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

Subject: Aircrew casualities
From: Guy Alcala
Date: 9/30/03 12:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

And that's the point, it all depends on the perspective of the observer. If
you're commanding an army, you may report your front "quiet, little enemy
activity
except patrols," and from your perspective you'd be right; if you happen to
be a
private in a squad that ran into an enemy patrol, had a vicious little
firefight
lasting several hours and lost two dead and six wounded (including yourself),
from
your perspective the war is anything but "quiet, little enemy activity" as
your
unit has just suffered somewhere between 66 to 100% casualties, and you'd
also be
right.

Guy




Well, let me tell you about the perspective of the observer. The best way to
"observe" mission results is to get back to your base, have a few drinks at the
OC then go count the empty bunks. Everything else is just crap.


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

We'd been discussing the types of parachutes used by VIIIth
AF crews, and whether they were worn or not in the heavies.
I've just retrieved a copy of Roger Freeman's "Mighty Eighth
War Manual," which goes into great detail on all manner of
operational procedures, equipment, weapons, bases, etc.
Here's most of his section on parachutes (I've left out the
section on fighters):

"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."

"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."

"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."

Guy

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Guy Alcala
blurted out:

I've just retrieved a copy of Roger Freeman's "Mighty Eighth
War Manual," which...

....is a great resource. Couple years ago down at the Archives at
Maxwell, I heard a resident PhD War College staffer discuss Freeman's
work with one of Art's contemporaries. I chimed in how I thought the
"War Manual" was his best (at least my favorite)...the good doctor
scrunched up his forehead, "but it's just tactics and formations..."

I just smiled...different strokes I guess.

Juvat

Subject: Aircrew casualities
From: Juvat
Date: 10/1/03 9:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Guy Alcala
blurted out:

I've just retrieved a copy of Roger Freeman's "Mighty Eighth
War Manual," which...

...is a great resource. Couple years ago down at the Archives at
Maxwell, I heard a resident PhD War College staffer discuss Freeman's
work with one of Art's contemporaries. I chimed in how I thought the
"War Manual" was his best (at least my favorite)...the good doctor
scrunched up his forehead, "but it's just tactics and formations..."

I just smiled...different strokes I guess.

Juvat



Just curious. Did Freeman actually fly missions with the 8th?


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: Juvat
Date: 10/1/03 9:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Guy Alcala
blurted out:

I've just retrieved a copy of Roger Freeman's "Mighty Eighth
War Manual," which...

...is a great resource. Couple years ago down at the Archives at
Maxwell, I heard a resident PhD War College staffer discuss Freeman's
work with one of Art's contemporaries. I chimed in how I thought the
"War Manual" was his best (at least my favorite)...the good doctor
scrunched up his forehead, "but it's just tactics and formations..."

I just smiled...different strokes I guess.

Juvat


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

(ArtKramr) wrote in message ...
Subject: Aircrew casualities
From: "Erik Plagen"
Date: 9/16/03 11:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

ArtKramr" wrote in message
The common wisdom in WW II was that tail gunners and bombardiers suffered
the
highest casualties among bomber aircrews. Anyone have any actual
statistics on
aircrew casualties by position in USAAC bombers?

'COMMON WISDOM" OF WHOM?

Those of us who were there.


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


))

Mike Marron wrote in message . ..
"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.

Note the part in the story below that says, "Careful to delay pulling
his ripcord."


It is very unlikely that any Luftwaffe pilot would shoot an American
pilot in his chute if he was descending on their territory. The
description you posted would suggest that the experienced German
pilots were to be destroyed as they landed or took off and the
amateurs might be relied upon to kill themselves.

Subject: Aircrew casualities
From: Guy Alcala
Date: 10/3/03 11:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

ArtKramr wrote:

Subject: Aircrew casualities
From: Juvat
Date: 10/1/03 9:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Guy Alcala
blurted out:

I've just retrieved a copy of Roger Freeman's "Mighty Eighth
War Manual," which...

...is a great resource. Couple years ago down at the Archives at
Maxwell, I heard a resident PhD War College staffer discuss Freeman's
work with one of Art's contemporaries. I chimed in how I thought the
"War Manual" was his best (at least my favorite)...the good doctor
scrunched up his forehead, "but it's just tactics and formations..."

I just smiled...different strokes I guess.

Juvat


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 8th. It is
interesting to find out he never did.

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: 10/3/03 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 8th. It is
interesting to find out he never did.

You'll note that he describes the use of chutes from 1942 on, while equipment was
constantly changing. By 1944, much practical experience had been gained, equipment
and techniques modified, etc., all of which he noted. I've read numerous accounts
by 8th AF bomber crews dexcribing having to attach chutes before they can bail
out. As has Freeman, as well as him having interviewed hundreds if not thousands
of aircrew over the years. And the quote you reference was taken from an 8th AF
study and questionnaire done in January 1943; what reason would the crews have to
lie about what they did?

I'd also point out that 8th AF missions were considerably longer than 9th AF ones,
and were also flown at high altitude on oxygen while wearing heavy clothing to
protect them from the sub-zero temperatures (the electric suits were very
unreliable prior to a redesign that only became available in 1944). Crews (even
those wearing the electric suits) also wore full sheepskin clothes over them in
case the suits failed, so bulk was more of an issue; moving around was very
fatiguing, especially when wearing flak suits as well. I don't know if the later
flak suits could be worn over parachutes, chest pack or otherwise, but it doesn't
appear that the earlier ones could be. Still doubt that they didn't normally wear
chutes? Here's some crew accounts, from the Regensburg/Schweinfurt mission, given
in interviews to Martin Middlebrook. I've edited them for length, with ellipsis
used to mark those sections:

[Tony Arcaro, pilot, 91st BG] "I decided that I had to order the crew to abandon
ship -- it was all that fuel I was worried about. . . . I put it on automatic and
managed to get my chest pack on. Then I dove right from the flight deck out
through the front hatch -- right through the fire. I cleared it just like a
champion diver; I never even bumped the side."

[An anonymous bombardier, presumably to spare the feelings of any family members of
the pilot and co-pilot who might read it]:

"Then I poked my head up into the cockpit. The top turret gunner was all right; he
was getting out of his turret. I could only see the backs of the two pilot's seats
and all I could see was that they were both immobile. The instruments were all
shot away, hit from the front and blown inwards. . . . "

"The top turret gunner said, 'Let's get out of here.' I crawled back to the nose
and got my chest parachute and told the navigator we had got to go. For some
reason I had always had a fear of parachuting and often said that I would never do
it but, when the time came, I never gave it a second thought." [Middlebrook notes
that both pilots had been decapitated by the cannon rounds that had hit the
cockpit]

[An anonymous navigator, for similar reasons as that above] "I turned away from my
gun, picked up my parachute from the bench and put it on. . . ."

[2nd Lt. Walter Brown, Bombardier, 91st BG] ". . . The whole wing just flopped off
outside Number 2 engine and that was it. No one really had much chance to get a
parachute on. I had seen two planes collide over England and a good buddy of mine
was the only one to get out. He'd been wearing a back-pack so I always wore one
after that -- the only one in the crew to do so. The navigator was at his table
and was able to reach out and grab his chest-pack quickly. He only got one of the
clips fastened when the centrifugal force pinned us both to the floor. He was
being throttled by his oxygen tube but I was able to reach up and unplug it from
the wall for him. I never heard a word from or had a chance to see the others from
beginning to end."

"I didn't realize we were spinning -- you lose the horizon and you have no idea
what position you are in -- but my pal in another a/c told me that that we made
three or three and a half turns and then the plane disintegrated. I don't know
whether there was an explosion or not; centrifugal force can be enough to tear a
plane apart. All I know is that I went flying out the plexiglass window. The
glass wasn't there but the nose gun was and I hit it with my back. I'm sure that
would have killed me if I hadn't had the back parachute pack on. I reckon that
backpack saved my life twice." [The only other survivor of this crew was the
navigator he mentioned, 2nd Lt. Edgar Yelle]

Convinced? Now let's jump forward from August 17th, 1943, to April 7th, 1945.
This is from an account of his 34th mission by 2nd Lt. Walter F. Hughes, in his
self-published book "A Bomber Pilot in World War II." Hughes flew B-24s in the
93rd BG:

"543 F, the ship we were assigned had a standard soft pilot's seat. The pilots
were protected by a flak curtain which hung from the ceiling about a foot behind
the seats. When I checked the plane I found that some flak-happy pilot had lined
the seat and back with several layers of flak vests. I hadn't seen that done
before so I shrugged my shoulders and replaced the cushions. Old pilots liked this
seat because they could wear a backpack parachute while flying, whereas with the
other seat, a box made of armor plate, the pilots could not get out with a
parachute on. 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. . . ."

The rest of his account doesn't describe a bailout; rather, a fighter attack that
caused a cannon shell to penetrate the armor next to him and explode against the
flak curtain behind him, wounding the co-pilot and radio operator, and "The flak
vests lining the seat were absolutely chewed to pieces. Had they not been there, my
backside would have been full of holes, big ones." So it's a tradeoff. The
armored seat undoubtedly provided better protection than the flak suits, but made
it harder to bail out in certain conditions.

Guy