RAF Loss Probabilities

On the thread discussing the survivability of the Beaufort I offered some info. Here is the complete list provided by that RAF letter from 1942. The is from the book, 'The Armed Rovers", about shipping strike missions. Looks like the old slow PBY was the airplane to be in!

Long range fighter' they were the FAA two man fighter?

Good question! I have no idea what a Long Range fighter would be, since even Allison Mustangs had just entered service when that letter came out and could hardly be included. I guess a Beaufighter might fit the description, since nightfighters are a separate category. But many if not most of the day-flying Beaufighters were used for shipping strike missions, which was the most dangerous mission of all, it would seem.

Maybe Fairy Fulmars would fit Long Range Fighter? And they mostly did not have to fight enemy single-engined fighters but rather FW-200's and other bombers.

Perhaps it refers to the Beaufighter Ic used as a long-range fighter to escort RAF anti-submarine patrols, or to go after Luftwaffe anti-convoy patrol aircraft? The survival rate is similar to that of RAF anti-submarine patrol aircraft.

Would it be the Mosquito? It had many roles.

Yes, I was thinking of that, and even more specifically in the Med, where quite a lot of anti-shipping missions were flown by Beauforts, as well as missions for convoy escort. If they were dealing with enemy bombers without fighter escort and were not dropping torps themselves that ought to be much safer. But Beaufighters did carry torps and I think pretty well replaced the Beaufort in that role, but not until well into 19443.

In Nov 1942 I do not think they are talking about Mossies as LR fighters. The first Mossie FB MK VI did not fly until Feb 1943.

Note the significant difference between Sunderland and Catalina despite very similar missions it would seem. Were Sunderlands used for more challenging missions? They were far more heavily armed than PBY's. The PBYs pretty much were used where they would not encounter enemy aircraft; cruising at 75 kts is not healthy unless the opposition is still stuck with WWI aircraft. On the other hand, when the Sudnerlands went to R-1830 engines the crews were astonished that they could fly a long mission and actually come home with all 4 engines still turning.

Beaufighter could be

Hi,
Out of curiosity, what constitutes a "tour" for this data, and was it defined the same way for all the plane types?
Pat

PFVA63 said:

Hi,
Out of curiosity, what constitutes a "tour" for this data, and was it defined the same way for all the plane types?
Pat

Click to expand...

Tour length appears to vary by time period and theater. This site has some data on RAF tour lengths. (Sources are listed at the bottom of the page.)

The only "long range fighter" squadrons by late 1942 that come to mind are firstly in Coastal Command which started out with Blenheim IVf in 1940 and then moved on to Beaufighter Ic/VIc. That is the likes of 143, 235, 236, 248, 254 plus 252 & 272 before they went to the Med in 1941. Secondly there would be the Beaufighter Ic/VIc units in the Med being 252, 272 and 227. These are the days before they were festooned with bombs, rockets etc.

The first Torbeaus didn't appear until late 1942 with first successes in early 1943 and the Strike Wings from mid-1943. So these probably don't affect the "torpedo bomber" category.

"Torpedo bomber" should include Beaufort squadrons at home and in the Med plus the 2 home based Hampden squadrons from about mid-1942 and Med based Wellington squadrons (which mostly flew at night) from the beginning of 1942. And let's not forget the 2 biplane Vildebeest squadrons that flew against the Japanese in Dec1941-Feb 1942. 14 squadron in the Med on B-26 Marauders also used torpedoes but only commenced ops on the type in Oct 1942 so probably don't affect the numbers.

Where do the specialist Night Intruder squadrons fit in? 23 squadron with Havocs/Bostons (generally fitted with gun packs not bombs) and then radarless Mosquito II from mid-1942 which then got long range tanks later in the year. Plus 418 and 605 from late 1941 and mid-1942 respectively. Some Hurricane IIc squadrons (87 for example) used aircraft fitted with drop tanks in this night role in Britain in 1941/42. These were all flying as part of Fighter Command. Long range fighter or night fighter?

As for the difference between Sunderland's and Catalinas, that may well depend on the theatre they were being used in and the relative numbers of each type, which were relatively low in comparison with other categories. A single loss then becomes a greater percentage. There were only 118 Mk.I/II Sunderland's built from 1938 to the end of 1941.And the Catalina only reached squadron service in March 1941. There was a Sunderland squadron operating out of Egypt for the whole of the period to Nov 1942, all through the Greek and Crete campaigns (230 squadron). On the other hand some Catalinas were shot down by the Japanese in the first 6 months of the war in the Far East.

The only RAF user of the Fulmar was 273 squadron in Ceylon for 6 months in 1942 where it lost 1 aircraft to enemy action.

The book points out that a tour could end early not only by death or capture but also due to LMF designation for people who decided they did not like it. But I doubt the numbers were significant enough to affect the totals.

And the Fulmar was not really a long range fighter at 730 miles.

Re Catalina v Sunderland.

The RAF had accepted about the same numbers of each type by the end of Oct 1942, c200 of each. But the Sunderland had been in service since the start of the war, while the Catalina had been in service for about half that time, having entered service in March 1941. So more opportunity for the Sunderland to suffer losses.

The P&W engined Sunderland Mk.V didn't enter service until Feb 1945.

A year later those figures would have been vastly different with RAF Bomber Command heavies engaged in the "Battle of Berlin" and taking significant losses. Interesting list though, thanks

EwenS said:

Re Catalina v Sunderland.

The RAF had accepted about the same numbers of each type by the end of Oct 1942, c200 of each. But the Sunderland had been in service since the start of the war, while the Catalina had been in service for about half that time, having entered service in March 1941. So more opportunity for the Sunderland to suffer losses.

The P&W engined Sunderland Mk.V didn't enter service until Feb 1945.

Click to expand...

These are percentage loss rates presented backwards, not absolute number.

Please math it.

MIflyer said:

On the thread discussing the survivability of the Beaufort I offered some info. Here is the complete list provided by that RAF letter from 1942. The is from the book, 'The Armed Rovers", about shipping strike missions. Looks like the old slow PBY was the airplane to be in!

View attachment 660587

Click to expand...

This is very interesting. If we take the data as being valid in Nov '42 and the fact that it covers "two tours", it probably reflects losses mid '41 to mid '42 -ish. I find the Night Fighter survival rate at 15% for two tours seems very poor. I recall that Guy Gibson wrote that he found night fighters far too safe.
I think that the Long range Coastal Command stats for the Sunderland and Catalina might be misleading? I expect that those crews did many multiple tours and the stats in the 3rd and 4th tours would be poor. Additionally, the survival at sea for downed long-range crews was particularly unlikely, with few rescued or POW.
Overall, bleak figures, and not the whole sad story.

Eng

I think they were smart enough to not use the PBY in a high threat environment. At Midway the PBY was the USN's primary search aircraft and in the words of the USN officer in charge of their land based air there, "Any and all enemy aircraft attacked the PBY's." That included Betty bombers based on Wake Island. In contrast, the USAAF B-17's flew right over the IJN fleet with near imputiny and even shot down a Zero or two; they neither seemed to have any problem finding the IJN nor ran way when attacked. The result was the USN assigned some of their observers to the B-17 crews, since the USAAF personnel were notoriously inaccurate when it came to IDing ships and their courses. This led to the USN acquiring some B-17's and B-24's (PB4Y-1) and eventually their own dedicated 4-engined long range patrol aircraft, the PB4Y-2, which was armed to the teeth (a YB-40 equivalent and then some) and not only did scouting for information gathering but "armed reconnaissance" with a vengeance.

On the other hand the Sunderland was know as the "flying porcupine" which indicates to me that at least some people thought it could fight its way where it needed to go.

As for night fighters, I think the mishap rate was horrendous, especially in the early days, which were pre-Nov 1942.

I knew there was a reason I liked the PBY

Could the night fighter rate be due to the operations of the intruder squadrons EwenS mentioned

EwenS said:

Where do the specialist Night Intruder squadrons fit in? 23 squadron with Havocs/Bostons (generally fitted with gun packs not bombs) and then radarless Mosquito II from mid-1942 which then got long range tanks later in the year. Plus 418 and 605 from late 1941 and mid-1942 respectively. Some Hurricane IIc squadrons (87 for example) used aircraft fitted with drop tanks in this night role in Britain in 1941/42. These were all flying as part of Fighter Command. Long range fighter or night fighter?

Click to expand...

or was it just the practicalities of landing at night?

Re the Light Bombers - these must be the Fairey Battles, I'm assuming the Blenheim's would be considered medium, even though they carried the same payload

MIflyer said:

And the Fulmar was not really a long range fighter at 730 miles.

Click to expand...

That's a little short. During trials the Fulmar I and II recorded ranges of 980 miles maximum without external tank. With an external tank the Fulmar reached 1,100 miles. The recorded range for service aircraft varies, but sits around 800 miles. This is recorded in Taylor's Fairey aircraft since 1915 by Putnam and the 4+ Publication monograph on the Fulmar records its range at 830 miles.