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

Allan Hunter said:

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

Click to expand...

Allan Hunter said:

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?

Click to expand...

Reegor said:

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

Click to expand...

MIflyer said:

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.

Click to expand...

MIflyer said:

"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.

Click to expand...

Allan Hunter said:

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?

Click to expand...

MikeMeech said:

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

Click to expand...

wingnuts said:

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

Click to expand...

MiTasol said:

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.

Click to expand...