x.7851 aircraft change summary

[Ian R]

Sid,
 
I have also worked through the serial numbered list for the Mosquito FB40s. We know that 115 were 'delivered' before early August 45, and more after that. They might well be serial numbers A52-1 to A52-115 although not necessarily, as some never made it past factory testing, often due to glue bonding problems, and were not "delivered".
 
First thing noticed is that none of aircraft #s A52-1 through to A52-51 made it to an operational combat squadron. Of these 6 were converted to PR40, 3 were retained in non combat service and eventually converted to PR41, 17 were converted to T43 trainers, 13 were not accepted or crashed during pre-acceptance flight or on testing or were stored for some unstated reason, 10 (not converted to dual control T43) went to OCU/OTU for training use, and 2 were assigned to APU.
 
Aircraft A52-52 was initially issued to 5 OTU, but was transferred to 94 squadron when it formed and commenced working up activities.
 
Of the next 73 serials (being aircraft produced up to 12 August 1945), i.e. allowing for about 10 "lemons" that were not accepted/delivered to get a delivered number of 115 that is consistent with other sources, the numbers are:
 
3 used as prototypes, eg A52-100 for the Mk33 engine version with the paddle blade props;
 
3 stored then converted post war to PR41 standard;
 
10 delivered then stored for unexplained reasons;
 
1 'delivered' then crashed before assigned;
 
1 delayed at factory for unexplained reason and not delivered until 30-08-45, into storage;
 
22 assigned to 5 OTU (meaning it had 32 all up including a PR trainer, but it also lost a few on the way)
 
33 assigned to the newly formed 94 squadron.
 
Then between 13 August and 31 December 45, including A52-123 delivered 30-08-45 referred to above, another 42 aircaft were delivered, and apart from use of some as navigational escorts for 81 Wing P51s flying to Japan, went straight into storage.
 
After 1-1-46 another 28 aircraft were deilvered, with no further contracts. Buried in the "190" serial sequence are three aircraft completed late 1944/early 1945, two of which had been assigned to 5 OTU and one to 1 APU, and which were returned to the factory and converted to PR41 in postwar years.
 

[Ian R]

we take 10% for diversion to special machines, attrition, training
 
How was the 10% calculation arrrived at - overall figure across all US aircraft types, or something else?

[el cid again]

It was a ballpark order of magnitude estimate. It is like GG's die rolls: to account for slop without us having to research every last SN. It accounts for the fact that some planes are not accepted, some are diverted to special projects, some are lost in training or en route, etc. It is conservative, it permits the planes available to players to be proportional to the planes produced, but not all of them. With very rare exceptions, we are going to divide the 90% by 4, 3 or 2 - before dividing by months to get a monthly rate. That is, 25% of most planes, 33% of some planes, and 50% of almost all the rest - are committed to PTO. But a few types are 100% - and those end up being 90% here. In the EOS family, the fractions are 50%, 62.5% and 75% - but again - all those are done AFTER the 10% reduction.

[Ian R]

I understand the point, but think 10% is too generous to the Allies (although not sure about the Japanese).
 
I could be wrong though, and don't feel like dredging through the histories of 50,000 planes x 4 years to work out the answer [&:]

[el cid again]

This discussion does not apply to the Japanese - because they produce their aircraft by a different mechanism - and we don't get to influence their numbers in this way.

You are correct - it is too generous to the Allies. That is what a conservative estimate means. The Allies have severe problems in 1942 - and we sure don't want to be percieved as being too stingy. Then there is this: the Allies have the ability to divert aircraft to the Far East from other theaters any time they need one (or three or ten) - in most cases. And they did do that sort of thing. In our fictional game worlds, the Allies may make the choice to divert fewer than really happened on some occasions. We tried my statistical analysis method - and that has caused a number of comments that the numbers were too small - so now we will try it the other way. If they STILL say the numbers are too small - we will know they do not have reasonable expectations. If they say there are too many - well we can make it 20% or something like that.

[Ian R]

Thanks Sid.

[el cid again]

For Mossies, we should have a 93 squadron -

should 5 OTU also be considered an operational unit? and if so from what date? where?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

The one thing not discussed yet is the ratio of aircraft produced to those used in squadrons.

Reading the serial number details it seems the RAAF experience on Mustangs in 1945 is its about 1:1, 50 machines resulting in a 24 machine squadron - if you ignore the P51Ds that were maybe stockpiled for the other Kittyhawk squadrons to take up, eventually - about half the planes seem to be taken up by:

- "lemons" which just don't work properly are not accepted for service on testing and are broken up for parts

- machines that go to OTUs and OCUs to train the pilots

- those that are stockpiled and used as spares for the combat squadrons

I suppose its conceptually like large LCUs where there is a big logistics tail with more service and support troops than riflemen - you need a surplus of service-persons and tools/machines to produce the finished sharp end product.

Making a broad brush assumption that by 1945 the RAAF produced very well trained pilots and a high serviceability level, reflected in the experience of the pool pilots and the number of aviation support squads, and not necessarily the absolute size of the aircraft pool, maybe all applicable raw production numbers ought to be discounted to account for these "off map" factors.

The discount would be less for nations with a lower % experience pilot pool who did not direct as many machines and resources to training units - eg Japan.

Sid, did the RHS work this into its calculations on aircraft production? There is a practical difficulty in the sense that a lot of US production for "Europe" also was expended in training etc, but was any discount factor applied?

The game is pretty good at this - in the form of operational casualties. Over time a unit will "consume" many more aircraft than it has as TO&E on paper. IF an aircraft EVER is delivered to an operational unit, it counts - regardless of its fate - even if not accepted.

We have more than a few cases of limited number machines - and we are seeing virtually all of them in the game. So we need to be consistent. In fact - I had to remove some US observation planes - rather convert them to another kind - because we had MORE than could possibly have existed!

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: JeffK

http://www.adf-serials.com/

Go to RAAF Series 2, A-52 DH Mosquito for a story on just about every one used by the RAAF

The English built versions are towards the end with serials starting at 500

[font="Times New Roman"]Great site Jeff, although you need to trawl through the notes to sum up the details.

I noticed a couples of things relevant to Sid's enquiries and Mustangs:

83 P51K were supplied from the US in April/May 45 and went to 84 and 86 squadrons and associated OTU and OCU units;

There were 100 P-51D-20-NT received from the US between May and July 1945, and although some were issued to 2 OTU, most seeme not to have been used operationally, and stored as spares.

There where 114 P-51D-25-NT received from the US in the period July - September 1945 and issued to 76, 77 and 82 Sqns in the period September/October 45 and continuing to 1946 and the deployment of 81 Wing to Iwakuni.[/font]

Since we do not have P-51K - we use P-51D for all. But we almost do not use the recon P-51s at all - one type - the earlier one - had NO assigned unit - and the other one just a single squadron. We theoretically could replace it with P-51K -although that involves a good deal more work than it sounds like (backing Ks out of production and giving them their own numbers).

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

For Mossies, we should have a 93 squadron -

should 5 OTU also be considered an operational unit? and if so from what date? where?

94 squadron.

5 OTU should not be considered an operational unit, but 94 Squadron should arrive with better than average pilots to account for its training activities.

[el cid again]

94 squadron was added - but I got confused above - its record says it was to fly Mossies - so that is what it gets. It is just about the last unit to arrive in RHS - but it makes the cut if the war lasts late into 1945.