[mulmen]

> presuming several crews per aircraft to sustain multiple missions

Everything I have ever read suggests crews “owned” their bombers. This is how you see nose art.

There weren’t multiple crews per aircraft although sometimes crews would share planes if their aircraft was damaged and the other crew suffered casualties but that wasn’t a daily thing. Certainly there weren’t multiple crews per aircraft.

Wikipedia says 350,000 Americans served in the 8th air force alone. That’s larger than the 215,000 of the maritime service.

Wiki says 3.4 million total in the Air force but most of that is not air crews. You need a literal army of mechanics, ground crews, and mission planners.

I can’t find numbers to answer the “most dangerous job” question but everyone suffered greatly.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Air_Force (Defeat of the Luftwaffe)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#mili...

[dredmorbius]

Everything I have ever read suggests crews “owned” their bombers.

If you could turn up any information either way, I'd be interested to see it.

I can't find any clear statement. I'm familiar with nose art and pilot-specific names (e.g., "Bockscar", named after Captain Frederick C. Bock, which dropped the atomic bomb over Nagasaki). Wikipedia states that the practice varied by country and force, e.g., the US Army Air Forces permitted the practice, it was uncommon for the UK RAF and Royal Canadian Air Force, and the US Navy prohibited the practice.

What nose art says about specific crew-aircraft assignments and their specificity or exclusivity isn't clear.

Multiple sources note that crews would rotate out after 25 missions, though heavy casualties meant that both crews and aircraft faced challenges surviving that long.

And I still find it implausible that aircraft would be idled between individual crew missions, though overhauls and repairs might well account for that.

[throwup238]

[1] says they rotated and only flew every third day:

> So began Fitzpatrick’s life as an air warrior. At first, bomber crews had to fly 25 missions to earn the right to rotate home. Because of high casualties, the Army Air Forces leadership increased the number to 30. The crews rotated, and as a result Fitzpatrick flew every third day. “I got 25 missions in before the end of the war,” he said. “I did most of my flying in the winter of ‘45 and the spring.”

They often flew 20+ hour missions. I have no idea how they'd operate like that without switching crews or underutilizing the plane.

[1] https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/25-missions-over-f...

[mulmen]

B-17s aren’t Corollas. It can’t operate like an airliner.

[throwup238]

They're not F22s either, they didn't need to go in for major maintenance every sortie. They had inspections after every flight and daily/25/50/100 hour inspections [1] but most of the time they went hundreds of hours before needing major work that would take a plane out of rotation for extended periods of time.

[1] https://www.historicflyingclothing.com/en-GB/ww2-usaaf-manua...

[mulmen]

How long did those regular services take? 20 hour missions means they’re going in for service every mission. The 50 hour is every other mission.

Between the B-17 and B-24 we built about 30,000 strategic bombers in WWII. They don’t all have to be in the air regularly to maintain constant 1000+ bomber formations.

If you can find any account of how crews sharing aircraft regularly I’d love to see it because I have never heard anything like that.

[mulmen]

The book I am thinking of is A Higher Call.

> What nose art says about specific crew-aircraft assignments and their specificity or exclusivity isn't clear.

The B-17 was named “Ye Olde Pub”. There’s a chapter describing the crew meeting each other and naming their airplane. I don’t recall any mention of another crew being involved. But I did get a strong sense of connection and ownership between the crew and plane.

I believe after their return they fly another B-17 that lost much of its crew, maybe combining crews to fill in losses. It has been a while since I read the book.

I don’t recall ever reading anything to suggest B-17s were regularly flown by multiple crews.

> And I still find it implausible that aircraft would be idled between individual crew missions, though overhauls and repairs might well account for that.

Yes, I believe this is the case.