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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
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 |