How dangerous was the RAF Bristol Beaufort Mk I and Mk Ia?

[Allan Hunter]

I've been researching just how many of these aircraft were destroyed during WW2, and from what causes.

The Beaufort was generally thought to have been one of the aircraft that was most likely to be shot down (according to crews who flew in them) and it also had a far from perfect record that included mechanical failures and pilot error crashes. These records tend to be all lumped in together, as far as I can tell. The aircraft certainly had some successes (The Gneisenau; tankers in the Mediterranean) especially when equipped with the updated Wasp engines. It also served well with the Australian Air Force in modified forms.

Does anyone have any reliable data on any of this? For example, if a pilot and crew trained on this type and then went on to an operational squadron, what were their chances of survival? (I ask because crews were lost at a high rate even in training). Many fully operational crews were lost even before converting to torpedo attacks. Was this, in fact the most lethal aircraft in the RAF?

 

[pbehn]

I think just the Wiki article gives a clue. It was over weight and underpowered with problematic engines. As with many twins of the era, if you lose an engine you are in serious trouble.

 

[Shortround6]

Was this, in fact the most lethal aircraft in the RAF

Might take 2nd place to the Botha

Not to pick on the British too much the Americans had the Curtiss AT-9

From Wiki:
"Because of its difficult flying characteristics the AT-9 was not offered for sale to civilians after the war, although many non-flying examples were given to ground schools for training purposes."
They built 792 of them.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I imagine the two squadrons of Vilderbeests at Malaya would have welcomed their Beauforts.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Most lethal for ground targets or ships? I'd think the latter would be Torbeaus, and the former, Typhoons.

 

[Reegor]

I've been researching just how many of these aircraft were destroyed during WW2, and from what causes.

The Beaufort was generally thought to have been one of the aircraft that was most likely to be shot down (according to crews who flew in them) and it also had a far from perfect record that included mechanical failures and pilot error crashes. These records tend to be all lumped in together, as far as I can tell. The aircraft certainly had some successes (The Gneisenau; tankers in the Mediterranean) especially when equipped with the updated Wasp engines. It also served well with the Australian Air Force in modified forms.

Does anyone have any reliable data on any of this? For example, if a pilot and crew trained on this type and then went on to an operational squadron, what were their chances of survival? (I ask because crews were lost at a high rate even in training). Many fully operational crews were lost even before converting to torpedo attacks. Was this, in fact the most lethal aircraft in the RAF?

If you have any data on accidents, I would love to see it. Training accidents or otherwise. I wrote an analysis of American accident rates versus German, and am always looking for more information.
> These records tend to be all lumped in together, as far as I can tell.
Yes, this is quite common. Some US data is segregated by "losses during non-combat operations," meaning you can be confident it was not due to enemy action. Did the RAF do anything similar?
Thanks

 

[Allan Hunter]

If you have any data on accidents, I would love to see it. Training accidents or otherwise. I wrote an analysis of American accident rates versus German, and am always looking for more information.
> These records tend to be all lumped in together, as far as I can tell.
Yes, this is quite common. Some US data is segregated by "losses during non-combat operations," meaning you can be confident it was not due to enemy action. Did the RAF do anything similar?
Thanks

Hello Reegor,

Thank you for your reply. The only data I have is anecdotal, I'm sorry to say, although the sources are good. But no hard numbers (yet). Perhaps the RAF didn't do much in a statistical sense?

Allan

 

[MIflyer]

I'd guess you'd have to say that Beauforts were bloody dangerous if you were flying in one.

Data from Nov 1942
Probability of completing tours of duty: One Tour Two Tours
Catalina Flying Boat 77% 60%
Long Range Fighter 59.5% 39.5%
Heavy and Medium Bombers 44% 19.5%
Day Fighter 43% 18.5%
Night Fighter 39% 15%
Light Bomber 25.5% 6.5%
Torpedo Bomber 17.5% 3%

Odd that for other than long range fighters the probabilities seemed to be markedly worse for experienced crews. Perhaps this reflects such crews being assigned to tougher missions?

In any case, Beaufort light bomber or Beaufort torpedo bomber was a grim assignment.

And I wonder what a Long Range Fighter was to the RAF in late 1942? The Mustang had not been in combat but a month or so, and I can only think that the Beaufighter and maybe the Mosquito were the others.

 

[Shortround6]

I am thinking the long range fighter in Nov 1942 was pretty much the Beaufighter.
Unless they were counting the Blenheim.
Daylight Mosquitos don't go into service until 1943(?) which makes them tough to fit into a Nov 1942 report. especially with statistics about tour tours of duty.

 

[Allan Hunter]

I'd guess you'd have to say that Beauforts were bloody dangerous if you were flying in one.

Data from Nov 1942
Probability of completing tours of duty: One Tour Two Tours
Catalina Flying Boat 77% 60%
Long Range Fighter 59.5% 39.5%
Heavy and Medium Bombers 44% 19.5%
Day Fighter 43% 18.5%
Night Fighter 39% 15%
Light Bomber 25.5% 6.5%
Torpedo Bomber 17.5% 3%

Odd that for other than long range fighters the probabilities seemed to be markedly worse for experienced crews. Perhaps this reflects such crews being assigned to tougher missions?

In any case, Beaufort light bomber or Beaufort torpedo bomber was a grim assignment.

And I wonder what a Long Range Fighter was to the RAF in late 1942? The Mustang had not been in combat but a month or so, and I can only think that the Beaufighter and maybe the Mosquito were the others.

That's fascinating, MIflyer! Thanks for posting. What is your source for these numbers, please? I'd be eager to know. Are they Ministry of Defense?

I agree that the given categories are a bit vague, also, and I wonder what a light bomber is (a Fairey Battle?), as well as wondering how the Beaufighter was categorized. Perhaps by the role they were asked to play? A Beaufighter could be both a long range fighter, or it could be a light bomber, or a torpedo bomber....

Best wishes,

Allan

 

[MIflyer]

"On 16 Nov 1942 the Air Member for Training, Air Marshall Sir A. Guy R. Garrod, sent a table of RAF operational casualties to the Air Member for Personnel..." This is quoted from Chapter 1 of the book, "The Armed Rovers Beauforts and Beaufighters Over The Mediterranean." First published in 1995 by Airlife Publishing Ltd.

There are additional categories in that table that I did not cite, such as recon.

 

[Allan Hunter]

"On 16 Nov 1942 the Air Member for Training, Air Marshall Sir A. Guy R. Garrod, sent a table of RAF operational casualties to the Air Member for Personnel..." This is quoted from Chapter 1 of the book, "The Armed Rovers Beauforts and Beaufighters Over The Mediterranean." First published in 1995 by Airlife Publishing Ltd.

There are additional categories in that table that I did not cite, such as recon.

That's brilliant! Thank you. I had not seen these figures before. Thanks so much for sending them along.

 

[MikeMeech]

I've been researching just how many of these aircraft were destroyed during WW2, and from what causes.

The Beaufort was generally thought to have been one of the aircraft that was most likely to be shot down (according to crews who flew in them) and it also had a far from perfect record that included mechanical failures and pilot error crashes. These records tend to be all lumped in together, as far as I can tell. The aircraft certainly had some successes (The Gneisenau; tankers in the Mediterranean) especially when equipped with the updated Wasp engines. It also served well with the Australian Air Force in modified forms.

Does anyone have any reliable data on any of this? For example, if a pilot and crew trained on this type and then went on to an operational squadron, what were their chances of survival? (I ask because crews were lost at a high rate even in training). Many fully operational crews were lost even before converting to torpedo attacks. Was this, in fact the most lethal aircraft in the RAF?

Hi

If you haven't already, I think that getting access to a copy of Roger Hayward's 'The Beaufort File', Air-Britain 1990, may be of great use for detailed research on Beaufort losses.

The table in 'The Armed Rovers' is slightly problematic as it does not give the time period from which the figures are compiled (it would have to have been a significant period or the comparisons would be meaningless) or whether it includes all operational theatres. Torpedo bombers up to November 1942 would include the Hampden and Vildebeest as well as the Beaufort (the torpedo carrying Beaufighter would only just be entering squadrons). Also comparisons are difficult because of nature of missions, if a torpedo bomber went out it was to attack a target, a Catalina would be out on long patrols and may not see any enemy throughout its mission.
Long-range fighters up to November 1942 would include the Blenheim If, Blenheim IVf, Beaufighter and Whirlwind.

Mike

 

[Allan Hunter]

Hi

If you haven't already, I think that getting access to a copy of Roger Hayward's 'The Beaufort File', Air-Britain 1990, may be of great use for detailed research on Beaufort losses.

The table in 'The Armed Rovers' is slightly problematic as it does not give the time period from which the figures are compiled (it would have to have been a significant period or the comparisons would be meaningless) or whether it includes all operational theatres. Torpedo bombers up to November 1942 would include the Hampden and Vildebeest as well as the Beaufort (the torpedo carrying Beaufighter would only just be entering squadrons). Also comparisons are difficult because of nature of missions, if a torpedo bomber went out it was to attack a target, a Catalina would be out on long patrols and may not see any enemy throughout its mission.
Long-range fighters up to November 1942 would include the Blenheim If, Blenheim IVf, Beaufighter and Whirlwind.

Mike

Many thanks, Mike. I'll get on it right away. I have access to a copy.

 

[wingnuts]

Some more Beaufort info from Australia. ADF Serials - Beaufort Beaufort

 

[A.G. Williams]

What constituted a "tour of duty" varied considerably. I recall reading long ago that for torpedo bombers a tour was only three missions, the task was so dangerous.

 

[Allan Hunter]

Some more Beaufort info from Australia. ADF Serials - Beaufort Beaufort

Many thanks for this, Wingnuts. It makes for very sobering reading.

 

[MiTasol]

There is a book on Beaufort torpedo ops that I strongly recommend you read as it is written by a Beaufort pilot with added commentary by other crew members including the turret gunner. Despite the title the book is one you cannot put down once you start it.

It paints a grim picture but a lot of the fault lay with the people who planned the ops. For example during the German navies channel dash the very few Beauforts which were sent were flown by low hours crews in foul weather and bombed by higher altitude RAF aircraft in the middle of their torpedo run. That and similar stupidity caused by ops planning was probably a significant cause of accidents and losses. Add to that self proclaimed HERO pilots and the results could only be ugly. This book is one of the very few that covers Lack of Moral Fibre and why it occurred. Reading this book will make you wonder why it was not more common. The modern title for the same illness is called PTSD and still does not in any way suggest the mental torture these people were forced to endure..

I was given the book and had it for several years before reading it as the title suggests it is an ego trip and not worth opening let alone reading.

The title is The Last Torpedo Flyers: The True Story of Arthur Aldridge, Hero of the Skies. Much of the book is written by the other crew members he flew with.

 

[MiTasol]

Another book that covers Australian Beaufort accidents is the biography of Charles Learmonth who was killed in a Beaufort crash. This crash actually proved that the elevator trim was the cause of many of the Aus Beaufort accidents. The Breeze actuators used on many other aircraft was disassembling itself in flight and then causing the aircraft to go into an unrecoverable dive. As far as I know, this failure was exclusive to Australian made AWA actuators. Certainly the same unit made by Plessey in the UK was trouble free on the RAAF Beaufighters and the US made ones on the P-40s and other aircraft were also trouble free.

Further, a significant number of early Aus Beauforts were bought down by exhaust gasses (carbon monoxide) entering the cockpit and incapacitating the pilot.

 

[Allan Hunter]

There is a book on Beaufort torpedo ops that I strongly recommend you read as it is written by a Beaufort pilot with added commentary by other crew members including the turret gunner. Despite the title the book is one you cannot put down once you start it.

It paints a grim picture but a lot of the fault lay with the people who planned the ops. For example during the German navies channel dash the very few Beauforts which were sent were flown by low hours crews in foul weather and bombed by higher altitude RAF aircraft in the middle of their torpedo run. That and similar stupidity caused by ops planning was probably a significant cause of accidents and losses. Add to that self proclaimed HERO pilots and the results could only be ugly. This book is one of the very few that covers Lack of Moral Fibre and why it occurred. Reading this book will make you wonder why it was not more common. The modern title for the same illness is called PTSD and still does not in any way suggest the mental torture these people were forced to endure..

I was given the book and had it for several years before reading it as the title suggests it is an ego trip and not worth opening let alone reading.

The title is The Last Torpedo Flyers: The True Story of Arthur Aldridge, Hero of the Skies. Much of the book is written by the other crew members he flew with.

Yes indeed - this is a good book and full of excellent reports. Thanks so much for bringing it to my attention as it's been several years since I read it!