Rather than just making statements without backing them up I wondered whether there was any way we could try and establish some rough figures. I thought the easiest way was to take a sample of OTU losses from Chorley’s OTU volume. I decided to look at the period from 1st January to 31st March 1943. I chose this period because it covers this time of year when winter is normally at its worst and I chose 1943 because it was a period of great expansion and pressure for Bomber Command. There are bound to be errors in this as it is just a rough examination of the period, the results of which are posted below.

Throughout the period examined, Bomber Command OTU’s lost 141 aircraft with the breakdown as follows:

Wellington = 102
Whitley = 26
Blenheim – 11
Anson = 1
Lysander = 1.

From those aircraft, some 354 airmen were killed, 110 injured and 4 taken PoW.

Of the aircraft lost, I have tried to produce a rough breakdown by cause.

Lysander
Engine failure.

Anson
Overshoot.

Blenheim
6 x engine failure.
2 x weather.
1 x collision with high ground.
2 x unknown.

Whitley
13 x engine failure.
1 x weather.
1 x collision with high ground.
1 x overshoot.
1 x ground collision.
1 x take off accident.
1 x photoflash fire.
7 x unknown.

Wellington
27 x engine failure.
5 x weather.
6 x collision with high ground.
4 x overshoot.
5 x ground and mid air collisions.
11 x lost control.
6 x landing accidents.
2 x ground fires.
1 x ballon barrage cable.
4 x enemy action.
31 x unknown.

You can read into that what you will, however, it strikes me that a lot of the engine failures may have been handled better by more experienced crews.

However you interpret the above, one thing is absolutely certain. For a three month period the figures are shocking. Did maintenance or a lack thereof contribute to these appalling losses? It would take a lot of work to try and find the evidence to support that claim. To contrast this we could do with establishing how many sorties were carried out by Bomber Command OTU’s during the same period. That way a percentage of losses against sorties could be established. but someone else can have a go at that one.

Regards,

kev35

Sky High.

You could post the details here (or PM me if you prefer) and I can have a go and see if anything comes up?

Regards,

kev35

It would be interesting to compare ‘engine-failures’ during three months of summer.

I must have been really bored tonight because I’ve done the same thing for July, August and september of 1943. Same applies as before, it’s rough, very rough, but it does make interesting reading and the spectre of Friday night television more bearable.

During the period examined this time, OTU losses stood at 158 aircraft. From these aircraft the following figures were obtained.

Wellington = 126
Whitley = 27
Martinet = 1
Lysander = 1
Anson = 2
Defiant = 1

353 of those on board were killed, 117 injure, 7 became PoW’s and 5 evaded.

Defiant
1 x weather.

Martinet
1 x engine failure.

Lysander
1 x unknown.

Anson
1 x lost control.
1 x engine failure.

Whitley
6 x engine failure.
1 x unknown.
1 x enemy action.
2 x heavy landing.
1 x fuel problems.
1 x collision with high ground.
1 x prop strike.
2 x take off accidents.
2 x mid air collisions.
11 x unknown.

Wellington.
49 x engine failure.
12 x heavy landing.
2 x weather.
2 x overshot.
3 x engine failure due to fuel.
3 x structural failure.
18 x loss of control.
4 x enemy action.
2 x flaps/hydraulics.
2 x mid air collision.
7 x fire.
1 x friendly fire.
1 x prop strike.
20 x unknown.

This latest lot of figures surprised me.

Regards,

kev35

trumper, with all due respect are you really insinuating that this is a race issue and by extension that he might be being moved to make room for Mr. Patel?

It’s about need. It’s about re-assessment of his medical condition and the level of care he now needs. We are not privvy to that information, nor should we be. If his condition is now such that he no longer needs that level of care, as is the implication, then wouldn’t that be a good thing? Surely, you wouldn’t want anyone else to be denied that level of care because the funds are being used to maintain someone who no longer needs that level of care?

Has Mr. Mejor been harshly treated? He has been granted a second assessment so surely the right thing would be to await the outcome of that first.

Regards,

kev35

You only need to look through old albums of Great War photo’s to see the change that any form of combat engenders in those so engaged. The 1,000 yard stare. A guy I was at school with had that look after a tour of Northern Ireland in the late 1970’s.

Regards,

kev35

Icare9.

I’ve followed the same route as you which I could have avoided had I read the PPRUNE thread first.

I wonder why his 5 year short service commission only lasted 13 months? If, of course, both P/O and Sgt. are the same man.

Regards,

kev35

James.

The cumulative effects of anticipation, particularly amongst Bomber Command personnel, can’t be ignored either. Breakfast, battle order, air tests, lunch, a brief rest, an operational tea, briefings, suiting up and transport to the aircraft, and only then finding the operation is scrubbed. How do you unwind from that process with the prospect that the same thing will have to be done again tomorrow? Worse still, how about the crews who are half or three quarters of the way to the target only to be forced to return due to mechinaical failure? Then the possibility of encountering flak or fighters on the way back. If they survive that they are then told it doesn’t count towards their total. Let alone the risk that their early return may be misconstrued as the crew not having the appropriate offensive spirit. I wonder how many crews went to their deaths in aircraft in which they should have returned early but felt unable to because of the prospect of being tainted with the stigma of being LMF?

Regards,

kev35