Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

more on Interesting data

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich >> more on Interesting data Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
more on Interesting data - 1/23/2007 8:16:58 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		been reading about the attacks on Ploesti

and there is some talk about what it took to mount a raid during the war

a BG of B-24s, 36 planes, took 97,000 Gallons of Gas, 360x500 pound bombs (depending on target) and 187,000 50 cal rounds

which remember, the 15th AF had 21 BGs and that does not count the 7 FGs of fighters

and if the weather was good, that was day after day

or what the 12th or the Med was using



_____________________________
Post #: 1
RE: more on Interesting data - 1/23/2007 8:30:03 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline 		Yes, but think what a sqd of Lancasters took in terms of bombs: 12000 lb each, say 20 a/c = 240000lb rather than 180000! (Rather less on the ammo for the guns though)

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 2
RE: more on Interesting data - 3/6/2007 11:04:18 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		some odd numbers

BC lost 8953 bombers during the war, suffered 55,564 crewmen dead (51% of BC total crews)

(way it was stated, looks like total USAAF numbers)

USAAF lost 6537 bombers in the ETO

some Officers for the GAF stateing the reason the He 219 was cut, was there were only 8 AFs with a long enough runway for the plane to be able to take off ? (never seen that complaint before)

Schnaufer felt that, once a pilot had gotten his 8th kill, he chances for a long life were much improved, most pilots were lost, while in the 4 to 6 kill range

also, got to love the statement, that a nightfighter, should have at least one year of Nightfighting exp, before, being allowed to fly nightfighters (still trying to figure that one out)

the details on the Himmelbett tactic were interesting, one idea, I did not know, was the box while in the beginning had only one fighter under control, shortly afterward, it would control two, first would take off and go to the becon, and then about 5 minutes later a 2nd would take off and fly to a preselected spot, once the first fighter was sent to a contact, then 2nd would then fly towards the becon, once the first was engaged or lost contact, then 2nd was then under control, about that time a 3rd fighter would take off, and so on

one item deemed needed, was a device, to clean the front cockpit of oil during flight

the front and sides of the cockpit should be armored, and it may be a good idea if the top of the cockpit was also ! (the GE liked to fly under the bombers reported height, as it is easier to see up then down during the night, besides the fact they liked to attack from under the target)

(that is during "Dark" attacks, during "Light" attacks they wanted to be above the bombers so the Bomber could be seen vs the clouds or seachlights)

(I remember reading about one GB Nightfighter, who was flying with the stream, and above them, how he felt sorry for the chaps, if they only knew how easy they where to spot, when they flew above the clouds, and he hoped no one ever told them, as they felt like they were safe flying in the dark)



_____________________________


(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 3
RE: more on Interesting data - 4/3/2007 6:42:13 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		a shocking number

at the start of BoB the LW had 237 BF 110s ready for action, by the end of the battle, they had lost 223

_____________________________


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 4
RE: more on Interesting data - 4/3/2007 7:05:46 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		Not as shocking as what happened to the Stukas in so short a period of time. There was an eye opener for the Luftwaffe.

_____________________________


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 5
RE: more on Interesting data - 11/10/2007 4:33:28 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		"From the 55 raids mounted by Bomber Command between the end of August 1943 and the end of March 1944 (roughly the period spanning the Battle of Britain), a staggering 1,578 aircraft failed to return. This represented an average rate of loss of 5% per raid, or twice the front line strength of the Command. This meant that only some 20 per cent of the bomber crews successfully managed to complete a tour of 30 operations in this period of the airwar"

_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 6
RE: more on Interesting data - 11/12/2007 3:04:36 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		I once saw a statistic that the LW only had 280-ish serviceable Me-109's by the end of Oct 40 - ie the end of the BOB.  The British never had LESS than 600 serviceable Spits & hurricanes - and never less than 200 serviceable reserve aircraft.

The British were worried when they got down to 1.5 pilots per aircraft....but the LW never got above 1.1 pilots per Me-109.

throughout the BoB German industry produced about 200-220 Me-109's month - the UK produced 400-450 Spitfiers and Hurricanes per month. (all from memory of a BoB 3rd year paper I did at unit 15 or more years ago!)

Around the 'net the reason for the He-219 not being produced is that Milch in charge of a/c production was anti-Heinkel.



< Message edited by SMK-at-work -- 11/13/2007 1:26:04 AM >

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 7
RE: more on Interesting data - 11/12/2007 4:29:52 AM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		not sure if that is a typo for the date, but by the end of Oct 41, most of the Jagdwaffen was in the East, and only JG 2 and JG 26 were left in france (which would work out to about the number you state ?)

for the 219, that was a statement by some of the Generals after the war, in there debriefing reports, they were always looking for something better and the fact that the 219 could only work off of a few (think it was 7 or 9 main bases) hampered there wanting more and more of them

(which of course, as you got to the better and better replacements, those also started to need bigger and longer runways also, the days of taking off from Grass fields was coming to a end)

somewhat along the same lines, that was one of drawbacks to the 262, the Allies knew what bases they were using, as soon as they moved to a new base, it stood out that Jets were there from the burn marks on the runways


_____________________________


(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 8
RE: more on Interesting data - 11/12/2007 9:21:41 AM   
Reg


Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

some odd numbers

BC lost 8953 bombers during the war, suffered 55,564 crewmen dead (51% of BC total crews)

(way it was stated, looks like total USAAF numbers)

USAAF lost 6537 bombers in the ETO



I read somewhere that the USAF lost an average of 1.8 crewmembers (out of ten) per bomber shot down compared to Bomber Command losing an average of nearly five out of seven crew for each bomber shot down.

Very sobering statistics and an indication of different aircraft and the conditions under which they operated.

(I don't usually quote without source but I thought it was relevant).

I was talking to a Bomber Command veteran (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1593432&mpage=3&key=�� post No.66) and he described being brought down by a night fighter. He said it came out of nowhere and was all over in seconds (he didn't even get a chance to tighten his parachute straps). Not all of his crew 'made it'.

< Message edited by Reg -- 11/12/2007 9:36:06 AM >

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 9
RE: more on Interesting data - 11/12/2007 2:37:40 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		Roger, Reg

yea, and the Halli was a bad bomber for getting out of the Lanc was a bit better, also the tactic that the LW like to use (which is very odd, that BC "didn't" know that they had upward firing guns)

which most of the "pros" liked to aim for the wing root, instead of the belly of the bomber, as it at least gave the crew a chance, a good burst in the belly with the 30mm's and you tended to get a big bang

(side note, the LW liked to attack the B-24, as it tended to have fuel leaks, fume build up in the rear of the plane, one good hit and it was a flamer or exploded, the 17 needed to be hammed out of the sky)

to be honest, I don't know how those guys did it, night after night, and if you completed a tour, you got some time off and then went on another one, or went to the Pathfinders, and went on a even longer tour

one that is really shocking, if you find one of the lists of the pilots who flew in BoB, and then see how many really came out of the war, most of them, that didn't run out of luck during BoB, ran out in 41, or 42, or of course later on

read more then a few times, when new Squadrons were being formed up, the men, being told not to get too cocky, with in a year, all of them were going to be dead, and in most cases, they were

as I posted somewhere else, 131 squadron went out on a mission, and never came home, and even worse, they wern't rookies




_____________________________


(in reply to Reg)
Post #: 10
RE: more on Interesting data - 11/12/2007 7:52:50 PM   
wernerpruckner


Posts: 4148
Joined: 5/5/2005
Status: offline 		a few data on Lancasters:

Lancasters built: 7377

Lancaster sorties flown: 156192

Lancasters lost on operations: 3431

Lancasters lost in accidents: 246

_____________________________


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 11
RE: more on Interesting data - 11/13/2007 1:26:49 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

not sure if that is a typo for the date, but by the end of Oct 41,


Oops - yes should be Oct 40 - corrected thanks

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 12
RE: more on Interesting data - 11/13/2007 4:18:57 AM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		roger

I have seen some docs on that kind of stuff, just don't remember the numbers right now, not sure where to look to find it though




_____________________________


(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 13
RE: more on Interesting data - 11/13/2007 11:21:38 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline 		A little info on Lancaster ops.

A maximum distance raid would need 2,154 gallons of fuel, and approx 150 of oil with (IIRC) 7,000lb bomb load for each Lanc.
It took an average of 45 minutes to load a 'cookie' and incendiaries and 30 min for a load of 14x 1,000lb bombs, I think a typical average was around half a dozen armourers being responsible for loading each flight of 6 a/c.  This time is in addition to the time needed to fuse the bombs and pack the incendiaries into containers.

Lancasters dropped 63.8% of Bomber Command's bombs, 608,612 tons, and 51,513,106 incendiaries.  They also carried out 2,929 gardening sorties (out of 18,725) dropping 12,733 1,500lb mines.  Out of the 7,277 built only 24 managed to achieve the 100 mission mark.

It took almost 2,500 personnel working from 0700 to get the 16 crews of a typical max effort raid into the air at around 1600.

Only 10% of BC aircrew serving at the outbreak of WW2 survived until the end of the conflict, and even those serving 'when the war was already won' after D-Day only had a 50% chance of surviving until the actual end.  It's a strange thought that on several nights BC lost more personnel on one raid than Fighter Command suffered during the BoB.

A Breakdown of the statistics I came across gives the following figures for every 100 aircrew:
Killed on ops:  51
Killed in UK:  9
Seriously Injured:  3
POW:  12
Evaded capture after shot down:  1
Survived unharmed/uncaptured:  24


_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 14
RE: more on Interesting data - 11/14/2007 3:57:03 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
I have seen some docs on that kind of stuff, just don't remember the numbers right now, not sure where to look to find it though


I think I stil have the paper copy of that essay at home - I'll see if I can find it and provide the reference that had that info...it's only 15 or 20 years old now....

there doesn't apear to be anything on the web that covers the LW status at the "end" of the BoB.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 15
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich >> more on Interesting data Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.969