Bomber Losses: USAAF vs RAF

[Marshall_Stack]

I have read that the British were trying to convince the USAAF to give up daylight precision raids due to the high losses incurred by the Germans. In looking at the high losses that the RAF suffered, their operations didn't look much better. Am I missing something?

[BombTaxi]

Originally Posted by Marshall_Stack

I have read that the British were trying to convince the USAAF to give up daylight precision raids due to the high losses incurred by the Germans. In looking at the high losses that the RAF suffered, their operations didn't look much better. Am I missing something?

Yes and no. The RAF tried high-altitude daylight precision bombing with Fortess I's (B-17C) in early 1941. These raids were carried out unescorted at 30,000ft, and were disastrous - not just because of combat losses, but because the aircraft really weren't up to the task and the crews were not trained or equipped for high-altitude work. Ironically, the USAAF had told the British that the B-17C was not sufficiently well-armed for unescorted bombing over Europe, and they were dead right. When the B-17E and -F came along, the USAAF promptly ignored it's own advice in 1942 and Schweinfurt ensued. At this point, the RAF were really getting into heavy night bombing assaults and were probably taking fewer casualties per mission than the USAAF. However, the introduction of long range US escorts would have reduced the risks of daylight raiding at a time when rapidly developing German technology was making night bombing an increasingly dangerous activity.

In all, it's probably fair to say that at a certain point in 1942, the British had a point - but changes in technology from 1943 onwards reduced the advantages enjoyed by the night bombers and increased the security of US daylight raids, making the RAF argument irrelevant.

[Erich]

it would be good to do a comparison study of the ETO USAF bomber vs Bomber Command losses for a true picture year by year.

small notation the German Luftwaffe night fighter arm shot down some 7100 plus Bomber Command bombers during the war

[Vincenzo]

for losses
Bomber Command's Losses

Army Air Forces in World War II

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Erich

it would be good to do a comparison study of the ETO USAF bomber vs Bomber Command losses for a true picture year by year.

small notation the German Luftwaffe night fighter arm shot down some 7100 plus Bomber Command bombers during the war

On one of the earlier threads which I cannot identify, one member did a very detailed analysis of loss ratios by day and by night. To all intents and purposes the Lancaster and the B24 had exactly the same loss ratios by day and night whereas the B17 had a slightly better loss ratio.

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

That means 71,000 airmen were downed by nightfighters alone!

Incredible losses indeed, and I'm sure took quite a toll on the airmen. I'm suprised morale remained so good in the RAF, but I suppose flying by night in an aircraft beats huddling in the mud of the trenchs in WWI.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Soundbreaker Welch?

That means 710,00 airmen were downed by nightfighters alone!

Incredible losses indeed, and I'm sure took quite a toll on the airmen. I'm suprised morale remained so good in the RAF, but I suppose flying by night in an aircraft beats huddling in the mud of the trenchs in WWI.

Not quite. The Bomber Command Diaries give the crew losses as follows

Aircrew
Killed in action or died whilst POW - 47,268
Killed in flying or ground accidents - 8,195
Killed in action on Ground - 37

Total - 55,500

POW 8,403

Aircraft Losses 8,953 of which 7,953 were lost at night.
What the split is between NF/Flak/Accidents over enemy airspace I do not know but 7,100 just to NF seems on the high side as 1,000 were lost in daylight raids

Lancaster 3,431 (2.02%)
Halifax 1,884 (2.28%)
Wellington 1,386 (2.92%)
Mosquito 260 (0.65%)
Sterling 625 (3.39%)
Hampden 424 (2.56%)
Blenhiem 442 (3.62%)
Whitley 317 (3.22%)
Boston 42 (2.61%)
Fortress 14 (1.04%)
Manchester 64 (5.04%)
Ventura 39 (3.91%)
Liberator 3 (0.45%)
Others 22

[davebender]

suprised morale remained so good in the RAF

It's my understanding that morale wasn't terribly good among heavy bomber crews. Switzerland had dozens of Allied heavy bombers parked on airfields by the end of the war. Some of them landed on purpose to opt out of the war.

[Waynos]

Originally Posted by davebender

It's my understanding that morale wasn't terribly good among heavy bomber crews. Switzerland had dozens of Allied heavy bombers parked on airfields by the end of the war. Some of them landed on purpose to opt out of the war.

It would be fascinating to see more info on that if you have it

[Glider]

I would also be interested to see any info you may have on that line.

[TheMustangRider]

The stories I have read regarding bombers landing in Switzerland are those when the bombers were extremely damaged by flack or German fighters and the crew knew it was quite impossible to make it back to Britain so they decided to try landing in Switzerland instead of landing in Germany.

[Erich]

the 7100 plus is confirmed through documentation

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

On the Army Air Force site it says the USAAF lost 5,548 heavy bombers. To tell the truth, I thought the total would have been higher. Still heavy losses, since roughly 55,000 US airmen were lost over Europe. It's probably less since many USAAF bombers didn't have 10 crew members, only 9.

If that is how many bombers the USAAF lost including both B-17's and B-24's, then their losses were actually quite lower than the RAF night bombers, which was 10,000 night bombers lost.

Which can present the argument that in the end, strategic bombing paid off.

[Amsel]

You bet it payed off. The steady bombing of the refineries and the interference of Germany's logistics shortened the war considerably.

[HerrKaleut]

The RAF tried daylight and got hammered, the Luftwaffe tried it ..same result so when the USAAF decided to have a go, someone was missing something somewhere.!!