Aircrew casualities

Subject: Aircrew casualities
From: Guy Alcala
Date: 9/22/03 2:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: 3F6F6FE0.3067CB20@junkpo

Then it must have been 8th AF practice not to wear them, as numerous accounts
exist
of crews trying to buckle theirs on in a hurry. The RAF bomber crews didn't
normally wear theirs either, aside from the pilots and the tail gunner.

Guy

The mind boggles (sheesh)

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: Guy Alcala
Date: 9/22/03 2:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

"Evasive action' was a poor choice of words on my part; involuntary flinching
before the breakaway, and doing the breakaway early for fear of
collision/gunfire,
was more what I meant.

I never once saw that. It would be a foolish thing for the pilot to do. If he
bore in and came out the other side it was a clean getaway, But if he flinched
and turned away before he got to us he would expose his belly and vastly
increase his chance of being shot down by the bomber's gunners. I guess young
inexperienced pilots scared to death might do that. But not the old hands.
Anyway. if you are a gunner in a bomber and a fighter comes at you don't count
on his tuning way before his run is done.


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

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

"Guy Alcala"
wrote in message
...
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. There was little
reason for the Germans to strafe parachutes
when they were on the
defensive, because the crews were almost certain
to be captured. There
was more reason for the allies to do so when
they were on the offensive,
because any German pilot who survived was
likely to be back in the air;
most of the top German aces were shot down
numerous times. The situation
was the reverse in the BoB, where it would
have made sense for the Germans
to shoot British pilots as they descended,
but was pointless for the
British. There seems to have been one exception:
in the case of the
Me-262, US fighter pilots were ordered to
kill the pilots, in their chutes
or on the ground, according to Yeager and/or
Clarence 'Bud' Anderson in
their biographies.

Guy


During the BOB Dowding specifically ordered
the RAF not
to strafe German pilots who had bailed out over
UK territory

He made the point that under international law
once the
pilot had bailed out over enemy territory he
was no longer
an enemy combatant but a surrndering prisoner.
German
pilots over occupied territory or British pilots
over the
UK were fair game.

Keith


How about the Pacific casualties? With USN/MC aircraft like the SBD, SB2C,
TBF/M off of carriers, plus the Navy/Marine and AAF aircraft, wouldn't the
casualties be somewhat different than Europe? I'm thinking the TBF/M might
have a higher casualty rate with the turret gunners-wouldn't those guys have
a hard time bailing out than the pilot or radio operator/tunnel gunner?

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

ArtKramr wrote:

Subject: Aircrew casualities
From: Guy Alcala
Date: 9/22/03 2:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

"Evasive action' was a poor choice of words on my part; involuntary flinching
before the breakaway, and doing the breakaway early for fear of
collision/gunfire,
was more what I meant.

I never once saw that. It would be a foolish thing for the pilot to do. If he
bore in and came out the other side it was a clean getaway, But if he flinched
and turned away before he got to us he would expose his belly and vastly
increase his chance of being shot down by the bomber's gunners. I guess young
inexperienced pilots scared to death might do that. But not the old hands.

snip

While the inexperienced pilots were more likely to open fire out of range or break
off too soon, experienced hands could also do so. It was often a question of
morale; the old heads had been in combat for a long time, and everyone only has so
much courage to spend. Many were very tired, combat fatigued if you will, and
there are many accounts by German pilots stating that this or that leader wasn't
going in with their former aggression (often not going in at all, but finding
something wrong with the a/c or themselves, breaking off and returning to base, or
at best hunting for stragglers). I'd really recommend you read Caldwell's "JG 26:
Top Guns of the Luftwaffe" for the German perspective of that unit's (and
individuals) changing behavior throughout the war. Leadership and morale varied
considerably, and both tended to deteriorate later in the war.

Guy

Subject: Aircrew casualities
From: Guy Alcala
Date: 9/24/03 12:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: 3F71484E.B147DA0A@junk

courage to spend. Many were very tired, combat fatigued if you will, and
there are many accounts by German pilots stating that this or that leader
wasn't
going in with their former aggression

You coulda fooled me.


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

Guy Alcala wrote:

Dale wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

chutes (in
That's another reason why ball turret
gunners
had such a high casualty rate; there was no room in the turret for them to
have
their chutes, so they had to first make it back up into the fuselage, get
their
chute and put it on before they could jump. The waist gunners had it far
easier.

Hmmm. From what I've been told statistically the ball was one of the more
survivable positions..regarless of what the silly History Channel "Suicide
Mission" show stated.

I've seen claims of that, but the stats don't seem to back it up, at least for the
B-17.

Okay, I've been able to retrieve a copy of Martin Middlebrook's "The
Schweinfurt-Regensburg Mission," August 17th, 1943, which includes a breakdown of B-17
crewmen killed by crew position on that day. Middlebrook gives the following info (info
is casualties in 4th Bomb Wing - Regensburg/1st Bomb Wing - Schweinfurt/Total number of
casualties)

Killed 34/68/102

POW 133/248/381

Evaders* 13/25/38

Interned 20/-/20

Rescued from sea 40/20/60

Total 240/361/601

*only includes those who actually made it back to England.
Broken down another way, this is officers/enlisted:

Killed 40/62

PoW 154/227

Evaders 13/25

Interned 8/12

Rescued from Sea 24/36

Total 239/362

He then goes on to write:

"Concentrating now on the mortality rate, one is immediately impressed with the high
proportion of men who survived from B-17s shot down during these daylight operations.
On average less than two men in each standard crew of ten died in the B-17s lost that
day; the actual figure was 1.7 men per crew. Even if the eleven a/c which either
ditched or crash-landed without any loss of life are excluded, the mortality rate only
creeps up to a little over two in the crew of ten. But these overall figures could hide
large variations. The 91st bomb Group lost thirty-six men killed in its ten missing
crews; the 381st had only five deaths in their eleven. This relatively high survival
rate was not unusual for 8th AF operations; the outcome on other B-17 missions was
roughly similar. A comparison with the survival chances in shot-down RAf night bombers
shows almost the reverse position. The mortality rate in 213 RAF bombers shot down in
RAF raids to Hamburg (four raids), Peenemunde and Nuremberg was 83 per cent!
Unfortunately it would require a lengthy essay to explain the different factors
involved."

The relative danger of the crew positions in a shot-down B-17 can also be presented.
The following crew members were killed in B-17s on the Regensburg and Schweinfurt
mission:

Pilot 15

Co-pilot 12

Navigator 6

Bombardier 6

Engineer/Gunner 11

Radio/Gunner 8

Ball Gunner 14

Right Waist Gunner 11

Left Waist Gunner 8

Tail Gunner 10

[Guy Note: this only totals 101. A pilot died in unusual circumstances on the ground,
probably shot and killed while trying to evade capture. He was armed and seen running
by other members of his crew before he was shot, and according to them he was the type
who didn't plan to be taken alive.]

". . . There is not so much difference here from night operations. The RAF bomb aimer
was the safest man in his crew, and pilots -- who have to remain at the controls until
other crew members have parachuted -- always ran the greatest risk. The higher figures
above for the ball-turret gunner reflect the known danger of that cramped and isolated
position from which escape was so difficult. RAF bombers did not have ball turrets."
----------------------------------------------------

[Me again]

Naturally, this can hardly be considered applicable to the entire war, but it is a
fairly good sample size (from 60 a/c shot down) and probably gives a fair representation
of the relative odds for each crewmember given the situation in August 1943. Most of
the tactics, techniques and weapons also used by the Germans in 1944 and 1945 were in
use by that time, although the balance between fighter and flak losses obviously shifted
in 1944 and 1945, which might change the survival odds for some of the positions.

Guy

Subject: Aircrew casualities
From: Guy Alcala
Date: 9/25/03 8:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: 3F73B305.D9AA9E02@junkpostof

Okay, I've been able to retrieve a copy of Martin Middlebrook's "The
Schweinfurt-Regensburg Mission," August 17th, 1943, which includes a
breakdown of B-17
crewmen killed by crew position on that day. Middlebrook gives the following
info (info

One mission does not a war make. Especially Schweinfort Regensburg which may
be be one he most atypical targets/missions of all. If I think back to the
missions I flew with the 344th and had to name a "typical" mission, I couldn't
do it. We had no typical mssions.. Each one was unique, except of course for
the milk runs, which in themselves were not typical.






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: 9/25/03 8:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: 3F73B305.D9AA9E02@junkpostof

Okay, I've been able to retrieve a copy of Martin Middlebrook's "The
Schweinfurt-Regensburg Mission," August 17th, 1943, which includes a
breakdown of B-17
crewmen killed by crew position on that day. Middlebrook gives the following
info (info

One mission does not a war make.

Obviously, which is why I included the following caveat at the end of that post:

"Naturally, this can hardly be considered applicable to the entire war, but it is
a fairly good sample size (from 60 a/c shot down) and probably gives a fair
representation of the relative odds for each crewmember given the situation in
August 1943. Most of
the tactics, techniques and weapons also used by the Germans in 1944 and 1945 were
in use by that time, although the balance between fighter and flak losses
obviously shifted in 1944 and 1945, which might change the survival odds for some
of the
positions."

Especially Schweinfort Regensburg which may
be be one he most atypical targets/missions of all.

As far as tactics, techniques, and weapons used, Regensburg/Schweinfurt was quite
typical of deep penetration missions to Germany in the summer and fall of 1943,
well beyond fighter cover. Indeed, it was the first to go that deep, but was
followed up by several more in September and October, with similar results. The
only difference between this mission and others was that the 4th bW went on to
Africa, but that is unlikely to affect the distribution of KIA in shot down B-17s.

If I think back to the
missions I flew with the 344th and had to name a "typical" mission, I couldn't
do it. We had no typical mssions.. Each one was unique, except of course for
the milk runs, which in themselves were not typical.

Sure, but we're looking for statistical data on survival rates, and so far the
only such data presented in the course of this thread is that which I provided in
that post. Everything else has been perceptual or anecdotal. We now have some
actual data (limited to a single mission though it is, and only 60 B-17 combat
losses out of the 4,688 B-17s combat losses in the European war as a whole), which
is more than we've had otherwise.

Guy

P.S. I'll be out of town for a couple of days, so will be out of touch for a
while.

Subject: Aircrew casualities
From: Guy Alcala
Date: 9/26/03 3:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

ArtKramr wrote:

Subject: Aircrew casualities
From: Guy Alcala
Date: 9/25/03 8:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: 3F73B305.D9AA9E02@junkpostof

Okay, I've been able to retrieve a copy of Martin Middlebrook's "The
Schweinfurt-Regensburg Mission," August 17th, 1943, which includes a
breakdown of B-17
crewmen killed by crew position on that day. Middlebrook gives the
following
info (info

One mission does not a war make.

Obviously, which is why I included the following caveat at the end of that
post:

"Naturally, this can hardly be considered applicable to the entire war, but
it is
a fairly good sample size (from 60 a/c shot down) and probably gives a fair
representation of the relative odds for each crewmember given the situation
in
August 1943. Most of
the tactics, techniques and weapons also used by the Germans in 1944 and 1945
were
in use by that time, although the balance between fighter and flak losses
obviously shifted in 1944 and 1945, which might change the survival odds for
some
of the
positions."

Especially Schweinfort Regensburg which may
be be one he most atypical targets/missions of all.

As far as tactics, techniques, and weapons used, Regensburg/Schweinfurt was
quite
typical of deep penetration missions to Germany in the summer and fall of
1943,
well beyond fighter cover. Indeed, it was the first to go that deep, but was
followed up by several more in September and October, with similar results.
The
only difference between this mission and others was that the 4th bW went on
to
Africa, but that is unlikely to affect the distribution of KIA in shot down
B-17s.

If I think back to the
missions I flew with the 344th and had to name a "typical" mission, I
couldn't
do it. We had no typical mssions.. Each one was unique, except of course
for
the milk runs, which in themselves were not typical.

Sure, but we're looking for statistical data on survival rates, and so far
the
only such data presented in the course of this thread is that which I
provided in
that post. Everything else has been perceptual or anecdotal. We now have
some
actual data (limited to a single mission though it is, and only 60 B-17
combat
losses out of the 4,688 B-17s combat losses in the European war as a whole),
which
is more than we've had otherwise.

Guy

P.S. I'll be out of town for a couple of days, so will be out of touch for a
while.



You are only saying that because you never had to fly the Schweinfort mission.
If you had there would be no way in hell you would call it typical. Find me
one guy who went to Schweinfort and said it was just another mission like all
others. No big deal. Nothing special. Find me just one such guy. Guy you post a
lot of good stuff here, but sometimes you just slip away from reality.


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

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

You are only saying that because you never had to fly the Schweinfort
mission.
If you had there would be no way in hell you would call it typical. Find me
one guy who went to Schweinfort and said it was just another mission like all
others. No big deal. Nothing special. Find me just one such guy.

Wouldn't be my high school algebra/woodshop teacher. He was a
B-17 navigator shot down over Rengensberg. Spent the rest of
the war as a guest of the German government, including time
working on tunnel support for the "Great Escape". (He spent
time mostly at Sagan and Mooseburg, IIRC.)

He did make a point in mentioning that there were some very
good surgeons who worked on him after the shootdown, else he
would not have been there to teach us.