Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: technical and manipulative defects during a raid

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    266
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default technical and manipulative defects during a raid

    Hi again,

    in the night raid report of 11./12.6.1943 is mentioned that 56 sorties were abortive because of technical and manipulative defects. Does anyone have an idea what is meant by "manipulative defects"? Is it an incorrect handling of something by the crew?

    Thanks.

    Best.

    Marcel

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    SW Wiltshire
    Posts
    236
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Spot on, Marcel. A manipulative error is one for which the crew (or a specific crew member) is held to blame. Group monthly summaries usually catalogue such crimes in the various technical sections.

    Richard

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    266
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Hi Richard,

    thanks for your explanation. Would be interesting to see, if there is such a failure of that night is mentioned in the group summary.

    Marcel

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Posts
    1,035
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts

    Default

    I imagine that a "crime" such as forgetting to lower the undercarriage prior to landing might be classified as a "manipulative" defect", although most aircraft of that era had a warning horn which blasted in your ear should the engine RPM fall below a certain figure whilst the u/c was still up. Also accidentally firing your guns when the muzzles were pointing towards a part of the aircraft's structure would certainly sound to be a manipulative error. So would feathering the propeller on a perfectly functioning engine instead of the failed one, particularly if it were only a twin-engine aircraft at very low altitude. Or running the engines outside their recommended limits (except for necessity in extremely harrowing circumstances). Just a few thoughts.
    David D

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Orleans, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,351
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    I notice that at OTU and (more intensely) at Conversion Unit, Bomb Aimers were trained in "panel manipulation" and "bombing drill". This may have been associated with some "manipulation defects". Premature release of bombs comes to mind; what else might have gone wrong for Bomb Aimers ?
    Last edited by HughAHalliday; 24th September 2019 at 02:37. Reason: word choice

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    6,530
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 43 Times in 41 Posts

    Default

    Hello,

    Taking a look at the 6 Group site, there are 13 early returns mentioned for 11/12.6.1944, with reasons:

    http://www.6bombergroup.ca/June43/june11~1243.html

    Col.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Caerdydd, Cymru
    Posts
    633
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Hi Marcel,

    I'm at work at the moment, but I'll check the 1 Group Monthly Summary for the date in question when I get home, and post back anything relevant here.

    Best wishes,

    Greg
    "You can take the boy out of Wales,
    But you can't take Wales out of the boy!!"

    Greg Harrison
    100 Squadron and 100 Squadron Association Historian
    100 Squadron Researcher 1917 - present day
    1 Group Researcher 1940 - 1945

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,644
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Marcel,

    No.3 Group reported 12 aircraft that returned early.

    Regards

    Steve
    No.218 (Gold Coast) Squadron Association Historian
    No.623 squadron Research

    ~~IN TIME ~~

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    266
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Hi all,

    thanks for your answers.

    Quite a lot of a/c came back early with different reasons. There were icing problems, engine failures etc. But "manipulative defects"? Maybe Hugh's idea goes into this direction?

    Best

    Marcel

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    SW Wiltshire
    Posts
    236
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Hi Marcel,

    I was on holiday when you originally posted, but back home now. I've looked at the 1 Group Summary for June 1943. I records 3 early returns for gunnery 'manipulation' errors (2 'ham-footed' rear gunners disabled their turrets by getting their feet caught up with the ammunition feeds and hydraulics, and one gunner who thought the 4 breech blocks wouldn't go fully forward - 'nothing was found to be wrong with any of the guns after a sharp tug on each cocking stud.') There was one manipulation error in the bombing category, which spoilt 'the elusive [100%] record...lack of After Bombing Check and poor crew drills.'

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •