"Bomber Crew Experience Questions" Topic

I seem to recall reading that RAF bomber crews were considered to be "experienced" after 5 – 7 missions of their 30 mission tour, but would like to reverify that, if anyone is aware of the details for that belief.

I think it was written that if you survived your first few missions, you had a decent chance of surviving the rest of your tour, but want to double-check that. Obviously, depending upon the time period, there are lots of variables, including the ever present luck, and/or lack of it.

I'm looking to develop ratings for aircrews, for the following categories:

1. Inexperienced – 0 – 3, 5, or 7 missions
2. Experienced – 4+, 6+, or 8+ missions – ?
3 and possibly 4. Seasoned/Veteran (might break these out, and have veteran be higher than seasoned, perhaps) 10 or 15, or 10 – 20/25 missions
4 or 5. Ace – 20/21+ or 25/26+ missions
5 or 6. Expert – 30+ or 45+ missions

So, I'm curious about the above, and how you see those breaking out, or how the RAF leadership did.

Might as well do the same for the USAAC, and their 25, and later 30 – 35 mission tours.

Thoughts?

Is there any particular category or level you would like me to address for you Mako11?

Isn't there also some reason to believe that too much time in combat for infantry, or too many combat missions for aircrew, led to lower efficiency?

In his analysis of the loss of fifty-six Lancasters from 550 Squadron, Jack Harris notes that, not surprisingly, a high proportion involved inexperienced crews (nineteen losses; up to five operations). There were nine losses involving crews in the six to ten ops category, eleven in the eleven to fifteen ops group, eight in the sixteen to twenty category, six in the twenty-one to twenty-five ops group and three in the twenty-six to thirty ops group. Harris puts forward two reasons for the high losses among new crews. The first was the obvious factor – they were inexperienced. The second reason is related to ‘safety in numbers' within the bomber stream: ‘New crews were positioned to bomb in the last wave of the main force. At the end of the bomber stream and last to bomb, they were most vulnerable to night fighter attack near and over the target.'

Chapter 18 "Bombing Germany:The Final Phase-The Destruction of Pforzheim and the Closing months of Bomber Command's War " by Tony Redding

New crews also tended to be given older, more worn out aircraft, or different aircraft for each mission so mistakes could be made due to airframe issues or differences between different craft. Also there was a drop off with crews towards the end of their tour possibly due to them relaxing as the tour was almost over.

The other factor was the period involved. Winter 43-44 was particularly bad for bomber command due to long range raids and developments in night fighter operations.

Remember that fewer crews survive in each tranche, – every crew got to fly their first mission, but what proportion of crews made it to 30 missions?

Just a thought, but would new crews make up a greater proportion of the mission and be more likely to be shot down do to there just being more of them? I don't know if this really happened, anyone more knowledgeable able to address this?

@ lloyd and advocate – I think that may be right depending how the stats were done.

It looks like the fifty-six Lancs in the sample were not corrected for this so caution is needed when extrapolating from there.

One thing with night ops is barring navigation I don't think there was much the crew could do to increase their odds of survival. The gunners seldom saw a nightfighter before it was too late so didn't get a chance to learn from the experience.

The pilot might be able to make a difference based on acquired skills or 'nerve' as might the bomb-aimer.

That said – I built in experience into my game because it is fun and helps you to get involved. It's a random thing though. You might be top-notch after only a few ops or quite mediocre after 50. Bomber Command crews were expected to complete two tours of 30 ops. Though few did.

From talking to my dad and some of the others in his crew during 1944 it seems that survival was a mixture of luck, skill and confidence. They survived their 1st op most likely because the skipper had the confidence to leave the holding pattern which was under heavy attack whilst the target (Mailly le Camp 3/4 May 1944) was being remarked. Their squadron lost only 1 aircraft over target and 1 crashed on landing. The squadron that shared their airfield lost 5 on the same raid. Dad's crew got taken off ops mid tour for pathfinder training until the unit was cancelled (1 Group was trying to keep its own pathfinders) so I guess they were considered to be pretty good. They completed 30 ops in September 1944 with 3 raids on Le Harvey and didn't need to go back for a 2nd tour due to the war ending.

lloyd,I agree with you. There are proportionally fewer crews the higher up you go the experience ladder. Would you not get the same distribution if all crews had exactly the same chance of being shot down regardless of experience?

Although it does seem to flatten in the middle, so maybe there is something to it. I now must break out excel and fiddle with it.

5% losses per raid on many missions, at the height of the war seems to be about the norm, quoted, so with 18 bombers/sqdrn, one missing is about right.

Supposedly, in 1943, only 16.7% survived their first tour in the RAF, of 30 missions. I've seen conflicting totals for missions on the 2nd tour, e.g. 20 or 25 missions (probably more added later, as losses dropped), but only 1 in 40 survived two tours at the height of the war, so 2.5%.

Thanks for the replies, and especially the stats for the survivors of 550 Sqdrn.. That info is very insightful.

Yes, I've read that some crews got careless, or more likely I suspect, fatigued, as they approached the end of their tours, which could lead to higher losses, though it could also just be their luck running out as well.

I did find mention of crews doing better after they completed their first five missions, so will use that as a baseline for considering the crews to be "experienced".

From what I recall of my reading, Bomber Command early on had suffered such a high rate of attrition that operations were temporarily suspended at some point in 1943. Need to find the relevant reference source(s) on that.

B

Yea, I read about the Stirling bombers, and the lifespan of aircrewmen/aircraft was 3 sorties at one point.

They switched to night sorties soon after that, I suspect.

With the exception of 2 Group [which remained on daylight raids/ anti-shipping strikes with light-mediums types like the Blenheim/ Mitchell] I was under the impression that Bomber Command had switched to night ops before the Battle of France (so Spring of 1940)

I was just looking at some of the loss listings for the Battle of the Ruhr, and it is rather shocking how many aircraft had no survivors at all, after being hit.

Makes the 10% – 20%+ bailout survival rates often quoted look far worse, by comparison.

German radar-equipped nightfighters fitted with upward firing multiple 20mm "Schragemusik" batteries typically maneuvered to engage with surprise fire from close beneath the target bomber, where there was no belly turret (hence poor observation below); the German fire would usually either produce a fuel explosion in the wing root or otherwise possibly detonate the bombload if an inbound bomber.

Nasty stuff – not conducive to crew survival.

B

Even if the crew had time to bail out many had a difficult route to the hatch, having to cross the main spar holding the wings on which ran through the fuselage.

The Lancaster was particularly hard to exit and if the aircraft was starting to spin probably impossible. It's dark, your in flying gear with a parachute. The stuff of nightmares.

Unlike the B-17 the rear gunner had the easiest way out followed by the bomb-aimer.

Even on the ground the aircrew could be beaten up or executed by enraged Germans.

I just wanted to add a personal comment. My father was a W/O on a Lancaster that was shot down by a night fighter on the Pforzheim raid in February 1945. His crew was lucky as all bailed out successfully and survived My father did spend some time in a POW camp So you see it was possible to survive One thing that helped was the insistence of their pilot that evacuation procedures be practiced and that all knew what they had to do.

Yep, it had the worst survival rate by far – about 2/3 – 3/4 of the Lancs shot down during the Battle of the Ruhr had no bailouts at all, based upon the book I have – "Valley of the Shadow of Death".

Not sure about that for the tailgunners on the Lancs, since they couldn't wear their chutes in the turret – had to put them on upon exiting it, if they had time.

Looks to me like bomb aimers had the best survival rates, since they were laying on/over the exit hatch. Pilots seem to be least likely to survive, based upon a quick view, and anecdotes – kept the planes flying so others could get out.

Thanks for sharing that story, Toronto48.

Your dad was a very lucky man indeed.