more than the Americans had with their daylight bombings?
And were the German nightfighters that effective?

 

[Shortround6]

Crediting the night fighters rather ignores the AA guns.
And does the 44% figure include crews missing/captured or is is after the POWs had been accounted for?

It is around 360 miles from Berlin to Amsterdam or around 1 1/2 -2 hours flight time in an undamaged bomber flying a straight line. Granted many targets were nowhere near Berlin but getting damaged bombers back to even the relative safety of the Channel took some doing.

That said there were some design deficiencies in the aircraft that helped contribute to the crew losses over the years regardless of the tactics or strategy employed.

 

[stona]

Here is a breakdown of Bomber Command aircraft losses and aircrew casualties:

Total Sorties 387,416 in which 8,953 aircraft were lost (2.3%).
(different source from my earlier post, but similar. These are the Air Ministry figures as published in May 1947)

Aircrew Casualties (of the roughly 125,000 aircrew who served)

Killed in action, or died while prisoners of war, 47,268
Killed in flying or ground accidents, 8,197
Killed in ground action, 37
Total fatal casualties to aircrew, 55,500

Prisoners of war, including many wounded, 9,838
Wounded in aircraft which returned from operations, 4,200
Wounded in flying or ground accidents in UK, 4,203
Total wounded other than prisoners of war, 8,403

Total aircrew casualties: 55,500 + 9,838 + 8,403 = 73,741

Roughly 85% of casualties were sustained on operations, 15% in training and other accidents.

Hope this helps

Steve

 

[pbehn]

Excuse me I don't quite understand. What do you mean with "qualifier"?

At the end of the war Bomber Command had lost 44 % of its bomber crews.
Isn't it so that is much more than the Americans had with their daylight bombings?
And were the German nightfighters that effective?

At the end of the Battle of Britain the RAF had lost its front line strength in aircraft and pilots at the start (approx 544)and the LW had lost all its Bf110s Bomber command had lost much more than its original front line strength. There were 7300 Lancasters and 6170 Halifaxes produced (plus all the other Stirlings Wellingtons Hampdens etc) but not so many 1000 bomber raids. When discussing sorties, a raid on Berlin towards the end of the "Battle of Berlin" can not really be compared to a raid on a marshalling yard northern France.

The strategic bombing campaign was attrition, losses to the Americans were similar at similar times but they did have to stop daylight deep raids until new aircraft were brought in (P51) The Germans gave up daylight raids very quickly and had a brief night time campaign late in the war which was a disaster.

 

[tomo pauk]

Excuse me I don't quite understand. What do you mean with "qualifier"?

At the end of the war Bomber Command had lost 44 % of its bomber crews.
Isn't it so that is much more than the Americans had with their daylight bombings?
And were the German nightfighters that effective?

Sorry, English is not my 1st language. 'Qualifier' should be in this case: "
grammar:
a word or phrase, especially an adjective, used to attribute a quality to another word, especially a noun."

In other words, stating that BC have had the abnormaly higher loss percentage needs to be compared with what they acomplished in ww2 vs. what other branches acomplished. Eg. there was no other branch of UK military that dropped almost 1 million tons of bombs against Nazi-occupied Europe. Bomber command also tied, even before USAF joined in, hundreds of thousands of military- and working-age Germans (and others) to the Flak defenses, that could've been used in other military or working jobs. Or, Germany spent more resources to fight BC than they spent to fight the British Army in ww2.

55000 men that died is a sad figure. However, in ww2 scale, their sacrifices were far outstripped by what they contributed to the defeat of Axis powers.

 

[stona]

At the end of the war Bomber Command had lost 44 % of its bomber crews.
Isn't it so that is much more than the Americans had with their daylight bombings?

It is much harder to break down figures for the US 8th AF, but it is generally accepted that its total casualties were between 72,000 and 74,000. This is remarkably similar to the number for Bomber Command, but as substantially more Americans served in the 8th it represents about 35% of aircrew. It's not such a different number.
Flying a strategic bomber in WW2 into air space defended by the various arms of the Luftwaffe, by day or night, was a risky business.
Cheers
Steve

 

[Ascent]

I don't know why but the wounded returning from ops and wounded in accidents being very similar seems surprising to me.

And more fatalities then injured is not totally surprising given the nature of the war they fought but at about three times as many it's quite striking.

Where there any other roles, apart from the U-boats, where death was more likely than injury?

 

[pbehn]

Where there any other roles, apart from the U-boats, where death was more likely than injury?

Perhaps seamen and merchant seamen. If torpedoed you survived or drowned not many were injured and survived compared to others.
From HMS Hood two survived all others perished
From the Bismark 114 from 2,200 survived.

My father was on a destroyer doing convoy escort, his only real action in the war was hitting an iceberg. I made the stupid error of asking him why he didnt learn to swim.

 

[stona]

I don't know why but the wounded returning from ops and wounded in accidents being very similar seems surprising to me.

Many, many more might have been wounded on operations, but not made it home, thus passing into 'the killed in action or died while prisoners of war' category.
I would suggest that most men wounded in bombers, given the nature of their operations, would not make it back to the UK, or even into German hands, where they at least stood a chance with decent treatment, as was usually the case.

Cheers

Steve

 

[stona]

My father was on a destroyer doing convoy escort, his only real action in the war was hitting an iceberg. I made the stupid error of asking him why he didnt learn to swim.

I was talking to a gentleman a while ago who served on naval trawlers on convoys to the USSR. He had just received his 'Ushakov' medal from the Russians. He couldn't swim either !
Cheers
Steve

 

[pbehn]

I was talking to a gentleman about a month ago who served on naval trawlers on convoys to the USSR. He couldn't swim either !
Cheers
Steve

Swimming in the Navy was never a priority, unless the ship is stationary where do you swim to? If the water has an iceberg in it you have about 2 minutes before you start to lose strength.

 

[spicmart]

How many fatalities had the 8th Air Force? Less than Bomber Command percentagewise. By night it was almost impossible to get out of a stricken bomber. I think that was a factor, too. And the fact that a british airman had to complete 30 sorties to get out of active service.
Compared to the 25 missions required for american bomber cres.
I wonder why the manufactureres never installed adequate escape possibilities. The Lancaster had been the worst to get out of.

 

[pbehn]

By night it was almost impossible to get out of a stricken bomber. I think that was a factor, too. And the fact that a british airman had to complete 30 sorties to get out of active service.
Compared to the 25 missions required for american bomber cres.
I wonder why the manufactureres never installed adequate escape possibilities. The Lancaster had been the worst to get out of.

It was possible to leave a n RAF bomber even at night, many did. However leaving the bomber is only part of the problem surviving after bailing out is another matter, Landing in the dark by parachute is extremely dangerous even for trained parachutists.

All RAF bomber command crew were volunteers some were removed due to what was termed lack of moral fibre

from wiki
Under this procedure, aircrew refusing to fly operations were to be classified as (i) medically fit, (ii) medically unfit on nervous grounds (introduced in the 1941 revision[6]) or (iii) medically unfit for other reasons.[7] Aircrew would not be placed in the first two categories if they had been subject to "exceptional flying stress", and to be assigned to category (i), they "had to be proved to be lacking in moral fibre". From February 1943, aircrew on their second tour (30 operations in Bomber Command) could not be classified LMF, though commanders were urged not to publicize this provision.[7][8] According to Wing Commander James Lawson, the Air Ministry officer who handled all cases under the Memorandum, 746 officers and 3313 non-commissioned officers were referred. Of these, 2726 cases (including 2337 NCOs) were classified as LMF.[9][10]

However many crew volunteered to do second tours and more with some completing more than 100 missions.

some info here
RAF Bomber Command aircrew of World War II - Wikipedia
Lack of Moral Fibre - Wikipedia

 

[spicmart]

7377 Lancasters were built. 3932 were lost in action. More than half. It's daylight counterparts B.24 and B.17 had fewer losses
even in the time when there were no escort fighters.

 

[pbehn]

7377 Lancasters were built. 3932 were lost in action. More than half. It's daylight counterparts B.24 and B.17 had fewer losses even in the time when there were no escort fighters.

Regarding the part of your post now in bold, can you explain why raids by unescorted bombers were halted?