" wrote:

(ArtKramr) wrote:

Bombardiers were actually among the best in survival rate if not the best (I
think
the navs were the best), because many of the attacks were from the rear, and
because they had an escape hatch in their compartment that was easy to get
to.

Guy


In the B-26 we had no escape hatch at all. The bombardier had along path to
creawl in front of the copilot then out the bombay. A long trip indeed. Maybe
we should break down the losses by aircraft type rather than lumping all
bombers together

Arthur Kramer

Lancasters were good to Bombardiers (and nose gunners), they had
their own good sized hatch in the bottom of the nose compartment,
matter of fact the Pilot and Engineer used that hatch too.

OTOH, the survival rate was considerably worse than for Halifax crews, who had
better placed escape hatches. The survival rate of either was pretty dismal at
night -- IIRR, Middlebrook stated an 86% fatality rate for Lanc crews when shot
down, with the Halifax being slightly better. Crew fatality rates by U.S. heavies
operating by day were much better, about the inverse of the RAF night bombers,
roughly 15%. You could probably chalk that up to more armor, being able to see the
enemy approach so more defensive fire (and thus less effective fire from the
fighters, due to evasive action and longer firing ranges), and in the last resort,
it being much easier to find and put on parachutes and then locate the exits by
day. It would be interesting to see if B-17s and B-24s that operated with RAF 100
Group by night, had similar crew survival rates as the RAF heavies doing the same
missions.

Guy