Denerfing US Aircraft production

[vettim89]

Doing a lot of research on US aircraft production in an effort to better understand how RL numbers might be better reflected into WiTP-AE. Some issues to be reolved are:

* Lag time between when an aircraft started coming off the assembly line and what the true date of introduction should be

* Determining what percentage of a an aircraft model went to the PTO vs ETO

> Some aircraft are easy as they were almost exclusively used in the PTO (most USN types)
> Some aircraft are difficult as they were extensively used in both theatres
> Some models appeared to only be used in one thetre (Appears no P-40F's were used in PTO except maybe CBI)
> Some aircraft were used for defending the US East Coast that may not be represented in the game

* Determining what percentage of aircraft should be deducted for training purposes.

> Example: 1195 F4F-4 were produced (that is the USN number and does not include Martlets/Wildcat V's). How many of those aircraft should be avaiable for combat use?

* Determining the exact date of introduction for an aircraft and what the build rate should be

> Example" according to the Curtiss records, their lines produced P-40E in 1941 and P-40K in 1942. In game, the -K
model is not available to 9-42. Assuming some factor for converting lines and then ramping up of production, it is
easy to understand some lag but how much is the right amount?

One of the biggest problems with the game is that Allied build rates are static. This does not allow us to represent the typical bell-shaped curve of aircraft production. Typically we would see just a few airframes produced in the intial run followed by a huge surge followed by a tailing off at the end. The obvious answer is putting more Allied aircraft factories on the map in a damaged state. Then as the factories are repaired, the production ramps up. Problem is that these factories then convert into the next model which then skews the production values for the follow on aircraft. So, if say we put an F4F factory in the Eastern USA box in a damaged state it will eventually produce the number of airframes desired if repaired. Problem is that factory becomes an F6F-3 factory in 3/43 thus skewing our F6F-3 numbers. Such manipulation could have a domino effect creating an enormous amount of work to get it right.

Just taking one example of the F4F:

The F4F-3A was a stop gap measure and only one production run of 90 aircraft. These were all produced in 1941 and should be available at games start. More likely a number in the pool on 12/7/1941 followed by a robust build rate that ends quickly. Currently we have 17 in two VMF's, none in the pool with a build rate of 4 which ends in Feb 1942 (basically 13 aircraft). While not really what the USN was looking for, this aircraft whould be available for what they were intended: a stop gap measure. The USN bought a total of 285 F4F-3 most of which were built in 1941. Again we have the problem of how quickly those aircraft should become available in game. A USN source shows us that by 2 Feb 1942, VF-3 (Saratoga), VF-6 (Enterprise) and VF-42 (Yorktown) were fully converted while VF-2 (Lexington) was still flying F2A. Note also from the source that most of the F43 squadrons were below TOE strength. Also note, that none of the VMF sqaudrons listed had converted to F4F-3. On 20 February VF-2 engaged IJN GM4's off Bougainville and by then had F4F-3's on board although not at full strength. By 3 May 1942 VF-2 had a full complement of F4F-4 (27 aircraft). Here we run into a problem with the WiTP-AE game code being able to simulate RL. My guess is that the bulk of the F4F-3 were already built by 7 Dec 1941 but many were in Bethpage, NY or points between there and WC USA. At some point in early Feb 1942 a convoy with a large number of -3 airframes arrived at PH allowing the filling out of the USN VF sqaudrons. Very quickly after that point a large number of -4 models started arriving so that presumably by the middle of April 1942 enough had arrived so that both Lexington and Yorktown had fully converted by the time they arrived in the Coral Sea on 1 May 1942. Unfortunately, I have no idea what the state of Hornets VF was at the time but Halsey's AAR from the Doolittle Raid specifically mentions the F4F-4's perfromance ergo we know CAG-6 had them by 18 April 1942. I have one source saying Hornet had -4 on board during the Doolittle Raid. At that point Saratoga was still in dry dock and is safe to assume her Air Wing was not given priority for upgrade (though it could be inferrred that she may have got them before the other CV's as she was closer to the source).

What does this mean? Basically by the middle of April 1942, the USN had AT LEAST 81 F4F-4's forward deployed (Enough to fill out VF's -2, -6, and -42)and possible 108 if VF-8 had them also. Given a 1 March 1942 introduction date in AE, we would need to see a build rate of at least 54 aiframes a month if not 72. For the record the AE build rate is 45. I think we can all agree that there is some fixing to do here.

Extending the data out. The F4F-4 is available March 42 and ends production April 43. Assuming production begins on the 1st of the month it first becomes available and ends on the last day of the month it stops, that means a 14 month production run. If that is correct (please some one tell me if I am wrong here) then:

190 Appear in the game as reinforcements (28 on Wasp, 144 on the CVE(R), and 18 in VMF's
45 a/c a month gives us 630 F4F-4 plus 190 = 820 or 69% of the actual number produced available in game
72 a/c a month fives us 1008 F4F-4 plus 190 = 1198 or 101% of the actual number produced available in game

The -3 numbers are

123 in game on 7 Decmber 1941 (68 on ships, 48 in VMF, and 7 on pool)
Build rate of 8 but only three months of production = 24 total aditional aircraft
Total of 147 -3 available for use of the 285 built which equals a paltry 51%

To me, it seems obvious that the AE build rates at least for one airframe are wrong. The question remains what percentage of actual aircraft production should be deployable. To the AFB's out there that keep saying that there is a shortage of Wildcats, you seem to be correct.

Sorry for the long post but I wanted to put out my argument in detail. The question becomes what other airframes need similar work done to them.


Edit - adjust F4F-3 numbers to account for the Marine Squadrons

[Bradley7735]

Can you put airframes in the pool via convoys? I know convoys work for land devices. You could have on-map production using small numbers, and once a month, a convoy delivery of a big chunk of planes, convoys end when production would normally wind down.

The only problem with this, is you need a lot of convoys (although, you could add the devices to the existing convoys), and it chunks production, instead of spreading it out over the month.

[Andy Mac]

You can add them to convoys after patch 2.
 
Not convinced F4F rates are wrong though assuming all production ended up on the front line is a bit iffy as an assumption for me

[SuluSea]

This is one of my chief complaints about this game.  I don't look for anything to change unless Japan gets something to balance it out.  Thanks for the numbers and the research.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

This is one of my chief complaints about this game.  I don't look for anything to change unless Japan gets something to balance it out.  Thanks for the numbers and the research.

No offense but why the tit-for-tat thing. If something seems out of whack and is corrected, why does it mean that the other side gets a goodie to justify the fix? In the original WiTP there was a DB error in the USS Boise listing that turned it into a supership. It was discovered and fixed in a patch. By you reasoning when this error was corrected some pound of flesh should have been exacted from the Japanese OOB. WIth PDU on, the Japanese have a tremandous advantage over the Allies, this is just one fix to maybe level the playing field a small amount

My goal here is not to create an "Enhanced Allies scenario" but instead to adjust the game to meet the RL model as closely as possible. Many AFB have brought up the low USN fighter replacement rates early in the war as a point of concern. My research seems to indicate their may be some RL data that supports a higher rate. If some one brought a similar concern to me about a Japanese problem, I would be just as eager to correct it.

My goal is to get a scenario for the Grand Campaign that feels like the AE standard issue Guadalcanal campaign. Where every little operation is a struggle to accomplish and major operations take months to pull together for both sides. The operational pace for WiTP was ridiculous. It is better in AE but still too high. One idea I am toying with is putting much larger Resource and Light Industry devices in the WCUSA and Eastern USA base boxes but in a damaged state. Repair of these will represent the US economy ramping up to full war time footing. While these ideas are in the concept stage right now, I think they will make for an interesting mod. It will be very different from all of the enhanced mods out there but still, I beleive, a very enjoyable version

[vettim89]

Edit: the remaining F4F-3A appear to be hidden in several VMF units. Also my original F4F-3 numbers did not incluse the VMF units alocated this version. Will go back recrunch those numbers. Additionally, 144 additional F4F-4 appear on the CVE(R) squadrons. Normalizing that over 14 months means production should be around 62/month. That seems about correct.

[wdolson]

Aircraft production usually wasn't a bell shaped curve.  A production model usually ended abruptly when a factory switched over to another model.  Though they did ramp up.  Switching between models of the same plane usually had a quicker switch over than switching to another aircraft type completely.

Not that many new aircraft were used for training.  Most training aircraft were retired combat planes with a few exceptions like the F3A Corsair (Brewster).  Brewster's quality control was so bad the Navy rejected all Brewster built Corsair's for combat and all were relegated to training.  Most Vought and Goodyear built Corsairs built before May or June 45 saw combat.

I see you discovered the problem with not counting aircraft that appear in units arriving on map.  That makes up a lot of USN aircraft since most carriers arrive with full air groups.

Bill

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Aircraft production usually wasn't a bell shaped curve.  A production model usually ended abruptly when a factory switched over to another model.  Though they did ramp up.  Switching between models of the same plane usually had a quicker switch over than switching to another aircraft type completely.

Not that many new aircraft were used for training.  Most training aircraft were retired combat planes with a few exceptions like the F3A Corsair (Brewster).  Brewster's quality control was so bad the Navy rejected all Brewster built Corsair's for combat and all were relegated to training.  Most Vought and Goodyear built Corsairs built before May or June 45 saw combat.

I see you discovered the problem with not counting aircraft that appear in units arriving on map.  That makes up a lot of USN aircraft since most carriers arrive with full air groups.

Bill

Grrrr. Just realized I was using the 8 Dec scenario for my a/c numbers. Ugh. Redo. Oh, and this post set off a lightbulb in my head. Wasp arrives with 28 F4F-4 on board.

This is my fear. As I try to do this with each a/c type, I will be forced into this rotation of discovery.

[vettim89]

Went back and redid the numbers factoring in all units that fly or will fly the various Wildcat models. Obviously 72/month is too high when I got 101% of actual production numbers (three extra aircraft). WHat percentage of produced aircraft whould be available in game? WDolson post seems to indicate that most of the combat aircraft actually made it to the front. If 90% of F4F-4 made it to the front, that means 1075 airframes available. Taking into account the 190 that appear either on Ships or as Marine reinforcements, that means 63 aircraft a month. Before I crunched the numbers, I cam up with a ballpark figure of 62/month. Guess my gut was about right. Maybe I should do that for all types.[:D]

[treespider]

I counted 308 F4F-4's ---Aircraft 425....entering on Map

1774 VF-71 - 28
1831 VF-22 - 21
1834 VF-23 - 21
1973 VF-26 - 16
1982 VF-35 - 18
1985 VF-37 - 18
1997 VF-60 - 18
2216 VRF-1F - 24
2218 VRF-2F - 24
2220 VRF-3F - 24
2222 VRF-4F - 24
2224 VRF-5F - 24
2226 VRF-6F - 24

2563 VMF-122 - (2)
2565 VMF-123 - (2)
2568 VMF-124 - (2)
2590 VMF-212 - (2)
2596 VMF-216 - 6(4)
2606 VMF-222 - (2)
2610 VMF-224 - (2)
2611 VMF-225 - (2)

308+820 = 1128/1195 = 94%

Plus you have to factor in the F4F-4's that flew in North Africa with VF-41.


TimTom did a fairly bangup job getting the numbers "right"...but if you disagree there is the editor.[;)]

[Dili]

I have that problem for Mediterranean and one solution is to check losses, so get Pacific theatre losses and give a good(in case of USA) number above it for a common model and a lesser number for less common ones, factor also the number of squadrons.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: treespider

I counted 308 F4F-4's ---Aircraft 425....entering on Map

1774 VF-71 - 28
1831 VF-22 - 21
1834 VF-23 - 21
1973 VF-26 - 16
1982 VF-35 - 18
1985 VF-37 - 18
1997 VF-60 - 18
2216 VRF-1F - 24
2218 VRF-2F - 24
2220 VRF-3F - 24
2222 VRF-4F - 24
2224 VRF-5F - 24
2226 VRF-6F - 24

2563 VMF-122 - (2)
2565 VMF-123 - (2)
2568 VMF-124 - (2)
2590 VMF-212 - (2)
2596 VMF-216 - 6(4)
2606 VMF-222 - (2)
2610 VMF-224 - (2)
2611 VMF-225 - (2)

308+820 = 1128/1195 = 94%

Plus you have to factor in the F4F-4's that flew in North Africa with VF-41.


TimTom did a fairly bangup job getting the numbers "right"...but if you disagree there is the editor.[;)]

Thanks Treespider, I missed the F4F-4 that arrived on the initial batch of CVL/CVE's. However, VMF-222 and VMF-224 arrive on map with F2A-3 not Wildcats. I did miss one VMF with 2 F4F-4 in tow. That means instead of 190 F4F-4 arriving as reinforcements it should be 304. Best guess is 27 were assigned to Ranger during its operations in the Atlantic during 1942. So lets make the number 331.

That said you misinterpreted the numbers. The 820 number you quoted is 190 reinforcements plus 45 a/c a month. In other words the 820 already including my 190 which I now concede should have been 304 (331). The numbers were not 190 (wrong) plus 820 but 190 plus 630 (45/month). So using the proper 331 plus 630 = 965 which is 81%. Whether that number is correct or not I have no idea. Where did the other 220 aircraft go? Considering all four active US CAG's had a full complement of F4F-4 by the middle of April 1942, the 45 does not seem enough. If I use 90% of produce aircraft to the field, the number is 55/month. That would give the Allied player 82 F4F-4 by mid april which is still about 26 airframes short. The 55/month would allow conversion of four CV's by 1 May 1942 (barely) and all five by the middle of the month. I have the utmost respect for the AE Team but I respectfully disagree that this one data item is correct. I recently responded to a post in the War Room supporting the PBY-5/5A production numbers. Point being that I don't think all the production numbers are screwed up just a few. The F4F-4 numbers are critically important for game play in 1942 which is why I bring the point up.

All the F4F models were built at Grumman plant 2 in Bethpage, N.Y. Of note, that same plant was also producing the TBF starting in Spring 1942. My guess is F4F production was not a constant number but instead was larger at first and then tailed off as both TBF production ramped up and F6F production was being ramped up. We have no way to model that in AE.

As to using the Editor, that is why this thread is in the Scenario Design and Modding forum.

Of note, 100% of the Japanese air production is available for combat.

[SuluSea]

No offense taken Vettim , if you read the Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate thread the developers think the current allotment of planes is correct so any adjustment will be ahistorical for the allies and we can't have that can we. [;)] 

I love this game but all the big scenarios in this game are Hakko Ichiu.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

The F4F-3A was a stop gap measure and only one production run of 90 aircraft. These were all produced in 1941 and should be available at games start. More likely a number in the pool on 12/7/1941 followed by a robust build rate that ends quickly. Currently we have 17 in two VMF's, none in the pool with a build rate of 4 which ends in Feb 1942 (basically 13 aircraft). While not really what the USN was looking for, this aircraft whould be available for what they were intended: a stop gap measure.

...

The USN bought a total of 285 F4F-3 most of which were built in 1941.

To my ken, the production run was 95 airframes - 30 to Greece in the event going to the RN as the Martlett Mk III (BuAer 3875-3904) and 65 to the US Navy Department (BuAer 3905-3069).

Scn 1 gives the player 40 F4F-3A's with units + 12 replacements.

The initial order F4F-3 ran to 185 airframes (BuAer 1844-1845, 1848-1896, 2512-2538, 3856-3874, 3970-4057). An additional order was put in for 100 F4F-7, changed to F4F-3S, then F4F-3 (BuAer 12230-12329). None of the latter contract were delivered until '43 and all were used in non-combat capacities.

Scn 1 gives the player 101 F4F-3's with units + 7 in pool + 24 replacements.

Additionally a single F4F-3A and 17 F4F-3's were converted to F4F-3P's. Of these the player receives 16.

So from 250 F4F-3/3A's, the player receives 200, leaving 50 aircraft to account for protos, pre-war losses, and assignment to units not modelled in the game of all kinds - if we accept Niehorsters figures, 47 of these were with the Ranger and ACTG Atlantic on December 7th.

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Again we have the problem of how quickly those aircraft should become available in game. A USN source shows us that by 2 Feb 1942, VF-3 (Saratoga), VF-6 (Enterprise) and VF-42 (Yorktown) were fully converted while VF-2 (Lexington) was still flying F2A. Note also from the source that most of the F43 squadrons were below TOE strength. Also note, that none of the VMF sqaudrons listed had converted to F4F-3. On 20 February VF-2 engaged IJN GM4's off Bougainville and by then had F4F-3's on board although not at full strength. By 3 May 1942 VF-2 had a full complement of F4F-4 (27 aircraft). Here we run into a problem with the WiTP-AE game code being able to simulate RL. My guess is that the bulk of the F4F-3 were already built by 7 Dec 1941 but many were in Bethpage, NY or points between there and WC USA. At some point in early Feb 1942 a convoy with a large number of -3 airframes arrived at PH allowing the filling out of the USN VF sqaudrons. Very quickly after that point a large number of -4 models started arriving so that presumably by the middle of April 1942 enough had arrived so that both Lexington and Yorktown had fully converted by the time they arrived in the Coral Sea on 1 May 1942. Unfortunately, I have no idea what the state of Hornets VF was at the time but Halsey's AAR from the Doolittle Raid specifically mentions the F4F-4's perfromance ergo we know CAG-6 had them by 18 April 1942. I have one source saying Hornet had -4 on board during the Doolittle Raid. At that point Saratoga was still in dry dock and is safe to assume her Air Wing was not given priority for upgrade (though it could be inferrred that she may have got them before the other CV's as she was closer to the source).

What does this mean? Basically by the middle of April 1942, the USN had AT LEAST 81 F4F-4's forward deployed (Enough to fill out VF's -2, -6, and -42)and possible 108 if VF-8 had them also. Given a 1 March 1942 introduction date in AE, we would need to see a build rate of at least 54 aiframes a month if not 72. For the record the AE build rate is 45. I think we can all agree that there is some fixing to do here.

No need to speculate. Using the "Location of US Naval Aircraft" quoted above for April 15 1942, we see that reported available strength with all units Pacific Fleet equals 76 F4F-3's, 26 F4F-3A's, and 45 F4F-4's. The only F4F-4's with FitRons are nine aircraft with the VF-2 detachment at Pearl (Sara being at Puget Sound after her encounter with I-6).

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Extending the data out. The F4F-4 is available March 42 and ends production April 43. Assuming production begins on the 1st of the month it first becomes available and ends on the last day of the month it stops, that means a 14 month production run. If that is correct (please some one tell me if I am wrong here) then:

190 Appear in the game as reinforcements (28 on Wasp, 144 on the CVE(R), and 18 in VMF's
45 a/c a month gives us 630 F4F-4 plus 190 = 820 or 69% of the actual number produced available in game
72 a/c a month fives us 1008 F4F-4 plus 190 = 1198 or 101% of the actual number produced available in game

The -3 numbers are

123 in game on 7 Decmber 1941 (68 on ships, 48 in VMF, and 7 on pool)
Build rate of 8 but only three months of production = 24 total aditional aircraft
Total of 147 -3 available for use of the 285 built which equals a paltry 51%

To me, it seems obvious that the AE build rates at least for one airframe are wrong. The question remains what percentage of actual aircraft production should be deployable. To the AFB's out there that keep saying that there is a shortage of Wildcats, you seem to be correct.

Sorry for the long post but I wanted to put out my argument in detail. The question becomes what other airframes need similar work done to them.

Edit - adjust F4F-3 numbers to account for the Marine Squadrons

I can tell you how many were available with tactical unit at any given time, and I can tell you how many were produced. What I can't tell you is how many individual airframes were available throughout in total. I can only give a maximum and a minimum figure. If we knew the loss figures, we could arrive at an evidence-based number. What we have currently is an estimate of about 65-70% of production, which I'm inclined to think is slightly (only) on the conservative side.

So by all means make your own guestimate - I for one wouldn't be able to present decisive evidence one way or the other. However studying the avalability figures suggest the following to me:

1) Numbers don't really pick up till the end of '42
2) Squadrons being understrength is not unusual for the USN first half of '42 and for the USMC throughout the year.
3) Squadrons flying obsolete aircraft - if any - not unusual for the USN first half of '42 and for the USMC throughout the year.

Reference:

http://niehorster.orbat.com/013_usa/_41 ... craft.html
http://www.history.navy.mil/a-record/ww ... 5-4-42.pdf

Angelucci, Enzo & Bowers, Peter M.: The American Fighter: The Definitive Guide to American Fighter Aircraft from 1917 to the Present. Orion Books 1985.
Dann, Richard S.: F4F Wildcat in Action. Squadron Signal Publications 2004.
Dean, Francis H.: America's Hundred-Thousand: US Production Fighters of World War Two. Schiffer Publishing 1997.
Swanborough, Gordon & Bowers, Peter M.: United States Navy Aircraft since 1911. Putnam & Co 1968.

[topeverest]

Vettim89

Appreciate all the work on this, as it is a topic that ignites zeal on all sides. Since the allied airframes are fixed and as historically accurate as feasible, I applaud the thoroughness of the existing effort as well as any and all correction efforts. This has been a great achievement in the game.

Like some others, I have continuously struggled with the idea of historically fixed allied airframes paired against variable Japanese airframe production. I think I understand most of the key issues on both sides, so I think there always will some level of pain no mater the chosen solution. I also appreciate the flexibility in the editor to satify my personal views on this.

Again, great work on this!!!

[vettim89]

Thank you TimTom for your input.

I 100% agree with the F4F-3 data as numerous records support the idea that these airframes were in very short supply. Perhaps a factor involved here is that most of the F4F-3 were produced pre-war with less of a sense of urgency.

As to the F4F-4 issues, I think 55/month is a better number. Of note, I am only talking about an addditional ten airframes a month. These will likely be swallowed up by combat and operational losses to the point where the Allied player would hardly notice it. I am not suggesting exceed the historical number produced nor even meeting that number.

Even at 55/month, rough half of the F4F-4 produced will be consumed in converting the five VF's on the CVs and filling out the VMF's. Historically, this production rate would allow for all the Cv's to convert by the onset of Watchtower and about 2/3 of the VMF's likewise. This does not account for any ops losses. The 45/month figure doesn't allow full CV conversion until 1 June 1942 and only would convert about 1/2 of the VMF by August. Keep in mind both those examples would have 0 F4F-4 in the pool on 1 August.

The one wild card in this is those 144 airframes that arrive on the CVE(R). Perhaps a trade off could be made to make those groups come in understrengthed.

And yes, I do agree it is a little annoying that a minor tweak to Allied aircraft production is met with the "this data was painstakingly researched to be historically accurate" reply when the game allows the Japanese player to destroy the historical accuracy on that side on turn 1.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Grrrr. Just realized I was using the 8 Dec scenario for my a/c numbers. Ugh. Redo. Oh, and this post set off a lightbulb in my head. Wasp arrives with 28 F4F-4 on board.

This is my fear. As I try to do this with each a/c type, I will be forced into this rotation of discovery.

If you extract the scenario to Excel spreadsheets, you can more easily come up with the numbers that arrive in squadrons. Sort by the column with the aircraft type and add up the number of aircraft for each type (don't forget to pick up the aircraft that arrive damaged too).

As Treespider pointed out, there were USN aircraft on carriers in the Atlantic that never were in the Pacific. This is especially true when all the CVEs began rolling off the ways. The USN published a biweekly report of unit strengths (USN and USMC) and locations that are available on the web for download in PDF format. I recommend getting them. They aren't 100% accurate, for example they still show some units active on the Lexington a couple of months after she was sunk, but they are the best record of what was available at the time.

Timtom did a pretty good job of researching production and unit strength numbers. I remember going back and forth on some of the details. There may still be some inaccuracies (nobody is perfect), but the numbers in the official scenarios are pretty solid.

The Allies had a shortage of airframes in most places for the first year of the war and into 1943. The UK had few to spare from the war in Europe and North Africa and US production was still spooling up. If you're having heavy combat in the first months of the war, you should feel a pinch.

Bill

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

And yes, I do agree it is a little annoying that a minor tweak to Allied aircraft production is met with the "this data was painstakingly researched to be historically accurate" reply when the game allows the Japanese player to destroy the historical accuracy on that side on turn 1.

Of course it's legitimate to consider alternatives to the historical number. The point of some of the replies (including mine) was to the assertion that (in effect) "this number is wrong, there were actually more". Well, even though there is still room to discover mistakes, most likely the numbers are already quite good for what was there IRL.

I agree there should be some mechanism for the Allies to adjust to both the course of the war and the production decisions that IJ makes. Coming up with a) what is that mechanism, and b) implementing it - are both much more difficult!

[vettim89]

Sitting down for a nice heaping helping of humble pie. There were 90 F4F-4 in the Torch force. Ranger embarked two VF with 27 planes each and one VS squadrons. There were also three VGF sq on CVE's. The battle report I read said one VGF sq only had 11 planes but my guess is that it left Norfolk with 12.

So 1185 - 394 (not 331) = 56 aircraft a month. While this is still close to my 55/month, it is likely too close. The Torch force lost 21 F4F-4. One would assume these were replaced but by the time they got back to Norfolk, FM-1 production should have been ramping up. In the interest of fairness, I think I am going to lower the number of F4F-4 that arrive on the six CVE(R). If they arrive and there are airframes in the pool, they can always be filled up at that point.

Do people feel that is a reasonable compromise?

[Dili]

109 F4F-4 in Torch

VVF-9 Fighter F4F-4 Wildcat Ranger 27
VF-41 Fighter F4F-4 Wildcat Ranger 27
VGF-26 Fighter F4F-4 Wildcat Swuannee 12
VGF-27 Fighter F4F-4 Wildcat Sangamon 11
VGF-28 Fighter F4F-4 Wildcat Sangamon 12
VGS-30 Fighter F4F-4 Wildcat Sangamon 6
VGF-29 Fighter F4F-4 Wildcat Santee 14