RAF Fighter Pilots Wounded/Injured Compared to US Pilots

MIflyer said:

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.

Click to expand...

Errr....except the Ramrod and Circus missions to "lean forward" into France (which was a disastrous waste of resources), plus all the times RAF fighters escorted USAAF bombers on shorter-range missions...not to mention escorting daylight RAF bombing missions (yes, despite most Bomber Command missions being at night, the RAF still flew a number of daylight attacks throughout the war).

Thumpalumpacus said:

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.

Click to expand...

Thanks Thump. I suspect you're right. I found other records suggesting 52,173 deaths in combat and another 25,844 in training accidents. That gives an overall number for the USAAF of just over 78,000 killed.

If we take the above numbers at face value, that would mean that USAAF deaths as a percentage of population was only 0.05%.

However, these figures seem focused solely on aircrew casualties, which means they must be somewhat lower than the actual numbers. It's frustrating that it's so hard to get numbers that include deaths of ground personnel. Seems like their sacrificaes are being forgotten.

buffnut453 said:

Thanks Thump. I suspect you're right. I found other records suggesting 52,173 deaths in combat and another 25,844 in training accidents. That gives an overall number for the USAAF of just over 78,000 killed.

If we take the above numbers at face value, that would mean that USAAF deaths as a percentage of population was only 0.05%.

However, these figures seem focused solely on aircrew casualties, which means they must be somewhat lower than the actual numbers. It's frustrating that it's so hard to get numbers that include deaths of ground personnel. Seems like their sacrificaes are being forgotten.

Click to expand...

If we think of wounded as being usually three-four times the number of KIA, I think the idea floated above that KIA and WIA have been amalgamated is quite reasonable.

Thumpalumpacus said:

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.

Click to expand...

A bit touchy there, just saying the RAF fought some hard battles right from the start and before armor and self sealing tanks became the norm so injuries and deaths would have been much higher, same for the Luftwaffe.

Thumpalumpacus said:

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

Click to expand...

Ease up mate I didn't belittle any of the Allies efforts, quite the contrary actually, I have on numerous occasions said the American way of making things happen was a major plus over the RAF's stiff opposition to change, go have your morning coffee and get back to us.

PAT303 said:

A bit touchy there, just saying the RAF fought some hard battles right from the start and before armor and self sealing tanks became the norm so injuries and deaths would have been much higher, same for the Luftwaffe.

Click to expand...

Not "touchy", and not denying RAF/RCAF/RAAF their due plaudits. But numbers are numbers.

How many USAAF engaged in combat vs RAF? Look at production and pilot-training numbers.

PAT303 said:

Ease up mate I didn't belittle any of the Allies efforts, quite the contrary actually, I have on numerous occasions said the American way of making things happen was a major plus over the RAF's stiff opposition to change, go have your morning coffee and get back to us.

Click to expand...

You can snark all you want, but implying that we simply didn't fight as much --as you did with your pointed question -- doesn't hold up.

We sent at the largest raids some 20,000 airmen. Cut that into thirds to reflect the "average" mission and we're still sending 6,700 men per attack, in the ETO alone. Not to mention the naval airstrikes in the Pacific, or the USAAF in Burma or the Med.

I have no figures. Start with the threshold of what is reported as injured/wounded, it varies. Allied day fighter operations were mostly offensive during the war, so you need to find references that distinguish between PoW Safe and PoW hurt, and then decide whether it counts for example if the injury is from a bad parachute landing or time spent in the dinghy. The Battle of Britain has been heavily studied but try and find a list that gives aircrew hurt figures, not just killed/missing and prisoner. The 9th Air Force reports its ETO fighter groups combat losses were 162 killed, 1,393 missing, 87 seriously and 127 lightly wounded, now just break down the missing into killed, captured safe, captured wounded.

Then when it comes to the count things like the US Adjutant General's report gives US army combat deaths as 216,005, the Surgeon General's report gives 213,030, and the US army rarely lost records. The Surgeon General's report gives 192,220 killed in action, 20,810 died of wounds, 723,560 wounded in action (599,724 admitted to hospital) (remembering people could be wounded more than once) and 16,793 "Other battle deaths", including deaths as prisoners of the enemy. Died of wounds was defined as death after reaching an aid station, otherwise it was killed in action. Disease deaths 14,904, nonbattle injury deaths 61,503, total deaths 306,230. Note in 1944/45 the US Army hospitals had 1,061,370 admissions for non battle injuries and another 7,664,995 admissions for disease.

Since it was the US Army Air Force there is a good chance the above include the USAAF battle casualty report of 40,061 died, 18,238 wounded and evacuated, 63,568 missing, interned and captured. ETO 19,876 died, 8,413 wounded and evacuated, 35,121 missing, interned and captured. USAAF aircraft accidents in the US December 1941 to August 1945 reported 14,903 deaths.

Remembering for a time the US forces in Southern France were officially Mediterranean for a while, the US Army in the ETO reports Battle Casualties as 104,812 killed in action, 360,661 wounded returned to duty, 16,012 died of wounds, 56,646 captured returned to duty, 855 died when prisoners, 12,056 reported as missing but returned to duty, 1,075 missing declared dead, total 552,117. Another reference states non battle casualties came to 417,291. As of June 1944 strength is put at 1,641,143, rising to 3,065,505 in March 1945. The air component of which was roughly steady at around 430,000.

An 8th Air Force June 1944 report noted 38% of successful bomber sorties returned with damage, for every 10 bombers, therefore 100 men MIA, 11 more came back wounded, 5 killed. One report has 8th air force bombers came home with 1,175 dead and 4,689 wounded in the first half of 1944, another that November 1942 to August 1944 returning aircraft carried 299 dead and 3,411 wounded, about half these killed were by flak, 36% cannon fire, 12% machine gun and 1% hit by fragments of their own aircraft. Wounded had a similar break down.

A partial list of Bomber Command losses on bombing sorties has about 1 man reported killed for each 16 declared missing. Bomber Command War Diaries reports deaths by service as 38,462 RAF, 8,919 RCAF, 4,050 RAAF, 1,679 RNZAF, 929 Polish AF, SAAF 34, other dominion AF 27, other allied AF 573.

As of 28 February 1946 Britain reports 755,439 male armed forces casualties, 264,443 killed, 41,327 missing (of whom 6,244 still missing on report date), 277,077 wounded, 172,592 PoW. RAF was 112,296 total, 69,606 killed, 6,736 missing, 22,839 wounded, 13,115 PoW. RN was 73,642 total, 50,758 killed, 820 missing, 14,663 wounded, 7,401 PoW. Female casualties were 1,486 total, 624 killed, 98 missing, 744 wounded, 20 PoW.

British merchant navy (civilian), 45,329 total, 30,248 killed, 4,654 missing, 4,707 wounded, 5,720 PoW. The US Merchant Marine web site notes its casualties, as a percentage of personnel, were higher than any branch of the US armed forces. American Merchant Marine in World War 2 American Merchant Marine Casualties

Apart from being trapped in whatever you are travelling in if you need to leave a soon to be lost ship or aircraft you cannot just take your time, step off and sit down, the survival equipment has to be available and work long enough to enable rescue, while being wounded makes it harder to rescue yourself or be rescued.

Apart from the usual suspects, look at relevant yearbooks post WWII for things like casualty and activity summaries. I am not sure the ones put out by the occupation government for Japan in both English and Japanese have a military section though.

MIflyer said:

Without having any data at hand, it seems to me that I have read of a great many more cases of RAF fighter pilots being wounded or injured in combat than I have read of US fighter pilots being wounded or injured in combat. . Or does it reflect that US pilots were more likely to be much further from home and thus less able to sustain wounds and still make it back?

Click to expand...

I believe you have identified probable reason for wounds not reported. Consider that the RAF flying much closer to home, as well as ability to bail out or crash land in friendly territory.

MIflyer said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hi

Just to quantify what "not a hell of a lot for RAF fighter pilots to do in the ETO" actually meant at the time (from contemporary data in 'Fighter Command War Diaries" by John Foreman, also includes data on known wounded at the time):


Fighter Command was undertaking both offensive and defensive operations throughout the period. Fighter bomber attacks by the Germans were being undertaken during daylight and there were still night raids happening from time to time varying in intensity. The German air force was not all in Germany or even all on the Eastern front during this period.

Mike

Thanks for sharing that info, M MikeMeech . I really don't know where the idea comes from that the RAF wasn't involved in daylight ops in the ETO just because Bomber Command flew most of its missions at night. Even a slight perusal of USAAF records shows that RAF fighters often escorted the 8th AF's heavies. For all the angst upthread about belittling the US contribution, the idea that the RAF wasn't doing much in the ETO from the end of the BoB thru D-Day is doing the exact same thing, IMHO.

It's all rather silly.

buffnut453 said:

For all the angst upthread about belittling the US contribution, the idea that the RAF wasn't doing much in the ETO from the end of the BoB thru D-Day is doing the exact same thing, IMHO.

Click to expand...

It is. Invidious comparisons are unbecoming of both nations, as Allies. Spits, Tempests, and Typhoons supported the Normandy Invasion and subsequent breakout, support which continued into and beyond Operation Varsity. Their troop-carriers were busy not just doing drops but training and shifting supplies. And of course, Bomber Command did some incredibly effective daylight raids.

buffnut453 said:

For all the angst upthread about belittling the US contribution,

Click to expand...

No one is belittling the US contribution, the thread is about wounds suffered by pilots RAF v USA, the RAF fought some very hard fights in the beginning such as the Battle of France and Battle of Britain which were fought before the widespread adoption of pilot protection so the wounds suffered would be far higher than USAF pilots flying escort over German late '44 '45 who did have it, also going back to my first reply how many of the 500 to 700 fighter pilots per raid flying escort actually engaged in combat?.

PAT303 said:

No one is belittling the US contribution, the thread is about wounds suffered by pilots RAF v USA, the RAF fought some very hard fights in the beginning such as the Battle of France and Battle of Britain which were fought before the widespread adoption of pilot protection so the wounds suffered would be far higher than USAF pilots flying escort over German late '44 '45 who did have it, also going back to my first reply how many of the 500 to 700 fighter pilots per raid flying escort actually engaged in combat?.

Click to expand...

I'd be willing to bet that wounds suffered by bomber crews from both nations far outnumbered wounded fighter pilots.

Also, American airmen were flying combat, and taking losses, from our first day of the war. Judging solely from "late '44-45" is a bit of cherry-picking, skipping over, you know, 1942 and 1943, and apparently most of 1944.

Schweinfurt raids may be a good place to start, when looking for casualties.
The RAF did their best to escort the U.S. bombers, but the Spitfire simply did not have the range at the time.

GrauGeist said:

Schweinfurt raids may be a good place to start, when looking for casualties.
The RAF did their best to escort the U.S. bombers, but the Spitfire simply did not have the range at the time.

Click to expand...

As a warning of things to come, it even begun with the Ploesti raid although involving the 9th AF (with some 8th AF Groups).

Frog said:

As a warning of things to come, it even begun with the Ploesti raid although involving the 9th AF (with some 8th AF Groups).

Click to expand...

All of the B-24 BG, and Blitz Week before Ploesti. The 8th AF B-24 BG were so decimated that even in October 14 mission, they flew a 'diversionary' mission

drgondog said:

All of the B-24 BG, and Blitz Week before Ploesti. The 8th AF B-24 BG were so decimated that even in October 14 mission, they flew a 'diversionary' mission

Click to expand...

The diversion involved 69 B-24s from: 44BG (18), 93BG (18), 399BG (15), and 392BG (18) with 9 aborts. From the 4 groups, the 392nd and 399th were not involved in the Ploesti raid.
The 44th and 93rd Bomb Groups borrowed from the 8th AF and decimated during the Ploesti raid could fly this diversion because they had received a significant complement of planes and personnel and were by all means new groups.
Eaker was furious when he learnt from the outcome of the Ploesti raid and what had happened to his three groups (44th, 93rd, 389th) , and complained about it to Arnold. And what is less known is that the casualties from the two 9th AF groups remaining in the MTO (98th and 376th) had an indirect effect as there were no more enough heavy bombers to hamper the evacuation of Sicily by the Germans via the Messina straight.

Thumpalumpacus said:

I'd be willing to bet that wounds suffered by bomber crews from both nations far outnumbered wounded fighter pilots.

Also, American airmen were flying combat, and taking losses, from our first day of the war. Judging solely from "late '44-45" is a bit of cherry-picking, skipping over, you know, 1942 and 1943, and apparently most of 1944.

Click to expand...

The thread title is Fighter Pilots not bomber crews, I'm also not cherry picking as the policies regarding pilot protection changed dramatically especially after the Battle of France, as for late in the war when you have less than 100 defending fighters against swarms of escort fighters I'm pretty sure most of the later wouldn't see an attacking fighter let alone engage in combat further diluting the results.