Discussion:
False charges of bad morale--USAAF bomber crews.
(too old to reply)
w***@aol.com
2013-07-08 04:17:24 UTC
Permalink
The July 2013 issue of "The Journal of Military History" has an
interesting article on a somewhat offbeat WWII topic. It's by
Dr. Wight E. Means, an Assistant Professor of History at
the Military Academy at West Point.
Called the "Catch 22 Effect: The lasting stigma of Wartime
Cowardice in the U.S. Army Air Forces," the article describes
how, during 1943-1944 when U.S. bombers were sent deep into
Europe out of the range of fighter escorts, that bombing
tours for flight crews were set at 25 missions, the number
estimated by bomber command to be the point based on
current losses at which the flight crews might expect only
a 50-50 chance of survival.
Crews were instructed that if they had battle damage
or equipment failure at a point where they could not reasonably
expect to return to base, they should try for landing in a neutral
country, Switzerland or Sweden, being the most likely.
During the Spring of 1944 the tempo of Allied strategic
bombing increased sharply and the number of battle-damaged
U.S. bombers diverting to the aforementioned two neutral
countries totaled 440. Of that number, 166 landed in Switzerland
alone and over the entire war 1517 U.S. airmen were interned
by that country.
As a result, and caused primarily by a U.S. consul in Switzerland
who interviewed some of the interned crew members, rumors began
to circulate in the Air Force that not all such landings were necessary
but were made because of bad morale caused by the number of
missions being flown causing the belief among crews that each mission
had a heavy chance of being the crew's last.
To summarize, the rumors reached General Arnold who ordered
thorough investigations. No evidence of crews having diverted to a
neutral country to "get out of combat" and no evidence of bad morale in
bomber crews was found.
Nevertheless, and this is the main point of the article, the stigma of
such alleged wartime "cowardice" although fading in time after the war.
was re-awakened by a British TV documentary in 1989 called "Whispers in
the Air." This documentary was run in the U.S. on the Discovery
channel, and this author claims it resulted in tainting the judgement of
scholars, military historians, and media representative who should have
done better research and known better. It even adversely affected the
policy of rhe U.S. Veterans Administration in the treatment of some USAAF
veterans who had been interned in neutral countries during the war and
were rightfully entitled to POW medical status which the VA refused to give
them.
This an interesting read containing voluminous supporting footnotes
and much more detail on the subject than I covered here, including how
the novel "Catch 22," a popular work of fiction written after the war, became
a vehicle in perpetuating the phony rumors inasmuch as it's theme involved an
air force officer looking for a way to get out of combat by being interned
in a neutral country.

WJH
Don Phillipson
2013-07-08 21:36:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@aol.com
The July 2013 issue of "The Journal of Military History" has an
interesting article on a somewhat offbeat WWII topic. It's by
Dr. Wight E. Means, an Assistant Professor of History at
the Military Academy at West Point. . . .
During the Spring of 1944 the tempo of Allied strategic
bombing increased sharply and the number of battle-damaged
U.S. bombers diverting to the aforementioned two neutral
countries totaled 440. Of that number, 166 landed in Switzerland
alone and over the entire war 1517 U.S. airmen were interned
by that country.
Did the article compare the numbers of USAAF and RAF
aircrew interned in neutral countries? RAF folklore in the
1950s maintained that proportionately many more US than
British crews thus sought sanctuary during WW2.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
w***@aol.com
2013-07-09 03:35:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Phillipson
Did the article compare the numbers of USAAF and RA
aircrew interned in neutral countries? RAF folklore in the
1950s maintained that proportionately many more US than
British crews thus sought sanctuary during WW2.
The article and its footnotes was confined to US air crews. Perhaps
helping to promote the RAF folklore in the 1950's (and mentioned
in the article) were wartime propaganda broadcasts from Germany
by British defector William Joyce, a.k.a "Lord Haw Haw" who told
of USAAF crews landing in neutral countries with "B-4" bags and
Golf Clubs.
Joyce and his comments were apparently covered in the
British 1989 TV documentary "Whispers in the Air" and Means
notes that the producers received some angry criticism for such
coverage by former U.S. air crew internees who had landed in
a neutral country. One in particular who had reached Switzerland
with two engines shot out and a crew member who was bleeding
to death on the way. This veteran, William Parramore, was
quoted as saying of the British 1989 TV documentary "Whispers
in the Air" "...the idea that someone doing serious research [for
the documentary] would malign my crew by apparently giving
credence to anything Lord Haw Haw said just gets to me."
Others were equally angered by insinuations they perceived in
the production.

WJH
Geoffrey Sinclair
2013-07-09 13:24:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by w***@aol.com
The July 2013 issue of "The Journal of Military History" has an
interesting article on a somewhat offbeat WWII topic. It's by
Dr. Wight E. Means, an Assistant Professor of History at
the Military Academy at West Point. . . .
During the Spring of 1944 the tempo of Allied strategic
bombing increased sharply and the number of battle-damaged
U.S. bombers diverting to the aforementioned two neutral
countries totaled 440. Of that number, 166 landed in Switzerland
alone and over the entire war 1517 U.S. airmen were interned
by that country.
Did the article compare the numbers of USAAF and RAF
aircrew interned in neutral countries? RAF folklore in the
1950s maintained that proportionately many more US than
British crews thus sought sanctuary during WW2.
By proportionately I presume correcting for the larger number of
USAAF sorties, both bomber and fighter.

The RAF folklore is largely correct and it is directly related to the
sorts of operations the two air forces were carrying out.

Flak was significantly less accurate at night with most flak kills by
shrapnel so the aircraft tended to fly on for a while before crashing.
Fighters were more lethal than flak but night fighters were usually
more lethal than day fighters given the ranges at which they usually
opened fire.

Damaged aircraft had a better chance of returning at night than
during the day, it was also made clear how much survival odds
dropped if a USAAF heavy bomber left formation.

So the USAAF formations had more aircraft, more damaged
aircraft and less chance of making it back to England.

If you take 31 August 1944 as the date the continental airfields
became available to take damaged allied heavy bombers then the
following figures apply for the 8th Air Force.

In the period to 31 August 1944 some 2.7% of B-17s listed as lost to
fighters made it back to allied territory, versus 6.4% of those listed as
lost to flak. For the period 1 September 1944 to the end of the war
the figures become 5.8% and 16.6%.

The price of fighting at long range and good reason why aircrew
ended up interned. Another measure is to check how many of
the interned aircraft were made flyable again.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
Bill Shatzer
2013-07-09 20:41:24 UTC
Permalink
Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:

-snip-
Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
The price of fighting at long range and good reason why aircrew
ended up interned. Another measure is to check how many of
the interned aircraft were made flyable again.
According to "Strangers in a Strange Land Vol.II" (Hans-Heiri Stapfer,
et al) a total of 166 American aircraft came down in Switzerland, of
which 41 were totally destroyed in crashes, 39 were badly damaged, and
86 were considered "repairable". Ultimately, 72 aircraft (30 B-17s, 41
B-24s and a single P-51) were repaired and flown out of Switzerland post
war. The remainder were scrapped in Switzerland.

Of course, "repairable" is not the same as flyable or likely to survive
a return flight from Germany. A bomber with two engines out is
"repairable" if the engines are repaired or replaced but a bomber losing
two (or even one) engines over Germany has very poor odds of ever
regaining a friendly airfield. Same thing with a holed fuel tank which
might be easily repaired by ground crews but which could leave an
aircraft with enough fuel to divert to Switzerland but without enough to
regain friendly territory.
David Wilma
2013-07-21 01:02:55 UTC
Permalink
Dad was in the Air Corps, but in a different theater.
He told the story he heard about crews improperly diverting
to neutral countries arriving with their B-4 bags packed for
a long stay. The rumor went further and the men were
summarily dishonorably discharged.

While this is not evidence of the point made in the
article it represents the rumor mill and the fact that
interned crews were some kind of an issue.

Loading...