Aircrew casualities

ArtKramr wrote:

The common wisdom in WW II was that tail gunners and bombardiers suffered the
highest casualties among bomber aircrews. Anyone have any actual statistics on
aircrew casualties by position in USAAC bombers?

I wish you had asked that a few weeks ago, as I had a source here which gave the
stats for B-17s. AFAIR, pilots were top of the list (because they had to stay
while everyone else got out), with ball turret gunners about equal in loss rate.
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

Subject: Aircrew casualities
From: Guy Alcala
Date: 9/16/03 3:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

ArtKramr wrote:

The common wisdom in WW II was that tail gunners and bombardiers suffered
the
highest casualties among bomber aircrews. Anyone have any actual statistics
on
aircrew casualties by position in USAAC bombers?

I wish you had asked that a few weeks ago, as I had a source here which gave
the
stats for B-17s. AFAIR, pilots were top of the list (because they had to
stay
while everyone else got out), with ball turret gunners about equal in loss
rate.
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
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

(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.
--

-Gord.

" 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

Subject: Aircrew casualities
From: Guy Alcala
Date: 9/16/03 9:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

e (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

Interesting.We never took evasive action against fighters.we jus tightened our
formation, stayed on course and returned their fire. We did take evasive action
against flak. Find their parachutes??? We wore them from the ground up.Y'mean
the Brits didn't??? If you got hit and didn't have your chute on it was often
too late to put it on.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

(ArtKramr) wrote:

Interesting.We never took evasive action against fighters.we jus tightened our
formation, stayed on course and returned their fire. We did take evasive action
against flak. Find their parachutes??? We wore them from the ground up.Y'mean
the Brits didn't??? If you got hit and didn't have your chute on it was often
too late to put it on.

Would you shoot the Jerry *******s in their chutes?

-Mike (I damn sure would've) Marron

Subject: Aircrew casualities
From: Mike Marron
Date: 9/17/03 5:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

(ArtKramr) wrote:

Interesting.We never took evasive action against fighters.we jus tightened
our
formation, stayed on course and returned their fire. We did take evasive
action
against flak. Find their parachutes??? We wore them from the ground
up.Y'mean
the Brits didn't??? If you got hit and didn't have your chute on it was
often
too late to put it on.

Would you shoot the Jerry *******s in their chutes?

-Mike (I damn sure would've) Marron




No Mike, I don't think; I would. I have strafed and when I saw woman or
children I lifted my thumbs off the triggers. See "Strafing as if in a dream".
on my website. But I don't think you can make that decision as to whether you
would kill a man in a chute until he is right in front of you.. When you are
actually there and see the man, then we'll see. It isn't easy to kill a man in
cold blood.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Mike Marron wrote:


Would you shoot the Jerry *******s in their chutes?

-Mike (I damn sure would've) Marron


I'm sure that the Allies thought that that idea was very
counterproductive because of the 'tit for tat' syndrome.

There'd be many more Allied 'chutists' than German chutists so
it's not a great habit to promote.

-Gord (I damned sure wouldn't) Beaman

ArtKramr wrote:

Subject: Aircrew casualities
From: Guy Alcala
Date: 9/16/03 9:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

e (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

Interesting.We never took evasive action against fighters.we jus tightened our
formation, stayed on course and returned their fire.

No, I meant the fighters taking evasive action on the run-in, and preparing to do
so after the firing pass. At night, they could usually just cruise leisurely into
position behind/under (with Schrage Musik) the bomber at very short range, aim for
the fuel/oil tanks in the wings, and fire. 50-100 yd firing ranges weren't
uncommon for the better pilots.

We did take evasive action
against flak. Find their parachutes??? We wore them from the ground up.Y'mean
the Brits didn't??? If you got hit and didn't have your chute on it was often
too late to put it on.

The USAAF bomber crew didn't have backpack parachutes either for quite a while (it
seems to have been late in 1943 that they started to come in). Normally it was a
clip-on chest chute, and they were normally left off until needed as they made it
difficult to move around in the a/c. Pilots got seat pack or backpack chutes (in
some cases, from the Brits) first. That's another reason why ball turret gunners
had such a high casualty rate; there was no room in the turret for them to have
their chutes, so they had to first make it back up into the fuselage, get their
chute and put it on before they could jump. The waist gunners had it far easier.

Guy

Subject: Aircrew casualities
From: Guy Alcala
Date: 9/18/03 11:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

No, I meant the fighters taking evasive action on the run-in, and preparing
to do

Never saw that once. Thyey would drop tgheior inside wing and their nose would
swing in toward us and we hten knew they had started their classic fighter
approach. And once they set up constant bearing, they never swerved, changed
course or took evasive action at all. They just bore in on their heading of
constant bearing firing as they came.

The USAAF bomber crew didn't have backpack parachutes either for quite a
while (it
seems to have been late in 1943 that they started to come in). Normally it
was a

The USAAF bomber crew didn't have backpack parachutes either for quite a
while (it
seems to have been late in 1943 that they started to come in). Normally it
was a

I wore a chestpack. The tail gunner and the top turrest gunners also had
chestpacks and we wore them in our positions with no problem. We never ever
flew missions with chutes off. And in 1943 both our pilot and copilot flew with
backpacks, the rest of us wore chestpacks and once in the air never took them
of except when I had to enter the bomb bays. I couldn't fit through the bombay
access door with a chestpack on.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer