Report: Tuskegee Airmen Lost 25 Bombers

[snopes]

At least 25 bombers being escorted by the Tuskegee Airmen over Europe during World War II were shot down by enemy aircraft, according to a new Air Force report. The report contradicts the legend that the famed black aviators never lost a plane to fire from enemy aircraft.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040100140.html

[rlobinske]

That is more believeable than none, but is still a very impressive record of successful bomber escort duty.

[Majorsam]

It isn't a bad record, but I don't really have anything to gauge it against. I did some quick internet checking and found that in the period Tuskegee airmen were in the mediterranean there were 13 other Fighter Groups of comparable size. Also a total of 767 bombers (heavy, medium & light) were lost to enemy aircraft (much more to groundfire & accidents). A quick "back of the napkin" check would show that on average a Fighter Group would have lost about 54 bombers...which would make the Tuskegee crowd pretty darn good.

The problem is there are huge variables that I don't have the resources to account for. For instance, how many of those 767 bombers were lost without escort when they did deep raids? Were the Tuskegees given lighter missions? Did the Tuskegees tend to escort heavier bombers with better capability to defend themselves? Were their aircraft significantly better than other groups?

As discussed previously here it is hard to compare records on the field of battle. Pulling at random from the stack of histories, the 4th Fighter Group (8th Air Force so flying northern european missions) claims 397 aerial victories for roughly the same period as the Tuskegees claiming 109 victories. Does this mean that the 4th was better? Not really...it just says they were in a more target-rich environment.

I hasten to add I don't want to take away from the Tuskegee's admirable service. Despite clear racism and treatment as second-class citizens they performed admirably and at least on par with all the other squadrons of the day, and a darn site better than many of them. They are to be admired.

[Troberg]

A spotless record is a bit like hitting a hole in one. Skill can bring you closer, but the last bit is up to luck. There is no perfect defense.

I think that the measure they should be judged by is their willingness to stick with their protectees and do what it takes to protect them. As far as I can find, no one questions their record on those qualities.

[snopes]

Comment: Is there any truth to the allegation that at the recent awards
ceremony (long-overdue) for the Tuskegee airmen, that they were all
collectively awarded just one medal, and that the families had to pay
individually if they each wanted an individual medal?

[Malruhn]

Not only no, but HELL no!!

There may have been one medal pinned on one man's chest, but the rest of the men were handed the medals along with their certificates and any orders that showed that they were authorized to wear the medal.

This is a common misperception that civilians have when a "mass" award is given. Usually units have the lowest and highest ranking people get ceremoniously awarded the ribbon/medal, but all are physically handed the device for their own use.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Malruhn

There may have been one medal pinned on one man's chest, but the rest of the men were handed the medals along with their certificates and any orders that showed that they were authorized to wear the medal.

Just curious: Is it possible for one to be legitimately awarded a medal but not be authorized to wear it?

- snopes

[Malruhn]

In my case, if I were awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom (what the Airmen received), I would not be authorized to wear it in uniform.

Also, huge hurdles are needed to be... hurdled to wear a medal awarded by a foreign government.

Also, there are state awards that folks like National Guardsmen can be awarded that are established especially for National Guardsmen - that they are unable to wear when they are called up to perform federalized duty. Personally, I think it's stupid, but it also keeps states from rewarding their folks and making them look like Mexican Generals...

[Meka]

Originally Posted by snopes

Just curious: Is it possible for one to be legitimately awarded a medal but not be authorized to wear it?

- snopes

From what I've read and heard, this actually wasn't an uncommon circumstance for submarine crews during the Cold War. In these cases, the action warranting the medal took place on a classified (i.e. espionage) mission. Rather than risk a security breach from people asking, "what's that one for?" the award was simply noted in each sailor's personnel file.

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by Malruhn

In my case, if I were awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom (what the Airmen received), I would not be authorized to wear it in uniform. . . .

Huh? Why not?

Silas

[snopes]

In my case, if I were awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom (what the Airmen received), I would not be authorized to wear it in uniform.
Also, huge hurdles are needed to be... hurdled to wear a medal awarded by a foreign government.

Okay, but I was referring to medals awarded to U.S. military personnel by branches of the U.S. armed services, so neither of those cases is really on point.

- snopes

[ASL]

The last few years the Navy has on several occasions denied many awards of the bronze star and meritorious service medal that have been awarded by other branches for service with that branch. Take a hypothetical example: LT Officer, USN, is filling an army billet with a logistics battalion in Iraq. The Army's criteria for the award for the Bronze Star results in it frequently being awarded for combat support actions that do not actually involve combat, but rather the threat of combat. Because it is Iraq and it is a war zone, the Army feels that LT Officer's exceptional service rates the Bronze Star. The Army, at the end of LT Officer's tour, awards him this medal complete with a ceremony and sends LT Officer home. Unfortunately, what the Army hasn't done yet is get "concurrence" (that's the big word the awards manual uses) from the Navy. So, a month or so later, the Navy finally gets the awards recommendation, reads over the citation, looks earnestly for something detailing either combat action or the "significant threat of combat action," finds no such thing mentioned (whether it happened or not) and notifies the service member that their award is being reviewed and initial analysis indicates that, as the Navy sees it, maybe a Navy Commendation medal would be more in order than the Bronze Star. Then, some time later, the Navy mails LT Officer his Navy COM (or has it awarded to him by his current command).

Even so, this still isn't exactly an instance of a medal being legitimately awarded but then not being authorized for wear: the Navy would contend that the medal was never legitimately awarded in the first place. Just the same, it's really unfortunate that 1) there is such a disconnect in the award of identical medals by different services and 2) that *gasp* the Navy has more stringent awards criteria than the Army.

[Malruhn]

ASL is right, inter-service awards are a nightmare, and are kind of what I mentioned in the National Guard awards program. Today Mr. National Guardsman works for Governor Statesman... tomorrow he is activated and works for Presidential Federalis... and in many cases, the rules are different for what is authorized to be worn - or even for award criteria. How the Guard can function with having two bosses and two sets of regulations is beyond me!

[RichardM]

Or you Sir, working for the Department of Homeland Security today and maybe the Navy tomorrow.

[Majorsam]

Regarding medals legally given/unauthorized for wear...well, I've got my Nato Non-Article 5 medal that was processed by a US Army PAC section and duly pinned on me, but I'm still not authorized to wear it on my uniform. Not that I'm losing any sleep over it...I've reached the stage where getting a medal is an annoyance because I have to buy a larger rack & re-do everything. But yes...it can happen, although that's about the only instance I know of.

[hardhead]

Originally Posted by Meka

From what I've read and heard, this actually wasn't an uncommon circumstance for submarine crews during the Cold War. In these cases, the action warranting the medal took place on a classified (i.e. espionage) mission. Rather than risk a security breach from people asking, "what's that one for?" the award was simply noted in each sailor's personnel file.

I was awarded the Navy Expeditionary Medal for submarine operations during the Cold War, but the Navy wouldn't tell me what operations they were citing. I guess they think that having been there, I should know.

[Malruhn]

Originally Posted by RichardM

Or you Sir, working for the Department of Homeland Security today and maybe the Navy tomorrow.

What are you talking about? In wartime, the Navy works for US!!!!

On second thought, stop talking dirty. If we ever hook up with the Navy again, it means a global war of ookie proportions - and I really don't want to think about that!

Slinking back to the OP...

As I've always learned it in AF training, the Tuskeegee Airman never lost one of their own aircraft. I always thought it was well documented that a few of their "charges" had been picked off... but that they themselves had a better protection record than other groups and a perfect self-preservations record... whether protecting bombers, engaging in dog-fights or in ground attack missions.
Regardless - as said above - any of their numbers are great triumphs. And the few chances I've had to meet members of the unit, they've all been quite humble, very articulate and just great folks to be around.

Warlok

[Chloe]

Originally Posted by Malruhn

Not only no, but HELL no!!

There may have been one medal pinned on one man's chest, but the rest of the men were handed the medals along with their certificates and any orders that showed that they were authorized to wear the medal.

This is a common misperception that civilians have when a "mass" award is given. Usually units have the lowest and highest ranking people get ceremoniously awarded the ribbon/medal, but all are physically handed the device for their own use.

The local paper said this: "The actual medal for the airmen, made possible through legislation by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., will go to the Smithsonian Institution for display. Individual airmen will receive bronze replicas."

[Majorsam]

Originally Posted by Warlok5

Slinking back to the OP...

As I've always learned it in AF training, the Tuskeegee Airman never lost one of their own aircraft. I always thought it was well documented that a few of their "charges" had been picked off... but that they themselves had a better protection record than other groups and a perfect self-preservations record... whether protecting bombers, engaging in dog-fights or in ground attack missions.
Warlok

I'm having problems verifying that. I did find a link on an official Air Force web site that did include the following statements that refute the claim:

"On one mission, Davis' 39 aircraft attacked more than 100 German fighters, shooting down five and for the loss of one..."

"In the ensuing combat, three jets fell and the 332nd lost only one P-51 while no bombers were lost to fighters."

The two extracts are from two different actions, and says they did lose at least a couple of planes, although it is possible that they were lost to AA fire rather than air-to-air combat. Also, some of the statements in the "fact sheet" are suspicious. For one, it still states that they never lost a bomber still. Also, they make the claim that the group once engaged 25 ME 262s and shot down more than they lost...possible, depending on what the date was, but still quite a stretch.

Interestingly, I did find a bit in the Army's CMH (Center for Military History) website regarding African-American units in WWII and the self-preservation you talk about was cited as a reason to pull the squadron from combat, and keep the newer aircraft going to white units. Although tinged with racism, there were several incidences cited in their early war experience where the squadron would take less-aggressive moves and this was seen as a lack of air discipline. In the three cases I recall, the squadron decided to avoid their primary target that was defended by AA opting for an undefended target; the squadron aborted a mission due to weather when another squadron completed its mission to the same location and in engaging a German bomber formation it is claimed they didn't press the attack home. The first commander's reason was that being the first all-black outfit they had no veterans to steel them. That sounds erasonable, and as said, they performed admirably later on in the war...far better than should be expected considering how their country had treated them.

Cite for Tuskegee air loss:

Here

Cite for Army CMH study on "The Employment of Negro Troops"
here

Edited because I'm still learning how to instal URLs right