PQ17
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London, England
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Merchant Navy losses were equivalent to 17%
Royal Navy losses 9.3%
To put in context, 24,490 out of 39,000 U-Boat crews also perished – a loss rate of over 70%!
There were FAA Swordfish losses where the wind was blowing so hard that they were unable to catch up with the escort carriers and had to ditch astern.
Royal Navy losses 9.3%
To put in context, 24,490 out of 39,000 U-Boat crews also perished – a loss rate of over 70%!
There were FAA Swordfish losses where the wind was blowing so hard that they were unable to catch up with the escort carriers and had to ditch astern.
There were FAA Swordfish losses where the wind was blowing so hard that they were unable to catch up with the escort carriers and had to ditch astern.
The Carriers should have turned about....and then reverse course again and pass under the Aircraft and allow them to land going backwards. Bit of astute ship handling and it could have been vertical landings.
SASLess, thank you, two ships on which my old man served were subsequently sunk, one just 2 months later.
In Second one seems all his relatives were in Merchant Navy and though boats sunk from under them they all managed to come home, he served in FAA post war.
I have indicated that in event of 3rd one I want to know exactly where his family are serving.
The Carriers should have turned about....and then reverse course again and pass under the Aircraft and allow them to land going backwards. Bit of astute ship handling and it could have been vertical landings.
Who was it that ignored SOPs in South Pacific in WW2 at night by lighting up the carriers believing getting his aircraft aboard was more important than following orders.
Bearing in mind the subject and what was discussed earlier I think that showed leadership to his men.
Found it Marc Mitscher
Marc Mitscher - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited by racedo; 9th Jan 2014 at 21:34.
The Carriers should have turned about..
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come and get it?
If the wind's 80 knots, and the aircraft only makes 120 knots, it's not clear that turning the ship would have made much difference.
The Swordfish crew straying too far downwind would have been the problem.
The Swordfish crew straying too far downwind would have been the problem.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Losses and material.
It was either Max Hastings or Len Deighton who researched and wrote: Highest losses in WW2 for UK were Bomber Command Aircrew, Front Line Infantry, Tank Crews and Merchant Naval Crews including military DEMS gunners (Defence Equipped Merchant Ships).
My friends father was MN and sunk 5 times, and was the only boy of his class of sea going mates from Helensburgh to survive the war.
Russians didn't like either the Hurricane or the tanks (Churchill, Valentine and US Sherman) we sent them and found them markedly inferior to their own T34 or KV1 and varients. Its sometimes hard to find reference to any of the war material we despatched via the North Cape IMHO.
Did it all work as well as the propaganda makes out?
Was it all really that useful to the Russians?
*RAF were forced to send Hurricanes to the Russians, so sent their worst crates - understandable really but soon twigged. What exactly did the Russians ever do for us (except spill vastly more amounts of blood and kill 9 out of 10 of the common enemy)?
My friends father was MN and sunk 5 times, and was the only boy of his class of sea going mates from Helensburgh to survive the war.
Russians didn't like either the Hurricane or the tanks (Churchill, Valentine and US Sherman) we sent them and found them markedly inferior to their own T34 or KV1 and varients. Its sometimes hard to find reference to any of the war material we despatched via the North Cape IMHO.
Did it all work as well as the propaganda makes out?
Was it all really that useful to the Russians?
*RAF were forced to send Hurricanes to the Russians, so sent their worst crates - understandable really but soon twigged. What exactly did the Russians ever do for us (except spill vastly more amounts of blood and kill 9 out of 10 of the common enemy)?
AW.....Helicopter Pilots are aware of that concept.....even when it is a stationary object they are working to/from.
To put in context, 24,490 out of 39,000 U-Boat crews also perished – a loss rate of over 70%! - Rallye Driver
It was either Max Hastings or Len Deighton who researched and wrote: Highest losses in WW2 for UK were Bomber Command Aircrew, Front Line Infantry, Tank Crews and Merchant Naval Crews including military DEMS gunners (Defence Equipped Merchant Ships). - Hangarshuffle
The U-Boat casualty rate was nearer 85% if the 5000 who were captured are taken into account. The Royal Navy Submarine Service losses of 38%, compared with the overall Royal Navy loss of slightly less than 8%, are exceeded only by those of Bomber Command.
Jack
It was either Max Hastings or Len Deighton who researched and wrote: Highest losses in WW2 for UK were Bomber Command Aircrew, Front Line Infantry, Tank Crews and Merchant Naval Crews including military DEMS gunners (Defence Equipped Merchant Ships). - Hangarshuffle
The U-Boat casualty rate was nearer 85% if the 5000 who were captured are taken into account. The Royal Navy Submarine Service losses of 38%, compared with the overall Royal Navy loss of slightly less than 8%, are exceeded only by those of Bomber Command.
Jack
Without wishing to appear too pedantic, I think it only accurate to point out that 24,490 out of 39,000 is actually 62.8%, not over 70%.
Likewise, if you add the 5,000 captured, then 29,490 out of 39,000 is 75.6%, not nearer 85%.
Either the numbers are wrong, or the % calculation.
None of which detracts from the fact that the loss rate was horrendous, but it has a certain inevitability for a force that became technologically disadvantaged and fought to the bitter end on the losing side of a conflict...
Likewise, if you add the 5,000 captured, then 29,490 out of 39,000 is 75.6%, not nearer 85%.
Either the numbers are wrong, or the % calculation.
None of which detracts from the fact that the loss rate was horrendous, but it has a certain inevitability for a force that became technologically disadvantaged and fought to the bitter end on the losing side of a conflict...
Biggus...it was War...they were the enemy and if we had been successful their Loss Rate would have been 100%.
You cannot discount the courage the German Submariners displayed knowing the odds had turned and they were taking severe losses but we have to remember it was our duty to kill them as efficiently and aggressively as possible.
You cannot discount the courage the German Submariners displayed knowing the odds had turned and they were taking severe losses but we have to remember it was our duty to kill them as efficiently and aggressively as possible.
Without wishing to appear too pedantic, I think it only accurate to point out that 24,490 out of 39,000 is actually 62.8%, not over 70%.
Likewise, if you add the 5,000 captured, then 29,490 out of 39,000 is 75.6%, not nearer 85%.
Without wishing to appear remotely fussed, I think it is only accurate to point out that, whilst Biggus's arithmetic is indeed absolutely spot-on, the figure of 24490 on which it is based is unrelated to my comment.
That said, I strongly concur with his last paragraph, recalling that over 50000 men in some 15 navies lost their life serving in submarines during the Second World War.
Jack
Likewise, if you add the 5,000 captured, then 29,490 out of 39,000 is 75.6%, not nearer 85%.
Without wishing to appear remotely fussed, I think it is only accurate to point out that, whilst Biggus's arithmetic is indeed absolutely spot-on, the figure of 24490 on which it is based is unrelated to my comment.
That said, I strongly concur with his last paragraph, recalling that over 50000 men in some 15 navies lost their life serving in submarines during the Second World War.
Jack
Whilst Bomber Command sustained the highest number of casualties in the RAF during WW2, it also had the largest number of personnel exposed to risk. In "Right of the Line" by John Terraine there is a table worked out by the Air Member for Training in November 1942 which shows the percentage chance of survival for 1 or 2 tours by aircraft role:
Type of Squadron - % chance of survival - One Tour - Two tours
Heavy and Medium Bomber - 44 - 19.5
Light Bomber - 25.5 - 6.5
Day Fighter - 43 - 18.5
Night Fighter - 39 - 15
Long Range Fighter - 59.5 - 35.5
Torpedo Bomber - 17.5 - 3
Heavy GR Landplane - 71 - 50.5
Medium GR Landplane - 56 - 31.5
Light GR Landplane - 45 - 20
Sunderland Flying Boat - 66 - 43.5
Catalina Flying Boat - 77.5 - 60
Fighter Reconnaissance - 31 - 9.5
Bomber Reconnaissance - 42 - 17.5
The light bomber figures reflect the high losses of Blenheims and Battles in France and Belgium at the beginning of the war. The heavy bomber losses continued throughout the rest of the war whilst the Torpedo Bomber loss rates probably diminished with the introduction of the Beaufighter and Mosquito into anti-shipping strike.
Type of Squadron - % chance of survival - One Tour - Two tours
Heavy and Medium Bomber - 44 - 19.5
Light Bomber - 25.5 - 6.5
Day Fighter - 43 - 18.5
Night Fighter - 39 - 15
Long Range Fighter - 59.5 - 35.5
Torpedo Bomber - 17.5 - 3
Heavy GR Landplane - 71 - 50.5
Medium GR Landplane - 56 - 31.5
Light GR Landplane - 45 - 20
Sunderland Flying Boat - 66 - 43.5
Catalina Flying Boat - 77.5 - 60
Fighter Reconnaissance - 31 - 9.5
Bomber Reconnaissance - 42 - 17.5
The light bomber figures reflect the high losses of Blenheims and Battles in France and Belgium at the beginning of the war. The heavy bomber losses continued throughout the rest of the war whilst the Torpedo Bomber loss rates probably diminished with the introduction of the Beaufighter and Mosquito into anti-shipping strike.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is that a typo or did torpedo bombers have a 3% chance of survival on their second tour? Holy guacamole !
I'm also surprised at the low chance of survival for night fighter, I wouldn't have thought night fighters were that much at risk, unless most of their casualties were flying accidents.
I'm also surprised at the low chance of survival for night fighter, I wouldn't have thought night fighters were that much at risk, unless most of their casualties were flying accidents.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
gr4, my uncle disappeared off North Foreland in a Beau. No enemy activity that night, he never had any contact once he was operationa;l
Originally Posted by SASless
British submarine losses:
GR4Techie, no the Torpedo Bomber crewmember rate of survival for 2 tours is not a typo. Note, that is the chance of survival for 2 tours that was 3%, not the chance of survival on the 2nd tour. Probably, as a crew became more experienced, their chances of survival rose as they figured out how to avoid the defending AA fire. In my fathers case, his strategy was to stay as low as possible after torpedo release and aim to cross the targets bow as closely as possible and turn away under the target ships bow when most AA guns could not bear. He told me the closest he came to being killed was on a torpedo bomber familiarization exercise with HMS Kenya when he misjudged the ships speed and nearly collided with the bow. After completing his first tour he was posted to a Beaufighter OCU where he assessed his chances of survival as being lower than on Ops - monitoring practice engine failure on take-off with the student in the pilot's seat and the instructor crouched behind him killed 2 of his friends. He took advantage of the need for Armament Engineers to transfer branches thus, probably, enabling me to make this post.
I believe there is an argument (not necessarily mine) that says, for the amount of military damage achieved vs losses sustained, it might have been more cost effective for Coastal Command not to bother making any direct attacks ( as opposed to mine laying) on German maritime traffic along the coast of Norway during WW2....
The Hunter-Killer Task Units used the tactic "Locate....Force to Surface....Kill" very effectively by using ASW Ships and Aircraft from Escort Carriers. At some point the U-Boats would have to surface to charge Batteries which made them vulnerable to attack both by aircraft and surface ships.
The presence of Carrier Aircraft also forced the Subs to remain submerged and thus much less able to maneuver for attacks on surface shipping and Convoys.
The advent of the Snorkel mitigated that tactic somewhat but with the introduction of Airborne Radar capable of detecting the Snorkel....the pendulum swung back to the Allies favor.
The Carrier Project - The Battle of the Atlantic
http://www.history.navy.mil/download/car-9.pdf
The presence of Carrier Aircraft also forced the Subs to remain submerged and thus much less able to maneuver for attacks on surface shipping and Convoys.
The advent of the Snorkel mitigated that tactic somewhat but with the introduction of Airborne Radar capable of detecting the Snorkel....the pendulum swung back to the Allies favor.
The Carrier Project - The Battle of the Atlantic
http://www.history.navy.mil/download/car-9.pdf
Last edited by SASless; 12th Jan 2014 at 15:21.