RAF Single Pilot Bombers WW2

RAF single pilots

Some were married, but seriously,
Not all personnel who attended pilot training actually made it through and therefore became other crew members, so that some other crew knew the rudiments of flying, and could possibly take over in an emergency.
berkyboy

I know everybody is considered expendable to a certain degree but to me if you are short of experienced manpower it would seeem logical to do what you can to get as many people back as possible.

But even if the ‘extra’ pilot saved one crew in five, which is probably far too high to be realistic, you’d lose four co-pilots doing it; the arithmetic just doesn’t make sense.

As it happens, Bomber Command aircraft did often carry an extra novice pilot to give him experience (a single operation) before he took his own crew on an operation; carrying a ‘second dickey’, as they were known, was considered unlucky.

The sad fact is that the chances of getting out of a Bomber Command aircraft were not good anyway; usually the whole crew were killed. Overall the chances of surviving being shot-down in a Lancaster were about 15% so by today’s standards the crews were expendable (and they knew it).

I know everybody is considered expendable to a certain degree but to me if you are short of experienced manpower it would seeem logical to do what you can to get as many people back as possible.

If you are short of experienced manpower it makes sense to limit the number that you expose to danger simultaneously, (i.e. not put all your eggs in one basket) – only my opinion of course.
The figure that is needed, if this can be reduced to mere statistics, is the number of aircraft that could have made it back, had they had a second pilot, as a percentage of those lost with all crew. Not something that could ever be accurately calculated or even something that is remotely comfortable to dwell upon.

It has long been held, and somebody did the arithmetic, that a totally Mosquito night-striking force would have been able to deliver a similar weight of ordnance at considerably less cost in crews

Most pilots gave their Flight Engineers enough instruction in flying and getting back to the UK that they should at least have been able to make a decent attempt at it. The smattering of crews that got back successfully under these circumstances merely supports the point Eddie makes above.

If the aircraft was left in a good enough condition after an attack for a second pilot to get it home, the chances are that the surviving / uninjured crew would anyway stand a good chance of being able to bale out successfully.

Later in the war as the allied fighters gained ascendency the 8th AF reduced crew numbers (gunners) to take smaller human losses when flak downed the aircraft.

Moggy

I think it was considered more likely to be safe for crews to be part of larger raids, and if having extra pilots available made that possible, so be it! I think it’s fair to say, though, that most of the losses in Bomber Command were so instantly catastrophic, simply because of the nature of the attack of a nightfighter in close proximity, that you could have had a crew full of pilots and they would all have been killed just the same.

I know everybody is considered expendable to a certain degree but to me if you are short of experienced manpower it would seeem logical to do what you can to get as many people back as possible.

So the rest of the crew was considered expendable, no matter how much time and money was spent on training them?

No, they were all considered expendable to a certain extent.
That’s the nature of sending people to war–you take losses.
However, as they said above, it was a manpower thing.

A.

So the rest of the crew was considered expendable, no matter how much time and money was spent on training them?

Each aircraft downed only cost one expensive and lengthily-trained pilot.

Cold hard logic, nothing more.

Moggy

Not industry-led. Webster/Frankland, Official History, Strategic Air Offensive Against Germany,Vol1,P.309: early 1942: “Second pilots were dropped….Thus higher standards could be achieved and more a/c could be put into the air at the same time.”

Was it a manufacturer thing to save the complexity of dual control and instruments? I seem to remember the Vulcan was supposed to be (and the test flights were) single seat ‘up the front’.

As well as the investment in training double the pilots, or of flying half the missions with two pilots per aircraft, maybe the fact that RAF moved over to flying night missions may have played a role too?

Perhaps the RAF powers that be believed that the chances of being hit by gunfire was lower at night, thus there was less chance of injury to the pilot, whereas daytime missions might be more susceptible to interception/attack/damage/injury, whereupon a second pilot might be a sensible back-up?

Austern makes a good point – are there any statistics to show how often the USAAF/USAF aircraft came back courtesy of the co-pilot because the Captain was wounded/killed in action? Sitting so close together would seem to risk a high chance of both pilots being wounded simultaneously?

Second Pilots

One or two of my bomber pilot logbooks show that the pilot often took the Flight Engineer on exercises as a second pilot. There are many instances of Flight Engineers gaining the DFC for bringing back a crippled aircraft (due to the pilot being wounded)

500 aircraft with 2 pilots or 1000 aircraft with 1 pilot? Simples….

I suppose when you look at it, only one pilot can fly an aircraft at anyone time and if he gets injured then the guy sitting directly next to him is probably going to get hit too.

Most of the interwar bombers were single pilot and the early war stuff such as the early Wellington, Battle, Hampden and then the heavies followed suit. Many of the american small twins were single pilot operated such as the Douglas and Martins. The Hudson was from civil origins so started life with dual controls.

French and German practice was similar.

John

I was always led to believe it was due to Britain’s comparative manpower shortage compared to the Americans. Easier to train fewer pilots. I’m sure somebody much more qualified will be along to verify.