Night bombers interception in Western Europe in 1944

ArtKramr wrote:

Subject: Night bombers interception in Western Europe in 1944
From: Guy Alcala
Date: 7/17/2004 1:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Chris Mark wrote:

From: smartace11@

My origninal question was mainly
about whether different run in headings between flights would have avoided
some
aimed AAA and possibly flack concentrations

More than likely. But medium bomber loss rates in Europe, especially as
the
war progressed, were reasonably low. Ovrall, in the MTO, the B-26 loss
rate
was one per 148 combat sorties and in the ETO one per 210 sorties. The
B-25
loss rate in the MTO was one per 164 sorties, and in the Pacific one per 52
sorties.

Chris, could I know the source of your loss rate figures? I've had
difficulty in
tracking down MTO and early PTO data to compare the B-25 and B-26.

Guy


Remember that the B-25's were in the MTO.

Art, read Chris's post. Both were in the MTO and PTO, which is why I asked where
he got the info. I'm going to repost Chris' data to refresh your memory:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

More than likely. But medium bomber loss rates in Europe, especially as the
war progressed, were reasonably low. Ovrall, in the MTO, the B-26 loss rate
was one per 148 combat sorties and in the ETO one per 210 sorties. The B-25
loss rate in the MTO was one per 164 sorties, and in the Pacific one per 52
sorties.

snip

During the first year of MTO operations (June 42-June 43, the North
African phase) the loss rate for B-26s was one per 20 sorties, for the B-25 one
per 43 sorties.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Please note that the above data provides info for those theaters where both the
B-25 and B-26 were flying the same missions at the same time, the only way to make
a valid comparision of the two a/c. To summarize the loss data:

Overall MTO loss rate:

B-25: 1/164 sorties, or .61%.
B-26: 1/148 sorties, or .68%.

Conclusion: B-25 loss rate is about 11.5% better than the B-26, flying the same
missions at the same time.

North Africa-only loss rate, Nov. '42 - June '43:

B-25: 1/43 sorties, or 2.33%.
B-26: 1/20 sorties, or 5.00%.

Conclusion: B-26 loss rate is over double B-25 loss rate.

And finally, you claimed that the MTO was :

A less hazardous theatre [than the ETO].

Does that claim hold up? Nope.

B-26 loss rate, North Africa only: 5.00%
B-26 loss rate, overall MTO: .68%
B-26 loss rate, Overall ETO: .48%

Conclusion, B-26 loss rate in the MTO was 42% higher than it was in the ETO, and
just taking the North African theater (where there was a high percentage of
low-level missions), loss rates were 7.4 TIMES what they were in the ETO. Still
insist that the MTO was a less hazardous theater?

Guy






B-25 loss rate

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

I think we need to be careful getting too detailed with loss rates as
indicating anything significant about aircraft types because there are so many
unknown variables, everything from accuracy of squadron records to how many dud
rounds an anti-aircraft battery fired on one day compared to another.
The safe conclusions are merely that low-level missions will cause losses to
soar, whatever the aircraft type, and that single-engine performance is
important in reducing losses. Both the B-25 and B-26 were good airplanes with
slightly different attributes.


Chris Mark

Chris Mark wrote:

I think we need to be careful getting too detailed with loss rates as
indicating anything significant about aircraft types because there are so many
unknown variables, everything from accuracy of squadron records to how many dud
rounds an anti-aircraft battery fired on one day compared to another.
The safe conclusions are merely that low-level missions will cause losses to
soar, whatever the aircraft type, and that single-engine performance is
important in reducing losses. Both the B-25 and B-26 were good airplanes with
slightly different attributes.

No disagreement from me - I'm not the one who's been arguing that the B-26 was used
in the ETO exclusively because the B-25 was inferior, was less able to take damage,
had a higher loss rate, etc., in the face of all the evidence and ignoring all the
factors you mention above. It's always bugged me that the B-26 is trumpeted as
having the lowest loss rate in the ETO, when it was the _only_ medium bomber in the
ETO (operated by the US). Since there's nothing to directly compare it to in that
theater, attempting to draw conclusions about its relative survivability are
meaningless.

That is not the case in the MTO, which is why I would still like to know if you can
break down the MTO numbers for the B-25 and B-26, excluding North Africa. I've got
the North African data somewhere, but only have overall "European War" data on
bomber sorties and losses, rather than the more specific post-North Africa MTO
numbers. If you can supply sorties and losses for the B-25 and B-26 for that
period, I'd be much obliged, because I haven't been able to find that anywhere
else.

Guy