the dambusters
Discussion
firstly sorry for the wail link http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2403643/Da...
real men, real heroes..... I salute you all .
real men, real heroes..... I salute you all .
My grandfather was a tail gunner with 617, though only groundcrew at the time of the dam raids. Lost a lot of mates and rarely spoke about it. The loss rate across the whole of bomber command was scary, 60% killed, injured or captured.
Edited by RizzoTheRat on Wednesday 28th August 16:41
If you do the sums right, it was actually statistically impossible to survive a tour of duty in Bomber Command ( of course lies, damned lies etc) - I can't remember the details as we did it as a bit of an exercise for my degree.
Bombing, and the British reaction to it, is an odd thing. The wheres, whys etc - from a historical point of view - are contraversial.
My point of view is that whatever your position on strategic bombing, you cannot reflect that opinion onto the blokes in the planes - who were only doing their duty as ordered, and would have had no choice but to believe they were doing the right thing - how the hell else do you manage to get in to the planes in the first place?
Unbeleivably brave guys to get in those crates again and again - especially as a tail gunner - which must have been a particularly lonely, cold, dark type of terror.
I am off down to the smoke in a week or so and will go to see the memorial to the men to pay my respects (I havent been down since it was opened). Whether you agreed with Harris and Churchill or not, IMHO it is impossible to hold it against these guys.
Incidentally it is worth noting 617s other achievements, including sinking Tirpitz with the Tallboy bomb.
The war's most dangerous job.
Bombing, and the British reaction to it, is an odd thing. The wheres, whys etc - from a historical point of view - are contraversial.
My point of view is that whatever your position on strategic bombing, you cannot reflect that opinion onto the blokes in the planes - who were only doing their duty as ordered, and would have had no choice but to believe they were doing the right thing - how the hell else do you manage to get in to the planes in the first place?
Unbeleivably brave guys to get in those crates again and again - especially as a tail gunner - which must have been a particularly lonely, cold, dark type of terror.
I am off down to the smoke in a week or so and will go to see the memorial to the men to pay my respects (I havent been down since it was opened). Whether you agreed with Harris and Churchill or not, IMHO it is impossible to hold it against these guys.
Incidentally it is worth noting 617s other achievements, including sinking Tirpitz with the Tallboy bomb.
The war's most dangerous job.
Having read my Gran's half brothers flight logs from Bomber Command the truth about the actual life of a crew is scary. After WW2 he emigrated to the USA, and in the 90's his medals were stolen. The only way he could claim replacements was to prove he earnt them. Hence Gran was in possession of his flight logs.
The number of times I read the words, hit by flak, heavy flak even on the return journey was eye opening. The other term used was target obscured by cloud, mission aborted. So they went through all that fire, not to drop their loads and return with bomb bays full of armed ordnance still facing AA fire, heavier than planned so less maneuverable and using more fuel. Those missions ended with bombs dropped in English Channel.
The number of times I read the words, hit by flak, heavy flak even on the return journey was eye opening. The other term used was target obscured by cloud, mission aborted. So they went through all that fire, not to drop their loads and return with bomb bays full of armed ordnance still facing AA fire, heavier than planned so less maneuverable and using more fuel. Those missions ended with bombs dropped in English Channel.
Vocal Minority said:
If you do the sums right, it was actually statistically impossible to survive a tour of duty in Bomber Command ( of course lies, damned lies etc) - I can't remember the details as we did it as a bit of an exercise for my degree.
The war's most dangerous job.
Vocal, I think the simple calculations were based on loss rates per sortie in 1941/2. Loss rates were around 3.5/4% per sortie, a tour was 30 combat missions so (proper mathematicians look away now) The war's most dangerous job.
30 x 3.5 = 105% loss rate per combat tour, 'statistically impossible to survive'
Was at a families day at RAF Wittering earlier this year. During the BBMF fly past I happened to be stood next to a lady that looked quite emotional. I'm perfectly used to seeing emotional blokes during a Spitfire fly past, I've suffered from the dust they kick up myself but unusual to see a lady so afflicted.
Got chatting and it turned out that it was her first time at Wittering where her father had been stationed during WW2. He was training there as a navigator and hadn't been there long when the station was bombed and several of his friends were killed. He was injured and invalided out. He'd told her that he believed that was how he'd survived the war.
Stories like that make it seem a lot less than 70 years ago.
Got chatting and it turned out that it was her first time at Wittering where her father had been stationed during WW2. He was training there as a navigator and hadn't been there long when the station was bombed and several of his friends were killed. He was injured and invalided out. He'd told her that he believed that was how he'd survived the war.
Stories like that make it seem a lot less than 70 years ago.
Vocal Minority said:
If you do the sums right, it was actually statistically impossible to survive a tour of duty in Bomber Command ( of course lies, damned lies etc) - I can't remember the details as we did it as a bit of an exercise for my degree.
Bombing, and the British reaction to it, is an odd thing. The wheres, whys etc - from a historical point of view - are contraversial.
My point of view is that whatever your position on strategic bombing, you cannot reflect that opinion onto the blokes in the planes - who were only doing their duty as ordered, and would have had no choice but to believe they were doing the right thing - how the hell else do you manage to get in to the planes in the first place?
Unbeleivably brave guys to get in those crates again and again - especially as a tail gunner - which must have been a particularly lonely, cold, dark type of terror.
I am off down to the smoke in a week or so and will go to see the memorial to the men to pay my respects (I havent been down since it was opened). Whether you agreed with Harris and Churchill or not, IMHO it is impossible to hold it against these guys.
Incidentally it is worth noting 617s other achievements, including sinking Tirpitz with the Tallboy bomb.
The war's most dangerous job.
Christ, don't let anyone from No9 Squadron hear you say that! That's a whole can of worms right there!Bombing, and the British reaction to it, is an odd thing. The wheres, whys etc - from a historical point of view - are contraversial.
My point of view is that whatever your position on strategic bombing, you cannot reflect that opinion onto the blokes in the planes - who were only doing their duty as ordered, and would have had no choice but to believe they were doing the right thing - how the hell else do you manage to get in to the planes in the first place?
Unbeleivably brave guys to get in those crates again and again - especially as a tail gunner - which must have been a particularly lonely, cold, dark type of terror.
I am off down to the smoke in a week or so and will go to see the memorial to the men to pay my respects (I havent been down since it was opened). Whether you agreed with Harris and Churchill or not, IMHO it is impossible to hold it against these guys.
Incidentally it is worth noting 617s other achievements, including sinking Tirpitz with the Tallboy bomb.
The war's most dangerous job.
Madness60 said:
Vocal, I think the simple calculations were based on loss rates per sortie in 1941/2. Loss rates were around 3.5/4% per sortie, a tour was 30 combat missions so (proper mathematicians look away now)
30 x 3.5 = 105% loss rate per combat tour, 'statistically impossible to survive'
Better as 0.96^30 ~ 29% chance of survival. 30 x 3.5 = 105% loss rate per combat tour, 'statistically impossible to survive'
Wiki gives casualty rates in the winter of 43/44 as 5.1% so 0.949^30 ~ 21%. 2nd tour brings that to 4%
Lower survival rate than a WW1 infantry officer.
Heroes.
Tango13 said:
Vocal Minority said:
If you do the sums right, it was actually statistically impossible to survive a tour of duty in Bomber Command ( of course lies, damned lies etc) - I can't remember the details as we did it as a bit of an exercise for my degree.
Bombing, and the British reaction to it, is an odd thing. The wheres, whys etc - from a historical point of view - are contraversial.
My point of view is that whatever your position on strategic bombing, you cannot reflect that opinion onto the blokes in the planes - who were only doing their duty as ordered, and would have had no choice but to believe they were doing the right thing - how the hell else do you manage to get in to the planes in the first place?
Unbeleivably brave guys to get in those crates again and again - especially as a tail gunner - which must have been a particularly lonely, cold, dark type of terror.
I am off down to the smoke in a week or so and will go to see the memorial to the men to pay my respects (I havent been down since it was opened). Whether you agreed with Harris and Churchill or not, IMHO it is impossible to hold it against these guys.
Incidentally it is worth noting 617s other achievements, including sinking Tirpitz with the Tallboy bomb.
The war's most dangerous job.
Christ, don't let anyone from No9 Squadron hear you say that! That's a whole can of worms right there!Bombing, and the British reaction to it, is an odd thing. The wheres, whys etc - from a historical point of view - are contraversial.
My point of view is that whatever your position on strategic bombing, you cannot reflect that opinion onto the blokes in the planes - who were only doing their duty as ordered, and would have had no choice but to believe they were doing the right thing - how the hell else do you manage to get in to the planes in the first place?
Unbeleivably brave guys to get in those crates again and again - especially as a tail gunner - which must have been a particularly lonely, cold, dark type of terror.
I am off down to the smoke in a week or so and will go to see the memorial to the men to pay my respects (I havent been down since it was opened). Whether you agreed with Harris and Churchill or not, IMHO it is impossible to hold it against these guys.
Incidentally it is worth noting 617s other achievements, including sinking Tirpitz with the Tallboy bomb.
The war's most dangerous job.
Madness60 said:
Vocal, I think the simple calculations were based on loss rates per sortie in 1941/2. Loss rates were around 3.5/4% per sortie, a tour was 30 combat missions so (proper mathematicians look away now)
30 x 3.5 = 105% loss rate per combat tour, 'statistically impossible to survive'
Fnnnnerrr. You know when someone runs a rusty nail down a chalkboard - that's my mental equivalent. 30 x 3.5 = 105% loss rate per combat tour, 'statistically impossible to survive'
We aren't claiming it is in any way true. However it is telling that the figures can be manipulated in that way fairly easily. You'd have to try harder with infantry I bet.
I have to admit I know 7/8ths of sod all about submarine warfare. Would be interesting, I shall look to read up on it.
I have to admit I know 7/8ths of sod all about submarine warfare. Would be interesting, I shall look to read up on it.
Madness60 said:
Vocal, I think the simple calculations were based on loss rates per sortie in 1941/2. Loss rates were around 3.5/4% per sortie, a tour was 30 combat missions so (proper mathematicians look away now)
30 x 3.5 = 105% loss rate per combat tour, 'statistically impossible to survive'
You need to multiply probabilities not add them. IE if you keep multiplying something by 0.96, it gets smaller but never reaches zero.30 x 3.5 = 105% loss rate per combat tour, 'statistically impossible to survive'
Vocal Minority said:
We aren't claiming it is in any way true. However it is telling that the figures can be manipulated in that way fairly easily. You'd have to try harder with infantry I bet.
I have to admit I know 7/8ths of sod all about submarine warfare. Would be interesting, I shall look to read up on it.
www.uboat.net is a very good resource.I have to admit I know 7/8ths of sod all about submarine warfare. Would be interesting, I shall look to read up on it.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff