Streaming Masters of the Air

[Vader]

Imagine how friggin scary it would have been as a 19 year old sitting in one of the gun positions flying across to Germany and enduring heavy flak over the target.

Now imagine doing it at night, which is what the RAF flyers were doing (including many Australians).

 

[Festerz]

I'd have thought that every pilot would go through a checklist before a flight, no matter how experienced?

Yep. From a single prop cessna to a sophisticated A380.

The biography of the USAF B29 pilot I mentioned earlier (Dick Bushong) details the process he went through from 5 weeks of pre-flight training that started on 1 September 1942, to primary flight training on the monoplane dual cockpit PT-19s, Basic Training on BT-13s, Advanced Flight Training on twin engined AT-10s, 10 weeks of B-17 training before being shipped over to the Framlington USAF base in November 1943 where they underwent tight formation and bombing run practice as crews. His missed his first scheduled bombing mission due to having contracted Hepatitis and returned back to base from hospital on Christmas Eve.

This paragraphs of his return from hospital to rejoin his buddies is pretty harrowing:

'When I got to the base, I walked over to the 569th Squadron Area and went to to the Quonset hut that we had been assigned. There had been 12 offices in that hut, including me. Each crew had four officers: two Pilots, a Navigator and a Bombardier, so in that hut ws the officer complement of three crews. We had all come in together and trained together in the States. I opened the door to the hut and turned on the lights and eleven of the twelve mattresses were rolled up. My bed was still made. My clothes were still hanging, but all the others were gone.'

'I went over to the orderly room and asked the CQ (Charge of Quarters) where my crew had been moved. I told him which hut they had been in and the name of my co-pilot (Gill). He said "You had better go over to the hut next door and talk to Major Pennibaker, the Squadrons Operations Officer". So I went over to Major Pennibaker's hut and knocked. I told him who I was and asked where my crew was. He said, "Oh, they were shot down. All three crews in your hut were shot down".'

It was revealed some months later that fortunately for them all 10 of the crew on Col Bushong's B-29 ("Royal Flush") including his pilot replacement were able to parachute out of their plane before it crashed having been shot down by fighters over Bremen Germany. They spent about 20 months as guests of Stalag Luft.

Bushong piloted his his first combat mission with a new crew on just 5 days later to bomb a chemical plant in Ludwigshaven Germany. He survived and went on to fly 28 combat missions, earning a Distinguished Flying Cross for his last and most treacherous mission on 13 April 1944 in a B-17 named Belle of the Brawl. He had flown in 7 different B-17s in his 28 combat missions - all but one were subsequently shot down or crashed with 32 crew killed and 18 taken as POWs. Dick Bushong regards himself as a lucky man to have lived past his 20th birthday.

In our brief chat in 2019 he told me that rookie pilots were at greatest risk of having both themselves and the planes around them shot down because they had yet to hone their tight flight formation skills under battle conditions that were critical to squadron safety against experienced German fighter pilots.

Edit: 1942 diagram illustrating the amount of firepower a formation of four B-17 Flying Fortresses could bring to bear on intercepting fighters from various angles:

 

[Festerz]

Now imagine doing it at night, which is what the RAF flyers were doing (including many Australians).

Yep. Although I suppose the reduced risk of fighter attacks at night was one small compensation. Either way it would have been a gut wrenching experience.

My dad trained as a pilot with the RAAF during WW2 in Queensland from late 1944 but only got as far as his flying solo training missions in biplane Tiger Moths before the war ended and the RAAF had no further need for combat pilots and he and hundreds of others in the pipeline were discharged. Was lucky.

 

[Vader]

Yep. Although I suppose the reduced risk of fighter attacks at night was one small compensation. Either way it would have been a gut wrenching experience.

The Germans had night fighters, albeit not as many as their day fighters. Their night fighter variants of the Me-110 and Ju-88 were particularly effective.

Conversely, the daylight raids were accompanied by fighters flying P-51 Mustangs, at least in the latter years. The introduction of these aircraft significantly reduced the carnage rates for the bombers. The allies didn't have any fighters with the range to get all the way to Germany & back in the early years, which resulted in horrendous casualties on the first raids in 1940 - forcing the RAF switched to night bombing. The arrival of the P-51 Mustangs meant that the bombers could be escorted all the way to & from the target, which was a serious game changer for the USAAF.

I'm planning on watching MotA in binge mode, once all episodes have been released - so I'm not sure where they're up to in the timeline, and whether or not the P-51 escorts had/have arrived yet.

 

[Hawk88]

This show is amazing

I'm a BoB fanboy and this show has not disappointed so far

 

[Gasometer]

Let’s not lose sight that Bomber Command with Harris in charge used the Night raids on Dresden and other cities of which dozens of books have been written as to his moral ethics aside from these 80 words

 

[Vader]

Let’s not lose sight that Bomber Command with Harris in charge used the Night raids on Dresden and other cities of which dozens of books have been written as to his moral ethics aside from these 80 words

One operations analysis report on Bomber Command's effectiveness noted that less than 1/3 of all bombs dropped were landing within 5 miles of the target.

They did subsequently employ techniques designed to improve the accuracy - but at the end of the day, Bomber Harris had decided to target whole cities, because he knew that his flyers had no chance of hitting smaller strategic targets at night. The moral & ethical issues with deliberately targeting cities, rather than more easily justified strategic targets, will be debated forever.

 

[Hawk88]

One operations analysis report on Bomber Command's effectiveness noted that less than 1/3 of all bombs dropped were landing within 5 miles of the target.

They did subsequently employ techniques designed to improve the accuracy - but at the end of the day, Bomber Harris had decided to target whole cities, because he knew that his flyers had no chance of hitting smaller strategic targets at night. The moral & ethical issues with deliberately targeting cities, rather than more easily justified strategic targets, will be debated forever.

Plus its so much easier to look back and criticize...we didn't have friends and family dying to Nazis across Europe..

 

[Vader]

Plus its so much easier to look back and criticize...we didn't have friends and family dying to Nazis across Europe..

The big difference between the USAAF, flying B-17s, and the RAF, flying Lancasters, Wellingtons, and other bomber types, was the level of armament. The yanks mounted 13x .50 cal machine guns on their B-17s, making them decidedly prickly customers. In contrast, the Lancaster had 8x .303 cal machine guns, which had nowhere near the same punch as the .50 cal mgs.

That difference in armament meant that the B-17s were just survivable enough to make daylight bombing viable. By flying in close formation they were able to provide mutual fire support to each other, at least that was the theory. Their casualty rates were horrendous, but just low enough to be sustainable. They improved significantly after the arrival of the P-51 Mustangs, which were able to provide them with a fighter escort all the way to the target and back.

The poorly armed RAF bombers were sitting ducks, when the first daylight raids were sent over Germany, in 1940. This is why they switched to night bombing. Flying at night improved their survivability, but came with some obvious downsides. Flying at night - in the age before GPS navigation - significantly increased the difficulty of navigation and target identification (for bomb aiming).

As a result of these navigation/target identification issues, they realised that precision targeting at night just wasn't possible. They tried using pathfinders to identify the targets, and using radio beams to keep the bombers on track, but at the end of the day (night), they still weren't capable of getting many bombs on the specified targets. In that context, and in the context of Total War, the decision to just bomb entire cities is arguably justifiable.

Having said that, the decision to fire bomb cities, using phosphorus-based incendiary bombs, with the deliberate aim of creating fire storms capable of killing thousands, is far less defensible.

There's no doubt that it's a complex moral & ethical debate, one which has been going on for 80 years now, and which will no doubt continue for many years into the future.

 

[Gasometer]

Plus its so much easier to look back and criticize...we didn't have friends and family dying to Nazis across Europe..

Isn’t that what pure history is? Looking deeper at the consequences from all perspectives?

 

[two blue tiger]

Just finished Ep 4. First 2 eps were a bit of a slow start, but now having got to know the major characters it's ramped up into a really good watch.

 

[swingdog]

I have read Checklists started here due to the number of incidents without them.

Yep, Malcolm Gladwell wrote about this. The B-17 was the first plane so complex that it needed a checklist. During training and test flights they kept crashing because pilots couldn’t remember everything they needed to do.

 

[Gasometer]

Yep, Malcolm Gladwell wrote about this. The B-17 was the first plane so complex that it needed a checklist. During training and test flights they kept crashing because pilots couldn’t remember everything they needed to do.

Did you even read above?

 

[Frank Bunn]

The big difference between the USAAF, flying B-17s, and the RAF, flying Lancasters, Wellingtons, and other bomber types, was the level of armament. The yanks mounted 13x .50 cal machine guns on their B-17s, making them decidedly prickly customers. In contrast, the Lancaster had 8x .303 cal machine guns, which had nowhere near the same punch as the .50 cal mgs.

That difference in armament meant that the B-17s were just survivable enough to make daylight bombing viable. By flying in close formation they were able to provide mutual fire support to each other, at least that was the theory. Their casualty rates were horrendous, but just low enough to be sustainable. They improved significantly after the arrival of the P-51 Mustangs, which were able to provide them with a fighter escort all the way to the target and back.

The poorly armed RAF bombers were sitting ducks, when the first daylight raids were sent over Germany, in 1940. This is why they switched to night bombing. Flying at night improved their survivability, but came with some obvious downsides. Flying at night - in the age before GPS navigation - significantly increased the difficulty of navigation and target identification (for bomb aiming).

As a result of these navigation/target identification issues, they realised that precision targeting at night just wasn't possible. They tried using pathfinders to identify the targets, and using radio beams to keep the bombers on track, but at the end of the day (night), they still weren't capable of getting many bombs on the specified targets. In that context, and in the context of Total War, the decision to just bomb entire cities is arguably justifiable.

Having said that, the decision to fire bomb cities, using phosphorus-based incendiary bombs, with the deliberate aim of creating fire storms capable of killing thousands, is far less defensible.

There's no doubt that it's a complex moral & ethical debate, one which has been going on for 80 years now, and which will no doubt continue for many years into the future.

What altitude did the bombers fly at? Could they fly higher than the German fighters and out of reach of flak? Did the bombers descend near the target to improve accuracy?

 

[Vader]

What altitude did the bombers fly at? Could they fly higher than the German fighters and out of reach of flak? Did the bombers descend near the target to improve accuracy?

The biggest factor limiting their altitude was the fact that the cabins weren't pressurised, so they needed to stay down at altitudes where the air was breathable. The RAF bombers were generally operating around 20,000ft, whereas the B-17s were flying higher at around 30,000ft. Both were definitely within reach of the fighter aircraft.

I don't think they descended to do their bombing runs, but I can definitely say that their bombing runs were NOT conducted above the flak altitudes. Many a Lancaster was trapped in the searchlight cones over Berlin, and shot down by all the flak guns which then focused on them.

Of course, other types of bombers operated at much lower altitudes - but we're talking about the Heavy Bombers here (Lancasters, Wellingtons, B-17s), not light/medium/dive/fighter-bombers such as the Ju-87 Stuka, Mosquito or Typhoon.

From memory (and I could be wrong), the B-29 was the first bomber to receive a pressurised cabin. They were mainly used in the Pacific Theatre, at least that's where all of the famous stories about them originated. B-29 aircraft dropped both of the atomic bombs, which brought WWII to an end. Of 3,970 that were built, only 147 were lost to enemy action.

A quick search on Google indicates that the maximum altitude for the Lancaster was 24,500ft. The B-17 could reach a remarkable 35,000 ft. The B-29's ceiling was 31,850ft, which is surprisingly low given the pressurised cabin. In terms of their opposition - the Ju-88, many of which were used in the night fighter role, could reach 26,500ft; the FW-190 (Germany's main day fighter in the latter years of the war) could reach 37,400ft, while the Mitsubishi Zero had a ceiling of 33,000 ft.

** The heavy bombers didn't always fly that high - the Dam Buster raid, by 617 Sqn, was flown at a MUCH lower altitude. However, they spent a lot of time training specifically for that mission, and the demands of flying at very low altitudes at night. Even then, they managed to lose several aircraft due to flying into power lines and other low altitude obstacles.

 

[Vader]

The German night fighters were all multi-crew aircraft, often multi-engined - such as the Ju-99, or He-219 Uhu. They needed to be multi-crewed, as they needed one person to pilot the aircraft, while the other operated the radar. Because of their added size/weight, they generally had lower ceilings than the smaller/lighter day fighters.

The day fighters were mostly single engined, single seat fighters - such as the Me-109, FW-190, or TA-152.

The day fighters were able to be guided onto the target by ground-based radar operators, until they could acquire their targets visually. The night fighters were guided by ground-based radar operators, before using their own radars to bring them to within visual range of the bomber aircraft - noting that visual range at night is much shorter than visual range during the day.

 

[Financialpanther]

Geez that ep was a gut punch.

 

[Festerz]

No doubt the stars of this series is the aircraft. And the air action scenes are gut wrenchingly realistic.

And I'm probably going against the grain here.

But I just can't get into the characters like I did with BoB and The Pacific. Even though (like the other 2 series) the stories are based on fact, the lines and characters all seem stereotyped and I'm not impressed with many of the actors either. Which is a pity because the facts they're working with was just made for a tight and emotional episode list - it's the delivery that misses.

Maybe that's the reason why HBO isn't along for the ride this time?

 

[Financialpanther]

No doubt the stars of this series is the aircraft. And the air action scenes are gut wrenchingly realistic.

And I'm probably going against the grain here.

But I just can't get into the characters like I did with BoB and The Pacific. Even though (like the other 2 series) the stories are based on fact, the lines and characters all seem stereotyped and I'm not impressed with many of the actors either. Which is a pity because the facts they're working with was just made for a tight and emotional episode list - it's the delivery that misses.

Maybe that's the reason why HBO isn't along for the ride this time?

Nah I reckon HBO got outbid by Apple.

I can understand your view but after ep 4, I think I am more drawn into the characters than the Pacific (which is still a quality show) and the main three (to ep 4 at least) are quite charismatic and according to some online sources, match the real people.

 

[Father Jack]

I think it also goes to how different the experience of an airman was to a soldier on the ground, the aircrews here are in action, as terrifying as that might be, but if things go more or less to plan then they're back in their own beds until the next mission. A bit different to being at Bastogne or, god forbid, on Peleliu. It's easier to follow when the context doesn't change as much, I think.

Plus they wear those masks.

 

[Festerz]

I think it also goes to how different the experience of an airman was to a soldier on the ground, the aircrews here are in action, as terrifying as that might be, but if things go more or less to plan then they're back in their own beds until the next mission. A bit different to being at Bastogne or, god forbid, on Peleliu. It's easier to follow when the context doesn't change as much, I think.

Plus they wear those masks.

That's why the scenes away from battle are even more crucial in building a backstory and empathy imho. This series just doesn't do it for me.

BoB nailed every actor and character so it's the gold standard. And the Pacific had Ramik Malek putting in a performance that captured the attention of Hollywood This season has none of that.

So while the battle scenes are great - the scenes away from battle that should be building empathy - like the bike race in the mess halls or the celebrations at the start of episode 4 are just a huge let down for me.

Each to their own I guess.

 

[Bevoman]

That's why the scenes away from battle are even more crucial in building a backstory and empathy imho. This series just doesn't do it for me.

BoB nailed every actor and character so it's the gold standard. And the Pacific had Ramik Malek putting in a performance that captured the attention of Hollywood This season has none of that.

So while the battle scenes are great - the scenes away from battle that should be building empathy - like the bike race in the mess halls or the celebrations at the start of episode 4 are just a huge let down for me.

Each to their own I guess.

Over 55,000 Bomber command crew were killed in combat in WWII including 4,000 Aussies.
After the war the Air Ministry did authorise an Aircrew Europe Star, but not a specific medal for bomber crew.
Disgusted, in part as he felt his fliers were underappreciated, Harris declined an offered peerage.

On Churchill’s return to power, he persuaded Harris to accept a Baronetcy, albeit the Air Ministry did not support a peerage. Where some felt it was payback for Harris’s obsessive commitment to area bombing, which by late 1944 had greatly frustrated Churchill and other senior officials, and in the years after war had become anathema to many.

 

[crafty_bernardo]

It didn't feel real - like I was watching a bunch of actors asked to depict some standard WWII tropes. Band of Brothers and Saving Private Ryan were both jingoistic at times but at least I felt immersed in the characters and the plot.

It hinted at the discrepancy between the excitement of young men wanting to join up and fight - and the brutal reality of war. By contrast, All Quiet on the Western Front (1930 and 2022) absolutely hits you in the guts with that.

Was my reaction too, currently watching the first episode .What happened to Hollywood casting normal looking people as side and background characters. They all look too much like actors (as actors) and too polished.

 

[Frank Bunn]

The biggest factor limiting their altitude was the fact that the cabins weren't pressurised, so they needed to stay down at altitudes where the air was breathable. The RAF bombers were generally operating around 20,000ft, whereas the B-17s were flying higher at around 30,000ft. Both were definitely within reach of the fighter aircraft.

I don't think they descended to do their bombing runs, but I can definitely say that their bombing runs were NOT conducted above the flak altitudes. Many a Lancaster was trapped in the searchlight cones over Berlin, and shot down by all the flak guns which then focused on them.

Of course, other types of bombers operated at much lower altitudes - but we're talking about the Heavy Bombers here (Lancasters, Wellingtons, B-17s), not light/medium/dive/fighter-bombers such as the Ju-87 Stuka, Mosquito or Typhoon.

From memory (and I could be wrong), the B-29 was the first bomber to receive a pressurised cabin. They were mainly used in the Pacific Theatre, at least that's where all of the famous stories about them originated. B-29 aircraft dropped both of the atomic bombs, which brought WWII to an end. Of 3,970 that were built, only 147 were lost to enemy action.

A quick search on Google indicates that the maximum altitude for the Lancaster was 24,500ft. The B-17 could reach a remarkable 35,000 ft. The B-29's ceiling was 31,850ft, which is surprisingly low given the pressurised cabin. In terms of their opposition - the Ju-88, many of which were used in the night fighter role, could reach 26,500ft; the FW-190 (Germany's main day fighter in the latter years of the war) could reach 37,400ft, while the Mitsubishi Zero had a ceiling of 33,000 ft.

** The heavy bombers didn't always fly that high - the Dam Buster raid, by 617 Sqn, was flown at a MUCH lower altitude. However, they spent a lot of time training specifically for that mission, and the demands of flying at very low altitudes at night. Even then, they managed to lose several aircraft due to flying into power lines and other low altitude obstacles.

Thanks for the info. In the show we see the airmen putting on oxygen masks. Does that mean the aircraft could be flown at high altitudes regardless of the cabin being pressurised?

 

[Vader]

Thanks for the info. In the show we see the airmen putting on oxygen masks. Does that mean the aircraft could be flown at high altitudes regardless of the cabin being pressurised?

Not sure. Possibly. Also possible that it was for heated air, so they weren't breathing freezing air into their lungs. Also possible that it was for the microphone system. Could be a combination of all of the above.