Allied aircraft production figures

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
But I've also seen things that suggest that on both sides "attrition" (non-combat losses) wrote off approximately 10% of the deployed aircraft in theatre every month.

I think this is FAR too high a percentage and nowhere near accurate. We know the USN had about 41,000 aircraft deployed by the time of Okinawa based on one of the sources I linked early on in this thread. Your figure of 10% a month would mean 4,100 planes a month were lost, yet less than 3,000 Navy and Marine planes were lost to op losses for the entire war.

Now I’m not saying the army didn’t perhaps suffer higher op losses in some of the more brutal climates, but I doubt it was anything like 10% a month 99% of the time for most deployed units. More than likely you’re remembering an aberration, a period that was commented upon due to the higher than normal op losses.

We have the actual numbers for the Navy and Marines for the entire war, I think it’s safe to assume the Army suffered similar percentages on a per sortie basis for most of their units. 10% a month across the board is simply not supportable without some hard source material to back it up.

Jim

[spence]

[font=arial]By March 1942, about 330 Kittyhawks had been delivered to various Units of the USAAF in Australia. 140 of these were lost during training accidents in Australia[/font]

 
I found this on the website for the 49th Pursuit (Fighter) Group.  The author calls the planes Kittyhawks in the quote but also calls them Warhawks in other sections as well as calling them P-40Es.  He speaks of aircraft coming from the 3rd and 4th production runs and it is a bit unclear if he means from US or Australian factories (which would explain the Kittyhawk nomenclature nicely I suppose).

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: spence
I found this on the website for the 49th Pursuit (Fighter) Group.  The author calls the planes Kittyhawks in the quote but also calls them Warhawks in other sections as well as calling them P-40Es.  He speaks of aircraft coming from the 3rd and 4th production runs and it is a bit unclear if he means from US or Australian factories (which would explain the Kittyhawk nomenclature nicely I suppose).

I'm sure many Navy and Marine air frames were lost to training accidents as well, the problem is those are not part of our game. Pilots come to us already trained and assumed to have gone through that stage and enter directly into combat units, so only op losses for combat units should be looked at.

Also I would consider these training accidents as just that training accidents not op losses. They would deserve their own stats from a statistical point of view because the people operating them are not considered competent pilots, thus skewing any statistical analysis when compared to units at the front.

Jim

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

What about "wear and tear"?

In thread about F6F I started it was suggested that many many thousands of aircraft (and much other military equipement) is simply written off after heavy usage (and that number is not counted in "Operational Looses").

How was (and is) US Army / Navy / Air Foce stand about that?


Leo "Apollo11"

[spence]

Also I would consider these training accidents as just that training accidents not op losses. They would deserve their own stats from a statistical point of view because the people operating them are not considered competent pilots, thus skewing any statistical analysis when compared to units at the front

From what I gather from the article alot of these "training accidents" occurred when these pilots from the 49th FG were ferrying these planes all over the place in response to muddled orders issued by those trying to retrieve the situation in the DEI. The pilots were in any case trained USAAF aviators though not "blooded" ones. The 49th deployed to OZ for the purpose of combat in any case.

[spence]

What about "wear and tear"?

In thread about F6F I started it was suggested that many many thousands of aircraft (and much other military equipement) is simply written off after heavy usage (and that number is not counted in "Operational Looses").

How was (and is) US Army / Navy / Air Foce stand about that?

I would suggest that the Japanese situation with regards to "wear and tear" would be even worse than the US/Allied situation. For one thing their aircraft mechanics would; from the standpoint of training, experience and culture; be far less likely to take liberties with the instructions in the maintenance manual to keep a plane flying than some former amateur grease monkey from Chicago.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11
What about "wear and tear"?

Ok instead of using approximations I went back to the document and grabbed the actual figures. Look at how low combat losses are compared to what the game produces.

Air frames lost in air combat --- 907

Air frames lost to AAA --- 1,982

Operational losses on action sorties --- 1,345

Operational losses on other flights that saw no action --- 3,045

Losses on ship or ground to all causes (Typhoons, bombings, wear and tear, etc.) --- 1,313

Total combat losses --- 2,889

Total operational losses to all causes --- 5,703

There are several things to remember these are losses attributed to front line groups that saw action within each 30 day tabulation period. So groups in the South Pacific were no longer tabulated if they stayed behind as the front moved forward along New Guinea and action ceased in their areas. So these are not 100% war totals, these are totals for all first line groups seeing action during the war, as long as they stayed in action they continued to be tabulated. Edit: Except carrier groups they are 100% included whether they saw action or not.

So it is probably safe to at least double total operational losses for the entire war to 10k+ for the Navy and Marines if we assume rear area units flew large numbers of sorties. If we assume they scaled back operations once their areas quieted down then perhaps only add another 2k for a war total around 8k.

Jim

[ChezDaJez]

I would suggest that the Japanese situation with regards to "wear and tear" would be even worse than the US/Allied situation. For one thing their aircraft mechanics would; from the standpoint of training, experience and culture; be far less likely to take liberties with the instructions in the maintenance manual to keep a plane flying than some former amateur grease monkey from Chicago.

I would agree. Allied mechanics were much more likely to keep worn out aircraft serviceable than were their Japanese counterparts.

As far as operational losses go, I think the game sometimes gets it backwards. In all the games I've played the Zero always has a much higher ops loss rate than does the Wildcat or P-40. The Wildcat and P-40 were notorious for stalling out and spinning in at low speeds plus their ground handling characterisitics were quite poor. The Zero had exceptional low speed handling and handled quite well on the ground. Its only fault their was its poor brakes. I assume that's because the game uses durability ratings to distinguish between damaged and destroyed aircraft in computing ops losses. Still, it just seems funny.

Regardless, the game needs to incorporate aircraft wear and tear factors to reflect reality.

Chez

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
But I've also seen things that suggest that on both sides "attrition" (non-combat losses) wrote off approximately 10% of the deployed aircraft in theatre every month.

I think this is FAR too high a percentage and nowhere near accurate. We know the USN had about 41,000 aircraft deployed by the time of Okinawa based on one of the sources I linked early on in this thread. Your figure of 10% a month would mean 4,100 planes a month were lost, yet less than 3,000 Navy and Marine planes were lost to op losses for the entire war.

Now I’m not saying the army didn’t perhaps suffer higher op losses in some of the more brutal climates, but I doubt it was anything like 10% a month 99% of the time for most deployed units. More than likely you’re remembering an aberration, a period that was commented upon due to the higher than normal op losses.

We have the actual numbers for the Navy and Marines for the entire war, I think it’s safe to assume the Army suffered similar percentages on a per sortie basis for most of their units. 10% a month across the board is simply not supportable without some hard source material to back it up.

Jim

In ancient (game) history the FIRST WITP (SPIs mechanical one) Dunnigan made a flat 10% per month normal attrition rule - and I think it got worse if you had too few supplies. He said it covered a number of things and didn't entirely mean just wreaks. It may be a fair approximation for gamers.

I have found the number of planes produced by the USA is NOT related to the number actually sent to units. In the cases I have complete counts for (like B-17 and B-24 - where I can account for every airframe by manufacturer's number and military tail number) indicating that line units got only about 60% of the production. EVER. So I used that value to determine production rates players get to use. Whatever happened to the rest - retained by the maker - used by training formations - sent to allies or test labs (we had one of those at Fairbanks) - are some of the things - they were not in the field. Realistic (that is, seriously attempting to be historical) simulation needs to be more sophisticated than "they get every last machine into the field." Turns out that the genius of the US system is that it is very complicated - and lots of specialist things happen. For example- numbers of B-17s and B-24s and other major aircraft were used for search and rescue duty. These ARE modeled - Mike Wood posted how once - but they do not show up as planes. And they should not be showing up as bombers either.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: spence

What about "wear and tear"?

In thread about F6F I started it was suggested that many many thousands of aircraft (and much other military equipement) is simply written off after heavy usage (and that number is not counted in "Operational Looses").

How was (and is) US Army / Navy / Air Foce stand about that?

I would suggest that the Japanese situation with regards to "wear and tear" would be even worse than the US/Allied situation. For one thing their aircraft mechanics would; from the standpoint of training, experience and culture; be far less likely to take liberties with the instructions in the maintenance manual to keep a plane flying than some former amateur grease monkey from Chicago.

There is a germ of truth in there somewhere. Japanese people did not grow up with automobiles - so they had to be trained to drive by the military (mostly). Typical Japanese units could not maintain motor vehicles. For that reason, Japanese motor formations had much MORE support than ANY Allied formation did - even of the same type. It could not expect much help from anyone else in the field - so it was all organic - and it was SOP to have about 25% spare vehicles in a unit TO&E. Aircraft formations were very similar to motroized formations. Their people were intensely trained, and didn't expect much help - or parts or even tools - from anyone else in the field (other than the next higher echelon of their organization). They were very proud of their equipment and intimately familiar with it. They would indeed take "literities with the instructions in the maintenance manual to keep a plane flying" - and to a MUCH greater degree than was SOP in Allied forces. First, of necessity. Second, because it was part of the peculiar specialist culture they were part of. Spence is doing a very common thing - reasoning from assumption - or quoting others who do.
I find this normal in discussion of WWII era IJA - and presend day PLA - and in neither case is it correct

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: spence

What about "wear and tear"?

In thread about F6F I started it was suggested that many many thousands of aircraft (and much other military equipement) is simply written off after heavy usage (and that number is not counted in "Operational Looses").

How was (and is) US Army / Navy / Air Foce stand about that?

I would suggest that the Japanese situation with regards to "wear and tear" would be even worse than the US/Allied situation. For one thing their aircraft mechanics would; from the standpoint of training, experience and culture; be far less likely to take liberties with the instructions in the maintenance manual to keep a plane flying than some former amateur grease monkey from Chicago.

There is a germ of truth in there somewhere. Japanese people did not grow up with automobiles - so they had to be trained to drive by the military (mostly). Typical Japanese units could not maintain motor vehicles. For that reason, Japanese motor formations had much MORE support than ANY Allied formation did - even of the same type. It could not expect much help from anyone else in the field - so it was all organic - and it was SOP to have about 25% spare vehicles in a unit TO&E. Aircraft formations were very similar to motroized formations. Their people were intensely trained, and didn't expect much help - or parts or even tools - from anyone else in the field (other than the next higher echelon of their organization). They were very proud of their equipment and intimately familiar with it. They would indeed take "literities with the instructions in the maintenance manual to keep a plane flying" - and to a MUCH greater degree than was SOP in Allied forces. First, of necessity. Second, because it was part of the peculiar specialist culture they were part of. Spence is doing a very common thing - reasoning from assumption - or quoting others who do.
I find this normal in discussion of WWII era IJA - and presend day PLA - and in neither case is it correct


For an extreme example of this - see the history of the Japanese air forces at Rabaul AFTER they were withdrawn.
ALL operational planes and pilots flew to Truk - never to return. What remained were hulks, wreaks, hanger queens, ground crews and pilots too hospitalized to be moved. From that - in a place with ample basic supplies and reasonable workshops - they manufactured what can only be called a military air force. They designed and built a new kind of plane: a bomber using a Zero engine and airframe. This was used operationally - and effectively - in long range strikes. If it had been done by an Allied unit there would be a movie about it. There IS a book about it in English - with American authors (not Japanese) - I think it is From Ashes to Arabel. I just figured out the title- "ashes" is what they started with!

[spence]

I have found the number of planes produced by the USA is NOT related to the number actually sent to units. In the cases I have complete counts for (like B-17 and B-24 - where I can account for every airframe by manufacturer's number and military tail number) indicating that line units got only about 60% of the production. EVER.

 
I strongly suspect that what is good for the goose is just as good for the gander.  That goes a long way towards explaining why the Japanese would set sail for the Midway/Aleutians operation and Coral Sea in mid-42 with less than optimal carrier air groups scrounging planes/pilots from land-based units and sailing understrength and with A5Ms and B4whatevers on some of their CVLs.  I'm  sure that Japanese "bean-counters" are just as adept US ones in getting stuff lost in the shuffle.

[mogami]

Hi, I would remind everyyone that WITP does take wear and tear into account when checking for OP loss.
Fatigue does not mean just the pilot is tired. It means his aircraft is tired as well.  It can still fly but it's performance is reduced.  If you fly groups constantly you wear out the aircraft and op loss will increase as a result.  when you stand down a group for a few days the pilots get to relax and the ground crews get to perform all the maintenance they don't get to do when aircraft are flying 2 missions per day every day of the week.
 
Yes it would have been easier to understand if along with pilots the game tracked aircraft status. And we could rate ground crews as well.
 
There were IJAAF ground crew who never performed maintenance on Army aircraft. They were stationed at airfields where only IJNAF groups were present and so they performed maintenance strictly on IJNAF aircraft.
 
So bear in mind that since only pilots are actually tracked every stat shown for a pilot is also his aircraft and his ground crew. (pilots that don't get tired as often as others have better maintained aircraft and likewise Joe Sluggo who is always tired also hears strange noises coming out of his engine when on missions)

[AmiralLaurent]

Zeroes have high op losses at start of the game because they have a long range and fly offensive missions at long range. The greater range flown, the greater chances of op losses.

When they fly in defense, Zeroes don't have higher losses than any other type.

By the way, op losses for transit, transport or offensive missions are OK (around 1% of planes used) but are far too low for CAP or training flight (2 or 3 losses for 10 000 flights being my wild estimation).