The Deadliest British Bombers: Top 10 Crew Killers of WWII

Рет қаралды 207,559

Жыл бұрын

Buckle up, my fellow aviation enthusiasts! Get ready for a mind-blowing journey as we dive into the heart-stopping skies of World War II
Join me as we meticulously analyze RAF aircrew losses to unravel the ever-changing list of the deadliest bombers, revealing a surprising twist that will leave you questioning everything you thought you knew!
Together, we'll sift through heart-wrenching statistics and embark on an emotional exploration of the brave souls behind each aircraft. Their heroic sacrifices and unwavering determination will leave you in awe. But hold on tight, because I'm about to drop the bombshell-quite literally-unveiling the unexpected contender for the deadliest bomber based on operational sorties.
Join me on this riveting ride through history as we challenge historical perceptions and uncover the shocking truth about the deadliest British bombers of WWII. So, hit that play button, strap in, and let's embark on this adrenaline-fueled exploration that will keep us on the edge of our seats from start to finish!
💗 If you'd like to support my channel please follow this link for more details: calibanrising.com/support/
You can also now find me on Patreon: / calibanrising
🧥 Want to get a great deal on an authentic leather flying jacket? Check out the range from Legendary USA here: calibanrising.com/flying-jacket/
🎁 Grab one of my unique WW2-themed designs. great on t-shirts, hoodies or mugs: bit.ly/3GLPNBJ
📰 You can also support me by subscribing to one of these great aviation magazines: calibanrising.com/magazines/
💰 Want to start an online business with KZfaq?
This KZfaq channel is no accident and the success I've had so far was no mere fluke, it's all been planned out and executed in a very meaningful way. However, I can't take credit for knowing how to do all that, I had to learn and I learned from the best!
Listen to my advice for building a successful KZfaq channel: • How Does Phil From Cal...
📕 Welcome to my channel where I share my love of history and aviation. I first fell in love with military aviation when reading Biggles books as a boy, then I studied history at university. I like finding interesting stories and sharing them with others.
I also followed this passion into the real world and managed to get a Private Pilot's Licence on 10th May 2014.
🕹️ My gaming equipment for getting footage:
Joystick: amzn.to/2TP6h40
Rudder Pedals: amzn.to/38c3YAx
Elevator Trim: amzn.to/3oQWNn8
Head Tracking: amzn.to/34Qpvwd
3D print your own gaming controls
Get an Enders 3 Pro like me: amzn.to/3dFXts3
Go over to authentikit.org/
Wishlist: amzn.to/385dXHD
⏱️ Timestamp:
0:00 intro
Images: other than where stated, images used in the video have been found on commons.wikimedia.org/
#aviationhistory#history

Пікірлер: 450

@CalibanRising 6 ай бұрын

Liked the video? Keep the good times rolling by buying me a pint! 🍺 Tip with a Super Thanks or via PayPal: bit.ly/47p3xNT - Your support means a lot! Also check out my new channel membership.

@neilcoligan8621 Жыл бұрын

Speaking of exiting a Lancaster a Canadian won the VC for his efforts to free the rear gunner as their plane was headed down. As Andrew Mynarski approached the rear escape door, he saw that tail gunner Pat Brophy was trapped in his turret. The turret had been jammed part way through its rotation to the escape position. Mynarski made his way through the burning hydraulic fuel to give Brophy assistance. Unfortunately his efforts were in vain. With Mynarski's flight suit and parachute on fire, Brophy eventually waved him away. Mynarski crawled back through the fire, returned to the rear door where he paused and saluted and jumped. He didn't survive, but ironically Brophy did survive the crash and lived to testify to Mynarski's selfless courage.

@wape1 Жыл бұрын

There are people-sometimes complete strangers!-who heedlessly run into burning buildings to save trapped people or even pets. You'd like to think you're one of them, but you can't know for sure before the need arises. There is no doubt to which group of people P/O Mynarski belongs to - a true hero!

@kellyfj Жыл бұрын

Tragically ironic

@john-hughboyd233 Жыл бұрын

Which is why the Canadian Warplane Heritage flying Lanc is painted as VR-A - the Mynarski Memorial

@duartesimoes508 Жыл бұрын

_Great Balls of Fire,_ I must say.

@stephenkayser3147 Жыл бұрын

I find this story deeply touching and greatly moving as well as impressive in it's research results.. I (an Aussie who greatly respects Canada's war record and who's family fought in both world wars) wonder how many brave men performed VC efforts and never were recorded or awarded for whatever reason. Those who did also stand and respect those who did not.

@historyinbitesizedchunks5857 Жыл бұрын

I'm American but my grandfather is British. His father was a navigator on a Halifax and was killed in 1943 when his Halifax crashed into a hillside near the town of Kettlewell during a training flight (I believe ice was a factor). In 2018 I visited the UK with my grandfather and visited the wreck site which is now merely a giant hole in the ground with some remaining wreckage. For anyone curious, The tail number of the Halifax was DT578.

@DavidCulshawmer-r Жыл бұрын

i've been there many times hiking and didnt know about this , i'll have a look on my next visit 👍, the movie "calendar girls" was filmed there with Julie walters , there is a couple of nice campsites there in the village and some very nice pubs

@markstott6689 4 ай бұрын

I've visited the site twice during walks to Buckden Pike. The first time time the ground was covered in snow. The second was early spring, and I had sun, then snow, followed by heavy hail before the sun returned. I always visit the memorial. ❤

@jamesmacfarlane4626 Жыл бұрын

My Father joined the RAF on the 12th May 1940 aged 18, commissioned as a Pilot he flew 38 aircraft types including Halifax's with 76 Squadron at Holme-and-Spalding Moor in Yorkshire, he also flew Ansons, Whitleys, Hampdens, Wellingtons and DC3's. A Squadron Leader at the age of 22. He flew operationally in 1944/45 on Halifax II/III/VI and felt having been in a Lancaster as an observer considered that if ever in trouble the Halifax was by far the easier aircraft to get out of than the Lanc. The main-spar on the Halifax meant it was easier for the crew to exit either forward, or to the rear. In addition, the Halifax could also take considerable punishment as referenced by being hit by flak whilst leading the Squadron during a daylight raid over Osnabrück. The exploding flak shell put 197 holes in the aircraft miraculously without hitting any of the 8 man crew! But did remove most of the aircraft nose, one engine, all hydraulics, flight engine's panel, radio and both the rudder and aileron cables and holing every fuel tank in the aircraft. Amazingly the aircraft flew on and Dad using the three remain engines for the aircraft turned around and heading back to England with the help of the crew managed to patch the aircraft up to get back to 4 Group at Carnaby. The crew refused to bail out feeling their chances were higher sticking with Dad the aircraft. After my father placing them all on a charge for "Mutiny" and crew telling to F***-off the aircraft belly landed with no undercarriage and no remaining fuel. The crew all step out of the aircraft without a scratch. That was X-Xray's 100th and last mission. My Mother who was Ground Crew on 76 Squadron went to salvage the remains from X-Xray and only came back to Squadron with an undamaged fire-axe. Dad and three of the crew were all awarded DFC's and the remaining crew were all mentioned in dispatches. The average age of the crew was just 20. Dad said he doubted that the Lanc would have made it home. Having survived eight aircraft crashes as a pilot either from enemy action, or equipment (mainly engine failure) he did coin the phrase "Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing"! He retired from flying in 1977 with over 20,000 hours as a pilot. An interesting stat to consider at the RAF air museum at Linton-on-Ouse the stats for aircrew losses by crew position saw Pilots losses at a staggering 82% of those killed as apposed to other crew positions. Pilots always stayed with aircraft to allow their crews and mates time to escape, according to my Father "the crew came first". "Least we forget"! Thank you for your research and video in their memory.

@julianmhall Жыл бұрын

I would ask 'Which aircraft brought back the biggest percentage of its crew?' so the aircraft with varying crew numbers could be assessed equally.

@jesperlykkeberg7438 Жыл бұрын

I expected this video to compare the mortal risk of an individual crew member per sortie per aircraft type. It failed completely.

@stephenhall3515 Жыл бұрын

Thank you for this. My late father was a 'sparks' who flew in many bomber types as radar was being fitted. He often said that the almost forgotten Stirling was more likely to get home after even Me-109 damage because it was very tough. Despite being under-powered for the far reach raids he experienced the self-sealing fuel tanks seldom caught fire and skilled pilots used steep diving to extinguish fires. Only if cables and hydraulics were damaged as well would bail out be offered but the wing area and tall fin allowed for quite good steering and gliding, at least to within bailing out off the English coast. Men tended to remain in the plane because cranking the complicated undercarriage needed coordinated muscle power and weight was reduced by removing parts of the bomb bay and doors in some cases. Getting wet feet was not popular! It was also possible to land on 1 main wheel then tip at very slow speed -- usually on grass. This 'technique' was not possible on the Lanc and Halifax because of modular fuselage build. The Wellington's structure also aided structural integrity and both of his favourites had sufficient room for egress, sometimes unconventionally! In my father's judgement the B-17 USAAF was the most dangerous for crew not least because of overcrowding and too much reliance on electrics. RAF ones had manual override on doors and 2 of the turrets. The Stirling later played a vital part in taking dis-assembled Hurricanes to Murmansk on a long route because Swedish airspace was out of bounds but some flyers ignored that if their 'kites' were fitted with radar to show where "gun alley" was over Denmark. Keep up the fantastic work.

@TorontoJediMaster Жыл бұрын

Two factors to keep in mind when discussing the Lancaster and Halifax. 1) The Lancaster was operated in the highest numbers and undertook some of the toughest RAF operations of the war -naturally it would have more losses and casualties. 2) The Halifax was essentially two different bombers. The firsts one was equipped with Merlin engines, had asymmetrical tail fins (which could cause the aircraft to go into a spin), and a useless front turret. The later versions removed the front turret, modified the mid-upper turret for less drag, replaced the tail fins with rectangular models (that solved the spin issue) and replaced the engines with Hercules radial engines. The result was a 100% improved aircraft that had loss rates drop dramatically.

@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын

This is a really good point. I do confess I lumped types together here for ease but it would be interesting to see if different models/marques experienced different loss rates.

@vandenberg298 11 ай бұрын

@@CalibanRising The Glenn Martin Maryland 167 A-3 is, in my opinion, an inconspicuous aircraft from the WW2, but thanks to a youtube video from @EdNashsMilitaryMatters it got my attention. The French had 400 sorties and a loss rate of 4% with this aircraft, which is exceptionally good for a bomber, isn't it?

@richardvernon317 Жыл бұрын

Bought three volumes of the Bomber Command Losses series back in the 1990's (1943/44/45). Just a quick read through the books made clear that anybody getting out of a Lancaster was the exception, not the rule and if they did, it was mostly just the Bomb Aimer or the Rear Gunner. Halifax and Stirling, both had around 40% of the losses involve total loss of a crew, but in the rest of the cases at least half of the guys on board got out. Have a friend who's dad flew as a Bomb Aimer in Bomber Command in 1943-45 and did two tours. Posted to 15 Squadron on Stirling's just before the Battle of Hamburg (Was involved in the last two raids including the one with the huge Thunderstorm). Got transferred to 622 Squadron soon afterwards and converted to Lancaster's at the end of the year (after doing a lot of Mining Sorties). After competing the tour and doing an Instructor tour, did a second tour in 199 Squadron back on Stirling's doing RCM missions with 100 Group and did another on squadron conversion to Halifax III's during that tour. His view was the Halifax was the best one of the three to get out of if something went wrong.

@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын

I'm slowly building up my library with these types of reference books. Most of them are out of print now, so you could be sitting on a small fortune there!

@johnholt890 Жыл бұрын

I think that is generally recognised that the Halifax was best to get out of. However for overall survivability the Mosquito surely was the best BC aircraft to be in.

@JohnRodriguesPhotographer Жыл бұрын

The problems getting out of the Lancaster are similar to the American B-24.

@richardvernon317 Жыл бұрын

@@johnholt890 Mosquito had a 6.7% loss rate in 1942 in Daylight raids, Bomber Command only had 3 squadrons of them in 1942 (105 (all year) and 139 (from June) and 109 (From August)), Got another 1 in 1943 (627 (November))) and another 6 squadrons in 1944 when the Light Night Striking Force was set up (Squadrons set up every two months or so). Most BC Mosquito sorties were flown after the Luftwaffe had been Defeated were flown at night and at very high altitude. BC lost about 600 to 700 Mosquitos, a lot of them to Accidents.

@janetyeoman1544 Жыл бұрын

My dad flew as mid upper gunner in 3 Halifax squadrons, mostly 425 RCAF. He completed his tour of 35 Ops in 1944. He said the Halifax had better access doors that were easier to use, and the radial engines allowed for better survival with combat damage, compared to the liquid cooled designs. His log book is an interesting read as each mission lists pilot, target, bomb load and other details.

@paulhiggins8662 Жыл бұрын

I spoke to a Canadian bomber pilot who flew his first Op as second dickey in a Wellington, then flew the Lancaster Mk2 (Hercules engines) and then the Halifax. He was shot down in a Halifax on his 12th mission and although he got out with his bomb aimer, navigator and wireless operator, his Flight Engineer, mid upper and rear gunners died. To your question about survivability, he told me that he would never have got out of a Lancaster the night he was shot down, because he and his crew escaped the Halifax through an escape hatch on the floor of the aircraft at the front where the majority of the crew were located. No such escape hatch existed on the Lancaster because the larger bomb bay in the Lanc occupied that space. Lancaster crews therefore had to escape through an emergency exit in the canopy behind the pilots head, or make their way to the rear of the aircraft past the notorious main wing spa and neither was likely in a burning, spiralling aircraft. As a result, the Halifax had a crew survival rate of 29% and the Lancaster just 11%, but that didn't trouble Sir Arthur Harris, since he was only interested in exporting bombs, not POW's to Germany and he therefore favoured the Lancaster because it carried a significantly larger payload than the Halifax and therefore dropped more bombs per aircraft lost.

@AndrewGivens Жыл бұрын

Beautifully acerbic and dry summary. Much pathos too in the story of your friend and how that fitted into the reality of being on a crew.

@hugh_ghennaux Жыл бұрын

The Lanc and Halifax both had escape hatches in the nose. The one in the Lanc was beneath the bomb aimer. The escape hatch in the Halifax was beneath the navigator`s table which had to be moved aside and his chair seat flipped back to allow access. The most survivable crew position on the Lanc was the bomb aimer as he was lying on the hatch

@duartesimoes508 Жыл бұрын

Arthur Harris was very much a brute. Remember when he was stopped by a Policeman for speeding and the Policeman admonished him that he could kill someone driving like that; and _The Butcher_ replied "my boy, do you know how many thousand people I kill every night?" Nothing but a brute. Never liked him.

@unhippy1 Жыл бұрын

There was a escape hatch in the floor of the Lancaster where the bomb-aimers position was, my grandfather bailed out of his Lancaster over along with the rest of his crew using this hatch.......interestingly some AA gunners that saw his crew bail out thought that it was a Liberator that was on fire and being abandoned as they saw 8 objects leave the aircraft but only 7 parachutes...the object without the parachute was the floor hatch itself

@suzyqualcast6269 Жыл бұрын

@@unhippy1 "what's that? - DUCK!"

@peterboulton3788 Жыл бұрын

My dad was a Navigator in Lancaster ED620 which was shot down in Denmark in April 1943. Both he and the midupper and Tail gunners survived out of the crew of 7. My mum's cousin was the bomb aimer. Having been on board "Just Jane" I can fully understand how difficult it would have been to escape a crashing Lanc in the dark. I have a lot of admiration for these brave aircrew

@binaway Жыл бұрын

My dads cousin survived over 60 sorties in bomber command. Shortly after WW2 and while counting the takings at a cinema two young robbers with a gun killed him. His son was only 6 months old.

@nickmitsialis Жыл бұрын

Horrible; almost as bad as the death of Marion Carl, a highly decorated USMC WW2 pilot; he survived WW2, but was murdered during a home invasion robbery.

@duartesimoes508 Жыл бұрын

How horrible. So, he made at least three tours... That reminds me a bit the atrocious destiny of my former neighbor, who had a car crash a few _hours_ after marrying. He broke his little finger; _His Wife died._ The cursed man never truly recovered; as a kid I remember him as an alcoholic and very unstable person and was afraid of him. His second marriage was miserable. Life is truly heinous.

@JM-kr1tj Жыл бұрын

Would that be the Cameo cinema in Liverpool?

@binaway Жыл бұрын

@@JM-kr1tj Yes.That murder.

@ingridclare7411 Жыл бұрын

@@duartesimoes508 It is. Life is heinous. I am a victim of a heinous event also. Not an alcoholic but couldn't exist without considerable meds. I do not make others miserable however. These things are so beyond comprehension.

@TheDkeeler Жыл бұрын

I read a book about the Halifax long ago that said the Halifax was easier to bale out of than the Lancaster because it had a wider fuselage so it was more roomy to bale out of. Also the gun turrets were electrically operated so you had a lot less flammable hydraulic lines running up and down the fuselage that could catch fire like the Lancaster. On the down side for the Halifax it had a lower operating altitude height than the Lancaster. Thanks

@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын

I'd never thought about hydraulic lines being a factor before. Thanks, I'm going to have to read up on this more!

@wbertie2604 Жыл бұрын

The Boulton Paul turrets were hydraulic, but with the hydraulics being driven by electric motors with the turret. Fewer lines outside the turrets, but a potential source of sparks within it. Sperry turrets in the B-17 also. Most US turrets were all electric, though.

@markfryer9880 Жыл бұрын

The Halifax operational height would also depend upon the variant and the engine type. One of my books on the Lancaster includes a recollection by a Canadian pilot who flew both aircraft and actually ended up bailing out of the Halifax when shot down, he specifically mentioned the large escape hatch in the floor of the Halifax as a significant part of his survival. His Halifax also had the radial engines which meant that he could fly higher than most of the bomber stream. I think that he was attacked by a night fighter but it is a good while since I last read his account. Mark from Melbourne Australia

@markfryer9880 Жыл бұрын

I also didn't know that the Halifax had electric power turrets vs the hydraulic. A lot of Halifax were flying with only the rear turret, the other two having been removed to improve performance.

@wbertie2604 Жыл бұрын

@@markfryer9880 The Halifax had hydraulic turrets. It's just that the hydraulics were contained entirely within the turret and 'energised' by electrically-driven pumps.

@richardstuart325 Жыл бұрын

Very interested in this, as my uncle was killed in a Lancaster. After being hit by flak, two crew members managed to bail out, of which one survived. The other five went down with the aircraft (including my uncle). The survivor had a narrow escape, as he was found by German civilians who "put the boot in" and intended to kick him to death. A German soldier intervened and insisted he was taken prisoner. We don't know what happened to the second man who bailed out, but the experiences of the survivor may give a hint.

@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын

What brave lads they must have been. We were lucky men like your uncle existed back then. Thanks Richard.

@richardstuart325 Жыл бұрын

@@CalibanRising Fortunately we have the survivor's memoirs and diaries of two other crew members. They had a number of fighter encounters and were credited with "probable" shooting down of a JU88. The aircraft was damaged by flak on a number of occasions and they managed a Berlin raid on three engines. Their aircraft was destroyed in a crash on the ground and their bomb aimer was killed in a road accident. Bad weather was another cause of near misses. The odds were stacked against them and after four months and over 20 ops their luck finally ran out on the way to Berlin.

@markfryer9880 Жыл бұрын

@@richardstuart325I strongly suspect that they were unfortunate enough to have been flying during the Battle of Berlin in the winter of 1943/44. The targets were too predictable, the distances over occupied territory too long and the weather was frequently as much of a battle as the enemy. Fog cost many a crew their lives when they were almost home.

@cammobunker Жыл бұрын

Yeah, that happened a LOT. Getting out of a flaming bomber after getting shot out of the sky by a night fighter, successfully parachuting to the ground and then killed by an angry farmer with a shovel. There were a few German civilians executed after the war for murdering Allied air crew but of course most got away with it.

@richardstuart325 Жыл бұрын

@@markfryer9880 Absolutely correct. They flew seven ops to Berlin, plus other targets deep inside Germany, in late 1943 and were shot down on 29 December 1943.

@alexwilliamson1486 Жыл бұрын

I had a guided tour of the inside of a Lanc last year at Duxford, what struck me, apart from the narrowness of the fuselage, was the amount of equipment you had to scramble around to get to the cockpit, in a hurry at night with gear on, not to mention possible fire on board, one can only imagine the horror, no wonder there were not many Lancaster pilots in POW camps.

@gastonbell108 5 ай бұрын

That wing spar is a nightmare, I laughed out loud the first time I got to see the inside of a Lanc. As you said, imagine being weighed down with armor, heavy winter gear and oxygen tank, trying to climb over a waist-high obstacle in a crashing aircraft in pitch darkness... while flak is coming through the paper-thin walls and the captain is yelling to bail out. I'm amazed the successful escape rate was even as high as 0.7 per 7.

@nicholasconder4703 Жыл бұрын

My father flew as a navigator/bomb aimer in Blenheim IVs and Bostons, and as a navigator in Vickers Wellingtons. His first operational sortie was during the 2nd Battle of El Alamein, and he flew with the Desert Air Force until partway through the Italian Campaign.

@user-jh7py6bd9z Жыл бұрын

As some others have commented, you need to look closely at the design of the bombers. I remember that one of Martin Middklebrook's excellent books compares the survival rate of various crew positions in the Lancaster and the Halifax. The conclusion was that the Lancaster's escape hatches were extremely difficult to reach compared with the Halifax.

@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын

This is on my list for a future video. I'm hoping to get down in the roots and uncover these figures for myself.

@bwarre2884 Жыл бұрын

I read somewhere that the Operational Research Section of the RAF advised Bomber Command to make the hatches of the Lancaster wider. This wasn't done because of cables. The Lancaster would need redesigning and there was no time for that.

@enscroggs Жыл бұрын

The position of the crew hatches relative to the empennage is important and often overlooked. Here's a picture of a Halifax: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Halifax#/media/File:Royal_Air_Force_Bomber_Command,_1939-1941._CH3393.jpg Note the position of rear gunner's hatch. It's small and awkward, but it's well below the horizontal stabilizer. Compare it to the main crew door on a Lanc: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lancaster#/media/File:Lancasters.jpg Getting out of an aircraft and surviving depends on not being struck by your own plane before you can open your chute.

@kellybreen5526 Жыл бұрын

I had a friend who was a rear gunner with 463 squadron. From what I have heard the Lancaster was very hard to escape from due to small hatches and spars running through the tail and fuselage. I believe that only about 1 in 7 survived when the aircraft was shot down. This is a misleading stat though because in many cases the entire crew was lost and in other more rare cases most of the crew survived. Apparently the Halifax was a safer plane to crash land in and was easier to bail out of due to different turrets and larger escape hatches. Great work sir. Compiling those stats must make your eyes cross.

@jamesharmer9293 Жыл бұрын

The Halifax had a bigger escape hatch and so was easier to bail out of, than the Lancaster. This was pointed out to the top brass at the RAF but they didn't want to change the Lancaster design, since it would slow down production of the bomber and potentially drag out the war. Which would get more men killed. War is brutal.

@richardvernon317 3 ай бұрын

It's not the RAF Top's Brass Fault!! Bomber Harris did push all the time for improvements in bomber safety and in a lot of cases he was supported the Air Ministry as well. Unfortunately it was the Ministry of Aircraft Production, Royal Aircraft Establishment and the Industry who failed to act on getting better everything into service.

@Ob1sdarkside Жыл бұрын

Love these vids, they really give an insight into the air war

@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын

Thanks mate. I really enjoyed putting this one together.

@Ob1sdarkside Жыл бұрын

It beats the faster/further/higher/carried more bombs vids. It's the human side of the air war

@cyrilthompson1846 7 ай бұрын

A friend of my father's was a rear gunner in a Lancaster. He had a duel with a German night fighter during a raid. The night fighter lost but he took a cannon shell in his leg causing it to be lost. His only complaint was that the four 303 machine guns were ineffectual. He had served with another squadron in another type of plane in the rear position with two 50 cals He found them more effective. It required a longer burst of 303 to bring then down. He was one of my favourite people full of stories and information .

@vandenberg298 Жыл бұрын

It's so hard to make a comparison between these bombers. You have to deal with different missions. Does the aircraft fly high or at tree height to bomb its target or only over the sea or areas where there is little resistance? You have to deal with so many variables. Super interesting how you have analyzed the situation.

@MarsFKA Жыл бұрын

I was in the Air Training Corps in New Zealand in the 1960s. Our national Commandant had been a Blenheim pilot at the start of the War and told us that the casualty rate was so awful that, within 15 months, only he and one other pilot were left of the original aircrew in his squadron. 7:43 A Whitley flown by Leonard Cheshire. Hit by flak on the way to the target and set on fire. The crew managed to put the fire out and then they carried on to the target. The radio operator was badly burned but insisted on staying at his post. He and Cheshire were decorated for this mission.

@BruceGCharlton Жыл бұрын

Very interesting and thoughtful analysis. While some aircraft are so obviously dangerous that they rapidly get taken off duty (Fairey Battle) or put on 'safe' duties - there are other intrinsically safer aircraft who end up with rather bad statistics because of the tasks they are allocated (you mentioned the Mosquito) - or because they are used with minimal regard for the lives of the crew - often because the tasks they perform are regarded as having vital significance. Ground attack is one such role - an intrinsically very dangerous job both in WWII and indeed WWI - where very large numbers of Sopwith Camel pilots were lost in ground strafing and bombing roles covering the retreat against the German counter-attack of 1918. This was regarded of vital military effectiveness, in protecting the British army - but losses were terrible, with about four missions per day. But (unlike dogfighting, fighter v fighter) these pilot/ plane losses had little to do with the specific qualities of the plane, or indeed the skill of the pilot. Something similar applies to the post-D-Day work in WWII: pilot losses were very heavy whether the aircraft was ultra-rugged (like the Thunderbolt) or not-so-much (Typhoon). Pierre Closterman describes the horror of simply having to fly-through a Wall of flak to get at the target, especially for those not in the first wave. It was sheer luck, he thought, whether or not you got hit and obliterated.

@vincebaildham7530 8 ай бұрын

Boulton -Paul Defient was another dud

@NickRatnieks Жыл бұрын

I once worked with a former Bomber Command pilot and he said that the Lancaster fuselage was assembled from various modules and on crash landing it tended to break up into these parts whereas the Stirling's fuselage integrity was maintained as it was built in once piece. Obviously, there are many variables when an aircraft crash lands and thankfully, we were not exposed to this experience.

@percyprune7548 Жыл бұрын

The sole survivor of the crew of my uncle's Lancaster was thrown into the sky when the fuselage broke up near him, thankfully wearing his parachute. A rare incident where the weakness saved a life.

@commanderjameson2708 Жыл бұрын

Stirlings were shot down a lot but crews tended to get out OK, resulting in it becoming a well-loved plane. Pilot logic.

@NickRatnieks Жыл бұрын

@@commanderjameson2708 The Stirling was a very large aeroplane and its fuselage could be fitted with seats- it was capacious and strong whereas the Lancaster was extremely cramped in comparison. The former pilot I mentioned said you could do extraordinary manoeuvres in the Stirling and it was extremely robust. Of course, the limited wingspan meant that as German AA defences were beefed up, its service ceiling made it very vulnerable. Short Bros had all the plans for a SuperStirling which would have remedied this and created an enhanced aircraft but by then production of the Lancaster and Halifax was the priority so this new version was never sanctioned.

@commanderjameson2708 Жыл бұрын

@@NickRatnieks Murray Peden talks about this in his book. He really liked the Stirling because of its manoverability. (He later converted to Fortresses which were used by the RAF in a specialist RCM role.)

@richardvernon317 3 ай бұрын

@@NickRatnieks Stirling was built as a Bomber Transport that is why the aircraft was so big (same concept as the Harrow / Bombay). Halifax and Manchester / Lancaster were built as pure bombers.

@marknelson2846 Жыл бұрын

Excellent information!

@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching Mark!

@whisthpo Жыл бұрын

Very interesting and Well presented!

@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it!

@davidoldboy5425 Жыл бұрын

Great video, thank you

@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын

Glad you liked it! Thanks for watching David.

@JohnRodriguesPhotographer Жыл бұрын

The Fairey Battle like Benny British bombers was grossly underarmed for defense. Brave souls what happened to fairy Battle we're flying obsolescent aircraft with inadequate fire power. God bless their brave souls

@AndrewDederer Жыл бұрын

It also matters a bit HOW the planes were lost. A lot of the 4-engine losses would have been sudden and involving a wing folding up (flak or nightfighter). The mere fact that the B-24 was more vulnerable to losing a wing in a hurry (more "modern" design, higher stress) was enough to convince many B-17 crews they were in the right plane. Conversely, the Ventura and to some degree the Wellington numbers have to include a lot of U-boat attacks, which were NOT fun. You'll find Avenger losses to U-boats were quite small, because they flew with Wildcats whose whole job was to suppress the flak gunners while the Avenger lined up. At which point the u-boat got a set of depth bombs or a Fido, depending on whether it had dived or not.

@ibeatyoutubecircumventingy6344 Жыл бұрын

without watching id say the Fairey Battle!

@peterbrown6224 Жыл бұрын

Thank you for this fascinating video. As others have said, the ability to exit a mortally damaged aircraft quickly and with an intact parachute is good to have. The behaviour of the aircraft with an engine failure at takeoff, or in icing/instrument conditions, is also important. These challenges kill even highly-experienced pilots to this day.

@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching

@andrewmacdonald4833 Ай бұрын

The Lanc, while an exceptional bomber was appalling to get out of in an emergency. The crew exits were too small and the main entry point was a dangerous point to jump from in an emergency due to the horizontal stabilizers..if you didn't jump properly, you'd smack straight into it.

@ainsleystones4600 Жыл бұрын

That was really fascinating and I appreciate your work. A very fine old friend of mine, John "Bob" Parkinson was a Lanc wireless operator out of, I think, 207 Sqn at Spilsby, Lincs. He was shot down over occupied France in 1942 and was one of only two surviving crew members. His escape to allied lines can only be described as miraculous and puts me in mind of "Allo Allo". The man was a dapper, engaging, popular little bugger, who died 8 years ago aged 90. I have, I think, an interview on CD which he recorded with our local BBC Radio Sheffield about 15 or so years ago. If that's of any use to you, please let me know.

@davethompson3326 Жыл бұрын

Context matters a hell of a lot in such figures, Some of the Battle raids against the Germans in the France Campaign were near suicidal, lacking fighter cover, while at low level and against horrific flak. Type of op, crew experience, available fighter cover, length of time over enemy territory and effective strength of opposition would all have an impact.

@anthonyeaton5153 4 ай бұрын

There was no fighter cover for RAF bombers until late in the war provided by the Mosquito which were interdictors and not escort. No room over there for hundreds of bombers and fighters including German fighters.

@alexking8610 2 ай бұрын

My dad was a squadron commander and flew many missions in a Lancaster , like many involved in WW11 he never talked about it but later in life he met a man who had flown with him . He told us that his crews called him " mad Jack " as he thought it was a waste of time weaving to avoid flack and he would just fly straight to his target , apparently his crew hated him for this but he survived . My older brother is named after his best friend who was on of his tail gunners who did not survive . Amazing what they did !

@Deepthought-42 10 ай бұрын

Very interesting analysis. A number of the Whitney bombers were transferred to Coastal Command for submarine patrol. They were known for not being able to maintain level flight if an engine failed and probably why no intact examples exist.

@glynngriffith3044 Ай бұрын

A very interesting video. My late uncle flew with Bomber Command as a rear gunner. After completing two tours split by a couple of months as a gunnery instructor he was invited for a third tour but politely declined and remustered as a dog handler with the 'Snowdrops' and was demobbed with his dog Captain in 1947

@PaulStewartAviation Жыл бұрын

Very enjoyable video. Such sobering numbers. :(

@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it Paul!

@koitorob 7 ай бұрын

During one of my visits to see NX611 at East Kirkby, Andrew Panton told us about an incident at East Kirkby during the war when they lost several Lancasters on the ground while being loaded with bombs. I didn't know that the bombs use were armed on the ground before being loaded onto the aircraft and during the procedure one bomb got dropped as it was being attached and it exploded upon impact with the ground taking out the loading crew and the aircraft and crews of other aircaft parked nearby. I forget how many people were killed all together but it was many. Sadly it blows your theory of the only way an aircraft can be 100% safe is to not leave the ground. I think it should be ammended to "the only way for an aircraft to be 100% safe is if the aircrew stay in bed."

@anthonyeaton5153 4 ай бұрын

The bombs were armed but with a connecting cable to the fuse system, when the bombs were released the cable stayed with the aircraft thus arming the bomb.

@richardvernon317 3 ай бұрын

If Memory serves a Cookie Cooked off in a 57 Squadron Lanc after the aircraft caught fire and the resulting explosions destroyed another 5 lancs and damaged another 14. The fire may have been caused by a Flare or Photoflash going off A lot of damage was done to parts of the airfield tech site, plus building off the station.

@spacecadet35 Жыл бұрын

I think for the military a better measure would be deaths per thousand tons of bombes dropped. In my quick search I could not find figures for Blenheims, Battles or Hampdens. Of the others : Mosquitoes 10 deaths per thousand tons. Lancasters 35.5 deaths per thousand tons, Halifaxs 50 deaths per thousand tons, Stirlings 154.9 deaths per thousand tons, Whitleys 203.8 deaths per thousand tons, Manchesters 205.4 deaths per thousand tons and Wellingtons 239.6 deaths per thousand tons

@ianshaw8599 Жыл бұрын

Hi Caliban, enjoying your excellent and well reseached videos. Can you please tell me which game/software that you did the video grabs from of the Wellington bombers in your Dangerous Bomber video. We are looking to build a Wimpey simulator in our soon to be opened RAF Ingham Polish Bomber Heritage Centre. Thanks in advance. Ian

@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын

For the Wimpy I used IL-2 Cliffs over Dover. Team Fusion have been modding the game for years and produced a flyable Wellington for it.

@ianshaw8599 Жыл бұрын

@@CalibanRising Thanks for that, just looked it up, it appears that the flyable Wellington is in their Tobruck package, pity as I wanted a UK Bomber Command airfield background for a new Polish Bomber Sqn's Museum that we are opening up soon at the old RAF Ingham BC Aerodrome. It would be fun for kids to have a go at flying a Wimpey (like you can a Halifax at Elvington) I have one working and flyable in MS Combat Flt Sim 2 but I don't think that programme is compatable with Windows 10.

@AlexLancashirePersonalView Жыл бұрын

The Short Stirling was my father's favorite plane. Albert Bishop Lancashire and his pilot Vernon "Stinky" Miller, from Canada, flew 90 missions. Shot down twice, once by the British Navy.

@troidva Жыл бұрын

Two of my uncles served in Avro Lancasters as gunners. Miraculously, both survived.

@avman180 Жыл бұрын

Many aircrew apparently credit their survival to being in a Wellington due to its lattice construction being able to take a lot of damage and still get home, thanks to Barnes Wallis.

@tonykerrison1983 9 ай бұрын

My late Uncle Alf was a Rear Gunner on 158 Sqn in 1943-4, flying Halifaxes from Lissett, in Yorkshire. On one sortie to a target in France, the aircraft iced up & began to become uncontrollable. Stan, the Pilot, asked the crew if they wanted to bale out, but they all said they'd stay with the aircraft, rather than face people they'd just been bombing. Control was regained, & they got home safely. Alf did a full tour of ops, & survived into his 90s.

@cdfe3388 Жыл бұрын

I’d be interested to see one like this that breaks down all the western Allies, comparing B-17s, B-24s, B-25s, B-26s, and B-29s with British types.

@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын

I'll hunt down the data and see what I can do!

@oj8868 Жыл бұрын

I wonder what that feels like - knowing that death or critical injury is almost a statistic certainty after a certain number of sorties. I don't think I could deal with that tbh. Aside from that, superb video! Very nice research and the structure made it easy to follow

@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching!

@markfryer9880 Жыл бұрын

Many young crews were more afraid of being labelled LMF Lacking Moral Fibre and being disgraced and kicked out of the Air Force than they were of death or injury.

@jwenting Жыл бұрын

That's why the USAAF rotated crews out after a limited number of sorties. They were then either reassigned to less risky theaters or went to work other jobs. The RAF didn't really have that luxury because they had a far smaller pool of people to draw on.

@jeremypnet Жыл бұрын

@@jwenting nope. The British did rotate crews. The bomber command tour was 30 missions and you did a maximum of two tours with a period of six months between them.

@colinmartin2921 Жыл бұрын

A big factor in deaths was the Lancaster's awful propensity to burn rapidly, and the near impossibility of escape from the aircraft, which meant that few Lancaster crewmen managed to escape from their aircraft. The Halifax was much better and I believe that around half of Halifax crews that were shot down managed to get out.

@richardvernon317 3 ай бұрын

Complete Halifax crews getting out were almost as rare as Lancaster Crews. The difference was three or four guys got out of a Halifax, where one or two only got out of a Lancaster if anybody got out. Fuel / Air Explosion in the wing tanks when hit by cannon fire was the major issue and Bomber Command had raised a urgent operational requirement to get some form of fuel tank Nitrogen purge system fitted in early 1943. Like a lot of safety improvements to bombers requested by BC, The RAE, MAP and Industry failed to produce something simple and effective that worked!!

@gerardleahy6946 2 ай бұрын

A Whitley got lost off the Irish coast and ended up near Galway on the Atlantic seaboard. The pilot stayed aboard while the other crewmen bailed out. The pilot died a hero as he prevented the aircraft crashing into what was then a town of c.15000. The aircraft had bombs on board and remains on the sea bed in Galway Bay.

@davidanderson4091 2 ай бұрын

This is purely anecdotal, but my father spent 18 months at RAF Collins Bay (now known as Kingston Norman Rogers Airport) in Ontario, Canada as part of the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan (BCATP). He told me that Fairey Battles regularly crashed during training exercises. It might be worth investigating that aspect.

@1bert719 Жыл бұрын

I'd be interested to see how many of the Whitley crew deaths were incurred during it's time as a 2nd string aircraft delivering supplies and agents into enemy territory long after it's obsolescence. The Stirling I believe suffered from a low service ceiling that made it more vulnerable to flak and fighters that could intercept more easily. Even more astonishing to me was the Fairey Battles casualty rate as most were incurred in such a short space of time over France and Belgium. 🤔

@dougerrohmer Жыл бұрын

I would say that the fact that the Fairey Battle probably flew 100% during daylight hours must have added to other reasons.

@parrotraiser6541 Жыл бұрын

I believe that data on the early use of the Lancaster highlighted a problem with the escape routes from Lancaster., That led to hatches being enlarged. (Originally, it wss difficult to leave while wearing a parachute.)

@bofoenss8393 Жыл бұрын

The Blenheim's career was only short in North Western Europe. It flew on in the Middle East and Italy until 1943 and in the Far East at least until 1942. It flew bombing missions, ASW and anti shipping patrols and more, only being replaced when the opposition of modern fighters became too intense over Italy. So, it is understandable that so many lost their lives in the Blenheim considering how many units flew it for so long. It even accounted for the first air attack on a Japanese carrier group in April 1942.

@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын

You're absolutely correct. Unfortunately I only really had the data for Bomber Command, otherwise the numbers might have been very different.

@bofoenss8393 Жыл бұрын

@@CalibanRising As a bomber flying under Bomber Command from Britain you are absolutely correct, it had a very short lived career. And great video, I love your analysis.

@markfryer9880 Жыл бұрын

I have a book by a pilot flying the Blenheim out of Malta on Anti-Shipping missions and the chop rate was horrendous. His Squadron was even with interim replacement crews finally cut down to two crews before they were relieved and sent on to Egypt and then back to Britain.

@wbertie2604 Жыл бұрын

Later Blenheims got a new turret that was easier to bail out from and an under turret. Apparently the former was only of use when crash landing and the latter almost useless as most missions were at such low altitude.

@davidrobinson4553 Жыл бұрын

Very interesting as always the photo of the partially de skinned Wellington really brings home how rugged they were, I hope your all settled back in the UK 🇬🇧

@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын

Thanks David, I'm enjoying the long holiday back in Blighty... especially all the museums!

@Oligodendrocyte139 Жыл бұрын

@@CalibanRisingI recently visited RAF Defford Museum. Knew nothing about it but it was full of very interesting experimental electronic equipment. Well worth it!

@w8stral Жыл бұрын

That was fabric skinned I believe.

@davidrobinson4553 Жыл бұрын

@@w8stral Yes Irish Linen covered in dope to tension it then painted, it must have been quite flamable to say the least.

@NeilFLiversidge Жыл бұрын

Bearing in mind the different crew numbers, I would suggest that the way to calculate which was the deadliest bomber is not deaths per aircraft sortie, but deaths per man-sortie. So, first, calculate the number of man-sorties. Say 50,000 sorties were flown by aircraft type A with an 8-man crew. That would equate to 400,000 man-sorties (8 x 50,000). Then you take the total number of men killed in that type and divide it by the total, so 10,000 men killed in that aircraft type out of 400,000 man-sortied gives a death rate of 2.5% per man-sortie. If you then have aircraft type B with a crew of 2 flying a total of 30,000 sorties, with total deaths of say 2,000, that makes 60,000 man sorties and a death rate of 6.666% (2000 divided by 60,000). This method has the advantage of automatically factoring in how safe or otherwise a plane was overall, i.e. whether it was attacked or not, sustained damage or not, and crashed or not, in whatever circumstances. Hope this helps. Great video. Thank you!

@MreViewer Жыл бұрын

Shocking numbers

@smidon 2 ай бұрын

Thank you for doing this - it’s puzzled me for decades. I agree re the Lancaster. I understand it had a relatively low loss rate (aircraft/sortie) because it flew higher than others in the stream. But it was a death trap for the reasons others note (main spar, few and small exits) but also I believe it typically couldn’t be controlled for long in damaged state. Hence v high relative ‘death when hit’ rate. Again thank you.

@CalibanRising 2 ай бұрын

Thanks for watching.

@vincent412l7 Жыл бұрын

It would have been useful to know the crew sizes. Obviously more men were lost in large 10-man crews than in smaller 2-man crews

@davebarclay4429 Жыл бұрын

The information is readily available for anyone who wants to research further. A typical Halifax or Lancaster crew was seven, the Hampden was four and the Battle was three.

@mabbrey Жыл бұрын

gd stuff cali

@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын

Thanks Martin!

@nickmitsialis Жыл бұрын

I read a comic strip once; the Lanc men felt having Stirlings with them was good because the Sterling, being slower, having a lower ceiling etc, would soak up all of the attentions of the flak and night fighters. Whenever the Lanc crews heard Stirlings would be accompanying them, they'd all cheer: Sterlings! HO!.

@anthonyeaton5153 4 ай бұрын

‘Turn back’ is a term for a returning bomber with a technical problem. It has been that there were fewer returns by Lancasters when Stirlings were on the same operation.😏

@nickmitsialis 4 ай бұрын

@@anthonyeaton5153 As I recall, the 'brass' at Bomber Command were quick to tar crews with the label 'Lack of Moral Fiber' if any questions arose from these early returns.

@benjo_pharmer Жыл бұрын

I haven't watched the video yet.... But I always thought the Halifax was safer than the Lancaster, as the wing strut impeded longitudinal movement in the Lanc. I'm interested to see if that comes up in the video... Certainly veterans talked about it.

@georgecullen759 Жыл бұрын

Which plane was the easiest to get out of while wearing a parachute. I would expect these to be the safest to fight with. Could you get out of the escape hatch with a parachute on? I read somewhere that the hatches were too small.

@Gr0gRat 2 ай бұрын

Any thoughts on the Blackburn Botha, they were unfit for frontline service and used for navigation and bombardier training, with underpowered engines and manually cranked landing gear, they were generally regarded as deathtraps

@stringpicker5468 Жыл бұрын

I find this very interesting. The losses per sortie is probably the best indicator. So many Lancasters and Halifaxes were lost in the battle for the Ruhr and Harris's foolish obsession with Berlin. German air defences were very good from mid 1943 till late 1944. Schrage Musik was a major factor and if hit by Flak there was a very good chance of total destruction and no-one having a chance to bail out. That said, the Halifax was much easier to escape from if there was a chance.

@MartinCHorowitz Жыл бұрын

Usage Scenario plays a big part, flying daytime unescorted against fighter opposition,you are going to have much worse losses than flying at night before night fighters.

@Bruce-1956 Жыл бұрын

If you visit a CWGC cemetery in Germany, the Netherlands etc you can usually see which plane the crews came from without looking up the squadron, as the crew are usually buried together.

@Oligodendrocyte139 Жыл бұрын

The Battles were sacrificed in May 1940 in attempts to blow bridges to slow the German advance. Not saying they weren’t outdated though.

@garymcbrearty5845 Жыл бұрын

These stats are at odds with the only WWII story of my Grandad's that was ever told and makes the final comment I'll make more powerful upon reflection. Nearly 39 years ago to the day his crew along with another 15 others were sent to destroy a V1 launch site 25mile south east of Calais. His 7 man crew Lancaster had both gunners severely wounded after bombs gone and live, but the sorties lead aircraft with the 8th man HS2 radar operator crew option was destroyed, both by being engaged by night fighters. Sadly that airframe was flown by his squadron leader who along with the tail gunner never got out & thus died, the other 6 crew becoming prisoners of war. So with 2 planes attacked and hit the Germans that night scored 2 dead and 2 never to fly again because of life changing injuries. This reads a lot different to 49% casualties statistics thrown back at us many years later or the idea that often full crews could be lost together as 1. It took 5 weeks for my Grandads Lanc to be repaired, it was full of forearm sized entry gashes from cannon fire, internal explosive made holes blowing outwards & a mass of metal debris that once was mission equipment into something us normal folks can't imagine, but when I asked as a child why my Grandad loved the Lanc so much he simply replied "Because it always brought me home" and he was deep into a 2nd tour of duty with 8 group 35 pathfinder squadron

@sugarnads Жыл бұрын

Yeah. Stats are stats because there are always outliers like that. Go look at the overall averwge loss rate per raid. Then calculate that over the course of several 1000 bomber raids if the loss rate hits 10% (which several did) and soon verrry soon you have no more aeroplanes to send off. And squadrons lost entire crew rotwtions several times over during the war. Ask how many bomber crews who started ww2 actually survived the war? Not fkn many.

@garymcbrearty5845 Жыл бұрын

@@sugarnads That is my point, my grandad did quite a few of those 800+ plane raids and ALL the 1000+ raids, not just travel bomb & return but sorties where he would linger at altitude to release flares to guide the miles long incoming bomber stream as it came on to target, sometimes staying overhead for over an hour to aid with bomb aiming correction and prevent the known psychological phenomenon of bomb creep. Go do some homework, go reference Pathfinder squadrons & typical duties, not every Lancaster Bomber command crew was trained the same, some could hit targets at night that were far smaller than huge dams in the Ruhr valley. The target I spoke about had twice been missed by a total deploy of approx 200+ USAF aircraft in daylight raids in the fortnight before it was given to 8th group to see to it!. All of which makes his service & good fortune all the more unique, the serious point I was trying to make against those dreary stats in the video. His squadron lost aircraft & all crew more than once and for more reasons than were discussed here, eg 1 within 800 yards of take off, it simply flew into the ground fully loaded with an engine problem destroying the family within the farmhouse it hit. Several out over the north sea while returning home, examples include numerous times with no probable cause just heavy cloud coverage, some with known battle damage that whilst unseen just never made it home and 1 time because of a ground handlers mistake, an error that sent 3 Lancs into oblivion before take off due to a bomb pre ignition. I know all this because I did a study of the squadrons daily logs for the period of his war service. PS Try to be a gent, It is best when summing up not to swear at someone who has a lot of insider knowledge & is not just an internet opinion, it makes it appear like you are an arsehole with a keyboard

@bjornh4664 Жыл бұрын

The Fairey Battle would probably have an even higher casualty number if it wasn't for the practice that many sorties were flown with just two crew members instead of three.

@TTTT-oc4eb Жыл бұрын

Yeah, I would have guessed the Fairey Battle would come off bad. Single-engined bombers with almost non-existing defensive armament were horribly vulnerable without air superiority. I have read that the Lancaster was difficult to get out of in a hurry - I understand that one of the few advantages the Halifax had over the Lancaster, was that it was much easier to escape from.

@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын

Yeah I'm hoping that I can find the figures to back this up and see just how dangerous the Lanc was for its crews.

@markfryer9880 Жыл бұрын

You might find some variations in the figures if the Halifax is looked at by Mark numbers. The ones with the arrow shaped tails were notorious for jambing and locking the rudders during corkscrew manuvers resulting in the loss of aircraft and crew.

@wbertie2604 Жыл бұрын

The Lancaster is how the B-17 crews got flak vests. They were too cramped for the flak vests Britain produced and they were given to the USAAF and later the USA produced them under licence in the USA.

@wbertie2604 Жыл бұрын

@@markfryer9880 and some Halifax missions were as transport, glider tugs. Partly, that's distinguished by mark number, but some got rebuilt (mostly the top turret being removed).

@geoffreymawdsley8102 Жыл бұрын

@@markfryer9880 q

@AndrewGivens Жыл бұрын

I'm very surprised that the Blenheim's safety record, averaged over its entire career with Bomber Command, comes out so reasonably. Perhaps, when used in the medium bomber role (for which it was really too small to be effective anyway) at the start of the war, it *was* a deathtrap, lacking the defences needed to fight its way through to the target and out again without sustaining horrible losses to enemy fighters (or flak, but I suspect fighters were the major issue)? I have a suspicion that, much like the Hampden's record perhaps being salved by a switch in operational role, the Blenheim likewise saw its use switched early on to coastal roles; attacking enemy shipping in the Channel / North Sea and a Med, as well as flying copious maritime reconnaissance & patrol missions. Whilst still no doubt dangerous, this would have kept them further away from fighter interference and probably significantly reduce the tempo of operational losses. At least, that's my suspicion.

@Bobby-wn5yr 2 ай бұрын

It would be interesting to see the accident vs combat numbers. My grandad flew in mosquitos the second half of the war, and researching him and his buddies I would constantly see mosquito pilots killed in accidents, typically low flying ones like hitting trees or power lines, etc.

@chrisking1900 Жыл бұрын

I live in Foulsham, one of the bases for 100 Group. They were the first airborne Electronic Warfare unit. They used B17 on both daylight, (US) and RAF night raids. I suppose you could call it "Bomber Support". They used B24's also. One crashed not 1/4 mile from my house. Most of their work on the technical side is still Classified. ( 100yr. / eg, 2045).

@richardvernon317 3 ай бұрын

Total Rubbish. Martin Streetly's books on 100 Group cover everything in great detail. They were not the first EW unit.. 515 Squadron with the Defiant carrying the Moonshine pulse repeater were the direct dedicated Airborne EW unit formed in 1942. Plus there was a ELINT Flight operating in 1942 as well. 100 Group wasn't formed until late 1943 and the Majority of their Units didn't actually do their first mission until 5/6 June 1944.

@julianmhall Жыл бұрын

Phil you suggested ref the Lancaster and more than seven dying at a time that some training sorties must have been overcrowded, but what about special duties squadrons such as 101 some of whom operated the ABC equipment and carried an eight crew member to operate it?

@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын

Yes, this would also account for some of the numbers I saw. I'll have a look for the upcoming video I have in mind. I think the biggest number of souls lost during the ETO war was 22 in a single Lanc. I also saw plenty of aircraft that went down with 8-12 men.

@markfryer9880 Жыл бұрын

I was surprised that 617 Squadron had the tricky Window dropping missions on the night of D-Day, hoaxing the part of a naval armada headed for Pas de Calais and then disappearing. They flew with double crews to ease the pressure due to the intense navigation requirements and the Window dropping duties.

@julianmhall Жыл бұрын

@@CalibanRising I'm curious.. I wonder if the greater numbers might have been on special duties dropping agents or commandos behind enemy lines. I know the reason the Stirling was so tall was that it satisfied the /original/ criteria for a bomber that could also carry troops. The Lancaster and Halifax just satisfied the bomber criteria. In short, if the crew losses were when the bomber was in use /as/ a bomber. [Incidentally no Stirling in the top 10 or am I going daft?]

@rickbear7249 Жыл бұрын

The key question should be "survivability". That is the only meaningful metric. However, as you point out, we must take into account how dangerous were the missions flown, indeed, the whole of each aircraft's usage environment. For me, I'd have flown the De Havilland MOSQUITO if given the choice.

@HoverLambo 7 ай бұрын

I remember reading that the exit hatch on the lanc was smaller than the halifax and held responsible for fewer men being able to bail out. Surprised to read that 10,000 Wimpeys only made 28,000 sorties? Or was that an error in the script..

@richardvernon317 3 ай бұрын

Wimpeys were used by a lot more people than Bomber Command.

@cameronalexander359 Жыл бұрын

Thise numbers are insane. Not just the lost young men..but entire families were torn apart by their loss

@WildBillCox13 Жыл бұрын

Off the top of my Boomer head . . . B-17 Crew stations: Pilot, Co-Pilot, Navigator/Bombardier, Radioman, 2x Waist Gunners, a Dorsal Turret gunner, a Ventral Turret Gunner, Tail Gunner. Those are the ones I can see without cracking a book or reviewing another video. Of these, the Navigator/Bombardier was most exposed to danger. His job was the more complex (especially in the F) as he must navigate, operate the Norden Sight, and operate the forward cheek guns or "chin" turret. He faced Luftwaffe attacks from the naked safety of a glass/Perspex house and, as head-on was the preferred method of attack, took much of the effect. And his position was difficult to egress from. To a casual observer it seems that bomber crews were well aware that escaping an infarcting plane was a crapshoot. A fighter pilot baling out might have his back broken by the rudder - it was a known hazard - or watch his chute catch fire/melt as it's hit by flames streaming aft from the ruptured fuel tank or engine, but the B17 crewman often had to wait in line, like a man before the restroom door at a ballgame or cricket match. That takes nothing away from the ventral turret gunner, who had to watch the rest run past him, too much in a hurry to stay and crank his escape hatch into position. A famous poem was written about it*. Escaping any falling aircraft is tough, but bombers crews had it worst, I think. * The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner BY RANDALL JARRELL From my mother’s sleep I fell into the State, And I hunched in its belly till my wet fur froze. Six miles from earth, loosed from its dream of life, I woke to black flak and the nightmare fighters. When I died they washed me out of the turret with a hose.

@FirstDagger Жыл бұрын

Those are USAAF B-17s, RAF B-17 were used in other roles, including the RAF Costal Command. Hence more crew if you are going submarine hunting.

@cammobunker Жыл бұрын

Statistically most dangerous place was tail gunner. No. 2 was pilot/co-pilot although that's likely due to pilots holding the ship up till the crew can get out as well as being a favored target.

@ViscountAlbany Жыл бұрын

One thing you almost got to but not quite was the amount of firepower bombers could exert compared to casualties. I read in a book about the RAF (forgot which one) that the Lancaster dropped 132 tons of bombs per aircraft lost, the best rate of any bomber in the war. In other words, the vast load the Lanc could carry gave some economies of scale and assured its high level of usage over Germany (and high casualties). Anecdotally the aircraft was difficult to get out of in an emergency because the crew had to climb over a major structural component to reach the escape hatch, while the Wellington did much better when hit because Barnes Wallis designed it with a heavy emphasis on survivability and its geodetic frame could absorb more damage than most. The Stirling is also an interesting one because it was rather heavy in construction, so much so that it could reportedly survive a head on collision in mid air with an attacking fighter, but it still got shot down a lot because it was slow and couldn't get high enough to evade fighters or flak guns. I think the lesson of these stats was that performance and bomb load meant more in the long term than being able to absorb hits and this influenced Bomber Command's decision to pull Stirlings and Wellingtons out of raids on Germany but keep Lancasters and Halifaxes.

@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын

This is an interesting perspective. "The bomber Command War Diaries" definitely has this information and I think they even calculated tonnage for loss. I'll keep this in mind for any follow videos, thanks!

@brunobandiera2062 Жыл бұрын

I wonder what the stats are on types operated by Coastal Command, like Short Sunderland, Lockheed Hudson, and B-24 Liberator.

@willgilbertuk Жыл бұрын

Maybe I missed it, but in the crew lost per sortie calculation, did you control for the different sizes of crew between say the Battle and the various heavies?

@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын

Hey Will. For that calculation I was basing it on all men who died while operating that type of aircraft. So only the men who flew in the Lancaster were included in the ratio for the Lancaster. Does that answer your question?

@willgilbertuk Жыл бұрын

@@CalibanRising Thanks for answering. I think that means the crew size isn't controlled for in the sense that the maximum number of deaths per sortie is different depending on the size of the crew, so if one Manchester is lost, that makes 7 deaths, while a loss of a Battle is 3 deaths max. 1 Manchester sortie is 7 man-sorties, so the loss rate of 0.3 is per 7 man-sorties, while for the Battle is 0.98 per 3 man-sorties. If we divide by the number of crew, the Manchester drops to a rate of 0.043 per man per sortie, and 0.327 per man per sortie for the Battle. In that respect the Fairy Battle loss rate is even more horrific because the risk per man exposed to it was nearly 8 fold more than in the next most deadly!

@jeremyrichards8327 Жыл бұрын

I believe the main spar on the Lancaster caused difficulties when bailing out whereas the Halifax was not so constricting. The Halifax does not get the credit it deserves as it had other strengths such as glider towing etc.

@damon1957ful Жыл бұрын

Brave men and women who served in all combat opperation i salute you

@BlueSteel331 Жыл бұрын

no women served in combat in WW2.

@johnholt890 Жыл бұрын

The question I have not yet had answered around BC aircraft performance is this. Why were the Bristol Hercules version of the Lancaster generally regarded as inferior to the Merlin variants, but the Hercules engine greatly improved the Halifax performance over the Merlin earlier marks? I suspect it is something to do with the aerodynamics of each airframe and it might be more powerful versions of the Hercules were used in the Halifax against early Merlin’s ? What is fascinating is that whilst the Merlin turned the Mustang into a war winner it is forgotten that it actually made the Beaufighter a lot worse against the same Bristol Hercules engine again. Thoughts and observations gratefully received?

@jackaubrey8614 Жыл бұрын

I think the differences have a lot to do with the aerodynamic interaction between the "power egg" and a specific wing shape? I've read (sorry - can't recall where) that when the Manchester was developed into the Lancaster, even Chadwick was at a loss to explain the increase in performance/handling of the new four-engined wing layout.... As to the increase in performance of the Halifax, that's somewhat easier to explain - the later versions with Hercules engines were generally "cleaned up" and aerodynamically refined designs with extended wing spans which allowed a considerable increase in over-the-target ceiling which gave them more chance to keep out of trouble. With regard to the Merlin powered "Beaus" I believe they had an even worse tendency to swing on take off and and in the region where they were most likely to operate (low to medium level) the exceptional supercharger in the Merlin simply wasn't a factor.

@finncarlbomholtsrensen1188 Жыл бұрын

In a book I owned, the author claimed that if so, he would mostly like to do a crash in Blackburn ("What were they like to fly")!! He also tried flying a STUKA, but didn't realize how advanced a weapon it actually was.

@stevena9305 8 ай бұрын

Why did he particularly want to crash in Blackburn instead of some other Northern town?

@PhilbyFavourites 2 ай бұрын

@@stevena9305 I don’t want to live in a northern town, let alone crash in one

@brakecompo2005 Жыл бұрын

I don’t think that the high fatality rate per incident for the Lancaster and the Manchester are all surprising - both had notoriously small escape hatches , that were difficult to use. Read an account by a wartime statistician who fought a long and unsuccessful battle to get this improved in the face of complete disinterest from the Bomber Command hierarchy and the Ministry of Supply. The Halifax had much better exitability. Similarly the total crew loss proportions of the Mosquito are not surprising, partly because they flew a lot of low level missions at high speed, leading to the type of crashes that were not survivable, and as they only had a crew of two, statistically there was a higher chance of complete crew loss. Nevertheless an interesting video thanks for posting it.

@disturbingdevelopment4308 Жыл бұрын

Excellent presentation, horrific numbers. I'd like to know why all crew are lost so frequently in these bombers. Do most planes spiral out of control quickly once hit, thus not giving the crew a chance to escape during level flight? Were there written, or unwritten rules about when a crew could leave a stricken aircraft? Was there a palpable sense of survivor guilt if some crew jumped out of their planes too soon?

@AudieHolland Жыл бұрын

The Lancaster was a virtual death trap because it was almost impossible to quickly evacuate the plane.

@loddude5706 Жыл бұрын

I feel the Lanc. could fare badly in the 'egress from a crippled machine' category, very small hatches & remote parachute locations to clamber around for? - bad enough when straight & level in daylight, add the terror, darkness & lateral G of spinning etc. Poor sods.

@thierryruellan1828 Жыл бұрын

I have read so many books about bomber command so far, including 4 written by Martin MIDLEBROOK in the 90's. As far as I can remember,no crew members had any parachute strapped on his back,no ventral one either. All of them had to leave his combat position,open a locker and get himself equipped, clipping the chute on his harness. I reckon it could take up to 30/40 seconds. It has been estimated that a second world war bomber could burn for 2 mns,after that it just blew up,heat and light. Average number of sorties before being shot down:21 out of a standard tour of operations of 30. I know it after reading "Sarabande nocturne", which depicts the story of 2 free french squadrons , bomber command 4 group between may 1944 and VE DAY. 51% of losses amongst 346 GUYENNE Sqdn and 347 TUNISIA Sqdn,operating Halifaxes after training on Wellingtons. Thèse guys, whatever operational aircrafts they flew had a life expectancy inferior to foot soldiers during WW1. The only positive thing of this bombing campaign is that it could fix thousands of flack guns of various calibers that other fronts were short of. This added to thousands of German fighters for home defense that could have seamed the fate of allied armies in Italy, north Africa in Balkans and Russia. Cheers

@Cuccos19 Жыл бұрын

It would be interesting about the US bombers too. Also I'm really curious about the early ETO high losses of the P-38, what was the causes. I have a guess, that inadequate pilot training, no combat experience, early mechanical issues and bad tactics together made it, but how was that exactly I would love to know.

@Jedi.Toby.M Жыл бұрын

I know I'm going to be "outclassed" here, but honorable mentions should include that absolutely wonderful (insert any model of anything produced) Blackburn Aircraft. While I absolutely love the IDEA of a quad or dual motorized anti air turret on something like a hurricane or spitfire...the real world proved all of that to be completely useless. Great work as always! Cheers mate!

@peterhollow405 Жыл бұрын

There were no Blackburn aircraft used in Bomber Command is the reason. There are a lot of aircraft not mentioned that were used as bombers, but not as part of Bomber command in Europe. However in overall numbers there were not too many in large numbers. Bristol Buckingham, Beaufort's and a few more gave good service in one role or another but were all bombers for a spell but not in Bomber Command. Men who flew in them still sacrificed and were courageous just under a different structure.

@eric-wb7gj 2 ай бұрын

It wasn't useless, JUST found just not as resource effective as a single seat fighter for the combat that did ended up happening. 264 Defiant Squadron still holds the record for number of claimed kills in a day, around 37. The two times when the 2 operational Defiant squadrons had high losses, they were bounced by veteran Luftwaffe pilots in the top Luftwaffe fighter of the era (Me 109) at odds of around 3 & 5:1, & in situations they weren't designed for. What single seat RAF squadron in that situation wouldn't lose heavily? Hurricanes & Spitfires were being shot down over France & Britain in mid 1940 due to their rigid formations - two or three at the rear were also bounced by Me 109S & seen to be shot down over their own airfield, the other members of the squadron flying didn't even realise it was happening. The Defiant crews also didn't get the better equipment (armour, engines & variable pitch propellers) given to the single seat squadrons. The Defiant did have issues, & was more resource heavy than a single seat fighter, but could be devastating when used in it's intended role, & still ended up with a reasonable kill:loss rate. The pilots & gunners did what they could, with what they had, in the circumstances they found themselves ordered into. A true WW1 Bristol Fighter version equivalent for WW2 wasn't ever produced for the RAF (the similar Blackburn Roc developed for the RN had a different role), so the concept cannot be truly confirmed if it would have worked or not.

@EddietheBastard Жыл бұрын

I suspect the Lancaster likelihood of all killed/death on incident is increased by the number of long range operations the type was use for and the altitude it operated at.

@KevTheImpaler Жыл бұрын

It is probably impossible to assess, but another key consideration would be how dearly did each crew sell their lives for. Bombing a farmer's field from four miles up in the dark was probably dangerous enough, but not as dangerous as bombing a key bridge at low level in daylight. A higher attrition rate might be more acceptable if each sortie was doing more damage. In fairness tours of duty should be shorter to compensate, which I suspect might not have happened.

@phillipwalton8751 2 ай бұрын

The % of deaths occurring in OTU units should be taken into account. The aircraft given to the OTU's were ex front line and war weary and many were death traps. My mothers cousin was lost in just such an aircraft. It was a Halifax Mk. III that had already made plenty of sorties over Germany before being cascaded down to the OTU's. My relative had just completed his training and while waiting to be sent to a squadron when several aircraft were designated to fly over Carnarvon Bay at night to test a new radar system. My relative had been piloting the aircraft when the navigation system (Gee) indicated that they were approaching Snowdonia. So my relative put the aircraft into a climb to get over the mountains. It was then that he flew up into another Halifax that was above and just behind them. There were eight persons including my relative who were lost in that aircraft and only the tail gunners body was recovered. The main cause of the accident was that the Gee on the other aircraft was not working which was often the case with OTU aircraft. The pilot of other other aircraft fortunately was able to nurse the aircraft back to an airfield in Pembrokeshire.

@philip167 Жыл бұрын

to the crew that never cam home to there loved one they gave there life's so we can live on may they all R.I.P god bless them all. we will remember them

@paulgibbons2320 2 ай бұрын

Those pilots were unaware of any of this. They got to find it out the hard way. If you were assigned to a Battle, Manchester, Wellington, or whatever. Then that was your F35 back then, these were top of the line machines. Appart from a few rhummers from the test pilots. You knew what your training instructor and other crews told you.

@johnjephcote7636 Жыл бұрын

The Halifax lost many crew owing to its initial rudder (stalling) design, including those sent to test its deficiencies. The Wellington lost many crew in the early stages owing to inexperience of operation and lack of beam guns. The Blenheim lost many training crews owing to the poor placing of controls and, like the Battle, poorly armed and being thrown into tasks where no alternative a/c had come on stream.

@huwzebediahthomas9193 Жыл бұрын

Not a bomber, but a 'fighter' - the Bolton-Paul Defiant, with it's ludicrous turreted gun for it's rear second crew member. A total widow maker...

@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын

True, but the Defiant did have a few days there in May 1940 where it ripped the LW a new one.

@roykliffen9674 Жыл бұрын

What's missing from this analysis is the period when the losses occurred. I'm pretty sure that the sortie survival rate flying a Lanc will be much better towards the end of the war when they could almost bomb with impunity due to near total air superiority, compared with the start of the war where they had to face the Luftwaffe at the top of their game while employing tactics that turned out to be disastrous. The horrendous losses of the daylight raids forced Bomber Command to change to night bombing which may have negatively impacted accuracy but increased sortie survivability.

@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын

That's a fantastic suggestion. I'm hoping to work this into some upcoming videos where I look at the topic in much more detail.