Regarding the photo it’s actually an image I downloaded from a website and it’s now my wallpaper – and before you ask I don’t remember which one although it was probably a site devoted to Lancs as I just love them!

Sharkie – if it’s on your PC get cracking and post it! re. copyright, just say what you’ve said above (that you don’t know where it came from).

I have heard that is just for the military, the British merchant navy had the worst losses.

Interesting Melvyn – they certainly had a hard time of it.

JB … the data you want re. the USAAF sorties/losses etc. is available here
http://www.usaaf.net/digest/operations.htm
But it needs analysing! I can’t do that right now, if you have the time and energy to do so, over to you … otherwise reply here or pm me and I’ll do it some day.

It is an interesting issue but comparing apples with apples (the lies, damn lies and statistics issue) would take some time. For example, the very high level aggregates suggest the circumstances were more-or-less line-ball

[quote the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of Sep 30, 1945 re European Theatre of operations]
In the attack by Allied air power, almost 2,700,000 tons of bombs were dropped, more than 1,440,000 bomber sorties and 2,680,000 fighter sorties were flown. The number of combat planes reached a peak of some 28,000 and at the maximum 1,300,000 men were in combat commands. The number of men lost in air action was 79,265 Americans and 79,281 British. (Note: All RAF statistics are preliminary or tentative.) More than 18,000 American and 22,000 British planes were lost or damaged beyond repair. [unquote]

But remember this is aggregate – all commands, fighters and bombers, etc., etc. The data can be broken down and analysed.

I suspect that when you/me/someone get/s down into the data, it will be found that being in RAF Bomber Command was more risky than a similar stint in the USAAF.

BBMFs Lanc does a few ashes drops a year, dont think they charge ether.
Phil. 🙂

For anyone … or for ex-aircrew etc.?

Nothing calculated about me if that’s what you mean – but it’s also clear your source has given you misinformation re. this thread. 😉

I’m still confused … Is there a definitive answer?

Robant

Don’t expect a definitive answer from Anna – she works in mysterious ways.

We need to work this one ourselves … so far, Distiller remains the one with the probable correct answer. Is there any corroborating reference re. that incident?

Article in New York Times
“China Widens Economic Role in Latin America”
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/20/international/asia/20china.html?th
You have to register to read the article (cost = zero)

Interesting article talking about China’s growing trade and investment involvement with Latin America – sample paragraph …

“Driven by one the largest and most sustained economic expansions in history, and facing bottlenecks and shortages in Asia, China is increasingly turning to South America as a supplier. It is busy buying huge quantities of iron ore, bauxite, soybeans, timber, zinc and manganese in Brazil. It is vying for tin in Bolivia, oil in Venezuela and copper here in Chile, where last month it displaced the United States as the leading market for Chilean exports.”

cheers Gnome

JB

I don’t have the data you’re looking for (you need to access Martin Middlebrook’s Bomber Command War Diaries and Roger Freeman’s similar tome on the “Mighty Eighth”) but bear in mind when you do there’s a bit more to it than straight aircraft losses. There’s also fatality rates.

The US approach to aircraft design (exemplified in the B17) was to build heavily armoured heavily defended aircraft. The UK went for hard hitting in its bomber design. So if you compare Lancaster and B17 as the prime examples, you see 2 aircraft of similar proportions, one (B17) with armour, self sealing tanks and 12x .50cal defensive weapons = bomb load c.4,000lbs. The Lanc, only armour the pilots seatback, 8x .303cal defensive weapons = 14,000lb bombload (up to 22,000 using “specials”). Far heavier hitting, but much more vulnerable. Reflect on the effect of 800x Lancs vs 300x B17s hitting a city though!

Knocking B17s down took time and many hits with heavy cannon fire (flak and lucky hits excepted). The aircraft could often fly reasonably well damaged for a period and bail-out rates/capability was therefore good. I believe average crew survival rate of a downed B17 was around 50%.

The Lanc could be and was often taken out by 2-3 cannon hits (one was enough) into the wing tanks (AP between the engines from underneath). The resulting fire destroyed the aircraft’s ability to fly within 30-60 seconds. Exiting was extremely difficult o/a crew location vis-a-vis exit doors/hatches, internal features like the infamous main spar, and the usual short duration of level flight. Fatality rate was very high, in most cases all crew were killed, in a few cases 1 or 2 got out. Contrary to popular misconception, the least likely to survive was the pilot. The stories you read of all but one surviving etc., or heavily damaged aircraft returning were the exception.

So once you’ve got the aircraft loss data, run a 50% survival rate across the US data and say 10% and 20% survival rates across the UK data. It’ll be interesting to see what you come up with.

cheers, Gnome

edit 1 … made the point above re the Lancaster Specials, which were modified to accommodate up to the 22,000 Grand Slam bomb. Normal bomload varied with distance (more/less fuel being carried) and was 14,000lbs maximum at modest (Western Eaurope) range.
edit 2 … note the other UK heavies Halifax and Stirling were less fatal if shot down .. ie you were more likely to be able to bail out. But Stirlings and early model Halifaxes operated at lower altitudes and aircraft loss rates were higher.