Art: B26 Aircrew Personal Armor?
Cecil Habermacher
The discussion of armor on WW II bombers recently has left me
wondering something: in your personal experience, what personal armor
(flak jackets, helmets, etc.) did aircrew on B26s and other WW II
bombers wear? How much did whatever armor you were wearing impede your
movements in the aircraft? Did it get in the way of doing your job? Did
some people refuse to wear items for fear that it would get in the way?
How much did all your equipment, including oxygen mask, interphones,
boots, heated or just insulated flying suit, etc. add to your weight?
What else did you take with you that was not standard, but allowed or
"winked at," like food, candy, coffee, water, etc?
Thanks,
Cecil
ArtKramr
>From: Cecil Habermacher cha...@yahoo.com.NOSPAM
>Date: 1/26/01 8:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:
><37038C007D48C7DC.15433610...@lp.airnews.net>
>Art (and anyone else who knows):
>
> The discussion of armor on WW II bombers recently has left me
>wondering something: in your personal experience, what personal armor
>(flak jackets, helmets, etc.) did aircrew on B26s and other WW II
I wore a flak jacket and a flak helmet.
>How much did whatever armor you were wearing impede your
>movements in the aircraft? Did it get in the way of doing your job?
The flak jackets weighed a ton. But I sat in the nose and never moved around,
so while that stuff weighed me down, it didn't impede my movements because I
never moved. I just sat there.
> did some people refuse to wear items for fear that it would get in the way?
>How much did all your equipment, including oxygen mask, interphones,
>boots, heated or just insulated flying suit, etc. add to your weight?
Not that I know of. What could you refuse to use? Certianly not your oxygen
masks or your flak equipement or your parachute. Everything we were issued had
a purpose, And we used it all. We only wore the insulated electric suits in the
winter. And we needed them and were glad to have them. But they had problems,
but that's another story.
>What else did you take with you that was not standard, but allowed or
>"winked at," like food, candy, coffee, water, etc?
>
>Thanks,
>Cecil
We were issued "mission candy". One candy bar to eat during the mission. Mostly
Milky Ways.
Arthur Kramer
Las Vegas NV
Keith Willshaw
"Cecil Habermacher" <cha...@yahoo.com.NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:37038C007D48C7DC.15433610...@lp.airnews.net...
> Art (and anyone else who knows):
>
> The discussion of armor on WW II bombers recently has left me
> wondering something: in your personal experience, what personal armor
> (flak jackets, helmets, etc.) did aircrew on B26s and other WW II
> bombers wear? How much did whatever armor you were wearing impede your
> movements in the aircraft? Did it get in the way of doing your job? Did
> some people refuse to wear items for fear that it would get in the way?
According to the Bomber Command Handbook by Jonathan Falconer
ISBN 0-7509-1819-5
the RAF operationally tested American Flak Suits in 1943/44 but
the Heavy bomber crews heartily disliked them and rarely
wore them. The feeling was apparently that the extra difficulty
of moving and if necessary escaping in them outweighed
the protection they gave.
Protective equipment was worn by medium bomber crews flying
Mitchells and Bostons
I'd recommend you to look at this book as it has an entire
chapter devoted to RAF Bomber Command Personal equipment.
Keith
ArtKramr
>From: "Keith Willshaw" keith_w...@compuserve.com
>Date: 1/26/01 12:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <94slet$lb5$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com>
> Art (and anyone else who knows):
>>
>> The discussion of armor on WW II bombers recently has left me
>> wondering something: in your personal experience, what personal armor
>> (flak jackets, helmets, etc.) did aircrew on B26s and other WW II
> bombers wear? How much did whatever armor you were wearing impede your
>> movements in the aircraft? Did it get in the way of doing your job? Did
>> some people refuse to wear items for fear that it would get in the way?
>According to the Bomber Command Handbook by Jonathan Falconer
>ISBN 0-7509-1819-5
>
>the RAF operationally tested American Flak Suits in 1943/44 but
>the Heavy bomber crews heartily disliked them and rarely
>wore them. The feeling was apparently that the extra difficulty
>of moving and if necessary escaping
>in them outweighed
>the protection they gave.
I asssume your are speaking only for RAF bomber crews. That was not the case
for American aircrews. But then again we flew in daylight and flak was much
heavier all the way in and back.
>Protective equipment was worn by medium bomber crews flying
>Mitchells and Bostons
I flew in B-26 Marauders in the ETO, which you omitted, and we wore our flak
equipement all the time. BTW, I never saw any Bostons and very few Mitchells in
the ETO. You must be talking about some other theatre.
bmcolwell
and based in the UK, Brian
"ArtKramr" <artk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010126154947...@ng-fj1.aol.com...
Keith Willshaw
> >From: "Keith Willshaw" keith_w...@compuserve.com
> >Date: 1/26/01 12:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <94slet$lb5$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com>
>
> > Art (and anyone else who knows):
> >>
> >> The discussion of armor on WW II bombers recently has left me
> >> wondering something: in your personal experience, what personal armor
> >> (flak jackets, helmets, etc.) did aircrew on B26s and other WW II
>
> > bombers wear? How much did whatever armor you were wearing impede your
> >> movements in the aircraft? Did it get in the way of doing your job? Did
> >> some people refuse to wear items for fear that it would get in the way?
>
> >According to the Bomber Command Handbook by Jonathan Falconer
> >ISBN 0-7509-1819-5
> >
> >the RAF operationally tested American Flak Suits in 1943/44 but
> >the Heavy bomber crews heartily disliked them and rarely
> >wore them. The feeling was apparently that the extra difficulty
> >of moving and if necessary escaping
>
> >in them outweighed
> >the protection they gave.
>
> I asssume your are speaking only for RAF bomber crews. That was not the
case
> for American aircrews. But then again we flew in daylight and flak was
much
> heavier all the way in and back.
>
> >Protective equipment was worn by medium bomber crews flying
> >Mitchells and Bostons
>
> I flew in B-26 Marauders in the ETO, which you omitted, and we wore our
flak
> equipement all the time. BTW, I never saw any Bostons and very few
Mitchells in
> the ETO. You must be talking about some other theatre.
> Arthur Kramer
> Las Vegas NV
No Art I'm talking about another air force. The RAF
Keith
Peter Charles
>
>I asssume your are speaking only for RAF bomber crews. That was not the case
>for American aircrews. But then again we flew in daylight and flak was much
>heavier all the way in and back.
>
Art, why was the flak heavier during the day than at night? No
sandbagging, just an honest question.
Peter
Visit The Streamer Page at http://members.home.net/pcharles/streamers/index.html
jolly green giant
they were there and fighting the medium bomber war in your time frame
guess you didnt se any?
--
http://www.dianesnatural.soap.it
ListMum, "Soap Naturally"
<http://www.programmer-software.com/soapnaturally/> home page.
<http://www.programmer-software.com/soapnaturally/toc.html> table of
contents.
An Australian based international forum for natural soapmakers.
Brooks
jolly green giant <so...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote:
>art
>
>they were there and fighting the medium bomber war in your time frame
>guess you didnt se any?
Not so quick! IIRC, most of the B-25's and Bostons were thumping around the
Med Theater (Africa and Italy), which was *not*
the ETO. And if the gent says he did not
see any, I'd take his word for it-- he was *there*. Be respectful when talking
to
the vets; we owe them quite a lot.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
jolly green giant
time on the ETO.. that all i was saying... but still 25 were flying in
ETO thru to VE day..?
ArtKramr
>Date: 1/26/01 3:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <o1347to6sbckjdl0g...@4ax.com>
>
>On 26 Jan 2001 20:49:47 GMT, artk...@aol.com (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>
>>I asssume your are speaking only for RAF bomber crews. That was not the case
>>for American aircrews. But then again we flew in daylight and flak was much
>>heavier all the way in and back.
>>
>
>
>Art, why was the flak heavier during the day than at night? No
>sandbagging, just an honest question.
>
>
>
>Peter
>
We were clearly visible for not just for 88's, but for everyhthiugn thta oculd
shoot up. Since we flew at lower altitudes than the Lancs the flak was far more
effective against us. And as far as I know. for that reason American crews
always wore their flak suits on every mission
And when someone says the Brits never did, I don't believe a word of it. I knew
many Brit aircrews during the war, and I never once heard any of them say they
didn't wear their flak suits. I would want to hear it from someone who actually
flew missions tell me so. I don't want to hear it from a book, or from third
person hearsay.
Peter Stickney
"Keith Willshaw" <keith_w...@compuserve.com> writes:
>
> "Cecil Habermacher" <cha...@yahoo.com.NOSPAM> wrote in message
> news:37038C007D48C7DC.15433610...@lp.airnews.net...
>> Art (and anyone else who knows):
>>
>> The discussion of armor on WW II bombers recently has left me
>> wondering something: in your personal experience, what personal armor
>> (flak jackets, helmets, etc.) did aircrew on B26s and other WW II
>> bombers wear? How much did whatever armor you were wearing impede your
>> movements in the aircraft? Did it get in the way of doing your job? Did
>> some people refuse to wear items for fear that it would get in the way?
>
> According to the Bomber Command Handbook by Jonathan Falconer
> ISBN 0-7509-1819-5
>
> the RAF operationally tested American Flak Suits in 1943/44 but
> the Heavy bomber crews heartily disliked them and rarely
> wore them. The feeling was apparently that the extra difficulty
> of moving and if necessary escaping in them outweighed
> the protection they gave.
Back in October, in the Super-Lanaster thread, I came across some
comments that the Brit Heavies, most notably the Lancaster, were
rather difficult to move around in. A Lanc or Halifaxe are pretty
narrow, compared to a B-17 or B-24. Crew escape was already
considered marginal. Gord Beaman would know better than I, he
actually flew in the things.
--
Pete Stickney Klein bottle for rent -- inquire within.
Keith Willshaw
"Peter Charles" <p_s_c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o1347to6sbckjdl0g...@4ax.com...
> On 26 Jan 2001 20:49:47 GMT, artk...@aol.com (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
> >
> >I asssume your are speaking only for RAF bomber crews. That was not the
case
> >for American aircrews. But then again we flew in daylight and flak was
much
> >heavier all the way in and back.
> >
>
>
> Art, why was the flak heavier during the day than at night? No
> sandbagging, just an honest question.
>
Your more likely to get hit when the Gunners can see you
particularly once the RAF started using window to blind the
radar guided searchlights
Keith
Keith Willshaw
OK let me give you the EXACT quote from the Lancaster Radio operator
I spoke to
That ****ing plane was hard enough to get out of without a
flak suit , with it If we were hit I was definitely a gonner
Keith
Paul J. Adam
<p_s_c...@hotmail.com> writes
>On 26 Jan 2001 20:49:47 GMT, artk...@aol.com (ArtKramr) wrote:
>>I asssume your are speaking only for RAF bomber crews. That was not the case
>>for American aircrews. But then again we flew in daylight and flak was much
>>heavier all the way in and back.
>
>Art, why was the flak heavier during the day than at night? No
>sandbagging, just an honest question.
Because in the daytime, they can see you and aim, rather than lofting
shells into the sky at random.
Also, the RAF flew its night raids in "bomber streams" rather than
formations (how would you hold formation in the dark?) while the USAAF
daylight bombers held close formations for mutual defence against
fighters - much easier to get a shell bursting inside a formation that
you can see, than close to a single aircraft which you can't.
Different operating conditions, different perceptions of the danger,
both bloody dangerous for the aircrew involved though.
--
There are four kinds of homicide: praiseworthy, justifiable, excusable and
felonious...
Paul J. Adam ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
ArtKramr
>Date: 1/27/01 2:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <94u7sg$r4r$1...@sshuraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com>
That's one man. Not quite enough to comprise a representative sample of all of
Bomber Command.
ArtKramr
>Date: 1/27/01 4:24 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <nN4zgVAN4rc6EwF$@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk>
>>Art, why was the flak heavier during the day than at night? No
>>sandbagging, just an honest question.
>
>Because in the daytime, they can see you and aim, rather than lofting
>shells into the sky at random.
>
>Also, the RAF flew its night raids in "bomber streams" rather than
>formations (how would you hold formation in the dark?) while the USAAF
>daylight bombers held close formations for mutual defence against
>fighters - much easier to get a shell bursting inside a formation that
>you can see, than close to a single
Right, And also close formations were very critical when it came to laying down
tight bomb patterns on the ground. The tighter the formation, the tighter the
bomb pattern.
Paul J. Adam
<artk...@aol.com> writes
>>Subject: Re: B26 Aircrew Personal Armor?
>>daylight bombers held close formations for mutual defence against
>>fighters -
>Right, And also close formations were very critical when it came to laying down
>tight bomb patterns on the ground. The tighter the formation, the tighter the
>bomb pattern.
Of course - I forgot that the formation dropped on the leader's cue.
Makes good station-keeping even more important.
Gord Beaman
>>
>>OK let me give you the EXACT quote from the Lancaster Radio operator
>>I spoke to
>>
>>That ****ing plane was hard enough to get out of without a
>>flak suit , with it If we were hit I was definitely a gonner
>>
>>Keith
>
>
>That's one man. Not quite enough to comprise a representative sample of all of
>Bomber Command.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer
>Las Vegas NV
Yes indeed, and he might have been merely pointing up the great difficulty of
movement inside the Lancaster...very true BTW, they're a bitch to move through,
especially quickly.
Gord Beaman
>
>Back in October, in the Super-Lanaster thread, I came across some
>comments that the Brit Heavies, most notably the Lancaster, were
>rather difficult to move around in. A Lanc or Halifaxe are pretty
>narrow, compared to a B-17 or B-24. Crew escape was already
>considered marginal. Gord Beaman would know better than I, he
>actually flew in the things.
>--
>Pete Stickney Klein bottle for rent -- inquire within.
>
I don't know about wartime and we never wore more than heavy winter flight suits
in winter but while it wasn't really difficult to move through the fuselage, it
helped if you had practice at it (step here, then step on that then bend to the
left...etc). The fuselage was quite slim and the bomb bay was huge and protruded
far up into it. It'd likely be a different matter for a panic stricken crew at
night in a smoke filled, upside down, burning a/c...poor buggers...
Jim Erickson
>
> Yes indeed, and he might have been merely pointing up the great difficulty of
> movement inside the Lancaster...very true BTW, they're a bitch to move through,
> especially quickly.
> I don't know about wartime and we never wore more than heavy winter flight suits
> in winter but while it wasn't really difficult to move through the fuselage, it
> helped if you had practice at it (step here, then step on that then bend to the
> left...etc). The fuselage was quite slim and the bomb bay was huge and protruded
> far up into it. It'd likely be a different matter for a panic stricken crew at
> night in a smoke filled, upside down, burning a/c...poor buggers...
IIRC you've said in the past that the MR versions you flew had a lot of
internal equipment removed as compared to wartime versions. All that
extra stuff in the fuselage must have made it even harder to move around.
Jim Erickson
ArtKramr
>Date: 1/27/01 9:54 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3a730238...@news1.pei.sympatico.ca>
Let me tell you my sadstory of moving through a B-26, especially if you were a
Bombardier. Do you know how a bombardier entered and exited the nose? He had to
crawl on his hands and knees in front of the copilot who had his seat ssid back
and helped the bombardier through without getting his parachute harness
tangled on the engine controls. I could only exit the nose with the help and
consent of the copilot. He had to slide his seat back and guide me through as I
crawled out. If the copilot was hit and a fast exit was needed, the bombardier
alnmost never got out. And if the copilot had been hit, escape from the nose
was impossible. Now let's look at the overall situation. If I have to fly a 5
hour mission where I can be killed by a flak fragment at any moment, I sure has
hell an not going to fly without my flak suit and helmet, Unless of course I
have lost all judgement and good sense. I think that anyone who flies a mission
where he knows he will go through heavy flak and won't wear his armor, I would
say he has flown one mission too many. But please don't tell me how tough it
was to get out of Lancasters. My heart bleeds for those guys. But I had
troubles of my own And I think the Lanc guys had a much better chance of
escape than I ever did.
Mindblow Vender
something("not from a book[quote],and then when you get it you say that
the sampling is too small.Maybe one day you'll realise that you don't
know everything,but I doubt it.
-There are three kinds of people-those who make things happen,those who
watch things happen,and those who wonder"What happened?".-
Mindblow Vender
mike
> >Subject: Re: B26 Aircrew Personal Armor?
> >From: gbe...@pei.sympatico.ca (Gord Beaman)
> >Date: 1/27/01 9:54 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3a730238...@news1.pei.sympatico.ca>
> >
> Let me tell you my sadstory of moving through a B-26, especially if you
Did your body armor ever take any hits? Any partial penetrations?
ArtKramr
>Date: 1/27/01 3:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <E7Jc6.52307$P5.18...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com>
Yes I had flak smash through the plexiglas and bury itself in the lead plates
on my flak suit. I saved a piece of that flak but it disapeared from my B-4
bag on the trip home to the states. My tail gunner, Emilio Greigo took heavy
hits all of which were stopped dead by his flak vest. My waist gunner Bo
Taylor took a severe hit in his flak helmet that failed to penetrate. My
copilot Bob Monson was wearing his flak vest and helmet when a 20mm shell from
an ME-109 came through the cockpit side window, bounced around the cockpit and
bounced off his nose unexploded. Lucky guy. But I guess we were all lucky
weren't we?.
ArtKramr
>Date: 1/27/01 3:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <22722-3A...@storefull-243.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
I sometimes (but not often) get notes like yours. People who have nothing to
say offer resort to personal attack since they are bankrupt of any meaningful
information.
(plonk)
Gord Beaman
--cut--
> But please don't tell me how tough it
>was to get out of Lancasters. My heart bleeds for those guys. But I had
>troubles of my own And I think the Lanc guys had a much better chance of
>escape than I ever did.
>
>Arthur Kramer
>Las Vegas NV
No no Art!...I most certainly wasn't comparing the two a/c at all...I know
absolutely nothing about the B-26, so I'd never attempt to compare the
difficulty of exiting the two of them. BTW, when did you fly the Lancaster
Art?, I hadn't heard you mention it before...
Gord Beaman
I suppose so Jim...the upper turret wasn't installed on ours, that'd hang down
right in your path and right where the going was toughest I'd say...after you
stepped off of the floor around the rear rest area (and dodged the Gyro compass
cage) you need to step up on the 'Elsan Can' (the 'terlet' as Archie Bunker
would say) then up on the rear of the bomb bay, the upper turret would be about
there I'd say.
There's lots of wall brackets to hold parachute flares and sonobuoys in this
area, and we only carried a few of them...glad I didn't have to fly them in
wartime, and I thank the guys who did...
ArtKramr
>Date: 1/27/01 8:55 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3a73a52...@news1.pei.sympatico.ca>
I never flew a Lancaster. it was just that they were talking that it was tough
to get out of. The B-26 Bombardier position was near impossible to get out of.
On one mission we took a load of flack that hit juist ehind me and caved in
the skin of the fuselage. It trapped me in the nose. I had to ride in the nose
all the way back and land in the nose.. With the B-26's weak nose wheel,
sitting in the nose during a landing is a life threatening experience. Luckily
Paul held the nose wheel off and let it settle gently and the ground crew cut
me out of the nose. So any time I hear any one complaining aboiut how tough it
was to get out of their plane, I just can't find any sympathy in my heart for
them. We all had our troubles. War is hell. (grin)
Gord Beaman
> So any time I hear any one complaining aboiut how tough it
>was to get out of their plane, I just can't find any sympathy in my heart for
>them. We all had our troubles. War is hell. (grin)
>
>Arthur Kramer
>Las Vegas NV
True words of course. I can feel sympathy for anyone risking their lives in
wartime in any a/c, regardless of the difficulty of exiting the particular type.
Incidentally, the Lanc was a particularly easy a/c to exit for the Bombardier,
his normal position during the bomb run was on his stomach, facing forward lying
on cushions covering his escape hatch!. He had merely to rise up on his knees,
sweep the two cushions aside, release the hatch and fall out!...
As a matter of fact, this hatch was the preferred exit for the whole crew,
although it was a little hard to reach for most of us because of the difficulty
of getting from the flight deck into the nose compartment, under the copilot's
seat and his rudder pedals.
ArtKramr
>Message-id: <3a74e75e...@news1.pei.sympatico.ca>
Interesting. The A-26 Douglas INnader had pretty much the same set-up. I sat
on a hatch and needed only to twist the release for it to swing open and I
could just dive out. Of course we flew the old Marauders until the war
ended. After the war the Marauders were replaced by A-26 Invaders. A much
better plane from just about every point of view. The only thing I am not sure
of is if the A-26 would stand up as well as the B-26 did.It didn't seem to
have the same amount of heavy armor but it also had a much lighter wingloading.
I never found out how tough it was because we never flew the Invader in
combat.
Hal Hanig
> Interesting. The A-26 Douglas INnader had pretty much the same set-up. I sat
> on a hatch and needed only to twist the release for it to swing open and I
> could just dive out. Of course we flew the old Marauders until the war
> ended. After the war the Marauders were replaced by A-26 Invaders. A much
> better plane from just about every point of view. The only thing I am not sure
> of is if the A-26 would stand up as well as the B-26 did.It didn't seem to
> have the same amount of heavy armor but it also had a much lighter
wingloading.
> I never found out how tough it was because we never flew the Invader in
> combat.
I never flew them, but I think I remember seeing them in Korea at K-9 and/or
K-10. Seems to me they were painted black and they were used mostly at night.
The B-29s did most of the heavy work out of Yokota.
Pony
You didn't know Gerald Vickers, did you?
Mindblow Vender
Re: B26 Aircrew Personal Armor?
From: artk...@aol.com (ArtKramr)
out of Lancs,but you just had to put in your 2cents worth,didn't
you?(plonk)(plonk)
Keith Willshaw
"Mindblow Vender" <Bigdu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23877-3A...@storefull-244.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Re: B26 Aircrew Personal Armor?
Group: rec.aviation.military Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001, 1:08am (CST+6)
From: artk...@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Subject: Re: B26 Aircrew Personal Armor?
From: Bigdu...@webtv.net (Mindblow Vender)
> Well,since the thread started out discussing the difficulty of getting
> out of Lancs,but you just had to put in your 2cents worth,didn't
> you?(plonk)(plonk)
Since the title of the thread is Re: B26 Aircrew Personal Armor?
doesnt it seem a trfile unlikely to you that it started with the difficulty
of getting out of Lancs ?
Keith