If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
ArtKramr wrote:
Subject: Aircrew casualities From: Guy Alcala Date: 9/29/03 8:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: 3F78FB42.14031EFC@junkpo The scale of losses was a record at that time, Guy Yeah.. No way in hell a typicle mission. Again, typical referred to the tactics, techniques, and weapons. The losses were very high, but only a bit outside the normal percentage to be expected for such missions. Those of us who flew missions in the ETO the word Schweinfort sent shivers down our spines. Does your historical research allow for shivers down the spine on that never to be forgotten "black" mission which along with Ploesti defined missions that were pure hell.? Sure. it also allows for the first big mission to Berlin on March 6th, 1944, where we lost 69 bombers and 11 fighters, a greater total loss than any other single mission (but a much smaller pecentage loss than Second Schweinfurt or Kiel, because far more a/c were involved). It also allows for missions like the one where the 445th BG (Jimmy Stewart's old outfit) was in the wrong place at the wrong time and suffered the highest losses by any single group on any mission in the war, on a mission to Kassel on September 27th, 1944. IIRR, they lost 24 or 25 B-24s out of 30 or so. But the force as a whole took average casualties, because the 445th took almost all the casualties sustained. So, from the force commander's perspective, it was a typical mission, but from the 445th's perspective it was a unique disaster. Both are correct. Guy |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Aircrew casualities
From: Guy Alcala Date: 9/30/03 12:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: And that's the point, it all depends on the perspective of the observer. If you're commanding an army, you may report your front "quiet, little enemy activity except patrols," and from your perspective you'd be right; if you happen to be a private in a squad that ran into an enemy patrol, had a vicious little firefight lasting several hours and lost two dead and six wounded (including yourself), from your perspective the war is anything but "quiet, little enemy activity" as your unit has just suffered somewhere between 66 to 100% casualties, and you'd also be right. Guy Well, let me tell you about the perspective of the observer. The best way to "observe" mission results is to get back to your base, have a few drinks at the OC then go count the empty bunks. Everything else is just crap. Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
We'd been discussing the types of parachutes used by VIIIth
AF crews, and whether they were worn or not in the heavies. I've just retrieved a copy of Roger Freeman's "Mighty Eighth War Manual," which goes into great detail on all manner of operational procedures, equipment, weapons, bases, etc. Here's most of his section on parachutes (I've left out the section on fighters): "VIII BC groups were equipped with five different types of parachute during the early days of operations. These were seat-pack types, S-1 and S-2, back pack types B-7 and P3-E-24 and a few US chest packs AN 6513-1, a new design. A study carried out in January 1943 showed that most B-17 and B-24 pilots and co-pilots wore seat type parachutes; bombardiers, navigators, waist and radio gunners used seat and back types. Very few turret gunners found they could wear a parachute while at their stations. B-17 tail gunners used back types. Because of the fatigue caused by the additional weight and interference with movement, half the men who could wear parachutes did not. The parachutes were therefore placed at the nearest handy spot, crew members trusting that they would have enough time to retrieve them and get into the harness, although pilots and ball turret gunners took a very fatalistic view of their chances if forced to bail out. With the exception of the chest type, all these parachutes had attached harness requiring three or four separate actions to attach and detach, without any provision for attaching individual life-saving dinghies." "Pilots wearing seat packs found that they could not get out of their seats without first unbuckling leg straps. Even the quick attachment AN 6513-1 chest pack parachute was found far from satisfactory, chiefly because its fixings were not sufficiently strong. To improve the situation, in June 1943 the 8th Air Force Central Medical Establishment recommended that all bomber crews wear the RAF quick-release harness and observer chest-pack parachute until better types were forthcoming from the USA. The advantages were that the harness could be worn at all times and in one operation could be quickly and completely removed; both parachute and dinghy packs were quickly attached to it by simple snap hooks. Some back-pack parachutes were retained for special purposes and the US chest pack, AN 6513-1, continued to be used until sufficient Observer packs were available. Also the harness for the aN 6513-1 was modified for quick attachment and many canopies from back and seat packs were repacked in the British chest packs." "RAF Observer chest packs were supplied to all 8th Air Force bomber groups until a new US chest pack with nylon canopies was received in 1944. Despite successful projects to modify ball turrets to enable gunners to wear a back-pack, no similar move was made in production and escape from this crew station remained the most precarious." Guy |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Guy Alcala
blurted out: I've just retrieved a copy of Roger Freeman's "Mighty Eighth War Manual," which... ....is a great resource. Couple years ago down at the Archives at Maxwell, I heard a resident PhD War College staffer discuss Freeman's work with one of Art's contemporaries. I chimed in how I thought the "War Manual" was his best (at least my favorite)...the good doctor scrunched up his forehead, "but it's just tactics and formations..." I just smiled...different strokes I guess. Juvat |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Aircrew casualities
From: Juvat Date: 10/1/03 9:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Guy Alcala blurted out: I've just retrieved a copy of Roger Freeman's "Mighty Eighth War Manual," which... ...is a great resource. Couple years ago down at the Archives at Maxwell, I heard a resident PhD War College staffer discuss Freeman's work with one of Art's contemporaries. I chimed in how I thought the "War Manual" was his best (at least my favorite)...the good doctor scrunched up his forehead, "but it's just tactics and formations..." I just smiled...different strokes I guess. Juvat Just curious. Did Freeman actually fly missions with the 8th? Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
(ArtKramr) wrote in message ...
Subject: Aircrew casualities From: "Erik Plagen" Date: 9/16/03 11:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: ArtKramr" wrote in message 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? 'COMMON WISDOM" OF WHOM? Those of us who were there. Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer )) |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Marron wrote in message . ..
"Erik Plagen" wrote: Mike Marron wrote: Haven't you heard all the stories of the Luftwaffe strafing downed allied pilots coming down their chutes That;s all they were- "stories" or fairy tales! We never tried to shoot down Crew Members in their chutes! You are thinking of the Japanese. Nope, I'm thinking of the Germans. In fact, I've heard Chuck Yeager himself during an interview describe how the Germans were known to strafe downed allied airmen descending in their chutes. Note the part in the story below that says, "Careful to delay pulling his ripcord." It is very unlikely that any Luftwaffe pilot would shoot an American pilot in his chute if he was descending on their territory. The description you posted would suggest that the experienced German pilots were to be destroyed as they landed or took off and the amateurs might be relied upon to kill themselves. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Aircrew casualities
From: Guy Alcala Date: 10/3/03 11:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: ArtKramr wrote: Subject: Aircrew casualities From: Juvat Date: 10/1/03 9:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Guy Alcala blurted out: I've just retrieved a copy of Roger Freeman's "Mighty Eighth War Manual," which... ...is a great resource. Couple years ago down at the Archives at Maxwell, I heard a resident PhD War College staffer discuss Freeman's work with one of Art's contemporaries. I chimed in how I thought the "War Manual" was his best (at least my favorite)...the good doctor scrunched up his forehead, "but it's just tactics and formations..." I just smiled...different strokes I guess. Juvat Just curious. Did Freeman actually fly missions with the 8th? Nope, he was an English kid who lived near one of the bomber bases during the war, and spent a lot of time hanging out there (the ground crews let him). Since then he's become unquestionably the foremost historian of the 8th AF, although his aviation interest extend somewhat beyond that -- do a google or amazon.com search on Roger A. Freeman. ISTR that he's also involved in the 2nd Air Division Memorial Library in Norwich, England - http://www.2ndair.org.uk/new%20pages/library.htm Guy In a previous post you quoted Freeman on how parachutes were handled in the eigth. The descriptions you gave were in direct contradiction to my experiences in the 9th. I never flew with the 8th, so I won't comment, but the idea that aircrews flew with their harnesse and chutes off and, "had to go look for them before bailing out" defies logic as well as my expereinces. We flew with our chutes on for the full length of the missions. Would never think of flying otherwise. That is why I asked if he actually flew missions with the 8th. It is interesting to find out he never did. Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
ArtKramr wrote:
Subject: Aircrew casualities From: Guy Alcala Date: 10/3/03 11:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: ArtKramr wrote: snip Just curious. Did Freeman actually fly missions with the 8th? Nope, he was an English kid who lived near one of the bomber bases during the war, and spent a lot of time hanging out there (the ground crews let him). Since then he's become unquestionably the foremost historian of the 8th AF, although his aviation interest extend somewhat beyond that -- do a google or amazon.com search on Roger A. Freeman. ISTR that he's also involved in the 2nd Air Division Memorial Library in Norwich, England - http://www.2ndair.org.uk/new%20pages/library.htm Guy In a previous post you quoted Freeman on how parachutes were handled in the eigth. The descriptions you gave were in direct contradiction to my experiences in the 9th. I never flew with the 8th, so I won't comment, but the idea that aircrews flew with their harnesse and chutes off and, "had to go look for them before bailing out" defies logic as well as my expereinces. We flew with our chutes on for the full length of the missions. Would never think of flying otherwise. That is why I asked if he actually flew missions with the 8th. It is interesting to find out he never did. You'll note that he describes the use of chutes from 1942 on, while equipment was constantly changing. By 1944, much practical experience had been gained, equipment and techniques modified, etc., all of which he noted. I've read numerous accounts by 8th AF bomber crews dexcribing having to attach chutes before they can bail out. As has Freeman, as well as him having interviewed hundreds if not thousands of aircrew over the years. And the quote you reference was taken from an 8th AF study and questionnaire done in January 1943; what reason would the crews have to lie about what they did? I'd also point out that 8th AF missions were considerably longer than 9th AF ones, and were also flown at high altitude on oxygen while wearing heavy clothing to protect them from the sub-zero temperatures (the electric suits were very unreliable prior to a redesign that only became available in 1944). Crews (even those wearing the electric suits) also wore full sheepskin clothes over them in case the suits failed, so bulk was more of an issue; moving around was very fatiguing, especially when wearing flak suits as well. I don't know if the later flak suits could be worn over parachutes, chest pack or otherwise, but it doesn't appear that the earlier ones could be. Still doubt that they didn't normally wear chutes? Here's some crew accounts, from the Regensburg/Schweinfurt mission, given in interviews to Martin Middlebrook. I've edited them for length, with ellipsis used to mark those sections: [Tony Arcaro, pilot, 91st BG] "I decided that I had to order the crew to abandon ship -- it was all that fuel I was worried about. . . . I put it on automatic and managed to get my chest pack on. Then I dove right from the flight deck out through the front hatch -- right through the fire. I cleared it just like a champion diver; I never even bumped the side." [An anonymous bombardier, presumably to spare the feelings of any family members of the pilot and co-pilot who might read it]: "Then I poked my head up into the cockpit. The top turret gunner was all right; he was getting out of his turret. I could only see the backs of the two pilot's seats and all I could see was that they were both immobile. The instruments were all shot away, hit from the front and blown inwards. . . . " "The top turret gunner said, 'Let's get out of here.' I crawled back to the nose and got my chest parachute and told the navigator we had got to go. For some reason I had always had a fear of parachuting and often said that I would never do it but, when the time came, I never gave it a second thought." [Middlebrook notes that both pilots had been decapitated by the cannon rounds that had hit the cockpit] [An anonymous navigator, for similar reasons as that above] "I turned away from my gun, picked up my parachute from the bench and put it on. . . ." [2nd Lt. Walter Brown, Bombardier, 91st BG] ". . . The whole wing just flopped off outside Number 2 engine and that was it. No one really had much chance to get a parachute on. I had seen two planes collide over England and a good buddy of mine was the only one to get out. He'd been wearing a back-pack so I always wore one after that -- the only one in the crew to do so. The navigator was at his table and was able to reach out and grab his chest-pack quickly. He only got one of the clips fastened when the centrifugal force pinned us both to the floor. He was being throttled by his oxygen tube but I was able to reach up and unplug it from the wall for him. I never heard a word from or had a chance to see the others from beginning to end." "I didn't realize we were spinning -- you lose the horizon and you have no idea what position you are in -- but my pal in another a/c told me that that we made three or three and a half turns and then the plane disintegrated. I don't know whether there was an explosion or not; centrifugal force can be enough to tear a plane apart. All I know is that I went flying out the plexiglass window. The glass wasn't there but the nose gun was and I hit it with my back. I'm sure that would have killed me if I hadn't had the back parachute pack on. I reckon that backpack saved my life twice." [The only other survivor of this crew was the navigator he mentioned, 2nd Lt. Edgar Yelle] Convinced? Now let's jump forward from August 17th, 1943, to April 7th, 1945. This is from an account of his 34th mission by 2nd Lt. Walter F. Hughes, in his self-published book "A Bomber Pilot in World War II." Hughes flew B-24s in the 93rd BG: "543 F, the ship we were assigned had a standard soft pilot's seat. The pilots were protected by a flak curtain which hung from the ceiling about a foot behind the seats. When I checked the plane I found that some flak-happy pilot had lined the seat and back with several layers of flak vests. I hadn't seen that done before so I shrugged my shoulders and replaced the cushions. Old pilots liked this seat because they could wear a backpack parachute while flying, whereas with the other seat, a box made of armor plate, the pilots could not get out with a parachute on. In planes with that seat, the parchute was hung on a hook on the flight deck out of the pilot's reach. If a plane was spinning, or there was fire on the flight deck, there was no way a pilot could get to his parachute. He could squeeze out the pilot's window, but to no purpose without a chute. . . ." The rest of his account doesn't describe a bailout; rather, a fighter attack that caused a cannon shell to penetrate the armor next to him and explode against the flak curtain behind him, wounding the co-pilot and radio operator, and "The flak vests lining the seat were absolutely chewed to pieces. Had they not been there, my backside would have been full of holes, big ones." So it's a tradeoff. The armored seat undoubtedly provided better protection than the flak suits, but made it harder to bail out in certain conditions. Guy |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
USCG enlisted aircrew wings | C Knowles | Military Aviation | 0 | August 17th 03 12:30 AM |
ADF aircrew with basal cell carcinoma removed | BCC Pilot | Military Aviation | 0 | July 10th 03 12:59 PM |