Question about total RAF losses in World War Two

[Paul Thompson]

Hello,

Having tried to find the figures for total RAF losses during World War Two, I've discovered that this information does not seem to be publicly available. This is very strange, for I imagined that if such data is available even for the VVS, the RAF equivalent should be readily accessible. I wonder whether these figures have been published long ago in some post-war publication that has been neglected since. Can anyone throw light upon this problem?

The only figures that I have found are those for 'losses', sorted by aircraft type and often also sub-type, from Terry Hancock's "Directory of Britain's Military Aircraft". However, this source provides no explanation as to the provenance or precise meaning of these numbers, making it rather flawed. For this reason, I have an additional question to the one above. Can any forum member explain where Mr. Hancock's numbers come from and what sort of losses they refer to?

Regards,

Paul Thompson

[Paul Thompson]

Hello,

It appears that it's quite difficult to answer this question! I've decided to post a comparison of the Bomber Command operational loss figures available online and the loss figures in Mr. Hancock's book. I hope that the comparison helps someone remember where other such figures can be found.

The comparison:

Lancaster losses: web - 3487, Hancock - 3477
Wellington: web - 1397, Hancock - 2164 (Wellingtons were also used by other commands)
Halifax: web - 1975, Hancock - 2054 (comment as above)
Blenheim: web - 475, Hancock - 1148
Stirling: web - 641, Hancock - 639
Hampden: web - 413, Hancock - 321 (very strange)
Whitley: web - 289, Hancock - 342

Regards,

Paul Thompson

[Kutscha]

Paul, this site breaks down the losses > missing, operational and non-operational,
http://www.lancaster-archive.com/bc_stats7.htm

[Observer1940]

Hello Paul

See the two letter attachments in post #1 of the following thread:-

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=25766

I understand a WW2 "multiple accident" file (involves more than one person in the same accident) and was where one, or more of a crew (including I presume non-service persons) were injured in the same accident.

When I attempted to get the accident file of an aircrew (involving my Grandfather) who all perished in the same crash, I was eventually told later that these WW2 multiple accident files that they had sample searched were found to be "injury only" accidents.

Mark

[Paul Thompson]

Gentlemen, thank you for your ideas!

Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in replying, I had to travel to several different places over the past few days!

Paul, this site breaks down the losses > missing, operational and non-operational,
http://www.lancaster-archive.com/bc_stats7.htm

Kutscha, thank you, that is exactly the link I used for my 'web' figures! My fault for not making that clear. Have you ever come across such figures for any of the other RAF commands? That is very much what I am looking for, but the information remains elusive.

To clarify what books I am referring to, here are Amazon links to them:
1. "Directory of Britain's Military Aircraft: v. 1: Fighters, Ground Attack, Strike and Overland Reconnaissance"
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Directory-Britains-Military-Aircraft-Reconnaissance/dp/0752445251/ref=sr_1_2/280-3686202-4287436?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372414234&sr=1-2

2. "Directory of Britain's Military Aircraft: v. 2: Bombers, Over-Sea Reconnaissance, Transports, Tankers and Long-Range Surveillance" http://www.amazon.co.uk/Britains-Military-Aircraft-Reconnaissance-Surveillance/dp/0752445324/ref=sr_1_1/280-3686202-4287436?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372414234&sr=1-1

Hello Paul

See the two letter attachments in post #1 of the following thread:-

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=25766

I understand a WW2 "multiple accident" file (involves more than one person in the same accident) and was where one, or more of a crew (including I presume non-service persons) were injured in the same accident.

When I attempted to get the accident file of an aircrew (involving my Grandfather) who all perished in the same crash, I was eventually told later that these WW2 multiple accident files that they had sample searched were found to be "injury only" accidents.

Mark

Mark, thank you for that very interesting information!

Do I understand the attachments correctly, namely that were 20,000 instances during the war of an RAF Court of Inquiry into aircraft crashes involving injuries? It's interesting to compare that to Hancock's figures of losses to hostile action, which add up to 24,657, a total which includes gliders. The fact that the numbers are of similar magnitude indicates that Hancock's figures are probably reasonably accurate, although they of course cover a different set of cases from those in the multiple accident files. With the doubts about accuracy rendered somewhat less acute, it is still very interesting to discover the original source of Hancock's information, as well as the breakdown of losses by different commands.

May I ask, did your request to the Information Tribunal result in any additional developments in terms of access to files?

Regards,

Paul Thompson

[Juha]

There is comprehensive loss info in Captain Norman Macmillan's The Royal Air Force in the World War Vol III (1949) in the Appendix I(MTO losses) and others in Vol IV (1950) in the Appendix III (others but FE only from Aug 43 onwards) In the end of it Total A/c losses on Operational sorties (less Malaya) 27,478

HTH
Juha

[Paul Thompson]

There is comprehensive loss info in Captain Norman Macmillan's The Royal Air Force in the World War Vol III (1949) in the Appendix I(MTO losses) and others in Vol IV (1950) in the Appendix III (others but FE only from Aug 43 onwards) In the end of it Total A/c losses on Operational sorties (less Malaya) 27,478

HTH
Juha

Hello Juha,

Thank you very much indeed, that is just the sort of thing I was looking for!

I'll try to track down the volumes that you referenced as soon as I can. Do these appendices subdivide losses by command, or just by theatre of operations? Hancock's books show losses by type, so the two sources could complement one another very well. It will certainly be great to see just how the difference of 3000 losses between the books can be explained!

Regards,

Paul Thompson

[Juha]

Hello Paul!
Yes
FC and ADGB per year 39 - 45
AASF and Army Co-Ops Command per year 39-42
2ndTAF per year 43-45
38Group per year 43-45
46Group per year Jun 44 - Mar 45
BC per year 39-45
CC per year 39-45
SE Asia per year Aug 43 - 45
MTO per year 40-45

There is also (in Vol IV) App. VII RAF casualties, Sept 3, 39 - Aug 14, 45, corrected as May 31, 47

HTH
Juha

[Observer1940]

Hello Paul

The WW2 accident files I mentioned could probably also include Motor Transport and Aerodrome ground accidents (those classed as being while on RAF Service)? The Department suggested those checked were injury only, but who really knows as they were stacked on pallets and had no database?

Statistics Branch
The WW2 Air Ministry were big on Statistics and even had a Statistics Branch and I would have thought the information you are seeking is formally recorded somewhere?

There is a stack of stuff in the TNA, but it is knowing what file titles to try. One file with a bang on file title reveals nothing and yet another file with a general subject title contains gems of information to the searcher about particular aircraft type, aviation subject, or place etc.

FOI was a waste of time, once the £600 search limit was reached.

Mark

[Paul Thompson]

Hello Paul!
Yes

Hello Juha!

That's great, thank you for taking the trouble! Check your forum message inbox, I've just sent you a PM.

Regards,

Paul Thompson

[Paul Thompson]

Hello Paul

The WW2 accident files I mentioned could probably also include Motor Transport and Aerodrome ground accidents (those classed as being while on RAF Service)? The Department suggested those checked were injury only, but who really knows as they were stacked on pallets and had no database?

Statistics Branch
The WW2 Air Ministry were big on Statistics and even had a Statistics Branch and I would have thought the information you are seeking is formally recorded somewhere?

There is a stack of stuff in the TNA, but it is knowing what file titles to try. One file with a bang on file title reveals nothing and yet another file with a general subject title contains gems of information to the searcher about particular aircraft type, aviation subject, or place etc.

FOI was a waste of time, once the £600 search limit was reached.

Mark

Hello Mark,

I suppose you are right about the other kinds of accidents, although it's possible that car crashes etc. were considered unworthy of a full Court of Inquiry, I don't know what the standards were like at the time.

The Statistics Branch is a great idea! I'll try to ask someone I know to have a look in Kew sometime soon and I'll come back here and quote anything that they manage to turn up.

It really is a pity that FOI works that badly in cases such as yours, if only researchers could start a movement to press government archivists to get their act together. Unfortunately, lobbying for wind farms is more popular...

Regards,

Paul Thompson