http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28890025

How many died? It seems a lot.

--
Adam

On 21/08/2014 22:04, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28890025

How many died? It seems a lot.

55,573 killed out of a total of 125,000 aircrew (a 44.4% death rate).

Having joined the RAF before the war, my father served all the way
through with over 60 operations over Germany followed by supply dropping
in Burma.

We have two scissors - by which I mean the two parts that usually form a
pair of scissors - bent and buckled from the impact of some sort of
bullet. They were in his breast pocket. Other than that, no injury in
the air. Luck beyond belief.

--
Rod

How many died? It seems a lot.

Some who survived referred to the Bomber Command dead as "The Many" -
sometimes with a degree of bitterness which I found understandable given
the way their role was belittled or worse after the war.

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On 21/08/14 22:18, polygonum wrote:
On 21/08/2014 22:04, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28890025

How many died? It seems a lot.

55,573 killed out of a total of 125,000 aircrew (a 44.4% death rate).

Having joined the RAF before the war, my father served all the way
through with over 60 operations over Germany followed by supply dropping
in Burma.

We have two scissors - by which I mean the two parts that usually form a
pair of scissors - bent and buckled from the impact of some sort of
bullet. They were in his breast pocket. Other than that, no injury in
the air. Luck beyond belief.


IIRC the highest casualty rate of all was merchant seamen..

Bomber command second.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 21/08/2014 22:04, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28890025

How many died? It seems a lot.


The Stirling, which suffered very heavy losses as it couldn't fly as
high as the Lancaster or Halifax carried a crew of six. The others
carried a crew of seven or, occasionally, eight. Lose one aircraft and
you lose a lot of men.

--
Colin Bignell

Robin wrote


How many died? It seems a lot.

Some who survived referred to the Bomber Command dead as "The Many" -
sometimes with a degree of bitterness which I found understandable given
the way their role was belittled or worse after the war.


They didn't even receive a campaign medal, because of the stigma
attached to the carpet bombing of cities, in particular Dresden.
Churchill the drunked ****er, was happy to order Harris to fight that
way, but after the war shifted the blame onto Bomber Command.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombin...n_World_War_II

It's one thing to attack the commanders, but none of the airmen could
choose not to fight.

ARW wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28890025

How many died? It seems a lot.


quite astonishing number of planes must have been shot down
Luftwaffe losses October-December 1940 Night Blitz of Britain
Bombers: 140

-

In article , Tim Streater
wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 21/08/14 22:18, polygonum wrote:
On 21/08/2014 22:04, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28890025

How many died? It seems a lot.

55,573 killed out of a total of 125,000 aircrew (a 44.4% death rate).

Having joined the RAF before the war, my father served all the way
through with over 60 operations over Germany followed by supply
dropping in Burma.

We have two scissors - by which I mean the two parts that usually
form a pair of scissors - bent and buckled from the impact of some
sort of bullet. They were in his breast pocket. Other than that, no
injury in the air. Luck beyond belief.

IIRC the highest casualty rate of all was merchant seamen..

Bomber command second.

Pity no Lancs were converted for anti-submarine work over the North
Atlantic. With extra tanks in the bomb bay could have had quite a loiter
time. Might have reduced both the above numbers.

The Shakleton was a variant of the Lincoln which itself was an improvement
of the Lancaster

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 22/08/2014 00:25, Tim Streater wrote:

Pity no Lancs were converted for anti-submarine work over the North
Atlantic. With extra tanks in the bomb bay could have had quite a
loiter time. Might have reduced both the above numbers.

Although somewhat after the war, the Shackleton was the end result of
that path. My father was flying in them around the Mediterranean and off
the UK.

--
Rod

"Jabba" wrote in message
ldhosting.com...

Robin wrote


How many died? It seems a lot.

Some who survived referred to the Bomber Command dead as "The Many" -
sometimes with a degree of bitterness which I found understandable given
the way their role was belittled or worse after the war.


They didn't even receive a campaign medal, because of the stigma
attached to the carpet bombing of cities, in particular Dresden.
Churchill the drunked ****er, was happy to order Harris to fight that
way, but after the war shifted the blame onto Bomber Command.

Typical wankpot comment.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombin...n_World_War_II

It's one thing to attack the commanders, but none of the airmen could
choose not to fight.

Richard wrote


"Jabba" wrote in message
ldhosting.com...

Robin wrote


How many died? It seems a lot.

Some who survived referred to the Bomber Command dead as "The Many" -
sometimes with a degree of bitterness which I found understandable given
the way their role was belittled or worse after the war.


They didn't even receive a campaign medal, because of the stigma
attached to the carpet bombing of cities, in particular Dresden.
Churchill the drunked ****er, was happy to order Harris to fight that
way, but after the war shifted the blame onto Bomber Command.

Typical wankpot comment.


More clueless **** from a ****



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombin...n_World_War_II

It's one thing to attack the commanders, but none of the airmen could
choose not to fight.

"Jabba" wrote in message
ldhosting.com...

Richard wrote


"Jabba" wrote in message
ldhosting.com...

Robin wrote


How many died? It seems a lot.

Some who survived referred to the Bomber Command dead as "The Many" -
sometimes with a degree of bitterness which I found understandable
given
the way their role was belittled or worse after the war.


They didn't even receive a campaign medal, because of the stigma
attached to the carpet bombing of cities, in particular Dresden.
Churchill the drunked ****er, was happy to order Harris to fight that
way, but after the war shifted the blame onto Bomber Command.

Typical wankpot comment.


More clueless **** from a ****

Odd that. It's exactly what I thought when I saw your post.

In article , Tim Streater
wrote:
In article , charles
wrote:

In article , Tim Streater
wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 21/08/14 22:18, polygonum wrote:
On 21/08/2014 22:04, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28890025

How many died? It seems a lot.

55,573 killed out of a total of 125,000 aircrew (a 44.4% death
rate).

Having joined the RAF before the war, my father served all the
way through with over 60 operations over Germany followed by
supply dropping in Burma.

We have two scissors - by which I mean the two parts that usually
form a pair of scissors - bent and buckled from the impact of
some sort of bullet. They were in his breast pocket. Other than
that, no injury in the air. Luck beyond belief.

IIRC the highest casualty rate of all was merchant seamen..

Bomber command second.

Pity no Lancs were converted for anti-submarine work over the North
Atlantic. With extra tanks in the bomb bay could have had quite a
loiter time. Might have reduced both the above numbers.

The Shackleton was a variant of the Lincoln which itself was an
improvement of the Lancaster


Mmmmyessss, I was thinking that perhaps the RAF was a bit resistant to
anything that detracted from the bomber fleet, whereas IMO the north
atlantic was more important, strategically, than area bombing.

The RAF had a Coastal Command as well as Fighter & Bomber ones. The main
aircraft was the Sunderland flying boat and US bult Catalinas were also
used. I doubt if the decision to consider bombing more important than the
North Atlantic was an RAF decision. It was very important for civilian
morale to know that the UK could be on the offensive, especially after
Dunkirk and tbe defeats in the Mediteranean.


There was
the air gap that persisted for quite a time before the longer range
planes became available. That might have been worked on with more
priority; but this is just an impression.

It's often easy to be wise after the event. I suspect there was immense
pressure from the Navy to keep it a sea battle. Aircraft carriers did help
to reduce the gap in land-based air cover.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

Well, war is dangerous no matter what you fly. I guess if it all happens
again it will all be drones though.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 21/08/2014 22:04, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28890025

How many died? It seems a lot.

55,573 killed out of a total of 125,000 aircrew (a 44.4% death rate).

Having joined the RAF before the war, my father served all the way through
with over 60 operations over Germany followed by supply dropping in Burma.

We have two scissors - by which I mean the two parts that usually form a
pair of scissors - bent and buckled from the impact of some sort of
bullet. They were in his breast pocket. Other than that, no injury in the
air. Luck beyond belief.

--
Rod

On 22/08/14 08:59, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , charles
wrote:

In article , Tim Streater
wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 21/08/14 22:18, polygonum wrote:
On 21/08/2014 22:04, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28890025

How many died? It seems a lot.

55,573 killed out of a total of 125,000 aircrew (a 44.4% death
rate).

Having joined the RAF before the war, my father served all the way
through with over 60 operations over Germany followed by supply
dropping in Burma.

We have two scissors - by which I mean the two parts that usually
form a pair of scissors - bent and buckled from the impact of some
sort of bullet. They were in his breast pocket. Other than that, no
injury in the air. Luck beyond belief.
IIRC the highest casualty rate of all was merchant seamen..
Bomber command second.

Pity no Lancs were converted for anti-submarine work over the North
Atlantic. With extra tanks in the bomb bay could have had quite a
loiter
time. Might have reduced both the above numbers.

The Shackleton was a variant of the Lincoln which itself was an
improvement
of the Lancaster


Mmmmyessss, I was thinking that perhaps the RAF was a bit resistant to
anything that detracted from the bomber fleet, whereas IMO the north
atlantic was more important, strategically, than area bombing. There
was the air gap that persisted for quite a time before the longer range
planes became available. That might have been worked on with more
priority; but this is just an impression.


In fact that role was taken up by other aircraft. Merlin were in short
supply and antisub didn't need the speed so Blenheims and Sunderland
flying boats and IIRC later on beaufighters and beuaforts that used the
Bristol radial engines were used instead.

Neither did these need the lancs defensive armaments.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 22/08/2014 09:28, Jethro_uk wrote:

I recently caught an old doc "Weapons that changed the world" about the
P-51 [Mustang] US fighter. ...

An aircraft that was commissioned in 1940 to British specifiations.

One thing the programme didn't mention was why the US felt *day*time
bombing raids were better ... or was there a deeper reason why the USAF
couldn't fly at night ?..

The Americans believed that precision bombing, rather than area bombing,
was the answer to winning the war. That required daylight. The Norden
bombsight they used was, theoretically, remarkably accurate, although
the theoretical level of accuracy was rarely achieved in practice,
leading to the concept of a lead bomber, serving much the same purpose
as British pathfinders.


--
Colin Bignell

On 22/08/14 09:28, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 23:47:15 +0100, Nightjar \"cpb\"@ wrote:

On 21/08/2014 22:04, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28890025

How many died? It seems a lot.


The Stirling, which suffered very heavy losses as it couldn't fly as
high as the Lancaster or Halifax carried a crew of six. The others
carried a crew of seven or, occasionally, eight. Lose one aircraft and
you lose a lot of men.

I recently caught an old doc "Weapons that changed the world" about the
P-51 [Mustang] US fighter. The losses the US bombers suffered before the
P-51 was able to escort the bomber convoy was astounding, and certainly
makes the US airmen as brave as their RAF counterparts.

One thing the programme didn't mention was why the US felt *day*time
bombing raids were better ... or was there a deeper reason why the USAF
couldn't fly at night ?

Bombing accuracy with the RAF was appalling by night.

Often they hit the wrong target altogether.

After a bit the pathfinder squadrons improved things a bit.

Long range fighters were not a priority in the battle of Britain and we
were slow to develop them - the US waging war in the pacific had a far
greater need.


There was a moment in the programme when you realise the symbolic
dimension of air power. A German soldier from the war told the programme
they knew the war was lost when a P-51 strafed Berlin with no Luftwaffe
opposition.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 22/08/2014 09:46, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, war is dangerous no matter what you fly. I guess if it all happens
again it will all be drones though.
Brian

In WW2, bomber command was the most dangerous arm of the forces to serve
in by far, and had an average survival time for crews in the air
measured in hours rather than days.

They were in a big, hard to manoeuvre, slow target, within the range of
ground fire and fighters for most of the journey across Europe.

If a target is required to be destroyed now, missiles, including cruise
missiles are what is commonly used, and with much better precision than
manned bombers (Pick your window, if you remember the video that got
published a few years ago), although some manned bombers are still being
used.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 22/08/2014 09:54, John Williamson wrote:
On 22/08/2014 09:46, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, war is dangerous no matter what you fly. I guess if it all happens
again it will all be drones though.
Brian

In WW2, bomber command was the most dangerous arm of the forces to serve
in by far, and had an average survival time for crews in the air
measured in hours rather than days.

They were in a big, hard to manoeuvre, slow target, within the range of
ground fire and fighters for most of the journey across Europe...

The Stirling was more manoeuvrable than German night fighters, but flew
low, so was vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire.

There was a very serious suggestion that the Lancaster should have all
defensive armament removed, which would add 50mph to its speed, making
it able to outrun the night fighters, which were then attacking from
below with upward firing guns.

--
Colin Bignell

In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insert my surname writes
On 22/08/2014 09:28, Jethro_uk wrote:

I recently caught an old doc "Weapons that changed the world" about the
P-51 [Mustang] US fighter. ...

An aircraft that was commissioned in 1940 to British specifiations.

One thing the programme didn't mention was why the US felt *day*time
bombing raids were better ... or was there a deeper reason why the USAF
couldn't fly at night ?..

The Americans believed that precision bombing, rather than area
bombing, was the answer to winning the war. That required daylight. The
Norden bombsight they used was, theoretically, remarkably accurate,
although the theoretical level of accuracy was rarely achieved in
practice, leading to the concept of a lead bomber, serving much the
same purpose as British pathfinders.

I understand that near the end of the war, the Germans had radio-guided
bombs, which presumably could have been much more accurate than anything
simply dropped and left to its own devices.


--
Ian

On 22/08/14 10:44, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insert my surname writes
On 22/08/2014 09:28, Jethro_uk wrote:

I recently caught an old doc "Weapons that changed the world" about the
P-51 [Mustang] US fighter. ...

An aircraft that was commissioned in 1940 to British specifiations.

One thing the programme didn't mention was why the US felt *day*time
bombing raids were better ... or was there a deeper reason why the USAF
couldn't fly at night ?..

The Americans believed that precision bombing, rather than area
bombing, was the answer to winning the war. That required daylight.
The Norden bombsight they used was, theoretically, remarkably
accurate, although the theoretical level of accuracy was rarely
achieved in practice, leading to the concept of a lead bomber, serving
much the same purpose as British pathfinders.

I understand that near the end of the war, the Germans had radio-guided
bombs, which presumably could have been much more accurate than anything
simply dropped and left to its own devices.


only if you could actually see the place they were to be aimed at.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 22/08/14 11:00, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:51:33 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 22/08/14 08:59, Tim Streater wrote:

Mmmmyessss, I was thinking that perhaps the RAF was a bit resistant to
anything that detracted from the bomber fleet, whereas IMO the north
atlantic was more important, strategically, than area bombing. There
was the air gap that persisted for quite a time before the longer range
planes became available. That might have been worked on with more
priority; but this is just an impression.


In fact that role was taken up by other aircraft. Merlin were in short
supply and antisub didn't need the speed so Blenheims and Sunderland
flying boats and IIRC later on beaufighters and beuaforts that used the
Bristol radial engines were used instead.

Neither did these need the lancs defensive armaments.

Not forgetting the Lockheed Hudson's, twin-engine light bombers,
extensively used by Coastal Command for anti-submarine work and
coastal patrols. They were built in the US, and AIUI, flown to the US
side of the US/Canada border, partially dismantled (which may not mean
very much) and then physically manhandled over the border into Canada,
in order not to compromise US neutrality and supply of armaments in
the early days of the war. They were then shipped to the UK and
re-assembled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Hudson

My mother's cousin flew in Hudsons, patrolling the North Sea, flying
out of Wick. His plane and its crew disappeared late in February 1942,
due to appalling weather conditions during that winter. Several other
Hudsons flying out of Wick disappeared at that time, all probably due
to bad weather.
http://www.caithness.org/history/art...fwickpart3.htm

Hampdens were also used by Coastal Command, after initial deployment
in Bomber Command early in the war and subsequently being withdrawn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Hampden

And Avro ansons. I forgot those.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 22/08/2014 10:44, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insert my surname writes
On 22/08/2014 09:28, Jethro_uk wrote:

I recently caught an old doc "Weapons that changed the world" about the
P-51 [Mustang] US fighter. ...

An aircraft that was commissioned in 1940 to British specifiations.

One thing the programme didn't mention was why the US felt *day*time
bombing raids were better ... or was there a deeper reason why the USAF
couldn't fly at night ?..

The Americans believed that precision bombing, rather than area
bombing, was the answer to winning the war. That required daylight.
The Norden bombsight they used was, theoretically, remarkably
accurate, although the theoretical level of accuracy was rarely
achieved in practice, leading to the concept of a lead bomber, serving
much the same purpose as British pathfinders.

I understand that near the end of the war, the Germans had radio-guided
bombs, which presumably could have been much more accurate than anything
simply dropped and left to its own devices.

They were glide bombs, intended for anti-ship use. By 1944, the Allies
had effective radio jammers, which made them very much less useful.
There were a couple of attempts to destroy bridges with them to delay
the Allied advances, but both failed.

Also built, but never deployed, were manned V-1s. Pilots were equipped
with an ejector seat, but, as it involved ejecting across the air intake
of the ram jet engine, it was generally thought it would be a suicide
mission.

--
Colin Bignell

On 22/08/2014 12:13, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:50:50 +0100, Nightjar \"cpb\"@ wrote:
....
Also built, but never deployed, were manned V-1s. Pilots were equipped
with an ejector seat, but, as it involved ejecting across the air intake
of the ram jet engine, it was generally thought it would be a suicide
mission.

A better solution might have been to drop out the bottom ?


Not at low altitude and anything else would rather defeat the object of
guiding the bombs in.

The ejector seat was more of a public relations exercise than a real
attempt to allow the pilot to escape. The powers that be didn't want to
be seen to sending pilots to certain death. However, the pilots were
mainly recruited from the most dedicated Hitler Youth and they were
under no illusion that they were expected to do anything other than ride
the V1 right into the target.

--
Colin Bignell

In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 22/08/14 08:59, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , charles
wrote:

In article , Tim Streater
wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 21/08/14 22:18, polygonum wrote:
On 21/08/2014 22:04, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28890025

How many died? It seems a lot.

55,573 killed out of a total of 125,000 aircrew (a 44.4% death
rate).

Having joined the RAF before the war, my father served all the
way through with over 60 operations over Germany followed by
supply dropping in Burma.

We have two scissors - by which I mean the two parts that
usually form a pair of scissors - bent and buckled from the
impact of some sort of bullet. They were in his breast pocket.
Other than that, no injury in the air. Luck beyond belief.
IIRC the highest casualty rate of all was merchant seamen..
Bomber command second.

Pity no Lancs were converted for anti-submarine work over the North
Atlantic. With extra tanks in the bomb bay could have had quite a
loiter
time. Might have reduced both the above numbers.

The Shackleton was a variant of the Lincoln which itself was an
improvement of the Lancaster


Mmmmyessss, I was thinking that perhaps the RAF was a bit resistant to
anything that detracted from the bomber fleet, whereas IMO the north
atlantic was more important, strategically, than area bombing. There
was the air gap that persisted for quite a time before the longer range
planes became available. That might have been worked on with more
priority; but this is just an impression.


In fact that role was taken up by other aircraft. Merlin were in short
supply and antisub didn't need the speed so Blenheims and Sunderland
flying boats and IIRC later on beaufighters and beuaforts that used the
Bristol radial engines were used instead.

Neither did these need the lancs defensive armaments.

If you look at the wiki page on the Sunderland, you will see that it was
also very heavily armed.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

Jethro_uk wrote


On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:44:55 +0100, Nightjar \"cpb\"@ wrote:

On 22/08/2014 12:13, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:50:50 +0100, Nightjar \"cpb\"@ wrote:
...
Also built, but never deployed, were manned V-1s. Pilots were equipped
with an ejector seat, but, as it involved ejecting across the air
intake of the ram jet engine, it was generally thought it would be a
suicide mission.

A better solution might have been to drop out the bottom ?


Not at low altitude and anything else would rather defeat the object of
guiding the bombs in.

The ejector seat was more of a public relations exercise than a real
attempt to allow the pilot to escape. The powers that be didn't want to
be seen to sending pilots to certain death. However, the pilots were
mainly recruited from the most dedicated Hitler Youth and they were
under no illusion that they were expected to do anything other than ride
the V1 right into the target.

Like a sort of "divine wind" ?


More like Slim Pickins

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snTaSJk0n_Y

On 22/08/2014 12:54, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:44:55 +0100, Nightjar \"cpb\"@ wrote:

On 22/08/2014 12:13, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:50:50 +0100, Nightjar \"cpb\"@ wrote:
...
Also built, but never deployed, were manned V-1s. Pilots were equipped
with an ejector seat, but, as it involved ejecting across the air
intake of the ram jet engine, it was generally thought it would be a
suicide mission.

A better solution might have been to drop out the bottom ?


Not at low altitude and anything else would rather defeat the object of
guiding the bombs in.

The ejector seat was more of a public relations exercise than a real
attempt to allow the pilot to escape. The powers that be didn't want to
be seen to sending pilots to certain death. However, the pilots were
mainly recruited from the most dedicated Hitler Youth and they were
under no illusion that they were expected to do anything other than ride
the V1 right into the target.

Like a sort of "divine wind" ?


Modelled on it, but modified to suit western attitudes.

--
Colin Bignell

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/08/14 08:59, Tim Streater wrote:

Mmmmyessss, I was thinking that perhaps the RAF was a bit resistant to
anything that detracted from the bomber fleet, whereas IMO the north
atlantic was more important, strategically, than area bombing. There
was the air gap that persisted for quite a time before the longer range
planes became available. That might have been worked on with more
priority; but this is just an impression.

In fact that role was taken up by other aircraft. Merlin were in short
supply and antisub didn't need the speed so Blenheims and Sunderland
flying boats and IIRC later on beaufighters and beuaforts that used the
Bristol radial engines were used instead.

Neither did these need the lancs defensive armaments.

There were a number of notable actions where the Sunderland acquitted
itself with distinction. One was attacked by eight Ju88s over the Bay
of Biscay. Three aircraft subsequently got home, one being the
Sunderland, which landed just off the Cornish coast and which was
then destroyed by wave action, and the remaining crew, mostly
wounded, carrying a dead comrade to shore. The Germans knew it as
the 'Flying Porcupine'.

--
Terry Fields

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:21:27 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 22/08/14 11:00, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:51:33 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 22/08/14 08:59, Tim Streater wrote:

Mmmmyessss, I was thinking that perhaps the RAF was a bit resistant to
anything that detracted from the bomber fleet, whereas IMO the north
atlantic was more important, strategically, than area bombing. There
was the air gap that persisted for quite a time before the longer range
planes became available. That might have been worked on with more
priority; but this is just an impression.


In fact that role was taken up by other aircraft. Merlin were in short
supply and antisub didn't need the speed so Blenheims and Sunderland
flying boats and IIRC later on beaufighters and beuaforts that used the
Bristol radial engines were used instead.

Neither did these need the lancs defensive armaments.

Not forgetting the Lockheed Hudson's, twin-engine light bombers,
extensively used by Coastal Command for anti-submarine work and
coastal patrols. They were built in the US, and AIUI, flown to the US
side of the US/Canada border, partially dismantled (which may not mean
very much) and then physically manhandled over the border into Canada,
in order not to compromise US neutrality and supply of armaments in
the early days of the war. They were then shipped to the UK and
re-assembled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Hudson


Hampdens were also used by Coastal Command, after initial deployment
in Bomber Command early in the war and subsequently being withdrawn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Hampden

And Avro ansons. I forgot those.

B24 Liberator was another important aircraft once it started to be
used by Coastal command. For various reasons it wasn't as suitable to
the Bombing role over Germany as the style of the Lancaster with a
heavy load or the B17 with a fairly light load but a lot of defensive
armament. The Liberator also made a very good transport aircraft and
in WW2 Churchill had one allocated for his use in much the same way as
present day US presidents have airforce one.

G.Harman

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 21/08/14 22:18, polygonum wrote:
On 21/08/2014 22:04, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28890025

How many died? It seems a lot.

55,573 killed out of a total of 125,000 aircrew (a 44.4% death rate).

Having joined the RAF before the war, my father served all the way
through with over 60 operations over Germany followed by supply dropping
in Burma.

We have two scissors - by which I mean the two parts that usually form a
pair of scissors - bent and buckled from the impact of some sort of
bullet. They were in his breast pocket. Other than that, no injury in
the air. Luck beyond belief.


IIRC the highest casualty rate of all was merchant seamen..

Bomber command second.



Seems to me that Bomber Command didn't absorb the lessons of the Battle
of Britain. First destroy totally your enemy's air defence capability
BEFORE attempting to bomb them into submission. BIMBW
--
bert

Tim Streater wrote:

The Shackleton was a variant of the Lincoln which itself was an
improvement
of the Lancaster


Mmmmyessss, I was thinking that perhaps the RAF was a bit resistant to
anything that detracted from the bomber fleet, whereas IMO the north
atlantic was more important, strategically, than area bombing. There
was the air gap that persisted for quite a time before the longer range
planes became available. That might have been worked on with more
priority; but this is just an impression.

Why did you correct Charles' typo?

Bill

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 22:04:28 +0100, "ARW"
wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28890025

How many died? It seems a lot.

It was a lot. One in three copped it, iirc.

On 22/08/14 13:04, charles wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 22/08/14 08:59, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , charles
wrote:

In article , Tim Streater
wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 21/08/14 22:18, polygonum wrote:
On 21/08/2014 22:04, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28890025

How many died? It seems a lot.

55,573 killed out of a total of 125,000 aircrew (a 44.4% death
rate).

Having joined the RAF before the war, my father served all the
way through with over 60 operations over Germany followed by
supply dropping in Burma.

We have two scissors - by which I mean the two parts that
usually form a pair of scissors - bent and buckled from the
impact of some sort of bullet. They were in his breast pocket.
Other than that, no injury in the air. Luck beyond belief.
IIRC the highest casualty rate of all was merchant seamen..
Bomber command second.

Pity no Lancs were converted for anti-submarine work over the North
Atlantic. With extra tanks in the bomb bay could have had quite a
loiter
time. Might have reduced both the above numbers.

The Shackleton was a variant of the Lincoln which itself was an
improvement of the Lancaster


Mmmmyessss, I was thinking that perhaps the RAF was a bit resistant to
anything that detracted from the bomber fleet, whereas IMO the north
atlantic was more important, strategically, than area bombing. There
was the air gap that persisted for quite a time before the longer range
planes became available. That might have been worked on with more
priority; but this is just an impression.


In fact that role was taken up by other aircraft. Merlin were in short
supply and antisub didn't need the speed so Blenheims and Sunderland
flying boats and IIRC later on beaufighters and beuaforts that used the
Bristol radial engines were used instead.

Neither did these need the lancs defensive armaments.

If you look at the wiki page on the Sunderland, you will see that it was
also very heavily armed.

ah, but were these for air to sea use?


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 22/08/2014 16:46, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 22:04:28 +0100, "ARW"
wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28890025

How many died? It seems a lot.

It was a lot. One in three copped it, iirc.

Someone quoted 40.4% earlier in the thread.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 10:02:31 +0100, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my
surname here wrote:

the night fighters, which were then attacking from
below with upward firing guns.

"Organ music."

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 23:47:36 +0100, Jabba wrote:

They didn't even receive a campaign medal, because of the stigma
attached to the carpet bombing of cities, in particular Dresden.

It was Total War, and we didn't start that ****.

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 10:44:32 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

I understand that near the end of the war, the Germans had radio-guided
bombs, which presumably could have been much more accurate than anything
simply dropped and left to its own devices.

Hah; you ain't seen anything yet.
The Germans tested, and used, a TV-guided bomb in the Bay of Biscay at
the end of 1944.
It never got any further, as resources were too stretched by then. If
more care and planning had been taken instead of a free-for-all with
competing ideas, Luftwaffe '46 of the series would have been a reality
a good few years before that, and we'd have been in the ****e.

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:13:28 +0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
wrote:

Also built, but never deployed, were manned V-1s. Pilots were equipped
with an ejector seat, but, as it involved ejecting across the air intake
of the ram jet engine, it was generally thought it would be a suicide
mission.

A better solution might have been to drop out the bottom ?

Reminds me of the oh-so-clever downward ejecting seat of the 50s.
After a few tarmac unintended meetups which were quite messy, it was
scrapped.

On 22/08/14 17:40, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:13:28 +0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
wrote:

Also built, but never deployed, were manned V-1s. Pilots were equipped
with an ejector seat, but, as it involved ejecting across the air intake
of the ram jet engine, it was generally thought it would be a suicide
mission.

A better solution might have been to drop out the bottom ?

Reminds me of the oh-so-clever downward ejecting seat of the 50s.
After a few tarmac unintended meetups which were quite messy, it was
scrapped.

Any spit pilot knew that a good push forward on the stick upside down or
right side up would eject you if the canopy was open and the safety
harness off..



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

bert wrote:

Seems to me that Bomber Command didn't absorb the lessons of the Battle
of Britain. First destroy totally your enemy's air defence capability
BEFORE attempting to bomb them into submission. BIMBW

When Bomber Command started night bombing, the Germans didn't have any
nightfighters or control system at all. There were no such defences to
destroy.

--
Terry Fields