RAF Fighter Pilots Wounded/Injured Compared to US Pilots
- Thread starter MIflyer
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
How many American pilots actually engaged in combat compared to the RAF?, during the BoB and likewise over France and Malta RAF pilots were in combat numerous times a day when the Luftwaffe was at its peak.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
No British roundels?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Caldwell was Australian - as tempting as it may have been, he avoided shooting them down.
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 43,073
- Mar 26, 2007
2 pics of him and plane, no victory markingsI believe you are talking about this gentleman:
Pierre Le Gloan - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I have never seen a picture of his aircraft that displayed any victory credits. IIRC because he fought for both sides, he was rather quiet about talking about his combats.
Eagledad
Pierre Le Gloan: The Ace on Both Sides
Pierre Le Gloan, French WWII pilot, presents a fascinating case. Le Gloan served in the French air force as well as under the Vichy regime.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Actually, quite a lot. Go off and aggregate USAAF, USN, and USMC pilot numbers, and get back to us with comparative numbers for RAF and FAA numbers.
Much as it might pain you to admit, we Americans actually did fight in that war.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
In the early days of U.S. involvement, the sorties flown per day was more than is commonly known.
Especially in the Pacific, where USN and USAAF numbers were woefully short in contrast to the Japanese.
Also in North Africa, the USAAF had to make up for a shortfall of manpower.
Once the U.S. war machine ramped up, the numerical superiority allowed for a relaxation of sorties due to on-hand numbers.
One such example, would be the Battle of Midway, where the defenders kept attacking the Japanese throughout the day.
Another would be the Cactus Airforce operations on Guadalcanal and so on.
It is true that the U.S. was late to the shooting, but that does not mean that they had it easy.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Look at the Eighth Air Force. 10-11 men per ship, anywhere from 150 to 1200 bombers per raid depending on the time frame. Now factor in the admittedly short-ranged escorts, there's another couple hundred. Now consider the USN: 3, then 2, then 1, then 15 carriers carrying between 36 and 90 aircraft. Oh, let's not forget the 500-600 B-29s flying from the Marianas, carrying nine or ten men apiece.
This belittling of an ally's effort from some quarters is irksome. We fought shoulder-to-shoulder then, but somehow some folk needs must claim some sort of high ground? Jesus Christ, they all flew, fought, suffered and died. Playing Top Trumps with them is really rather sad.
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 43,073
- Mar 26, 2007
I do not think that Pat303 means disrespect.
I read it this: there is lots of talk over the losses and suffering on the RAF part. Legends were created in the books etc. But what if we compared those losses against those of the usaaf. Was it that much worse? Or are the USAAF guys getting a bit short changed?
To me that is an interessting question.
And lets be honest; anyone belittleling American efford in ww2 is, and will be forever, a colossal idiot.
And more likely then not, a little ugly on the side
I cant get to my usaaf survey of losses at the moment but i hope G Geoffrey Sinclair can chime in with his wonderfull numbers work.
buffnut453
Captain
The same goes for anyone belittling ANY Allied contribution….Jamaican, Indian, Kenyan, Egyptian, South African, South American, Polish, French, Dutch, Czech, Canadian, Australian, Kiwi, Irish, Scots, Welsh…and even those Perfidious Englishmen (apologies for the many countries I missed out…too many to mention).
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I think both American and British -- and for that matter, German, Russian, and Japanese -- flyers had bloody hell to pay. I don't think comparing active-duty numbers or losses works much precisely because all of them had a shit-sandwich in front of them and had to take a bite.
I won't speculate about any member's motivations, P PAT303 included, but I do think there's a lot of invidious comparisons happening which is usually aligned by the commentator's nationality -- when in actual fact all these bastards got run ragged.
And dear lord, making it through Geoff's spreadsheets can be brutal. Bite your tongue!
buffnut453
Captain
Some high level figures for comparison.
According to CWCG, about 125,000 RAF (and associated Air Forces) personnel lost their lives during WW2. In comparison, the USAAF lost about 318,000 killed (according to the National WW2 Museum).
As a percentage of populations as of 1940, that equates to 0.24% for the US and 0.20% for the UK plus Canada, Australia and New Zealand (calculations for the British Empire are inherently challenging so I took the numbers for the 4 (arguably) most aligned Commonwealth countries).
According to CWCG, about 125,000 RAF (and associated Air Forces) personnel lost their lives during WW2. In comparison, the USAAF lost about 318,000 killed (according to the National WW2 Museum).
As a percentage of populations as of 1940, that equates to 0.24% for the US and 0.20% for the UK plus Canada, Australia and New Zealand (calculations for the British Empire are inherently challenging so I took the numbers for the 4 (arguably) most aligned Commonwealth countries).
yulzari
Tech Sergeant
Thank you for that. There are variations in the collection and collation of such information so one has to allow a small tolerance in the comparisons so the end result is really that there was little difference to be noted. Which is very much as one should expect over such a large amount of data over the whole period which will average out (apologies to statisticians) the variations in the practices and situations over time and place.
The main thing is to be grateful for all their sacrifices. Well done all and thank you.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
This number has got to be too large, given that America "only" lost about 400,000 dead in the entire war across all fronts and branches of service.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Likely what happened in this case.
The involved pilot was Pierre Le Gloan; who died while trying to belly land his P-39Q, forgetting he still had his drop tank...
No US plane in his tally (officially 18). THis is what I found about him :
Flying MS 406 :
Nov. 11, 1939 : Do 17
March 2, 1940 : Do 17
May 5, 1940 : He 111
May 14, 1940 : He 111
June 13, 1940 : BR.20
June 13, 1940 : BR.20
June 15, 1940 : CR.42
June 15, 1940 : CR.42
June 15, 1940 : CR.42
June 15, 1940 : BR.20
June 15, 1940 : CR.42
Flying D-520 :
June 8, 1941 : Hurricane
June 9, 1940 : Hurricane
June 9, 1940 : Hurricane
June 15, 1941 : Gladiator
June 23, 1941 : Hurricane
July 5, 1941 : Hurricane
July 5, 1941 : Hurricane
- Thread starter
- #40
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
The USAAF lost more killed, wounded, and captured than the entire USN and USMC put together.
And after the BoB and prior to 6 Jun 44 there was not a hell of a lot for the RAF fighter pilots to do in the ETO. Their aircraft were too short ranged and they were not focused on owning the skies over Germany in any case; given the RAF night bombing tactics, they did not need to.
