Bomber Command - Historum

**Earl_of_Rochester** · July 5th, 2012, 02:40 PM

Anyone else catch the ITV series which has been on after the unveiling of the beautiful memorial in Green Park?

Quite an interesting programme. A few things I didn't know:

Bomber Command had the highest % loss of any service (56,000).
An apparently typical bomber crew could be replaced up to three times or more in a year (due to losses).
Some of the guys on the show had done 48-60 or even 80 missions!

I wonder if they should have stopped after 25?

How did the Russian Airforce fair seeing that the Eastern Front was supposedly more ferocious?

Worth a watch if you haven't seen it, the Jewish RAF guy has an interesting perspective.

Poor b**rds.

-EoR

**Nemowork** · July 5th, 2012, 02:56 PM

It was impressive in the way they understated it, all through the programme you hear that men would be lucky to make 4 missions, that the chance of getting to finish your tour of 30 was low becuse with a 5% loss rate you'd be dead befor eyou did 20.

Then the interviews at the end with every veteran listing off a higher and higher mission tally was startling, i mean 81 missions?

Thats not even considering that between tours he was probably off training new crews which wasnt exactly a safe option with engine failures, navigation errors and inexperienced pilots even that could be fairly lethal befor e the enemy even had a go!

**Bish** · July 5th, 2012, 02:57 PM

What is the percentage of losses for RAF bomber command.

Sovet losses were much higher in aircraft but lower in personel. The figures i have give approx 40,000 killed missing and PoW. But their aircraft losses are estimated at around 46,000 aircraft compared to 14,000 for teh western allies.

**Belgarion** · July 5th, 2012, 03:00 PM

Whats the name of the series? I will check it out if it plays in Australia.

**Nemowork** · July 5th, 2012, 03:06 PM

I always remembered Bomber command losses as 55,000 out of 110,000 so 50%, the last figures i saw said 55,000 out of 125,000 so only 44% fatalitiesbut a further 10,000 POW.

Off the top of my head, it varied a lot by year so in 39 and 40 on some missions losses could reach 50% or even 100% of the squadron for example in the raids against the German ports, and the Berlin raids had a nightly combat loss of 30 to 40%.

I guess that means it averages out that some jobs must have been a lot safer?

**Earl_of_Rochester** · July 5th, 2012, 03:08 PM

Programme simply called Bomber Command by ITV http://player.stv.tv/programmes/bomb...12-07-03-2100/ might be able to view via proxy.

Circa 56,000 losses in bomber crews.

Virgil · July 5th, 2012, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemowork

I always remembered Bomber command losses as 55,000 out of 110,000 so 50%, the last figures i saw said 55,000 out of 125,000 so only 44% fatalitiesbut a further 10,000 POW.

Off the top of my head, it varied a lot by year so in 39 and 40 on some missions losses could reach 50% or even 100% of the squadron for example in the raids against the German ports, and the Berlin raids had a nightly combat loss of 30 to 40%.

I guess that means it averages out that some jobs must have been a lot safer?

I knew the losses were heavy for the British and Americans, but I didn't know the British losses approached anywhere near 50%. The only comparable stat I remember was what I remember to be 75% or so for German U-boat crews. Amazing.

amazedkat · July 5th, 2012, 04:46 PM

Quote:

An apparently typical bomber crew could be replaced up to three times or more in a year (due to losses).

in a 30 mission tour rotation with the loss rate of 3.5% per mission you'd be lucky to make it, how did crew manage too? easy to explain the inexperienced usually go first, so get passed 15 or so and you'll watch the new crews die, another dangerous time occurred 30-40 missions during that period you get complacent.

russia/soviets didn't have a strategic bomber arm, nor did the germans really.

The Amyclae · July 5th, 2012, 04:56 PM

Clearly, they should've spent more time bombing defenseless cities. They should've bombed Dresden. Oh... Wait a second.

amazedkat · July 5th, 2012, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Amyclae

Clearly, they should've spent more time bombing defenseless cities. They should've bombed Dresden. Oh... Wait a second.

the americans bombed drseden too.

americans had a much lower percentage crew attrition rate due to their states rotation policy after 21 missions. So as a result the whole of the aircrew force suffered around 25% losses in the european theater.