Bomber Losses: USAAF vs RAF

[HerrKaleut]

just 2 points; 1)Refering to the original thread, I recall reading that the original British warning to the USAAF was about unescorted daylight missions.
2) If you were in a bomber at night and suddenly all sorts of crap comes flying through your aircraft from underneath, how do you differentiate between Shrage Musik fire and standard nose-up fire?

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

I would have tough time hitting anything in the dark. I don't envy those Lacaster bombers, they had to have guts.

 

[Erich]

since BC did not know what Schräge Muzik or the attack was it was most probably assumed if the crew made it back to base that they were hit by Flak the only way would determine shrapnel damage

in any case having the rear turrets 303's was a good enough deterent for the LW to plan carefully their rearward attacks with forward firing fixed weapons

 

[Airbone Bunny]

I understand that intially Schräge Musik attacks could be attributed to normal horizontal attacks.

However, soon or later some information on Schräge Musik should start leaking: pictures from recon planes, testimony from surviving crews, reports from spies, analysis of enemy night fighters downed or landed on allied territory.

I can't fully buy the "we didn't know there was something like Schräge Musik until the end of the war" argument. Somebody knows when the existence of Schräge Musik was a proven fact for the allies?

 

[Waynos]

Schräge Musik can't have been THAT much of a surprise as British protoypes were built with fixed upward firing guns not only in WW1 but also in the 20's and 30's so the concept was at least known.

 

[Erich]

surviving crews knew full well something was up but could not put their fingers on just what it was....yeah sounds vague because that is what was intended, the protection of the BC crews thinking or at least pushing the idea of light flak hitting them in the butt and not some new fangdangled weaponry that the evil nazis had come up with.

point of the matter is it worked far too often

 

[HerrKaleut]

I find it difficult to believe that that aircrew would confuse gun/cannon rounds from flak shrapnel.

Don't know about hitting anything in the dark, I dont think I could FIND anything in the dark!!!!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I find it difficult to believe that that aircrew would confuse gun/cannon rounds from flak shrapnel.

I don't - having flown in an aircraft that took small arms fire, all you hear is a peppering sound, similar to throwing a hand full of stones at a steel shed. I've heard the same thing from bomber crews as well. The only time you could tell is something really big hit you if there was an actual explosion within the aircraft.

 

[gruad]

Hello everyone and thanks for all the posts so far. Just discovered this forum and I am enjoying myself going through the archives!

One of the most interesting points in USAAF vs RAF losses is the losses per shoot down. With the USAAF IIRC it was an average of 3 killed from a crew of 10. The RAF lost between 5 and 6 from a crew of 7.

The difference was caused by the style of fighting. A single cannon shell like the MK108 would take down a day bomber but it would take some time allowing the crew to escape. Nightfighting was about getting into a position unseen by your victim and the RAF bomber would take 20 hits from the infamous pneumatic drill. The crew would stand no chance.

An RAF bomber was the second most dangerous place to be in WWII. Half those who flew died. Only the U-boats suffered worse where 3/4 died. At the worst during Nov 43 to Feb 44 the odds of surviving the 30 mission tour were 1 in 6. Imagine keeping going when your odds were a throw of the dice. That is some bravery.

 

[Airbone Bunny]

Hello everyone and thanks for all the posts so far. Just discovered this forum and I am enjoying myself going through the archives!

One of the most interesting points in USAAF vs RAF losses is the losses per shoot down. With the USAAF IIRC it was an average of 3 killed from a crew of 10. The RAF lost between 5 and 6 from a crew of 7.

The difference was caused by the style of fighting. A single cannon shell like the MK108 would take down a day bomber but it would take some time allowing the crew to escape. Nightfighting was about getting into a position unseen by your victim and the RAF bomber would take 20 hits from the infamous pneumatic drill. The crew would stand no chance.

An RAF bomber was the second most dangerous place to be in WWII. Half those who flew died. Only the U-boats suffered worse where 3/4 died. At the worst during Nov 43 to Feb 44 the odds of surviving the 30 mission tour were 1 in 6. Imagine keeping going when your odds were a throw of the dice. That is some bravery.

Hi Gruad and welcome;

Another thing to consider is how well designed USAAF and RAF bomber were regarding crew safety and evacuation in the case of being shot down. I can't remember where (this same forum?) but I read somewhere that RAF bombers were awfully designed regarding crew evacuation and didn't allow for a quick and easy escape, partially explaining the low survival ratio.

 

[drgondog]

Hi Gruad and welcome;

Another thing to consider is how well designed USAAF and RAF bomber were regarding crew safety and evacuation in the case of being shot down. I can't remember where (this same forum?) but I read somewhere that RAF bombers were awfully designed regarding crew evacuation and didn't allow for a quick and easy escape, partially explaining the low survival ratio.

B17 wasn't all that easy either - lower left crew hatch behind Bombadier and navigator - aft hat rh side and tailwheel for tail gunner. If you could get the bomb bay doors open immediatley - that helped

 

[Andrew Johnson]

Also think about the construction. The Lancasters (among many other RAF bombers) used a honeycomb airframe which would enable the aircraft itself to be VERY hard to down, but the crew members themselves were relatively unprotected barring some 'armored' glass, contrary to this is the B-17, which dedicated a bit more of its weight to protecting crew members with actual armor within key places of the crew compartment.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Also think about the construction. The Lancasters (among many other RAF bombers) used a honeycomb airframe which would enable the aircraft itself to be VERY hard to down, but the crew members themselves were relatively unprotected barring some 'armored' glass, contrary to this is the B-17, which dedicated a bit more of its weight to protecting crew members with actual armor within key places of the crew compartment.

The Wellington had a honeycomb structure, the Lancaster did not.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The Wellington had a honeycomb structure, the Lancaster did not

Nor was it a honeycomb either. The Wellington used a geodesic design consisting of "W" beams. A honeycomb design is different (I know you are obviously aware of this Joe...).

Honeycomb Structure:

Geodesic Structure:

 

[wuzak]

Wellington was geodetic construction.

I do not know what the difference between geodetic and geodesic is.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Wellington was geodetic construction.

I do not know what the difference between geodetic and geodesic is.

There is no difference. They are the same thing. Both terms are correct. Geodetic = Geodesic
Geodetic airframe - Wikipedia

 

[Koopernic]

Hi Gruad and welcome;

Another thing to consider is how well designed USAAF and RAF bomber were regarding crew safety and evacuation in the case of being shot down. I can't remember where (this same forum?) but I read somewhere that RAF bombers were awfully designed regarding crew evacuation and didn't allow for a quick and easy escape, partially explaining the low survival ratio.

Hello everyone and thanks for all the posts so far. Just discovered this forum and I am enjoying myself going through the archives!

One of the most interesting points in USAAF vs RAF losses is the losses per shoot down. With the USAAF IIRC it was an average of 3 killed from a crew of 10. The RAF lost between 5 and 6 from a crew of 7.

The difference was caused by the style of fighting. A single cannon shell like the MK108 would take down a day bomber but it would take some time allowing the crew to escape. Nightfighting was about getting into a position unseen by your victim and the RAF bomber would take 20 hits from the infamous pneumatic drill. The crew would stand no chance.

An RAF bomber was the second most dangerous place to be in WWII. Half those who flew died. Only the U-boats suffered worse where 3/4 died. At the worst during Nov 43 to Feb 44 the odds of surviving the 30 mission tour were 1 in 6. Imagine keeping going when your odds were a throw of the dice. That is some bravery.

German statistics data showed that on average the 151/20 M round required an average of 25 hits to down a B-17, while 18-20 hits were required to down other 4-engine bomber types, and only four hits were required to down a single-engine fighter.

The casualty rates don't sound right. Flying for the Luftwaffe after June 1944 became extremely dangerous. Whole bomber squadrons were wiped out.

The escape systems on American aircraft may have been better. Also electrical systems used on US aircraft a little more robust. Finding your way out of a tumbling aircraft at night full of slippery hydraulic fluid wouldn't be easy compared to doing it in daylight.

Also organising bailout at 25,000ft gives you more time than at 12,500.

The safest and most accurate way to bomb would have been from a B17E at night from 33,000 ft using Oboe or the systems that followed it such as micro-H and could guide 50 aircraft at once.

 

[stona]

Survival rates for the Lancaster and Halifax were 10.9% and 29.4% respectively. Pilots and gunners had the least chance of escaping.
Bomber Command determined the reasons as

-More restricted space within the Lancaster and a very poor escape hatch.

-The entire crew, with the exception of the tail gunner, was supposed to exit through the one hatch in the nose. Unlike US bombers there were very few alternative exits (like the bomb bay). The main entrance door was to be used as a parachute exit only in an "extreme emergency" though I would imagine a burning bomber, plummeting earthwards would qualify as such.

- Jamming of escape hatches which also opened inwards.

-Lancaster tended to break up when out of control, more so then the more strongly constructed Halifax. This was thought to contrbute to the 68% of Lancasters shot down with no survivors.

-A lack of fire warning lights meant that fires often got beyond control before the crew could react.

-There was inadequate training, parachute drill etc.

You can do an experiment in the safety of your own home. Draw a rectangle, 22" by 26.5" on the floor. Now stand on it, imagine you have a parachute attached to your chest and that you have to get through a hole that size.

Cheers

Steve

 

[pbehn]

In a damaged aircraft the pilot frequently had to fight to keep the plane steady for the crew to exit, of course as soon as he left the controls the plane would dive or spin trapping him in. In the Lancaster the mid upper gunner had to climb over the wing spar if the rear door jammed while the rear gunner had to get his parachute from outside the turret inside the rear fuselage, which meant he needed power.

The Canadian Mynarski Lancaster is named after a Lancaster crew member who lost his life trying to save a trapped rear gunner. Incredibly the rear gunner Pat Brophy survived the crash and detonation to tell Mynarki's story.

from Wiki.

In the aftermath of D-Day attacks on 12 June 1944, Mynarski was aboard KB726,[4] taking part in the crew's 13th operation, a raid on northern France. They reached their target at midnight, Tuesday 13 June. After encountering flak over the coastline and briefly being "coned" by searchlights, the Lancaster was attacked by a Junkers Ju 88 enemy night fighter over Cambrai, France. Raked by cannon fire with major strikes on the port engines and centre fuselage, a hydraulic fire engulfed the bomber. Losing both port engines, de Breyne ordered the crew to bail out. As Mynarski approached the rear escape door, he saw through the inferno in the rear, that tail gunner Pilot Officer Pat Brophy was trapped in his turret. The tail turret had been jammed part way through its rotation to the escape position.[5]

Without hesitation, Mynarski made his way through the flames to Brophy's assistance. All his efforts were in vain, initially using a fire axe to try to pry open the doors before finally resorting to beating at the turret with his hands. With Mynarski's flight suit and parachute on fire, Brophy eventually waved him away. Mynarski crawled back through the hydraulic fire, returned to the rear door where he paused and saluted. He then reputedly said "Good night, sir," his familiar nightly sign-off to his friend, and jumped.[6]

Except for Brophy, all crew members of the Lancaster managed to escape the burning bomber. Five left through the front escape hatch on the floor of the cockpit. When bomb aimer Jack Friday, tried to release the escape hatch cover in the aircraft's nose, the rushing wind ripped it from his hands. The hatch cover caught him above his left eye and knocked him out. He fell into the open hatch and jammed it closed until Flight engineer Roy Vigars reached him to quickly clip on Friday's parachute and toss him out the hatch while pulling the unconscious crewman's rip cord. Only Mynarski managed to leave via the rear escape door.[7]

Mynarski's descent was rapid due to the burnt parachute and shroud lines, resulting in a heavy impact on landing. He landed alive though severely burned, with his clothes still on fire. French farmers who spotted the flaming bomber found him and took him to a German field hospital but he died shortly afterwards of severe burns. He was buried in a local cemetery. Brophy remained trapped in the bomber and remained with the bomber when it crashed in a farm field. As the bomber disintegrated, and began breaking apart, Brophy survived the crash and the subsequent detonation of the bomb load. Still lodged in his turret, the crash broke the turret open with him pitched out, striking a tree and being temporarily knocked out.[8]

Four of the crew members: Brophy, navigator Robert Bodie, radio operator James Kelly and pilot de Breyne were hidden by the French and, except for Brophy, returned to England shortly after the crash. Vigars remained with the unconscious Friday and both were captured by the Germans, being interned until liberated by American troops. Brophy joined French Resistance fighters and, after joining a resistance unit to continue the fight on the ground behind enemy lines, returned to London in September 1944, where he learned of Mynarski's death. It was not until 1945 when Brophy was reunited with the rest of the crew that the details of his final moments on the aircraft were revealed. He related the story of the valiant efforts made by Mynarski to save him.[9]

Mynarski lies buried in Grave 20 of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission plot in the Méharicourt Communal Cemetery, near Amiens, France.

 

[Peter Gunn]

*SNIP*

The safest and most accurate way to bomb would have been from a B17E at night from 33,000 ft using Oboe or the systems that followed it such as micro-H and could guide 50 aircraft at once.

Interesting thought, so for the un-enlightened (i.e. me) can the E model cruise at 33,000 and if so, with what kind of payload?