Aircrew casualities

Guy Alcala wrote:

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. . . ."


This sounds reasonable of course...I've seen where Art says that
they always wore the harness and the chestpack chute but It seems
to me that it would be pretty inconvenient to get any work done
that way.

I've never flown during wartime but we used the harness and
chestpack on the Lancaster during ASW ops in peacetime. We always
wore the harness but never the chestpack, that sucker is big,
about 1.5 feet wide, 8 - 10 inches 'deep' and about 8 - 10 inches
'fore and aft'. It's heavy too, likely 25 pounds or so. I just
can't imagine moving around much with that thing dangling from
your chest for 6 - 8 hours...BUT...I wasn't there and war can do
funny things to one I'm sure.

I mean nothing derogatory by that either...it was just a
different time, one that I'm not familiar with. Thank God.
--

-Gord.

Subject: Aircrew casualities
From: Guy Alcala
Date: 10/4/03 1:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

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

Wait a minute Guy. This last post gives a different impession than the first
post. n this last post everyone seems to have worn their harnesses and it was
just a question of snapping on the chest pack OK that makes more sense. I can
buy that. In this post you never mention no harnesses, they all had hanresses
on and snapping on a chest pack takes all of two seconds. It takes a long time
to get onto a harness unaided and some guys can't do it alone. My waist gunner
always needed help. Your first post is rather different than this post. BTW, I
almost always wore my harness and chest pack under my flak suit.If not I had
it right next to me and could snap it on in a secnod after I took off my flak
jacket off. I never had to go look for it. Safety first every time. It was
dangerous up there. You might be interested in reading, "Sgt Greigos Flak
Jacket" on my website.

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

Subject: Aircrew casualities
From: "Gord Beaman" )
Date: 10/4/03 3:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

This sounds reasonable of course...I've seen where Art says that
they always wore the harness and the chestpack chute but It seems
to me that it would be pretty inconvenient to get any work done
that way.

Got work done fine. Never gave it a thought. But I would think long and hard
before snapping that chest pack off.

I've never flown during wartime but we used the harness and
chestpack on the Lancaster during ASW ops in peacetime. We always
wore the harness but never the chestpack, that sucker is big,
about 1.5 feet wide, 8 - 10 inches 'deep' and about 8 - 10 inches
'fore and aft'. It's heavy too, likely 25 pounds or so. I just
can't imagine moving around much with that thing dangling from
your chest for 6 - 8 hours...BUT...I wasn't there and war can do
funny things to one I'm sure.

I mean nothing derogatory by that either...it was just a
different time, one that I'm not familiar with. Thank God.
--

-Gord.


We could take a direct hit from flak any second and our escape time could be
counted in nanoseconds. We all flew with out chutes on. And harnesses strapped
tight. Very tight. Go to my website and see the photo, "One went down". That
says it all when it comes to chutes.



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:

Subject: Aircrew casualities
From: Guy Alcala
Date: 10/4/03 1:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

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

Wait a minute Guy. This last post gives a different impession than the first
post. n this last post everyone seems to have worn their harnesses and it was
just a question of snapping on the chest pack OK that makes more sense. I can
buy that. In this post you never mention no harnesses, they all had hanresses
on and snapping on a chest pack takes all of two seconds. It takes a long time
to get onto a harness unaided and some guys can't do it alone. My waist gunner
always needed help. Your first post is rather different than this post.

Yes, the first post did mention the difference. I'll repeat the relevant section
from Freeman:

"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."
------------------------------------------------------

Guy Again So, as of January 1943, the main types in use were seat and backpacks,
which all lacked quick attach fittings. Crews found them uncomfortable, and half
of them didn't wear them until needed. Only the new chest pack had (relatively)
quick attach fittings, but it had deficiencies as well, as noted below:

Freeman again

"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."

Guy again From June 1943, the chest pack harness is modified, but 8th AF crews
are beginning to be issued with RAF harnesses and Observer chest chute packs, as
the best available type.

Freeman

"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."


BTW, I
almost always wore my harness and chest pack under my flak suit.If not I had
it right next to me and could snap it on in a secnod after I took off my flak
jacket off. I never had to go look for it. Safety first every time. It was
dangerous up there. You might be interested in reading, "Sgt Greigos Flak
Jacket" on my website.

I've read it. It was fairly common for 8th crews to try and snag extra suits to
use under/around them. At least one tail gunner was notorious for building himself
a cocoon of flak suits, which the pilot would tell him to get rid of as it screwed
up the Cg. Other gunners preferred to stand on extras, and according to one such
gunner they eventually got flak mats designed for the purpose. I've been unable to
confirm manufacture of such, but on that subject, flak suits underwent considerable
development. Freeman:

"Battle armor. Aware that a large proportion of wounds sustained by bomber crewmen
were made by low-velocity missiles, in the autumn of 1942 Brig. Gen. Malcolm Grow,
8th AF chief surgeon, became interested in the provision of lightweight body
armour. Using information from British experiments, which showed that magnesium
steel plates of 20 gauge would stop a .303 bullet when the muzzle velocity was
reduced to 1300 feet (396m) per second, the Wilkinson Sword Company were asked to
make one bulletproof vest. The plates were 1 3/4 inches (44mm) wide, of varying
length and arranged with a 3/8 inch overlap. This body armor, which came to be
known as a 'flak vest' or 'flak suit', weighed 20 lb. (9 kg). The plates were held
in heavy canvas and the whole, designed to be worn over the parachute harness, was
quickly removed by a pull cord. Production of an experimental batch was authorized
on 15 October 1942 and the first operational use was on 12 December when worn by
two crews of 322nd Bomb Squadron, 91st Group. No tagnible evidence of their value
was acquired on this mission but on 20 December at least one crewmember would have
been seriously wounded if he had not been wearing a flak suit. Thereafter combat
crews showed much more interest. An investigation carried out early in 1943
established that of combat wound causes 40% were flak shrapnel, 40% 20mm shrapnel,
10% machine gun bullets and 10% fragments of a/c structure blasted by shell hits.
Later the value of body armor was established by the fact that two-thirds of men
hit by missiles or fragments while wearing flak jackets escaped injury, and only
8.2% of the remainder were killed."

"Wilkinson's production was supplemented by US made flak suits late in 1943. Four
models were available: M-1, a vest with armored front and back panels, similar to
the original Wilkinson vest, weighing 18 lb. 2 oz. (8.7 kg); the M-2 vest weighing
9 lb. (4 kg), armored in the front only and intended for use by men in armored
seats; M-3 weighing 4 3/4 lb. (2.1 kg), a tapered apron for men in a sitting
position where the lower part of the body required protection and the M-4 weighing
7 1/2 lb. (3.4 kg), protecting the full frontal body area, usually worn by standing
gunners. The M-5 covered legs and groin and was produced for pilots."

He then goes on to describes the use of and modifications to helmets.

Guy

Guy Alcala wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:
"Erik Plagen" wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

"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.

snip

There were certainly instances (on both sides) of this happening, and it
was widely believed (again, by both sides) that the other side was just
looking for opportunities to do so, but it was an individual thing, not an
order. It tended to be crews with better reasons to hate, i.e. a pilot
whose family had been killed by bombing, or pilots of some of the occupied
countries (the Poles come to mind). And there were the occasional
bloodthirsty or just plain ruthless types on both sides.


"bloodthirsty or just plain ruthless types" - or the just plain
stupid, who do not realise that in fact it will be his own fellow
aviators who will be killed in the spiral which he has initiated, and
for something they never had anything to do with.


Overall an excellent appraisal Mr Alacala. And applicable not just to
bailed-out aircrew. Similar with "machine-gunned in the water" after
abandoning ship, "took no prisoners", "are killing our PoWs" ,etc. The
rumour is the dangerous since it can get the whole thing started
without anyone ever committing such an act.

Unfortunately, it cannot be undone by reversing the spiral, i.e.
circling back over the recently landed aviator as he gathers his
'chute and dropping a picnic hamper and a bottle of Beaujolais Premier
or similar.