The cost of the air war in WW2

[jeffdn]

Here's some of it... Click the link for the rest!

According to the AAF Statistical Digest, in less than four years (December 1941- August 1945), the US Army Air Forces lost 14,903 pilots, aircrew and assorted personnel plus 13,873 airplanes --- inside the continental United States. They were the result of 52,651 aircraft accidents (6,039 involving fatalities) in 45 months.

Think about those numbers. They average 1,170 aircraft accidents per month---- nearly 40 a day. (Less than one accident in four resulted in totaled aircraft, however.)

Those colossal losses cost the Axis powers nothing; not as much as one 7.7 mm bullet.
It gets worse...

Almost 1,000 Army planes disappeared en route from the US to foreign climes. But an eye-watering 43,581 aircraft were lost overseas including 22,948 on combat missions (18,418 against the Western Axis) and 20,633 attributed to non-combat causes overseas.
In August 1943, 60 B-17s were shot down among 376 losses. That was a 16 percent loss rate and meant 600 empty bunks in England. In 1942-43 it was statistically impossible for bomber crews to complete a 25-mission tour in Europe.

Full article here.

[guncrasher]

Here's some of it... Click the link for the rest!

Full article here.

that is an unverified list sent by "anonymous sources".  double suspicious.


semp

[jeffdn]

that is an unverified list sent by "anonymous sources".  double suspicious.


semp

Just thought it was neat, saw it on a history forum. *shrug*

[No9Squadron]

Hi Jeff, nice find, I read a similar figure somewhere of 1000 planes a month somewhere.

Rollo

[Oldman731]

that is an unverified list sent by "anonymous sources".  double suspicious.

Good to be suspicious, but the figures are accurate (this time).  We were discussing this recently in this thread:

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,354123.75.html

Go here for a reliable source.  Fuss around with the site for awhile, there are quite a few interesting tables besides this one:

http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t213.htm

- oldman

[Slate]

  Should be noted that in most wars noncombat accidents take a large toll. In the 2nd Gulf war half the casualties reported were motor vehicle or combat vehicle accidents, and deaths such as heart attack. Was sad when the M1 tank rolled into a canal drowning the crew. 

[Mister Fork]

 Should be noted that in most wars noncombat accidents take a large toll. In the 2nd Gulf war half the casualties reported were motor vehicle or combat vehicle accidents, and deaths such as heart attack. Was sad when the M1 tank rolled into a canal drowning the crew.  

Going back to 1st Gulf war, we had more deaths in the coalition forces in training accidents in Desert Shield mode than in the actual Desert Storm / War timeframe.  Just the cost of war I guess.

Back to the topic at hand - and to put it into perspective, back then during WWII,  if you're flying and weather comes in, unless you know the area you're flying in memorized including high land points around your airfield, and your airfield had a controller with radar to guide you back in, you were screwed.  A lot of planes ditched running out of fuel - and a lot didn't make it back flying into hills and mountains.

There was a great website I often visited about a guy in Europe who visits WWII aircraft crash sites in and around north-east Europe.  Most of the crash sites he found were result of 'flying into hills' from bad weather, or ditching from getting lost.  GPS was definitely not around and NAV beacons were not very common back then, especially in remote areas.  If your compass or flight instruments got damaged from enemy fire and the weather was getting back or night-time, might as well bail out.

Just my two cents.

[danny76]

In Desert Storm British forces suffered more casualties from US attacks than from enemy action

[Slate]

In Desert Storm British forces suffered more casualties from US attacks than from enemy action

. Friendly fire must be the hardest thing a family deals with.   

[guncrasher]

Good to be suspicious, but the figures are accurate (this time).  We were discussing this recently in this thread:

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,354123.75.html

Go here for a reliable source.  Fuss around with the site for awhile, there are quite a few interesting tables besides this one:

http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t213.htm

- oldman

wow, now I am amazed.


semp

[MiloMorai]

that is an unverified list sent by "anonymous sources".  double suspicious.


semp

Yet, except for Wiki, all the sources are reputable ones.

Sources:
Rene Francillon, Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific war; Cajus Bekker, The Luftwaffe Diaries; Ray Wagner, American Combat Planes; Wikipedia.

[MiloMorai]

wow, now I am amazed.


semp

You should be embarrassed.

[FLOOB]

Is it true that most losses of the 109s were from landing accidents with their wack landing gear?

[Oldman731]

Is it true that most losses of the 109s were from landing accidents with their wack landing gear?

Don't know, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

Long ago (very long ago) I read somewhere that the Luftwaffe simply did not place the same emphasis on safety procedures as other (western) air forces did, and consequently their accident rates were significantly higher.  Can't back this up now, but some of the other well-read AH people might know.

- oldman

[MiloMorai]

Is it true that most losses of the 109s were from landing accidents with their wack landing gear?

NO! That is one of those myths that won't go away.