5 ms·

I thought that this was in Masters of the Air, but I was wrong. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_of_the_Air https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_of_t

by chasil 1y ago

I thought that this was in Masters of the Air, but I was wrong. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_of_the_Air https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_of_the_Air

ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
If they had had B-29s, they wouldn't have had the almost catastrophically bad mortality rate. I believe that the 100th Bomb Group had the highest casualty rate of any unit in the entire war, on either side (except the Kamikaze squadrons, I expect).
- panick21_ 1y ago
  Actually Kamikaze squadrons had lower mortality rates then when Japan did their conventional attacks against the US Navy. In conventional attacks whole groups of planes flew right into the teeth of US air defense, fighting threw 3 layers of death and getting annihilated. The reason they adopted Kamikaze was that normal air-attacks were suicide but suicide with no results what so ever. In Kamikaze the pilots had more freedom and often only attacked the outlining ships. And quite often they just bailed out, or faked engine problems and flew back. In terms of the 'strategic' bombing in Europe, the US was just incredibly arrogant and didn't want to listen to the Brits who had already learned some lessons. The way they employed air-power was outright insane, suicidal and also completely and utterly ineffective. It took smart people using internal politics to sideline the idiots to turn the strategy around and do something actually useful.
  - Spooky23 1y ago
    A lot of criminal incompetence was erased by the ultimate victory. The insanity of the bombing campaign is one, others include the defective torpedoes that plagued the Navy for the first couple of years and killed countless sailors and airmen, and the homicidal policy of shipping in replacements to frontline units that were decimated multiple times.
    - ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
      WWI: “Hold my beer.” The big issue with WWI, seemed to be staggeringly incompetent generals. This appears to have been on all sides. Maybe the Americans were better, but that just may be because they didn’t have time to get bogged down. I heard that Pershing refused to follow British and French tactics. I assume that this was because many generals were trained on Napoleonic-Era tactics, that didn’t do well, against machine guns and semiauto rifles.
      - tekla 1y ago
        This is an incredible misunderstanding of WW1. While there were some generals that were a bit too resistant to changing strategy when it might have seemed reasonable, the fact of the matter is, is that this was the 1910s. Everyone was trying to solve the problem of trying to figure out how to fight, and no one could keep up with how fast warfare was changing. Armchair generals watching people die in almost real time from drone footage in Europe did not exist in 1915.
        ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
        I’m not sure it’s a “misunderstanding.” Maybe calling them “incompetent,” isn’t fair, but they made a shitton of terrible strategic and tactical blunders, that resulted in millions of casualties. Why they made those decisions sounds like exactly what you’re talking about.
      - panick21_ 1y ago
        That WW1 is special is mostly a myth. The reason we have this view of WW1 is that after WW1 in the 20s many normal people in the 20s started writing about the horrors of war and that combined with the strong anti-war sentiment lead to the view we have now. Claiming that generals like Haig was an incompetent butcher. The whole 'lions led by donkeys' myth. However non of that is actually true. Or not anymore true then in any other war. For example, there is stark contrast to right after the war, where Haig was considered a hero and most soldiers in their post-WW1 writing liked him. In terms of causality rates, WW1 isn't that special, high intensity combat in modern war isn't that different, from Crimea to WW2. If you have warfare at that level, even if you are successful, you have massive causalities. The Somme for example wasn't that different from the Normandy campaign in WW2. These generals had to deal with armies of literally million of people and they didn't even have wireless communications. How do you command 500 men in a coordinated attack without communication? The Americans had to go threw the same learning curve as the others, but they started right away fighting against an enemy that was mostly veterans. Americans could have learned better, but it also has to be said that Pershing by command from the president was not allowed to fully integrate his troupes with that of the French army. > I assume that this was because many generals were trained on Napoleonic-Era tactics This is complete and utter nonsense. Please stop spreading these myths. This all just Post-WW1 anti-war politics propaganda. > against machine guns and semiauto rifles This is again a myth. Semiauto rifles practically didn't exist in the beginning of WW1. And machine guns had existed for a while and were not that effective. The big killer on the battle field is the fast shooting artillery. Massive innovations in that had happened in the 30 years before WW1.
- missedthecue 1y ago
  Highest casualty rate was actually u-boats. Of 40,000 kriegsmariners trained for u-boats during the war, 75% became casualties. Incredibly, this was even higher than Kamikaze squadrons (on account of the fact that not all flyers were assigned a mission, and not all missions ended up finding a target)
- Aloha 1y ago
  The B-29 was a fantastically unreliable aircraft until almost after the war was over - https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-why-the-b-29-could-have-had-a-higher-loss-rate-than-the-b-17-and-b-24-over-germany-in-1943/ https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-why-the-b-29-could-hav...
stevenwoo 1y ago
The one pilot they highlighted in the series completed his missions in European theater (to be fair he only flew a few when the Allied casualty rate was horrendous) then signed up to serve again and volunteered for B-29 training so he could fight in the Pacific but the war ended before he could fly missions against Japan. IIRC he then volunteered to help with the Nuremberg prosecutions.
- pfdietz 1y ago
  By the end of the war the loss rate in B-29 missions over Japan was lower than the loss rate in B-29 training missions in the US.

by chasil 1y ago

I thought that this was in Masters of the Air, but I was wrong. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_of_the_Air https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_of_the_Air

ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago

If they had had B-29s, they wouldn't have had the almost catastrophically bad mortality rate. I believe that the 100th Bomb Group had the highest casualty rate of any unit in the entire war, on either side (except the Kamikaze squadrons, I expect).

panick21_ 1y ago
Actually Kamikaze squadrons had lower mortality rates then when Japan did their conventional attacks against the US Navy. In conventional attacks whole groups of planes flew right into the teeth of US air defense, fighting threw 3 layers of death and getting annihilated. The reason they adopted Kamikaze was that normal air-attacks were suicide but suicide with no results what so ever. In Kamikaze the pilots had more freedom and often only attacked the outlining ships. And quite often they just bailed out, or faked engine problems and flew back. In terms of the 'strategic' bombing in Europe, the US was just incredibly arrogant and didn't want to listen to the Brits who had already learned some lessons. The way they employed air-power was outright insane, suicidal and also completely and utterly ineffective. It took smart people using internal politics to sideline the idiots to turn the strategy around and do something actually useful.
- Spooky23 1y ago
  A lot of criminal incompetence was erased by the ultimate victory. The insanity of the bombing campaign is one, others include the defective torpedoes that plagued the Navy for the first couple of years and killed countless sailors and airmen, and the homicidal policy of shipping in replacements to frontline units that were decimated multiple times.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
    WWI: “Hold my beer.” The big issue with WWI, seemed to be staggeringly incompetent generals. This appears to have been on all sides. Maybe the Americans were better, but that just may be because they didn’t have time to get bogged down. I heard that Pershing refused to follow British and French tactics. I assume that this was because many generals were trained on Napoleonic-Era tactics, that didn’t do well, against machine guns and semiauto rifles.
    - tekla 1y ago
      This is an incredible misunderstanding of WW1. While there were some generals that were a bit too resistant to changing strategy when it might have seemed reasonable, the fact of the matter is, is that this was the 1910s. Everyone was trying to solve the problem of trying to figure out how to fight, and no one could keep up with how fast warfare was changing. Armchair generals watching people die in almost real time from drone footage in Europe did not exist in 1915.
      - ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
        I’m not sure it’s a “misunderstanding.” Maybe calling them “incompetent,” isn’t fair, but they made a shitton of terrible strategic and tactical blunders, that resulted in millions of casualties. Why they made those decisions sounds like exactly what you’re talking about.
    - panick21_ 1y ago
      That WW1 is special is mostly a myth. The reason we have this view of WW1 is that after WW1 in the 20s many normal people in the 20s started writing about the horrors of war and that combined with the strong anti-war sentiment lead to the view we have now. Claiming that generals like Haig was an incompetent butcher. The whole 'lions led by donkeys' myth. However non of that is actually true. Or not anymore true then in any other war. For example, there is stark contrast to right after the war, where Haig was considered a hero and most soldiers in their post-WW1 writing liked him. In terms of causality rates, WW1 isn't that special, high intensity combat in modern war isn't that different, from Crimea to WW2. If you have warfare at that level, even if you are successful, you have massive causalities. The Somme for example wasn't that different from the Normandy campaign in WW2. These generals had to deal with armies of literally million of people and they didn't even have wireless communications. How do you command 500 men in a coordinated attack without communication? The Americans had to go threw the same learning curve as the others, but they started right away fighting against an enemy that was mostly veterans. Americans could have learned better, but it also has to be said that Pershing by command from the president was not allowed to fully integrate his troupes with that of the French army. > I assume that this was because many generals were trained on Napoleonic-Era tactics This is complete and utter nonsense. Please stop spreading these myths. This all just Post-WW1 anti-war politics propaganda. > against machine guns and semiauto rifles This is again a myth. Semiauto rifles practically didn't exist in the beginning of WW1. And machine guns had existed for a while and were not that effective. The big killer on the battle field is the fast shooting artillery. Massive innovations in that had happened in the 30 years before WW1.
missedthecue 1y ago
Highest casualty rate was actually u-boats. Of 40,000 kriegsmariners trained for u-boats during the war, 75% became casualties. Incredibly, this was even higher than Kamikaze squadrons (on account of the fact that not all flyers were assigned a mission, and not all missions ended up finding a target)
Aloha 1y ago
The B-29 was a fantastically unreliable aircraft until almost after the war was over - https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-why-the-b-29-could-have-had-a-higher-loss-rate-than-the-b-17-and-b-24-over-germany-in-1943/ https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-why-the-b-29-could-hav...

stevenwoo 1y ago

The one pilot they highlighted in the series completed his missions in European theater (to be fair he only flew a few when the Allied casualty rate was horrendous) then signed up to serve again and volunteered for B-29 training so he could fight in the Pacific but the war ended before he could fly missions against Japan. IIRC he then volunteered to help with the Nuremberg prosecutions.

pfdietz 1y ago
By the end of the war the loss rate in B-29 missions over Japan was lower than the loss rate in B-29 training missions in the US.