Aircrew casualities

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