Could the Luftwaffe have done a better job supplying the 6th army at Stallingrad

tyrodtom · Jan 18, 2012

If the aircraft is in a spin, exit from behind the props may not make a difference either. When a aircraft is in a spin, or falling apart, there is no fail-safe way out, it's like a dice game.
I think the top being blow from the back of the cockpit in a Ju 88 was for water landing exit, just like most allied aircraft used a top exit for the same situation. Using a top exit in flight would subject the crew to the same dangers as the top exit did for most fighter aircraft, the tail.

Juha · Jan 18, 2012

Siegfried said:
In the He 177 there is rather a lot of clearance even ahead of those engines, furthermore egress is not so far ahead of the props nor are the nose crew confined. Some He 177 had ejection seats for some crew members. Ju 88's blew of the entire top back of the canopy as in a fighter aircraft. Ju 288 were to have complete escape module with the whole pressurised nose section detached and lowered by parachute F-111 style. The Luftwaffe actually did seem to think a fair bit about escape.

If the aircraft is in a spin exiting from the bottom may not help you clear the propellers at all.

Hello Siegfried
take a fresh look on B-24 and He 177, the foremost exit of B-24 is appr as far from propellers than the ventral hatch of He 177. It's a bit fanny that you claim that in a German plane it was a safe way to jump but in a US plane a death trap.
Which versions of He 177s had ejection seats and for which crew members?
On Ju 88, I know, FAF used them and I have read reports and memoirs on jumping out of Ju 88. I think all planes have ways to exit from topside of the plane, simply because there had to be way out after belly landing or ditching.

It was usually very difficult to get out of spinnig plane, no matter where the exit was before ejection seats

Juha

parsifal · Jan 18, 2012

The only way to do this is to produce some figures on survivors per aircraft shot down (expressed as a percentage of the total crew.

anyone got any figures that even remotely looks at that issue?

Juha · Jan 18, 2012

tyrodtom said:
If the aircraft is in a spin, exit from behind the props may not make a difference either. When a aircraft is in a spin, or falling apart, there is no fail-safe way out, it's like a dice game.
I think the top being blow from the back of the cockpit in a Ju 88 was for water landing exit, just like most allied aircraft used a top exit for the same situation. Using a top exit in flight would subject the crew to the same dangers as the top exit did for most fighter aircraft, the tail.

Hello tyrodtom
Yes that was a problem in Ju 88, in Do 17Z not so much because of its twin fin but at leat one W/O/AG hit the tail of Do 17Z. If we look FAF's experience, it was not very easy to survive if Ju 88 came down and it seems that the crews used the ventral hatch when they managed to jump. It seems that crew had better chances to get out from Do 17Z if they needed to jump and at least sometimes at least W/O / AG used the upper exit.

Juha

davparlr · Jan 18, 2012

Juha said:
It was usually very difficult to get out of spinnig plane, no matter where the exit was before ejection seats

Juha

You are right, many times the crew cannot overcome the g forces associated with a gyrating aircraft.

A sidelight on bailing out. Flying the C-141, the only time we carried parachutes was when we were practicing Combat Air Missions (CAM), parachute drops. The parachutes were on a parachute rack in the cargo area. We egressed out the rear crew doors aft of the wings. So, the procedure was to unbuckle yourself, climb down to the cargo floor, remove the parachute, put it on, walk 30 ft to the door and jump. All of this had to happen while the damaged aircraft was flying itself at 1500 ft. Like that was going to happen.

Glider · Jan 19, 2012

parsifal said:
The only way to do this is to produce some figures on survivors per aircraft shot down (expressed as a percentage of the total crew.

anyone got any figures that even remotely looks at that issue?

Only a few for the Lancaster, Sterling and Halifax

Out of a crew of 7, the average number who survived were

Lancaster 1.3 (19%)
Sterling 1.8 (26%)
Halifax 2.45 (35%)

Figures from the Book 'Berlin Raids'

Another interesting stat
It is correctly stated that the Lancaster had a lower loss ratio than the Halifax. However, once the Halifax III entered service it had a lower loss ratio than the Lancaster

Juha · Jan 19, 2012

Glider said:
Only a few for the Lancaster, Sterling and Halifax

Out of a crew of 7, the average number who survived were

Lancaster 1.3 (19%)
Sterling 1.8 (26%)
Halifax 2.45 (35%)

Figures from the Book 'Berlin Raids'

Another interesting stat
It is correctly stated that the Lancaster had a lower loss ratio than the Halifax. However, once the Halifax III entered service it had a lower loss ratio than the Lancaster

Hello Glider
yes, but one must remember that to the end of the war sometimes Lanc units were sent to more dangerous targets and Hali units got "easier" targets.

BTW, in Hali more of the crew sat front of the propellers than in Lanc, so that fact doesn't explane the better survival rate of Hali crew members in case that they had to jump, of course the reason was the longer bombbay in Lanc so longer distance to escape hatch especially for the navigator and for the W/O.

Juha

FLYBOYJ · Jan 19, 2012

davparlr said:
A sidelight on bailing out. Flying the C-141, the only time we carried parachutes was when we were practicing Combat Air Missions (CAM), parachute drops. The parachutes were on a parachute rack in the cargo area. We egressed out the rear crew doors aft of the wings. So, the procedure was to unbuckle yourself, climb down to the cargo floor, remove the parachute, put it on, walk 30 ft to the door and jump. All of this had to happen while the damaged aircraft was flying itself at 1500 ft. Like that was going to happen.

Great "REAL WORLD" perspective on this from an individual who was ACTUALLY a military aircraft crewmember, your input is always appreciated Dave.

I think this should give an indication of what it was like during WW2 when one was dealing with aircraft with a tighter fuselage and a lot less advanced than a C-141. It's always great to hear from the "real deal" rather than making wild assumptions and speculations based on pictures and little real word experience.

With that said, let's try to get this thread back on track...

stona · Jan 19, 2012

I've just been ploughing through a USAF historical study with the imaginitive title "German Airlift Operations". I don't want to enter another debate about tonnages,effectiveness or even feasibility I have found one outstanding positive from the entire Stalingrad debacle. The evacuation,over the seventy or so days of the operation,of 24,910 wounded men. Most of them would almost certainly otherwise have perished in the pocket. They may not have made it despite being evacuated,but they did get a chance.
Cheers
Steve

davparlr · Jan 19, 2012

FLYBOYJ said:
Great "REAL WORLD" perspective on this from an individual who was ACTUALLY a military aircraft crewmember, your input is always appreciated Dave.

I think this should give an indication of what it was like during WW2 when one was dealing with aircraft with a tighter fuselage and a lot less advanced than a C-141. It's always great to hear from the "real deal" rather than making wild assumptions and speculations based on pictures and little real word experience.

With that said, let's try to get this thread back on track...

Thanks for the compliment. You seem to have an amazing experience in aviation.

I remember when I was in that B-17. Just to move around you had to duck, bend over, avoid items like M2 machine guns on your left, then your right, walk a gang plank in the bomb bay, step around the belly gun turret, top gun turret, etc. I almost didn't make it myself without some injury and I wasn't wearing a flak jacket, parachute, or heated flight suit. Of course in time of need you do what you gotta do. A quick story here I have told before. In pilot training in the T-38 one of the students lost control on landing and drifted off the runway. He sheared the gear and the plane went up on its nose, flipped around and fell back on its belly. The student quickly jumped out of the plane leaving the engines running. Impressed with the speed at which the student got out, the debriefing crew asked him how he got out so fast. "Fast?" he said, "I tried three times before I was successful!". You gotta do what you gotta do.

Glider · Jan 19, 2012

Juha said:
Hello Glider
yes, but one must remember that to the end of the war sometimes Lanc units were sent to more dangerous targets and Hali units got "easier" targets.

BTW, in Hali more of the crew sat front of the propellers than in Lanc, so that fact doesn't explane the better survival rate of Hali crew members in case that they had to jump, of course the reason was the longer bombbay in Lanc so longer distance to escape hatch especially for the navigator and for the W/O.

Juha

I cerrtainly admit to not knowing why the Halifax crew had a better chance of getting out alive but there is no doubt that the did, these are not marginal differences.

As for the better loss ratio of the Halifax III vs Lancaster, the target chosen would obviously have a major bearing. However the earlier Mk II was largely withdrawn from the night bombing at the end of February 1944 and the change in loss ratios in favour of the Halifax started immediately. The difference wasn't great but there was a difference and I doubt that BC were selective that early on in the boming campaign.

What happened in the last nine months of the war I don't know and would only be guessing.

stona · Jan 19, 2012

Glider said:
I cerrtainly admit to not knowing why the Halifax crew had a better chance of getting out alive but there is no doubt that the did, these are not marginal differences.

Size and accessibility of the escape hatch(es).

From a Canadian,Sgt.Soderstom 434 Sqn.RCAF.

"There are four avenues of escape in the Halifax; a small hatch above the pilot's head. A second narrow escape hatch, a trap door will lift out in the front lower section between the flight engineer`s/navigators area and the aircraft nose. The third exit is the main door located behind the left wing underside. The bomb-aimer, navigator, and wireless operator make sure all escape hatches are open on their levels. The rear gunner has the fourth exit, which is optional, he can climb out of his turret, strap on his parachute, reenter the turret, rotate it 180 degrees then fall clear from the aircraft."

Don't fancy the routine for the rear gunner!

The Lancaster had a rear door but the forward escape hatch,in the floor of the bomb aimer's compartment,is only 23"x26"! I can't imagine trying to get through that wearing a parachute along with the bomb aimer,engineer,wireless operator,navigator and ultimately the pilot.

Steve

Glider · Jan 19, 2012

Thanks for that Steve. I do know that on the few bombers fitted with the rear twin 0.5 the rear gunners chances improved considerably as he could wear the shute inside the turret.

fastmongrel · Jan 20, 2012

The Lanc had the main spar in the way of easy movement did the Halifax have the main spar in the way in a similar fashion.

davparlr · Jan 20, 2012

stona said:
Size and accessibility of the escape hatch(es).

From a Canadian,Sgt.Soderstom 434 Sqn.RCAF.

Don't fancy the routine for the rear gunner!

Steve

Just think about the ball turret gunner in the B-17!

stug3 · Dec 29, 2012

Heinkel He-177A-5 from the I. / KG 50 at the airport in Kiev used to supply German forces encircled in Stalingrad.

stona · Dec 29, 2012

Seven aircraft from I./FKG 50 were transferred to Saporoshje in the Ukraine. They were fitted with a special supply-dropping modification and thrown in to the relief effort. They proved typically unreliable.

13th January,first operation,E8+FK crashed on landing due to fuel pump failiure.
16th January,E8+FH caught fire and crashed in flames near Poljakowa.
17th January W.Nr 5242 (codes?) destroyed by fire at Saporoshje.
20th January W.Nr 5241 (codes?) completely destroyed when tail assembly collapsed on landing at Kirovograd.

More than half the original total lost in just over a week!

A couple of days later the last airfield in the pocket,Gumrak,was overrun by Soviet forces and the remaining He 177s returned to flying bombing missions in support of the army. The He 177s flew a total of nineteen missions into the pocket.
On 31st January Major Schlosser of I.FKG/50 reported that

"......engine fires in mid air have been responsible for the loss of five [He 177s]-a casualty rate of 26%.
.......The Group lost at least two aircraft through in flight fires during the last 14 days,including one total loss as well almost certainly two more aircraft that failed to return.Due to the location of the engines to the rear of the pilot,fires are not generally discovered until it is too late."

General Martin Fiebig,commanding VIII.Fliegerkorps reported that the type was useless as a transport aircraft. The type could carry only 8 x 250 Kg containers into the pocket,the round trip used 4 tonnes of fuel.

Cheers

Steve

rank amateur · Dec 30, 2012

Only 2000kg? Are you sure? Seems to me the he177 should be capabele of more.
Nice to see an old tread revived

Chrzzzzz

stona · Dec 30, 2012

rank amateur said:
Only 2000kg? Are you sure? Seems to me the he177 should be capabele of more.
Nice to see an old tread revived

Chrzzzzz

That's what Fiebig said. I haven't been able to find out exactly what the supply dropping adaptation entailed.

In the context of the Stalingrad airlift the nineteen He 177 missions into the pocket were fairly irrelevant no matter what they carried

Interesting for us today, but not at the time.

Cheers

Steve

Shortround6 · Dec 30, 2012

A supply container may be much bulkier for it's weight than bombs. While there maybe room in the fuselage (or not, depending on fuel tanks):

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/2922/heinkelhe177a5greifarti.jpg

Getting any real amount of supplies though the existing hatches and passageways may have been a real problem.

Good transports have large volume in addition to good weight capacity. High performance bombers have small fuselages (small volume).

Could the Luftwaffe have done a better job supplying the 6th army at Stallingrad

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Colonel

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Captain

Senior Master Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major

Senior Master Sergeant

Captain

Major

Captain

1st Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Major

Airman 1st Class

Major

Major General

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads