B24 ceiling vs. B17 ceiling

[Snautzer01]

As mentioned, it was a handful to fly under ideal conditions compared to comparable types.

The Davis wing provided several advantages, however, if it became damaged (flak, cannon fire, etc.), the aircraft became very difficult to manage.

Yes i take your word for it but none the less it did very long range combat flights. The B-24. None other then perhaps a B-29 was able.
In the end the usa played the numbers game like no other fighting nation on this level of airplane evolution. Not germany japan soviets could field the masses of numbers of the frames
Yes it is not a tiger tank. But they are many. Shoot one 5 friends will come to morn.
Its not the definite combat plane, but an A-Ford.
Quite good and comperatively easy to produce. In fast fast numbers.
In a time when life was not that valuable and many crew was being trained it is not difficult to see why they stuck with it. And had succes.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

No argument with a direct hit from an 88mm that explodes on contact, most damage from flak was from shells that exploded in the air which then becomes a function of accuracy, tightness of the formation and statistics.

One of the surprising facts is that the Germans did NOT use contact fuses and that it was a deliberate decision not to do so. By the time it was adopted the situation was hopeless.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Have to disagree with your premise about losses and the "real killer of bombers."

If you look at the US Navy, let's take just the Hellcat.There were one-third more losses to AAA than to enemy fighters and about the same losses to enemy fighters as operational losses. The biggest single hit was AAA.

Look at the Statistical Digest of World War Two, Table 159: Airplane Losses on Combat Missions in the ETO (since we are in the ETO).

Enemy aircraft and AAA had almost the same number of losses (2,452 for enemy aircraft and 2,439 for AAA) for heavy bombers; 131 for enemy aircraft and 4,92 for AAA for medium bombers (who operated inside the flak envelope almost exclusively); and 1,691 to enemy aircraft and 2,449 to AAA for fighters (with 1,184 to operational losses).

From the above, flak was the best killer of airplanes and was equal to fighters as a bomber killer for heavy bombers and the best at it for everything else.

I flat disagree with "loss rates go up with time spent in hostile airspace." This was WWII, not modern warfare. The loss rates went up if they got attacked, sure, but time spent in hostile airspace didn't mean you would get attacked. If depended largely on here you were and what you were doing. If you were in a Mosquito on a PR run at altitude 30,000+ feet) and at speed (300+ mph), you were likely not going to get attacked. If you were in an A-20 at 15,000 feet by yourself and not headed for a well-defended target, you were unlikely to be attacked unless someone chanced across you. But, if you were in a large bombers stream headed for a well-defended target, you were very unlikely NOT to be attacked.

I disagree with "loss rates went up with distance" and "loss rates went up with weather." I have spent about 20 years around WWII warbirds. Their engines are reliable to the point of being almost laughably reliable. I worked the Planes of Fame Airshow for 10+ years. We ran 50+ sorties a day for 3 days once a year. That's 1,500+ sorties. We had a grand total of 5 aborts during those 10+ years. One was a Corsair who couldn't get one wing to unfold (hydraulic issue) and one was a flat tire. The other 3 were engine-related before takeoff. That's a total of 0.2% or less engine-related issues. Note, once running, we had one precautionary landing due to engine. That's 0.067% airborne engine issues. We also had one Curtiss-Electric prop get stuck in cruise pitch due to a failed electric brush setup. It was easily fixed once the parts were located. And that's for 70-year old engines. Imagine how much better they were when they were relatively new engines.

Weather is a factor only when it is extreme. Flying in clouds won't make you crash unless you have a midair, which is unlikely in formation but more likely in combat. Flying in a thunderstorm might well get you killed, but there is almost no excuse for flying into a thunderstorm. Only idiots do that and they generally don't survive to continue being idiots.

As far as fighters go the main enemy was definitely light flak. The attached paper describes the USAAF 8th problems with flak and their counter measures in great detail.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Yes i take your word for it but none the less it did very long range combat flights. The B-24. None other then perhaps a B-29 was able.
In the end the usa played the numbers game like no other fighting nation on this level of airplane evolution. Not germany japan soviets could field the masses of numbers of the frames
Yes it is not a tiger tank. But they are many. Shoot one 5 friends will come to morn.
Its not the definite combat plane, but an A-Ford.
Quite good and comperatively easy to produce. In fast fast numbers.
In a time when life was not that valuable and many crew was being trained it is not difficult to see why they stuck with it. And had succes.

The B-24 was not easy to produce, that is one of the great myths of WWII. It was actually more expensive that the B-17.

Add in the fact that it required much more modification than the B-17 to make it combat ready and the $60,000,000 estimated cost of losses in training and it becomes even more expensive. The low cost commonly quoted for B-24s comes from the low cost eventually achieved by Ford at Willow which took a long long time. Ford didn't become more efficient than Consolidated San Diego until July 1944.

 

[mcoffee]

Also depends on what variant of bomber is being discussed - this would fall under "familiarity".

The early B-24s had ten crewmen, but from the early-J variant onward, had eleven as standard.
This was because the B-24 got a nose turret manned by a dedicated gunner. Before that, the Bombardier handled the flexible 50's in the greenhouse.

The nose turret was added starting with the H/G models, but no, adding the turret did not increase the crew complement to 11. Only lead aircraft flew with a radio operator at the radio full time which did make for 11 men. On all other aircraft the radio operator doubled as a gunner, typically the nose gunner but sometimes a waist gunner. The radios would be set up so that the pilot and co-pilot could monitor the command frequency. The radio operator would only go the console as needed. Same situation with the flight engineer who was normally the top turret gunner, but sometimes a waist gunner. See the attached aircraft load list. A/C #46 in this instance was 42-64388 which was a J-15-CF.

A/C #19 was PB-24-J-1-FO "Mickey" ship 42-50546. 12 men with dedicated R/O, photographer, Mickey Navigator replaced ball turret gunner and additional navigator replacing nose gunner.

The Wikipedia entry referenced by someone else is proof that Wiki information should never be trusted without independent verification.

 

[JDCAVE]

One of the surprising facts is that the Germans did NOT use contact fuses and that it was a deliberate decision not to do so. By the time it was adopted the situation was hopeless.

Interesting! Would you please provide the reference for these documents?

thanks! Jim

 

[EwenS]

The nose turret was added starting with the H/G models,

The first PRODUCTION LINE models with the nose turret were the -

Ford built B-24H-1 delivered from 30 June 1943 followed by
North American built B-24G-1 (26th production B-24G model to come off the line) followed by
Consolidated San Diego B-24J in Aug 1943 and
Consolidated Fort Worth B-24J in Sept 1943.

BUT nose turrets were fitted to B-24D models at Modification Centers from late 1942, those being:-

For bombers intended for the Pacific / CBI units:-
Hawaiian Air Depot both in Hawaii & Australia (both conversions of new build and combat veteran aircraft starting Nov 1942. 322+); and
Oklahoma City Air Depot (98+ with most to the Pacific but 4 to 11th AF & 6 to 14th AF. First completion June 1943.)

Anti-submarine warfare
Fairfield Air Depot (prototype only completed June 1943)
Middletown Air Depot, Pennsylvania (62 conversions - tail turret moved to nose)
Most of these went to 479th & 48th ASG in 8th AF initially until the ASW task was moved to the USN at which point they were reallocated.

 

[mcoffee]

The first PRODUCTION LINE models with the nose turret were the -

Ford built B-24H-1 delivered from 30 June 1943 followed by
North American built B-24G-1 (26th production B-24G model to come off the line) followed by
Consolidated San Diego B-24J in Aug 1943 and
Consolidated Fort Worth B-24J in Sept 1943.

BUT nose turrets were fitted to B-24D models at Modification Centers from late 1942, those being:-

For bombers intended for the Pacific / CBI units:-
Hawaiian Air Depot both in Hawaii & Australia (both conversions of new build and combat veteran aircraft starting Nov 1942. 322+); and
Oklahoma City Air Depot (98+ with most to the Pacific but 4 to 11th AF & 6 to 14th AF. First completion June 1943.)

Anti-submarine warfare
Fairfield Air Depot (prototype only completed June 1943)
Middletown Air Depot, Pennsylvania (62 conversions - tail turret moved to nose)
Most of these went to 479th & 48th ASG in 8th AF initially until the ASW task was moved to the USN at which point they were reallocated.

I am aware of the modified D models with nose turrets - I should have been more specific - but was replying to the quote implying the J model began the nose turrets.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

March 1943, B-24G acceptances begin at North American, but only 15 accepted by end September 1943.

June 1943, B-24H acceptances begin at Ford, 42-7465 to 7470 all accepted on the 30th.

August 1943, B-24J acceptances begin at San Diego (26th), B-24H acceptances begin at Fort Worth (20th) and Douglas (31st)

September 1943, B-24J acceptances begin at Fort Worth (25th), running in parallel with H production until May 1944.

October 1943, North American acceptances 10 B-24G and 2 G-1 for the month, the first to have a front turret was 42-78070 accepted on the 31st, but did not leave the modification centre until 31 December.

Fort Worth serial blocks and acceptance dates,

H model: 41-29116 to 608 Aug 43-Feb 44, 42-50277 to 451 Feb 44-May 44, 42-64432 to 501 Aug 43-Oct 43, so two batches of serials being produced in parallel, then the last batch built is the second group of serials with the remainder of these serials built as J models among the 44-10253 to 752 block.

J model: 42-50452 to 508 May/Jun 44, 42-64047 to 394 Sep 43-Jan 44, 42-99763 to 935 Jan 44-Mar 44, 44-10253 to 752 Mar 44-Aug 44, 44-44049 to 501 Aug 44-Dec 44

RAAF B-24 official crew size and composition, OM = Organisation Memorandum, HB = Heavy Bomber, GR = General Reconnaissance, 201 flight was electronic warfare.

OM460	11-Apr-43​	HB	1st Pilot	Officer	1​
OM460	11-Apr-43​	HB	2nd Pilot	Officer or Airman	1​
OM460	11-Apr-43​	HB	Nav (B)	Officer	1​
OM460	11-Apr-43​	HB	Bomb Aimer	Officer or Airman	1​
OM460	11-Apr-43​	HB	Wireless Air Gunner	Officer or Airman	3​
OM460	11-Apr-43​	HB	Flight Engineer/Fitter IIE - Air Gunner	Officer or Airman	1​
OM460	11-Apr-43​	HB	Flight Engineer/Fitter IIA - Air Gunner	Airman	1​
OM460	11-Apr-43​	HB	Fitter, Armourer/Air Gunner	Airman	1​
OM503	1-Jun-44​	HB	1st Pilot	Officer	1​
OM503	1-Jun-44​	HB	2nd Pilot	Officer or Airman	1​
OM503	1-Jun-44​	HB	Navigator	Officer	1​
OM503	1-Jun-44​	HB	Air Bomber	Officer or Airman	1​
OM503	1-Jun-44​	HB	Wireless Operator Air (G)	Officer or Airman	1​
OM503	1-Jun-44​	HB	Wireless Operator Air (E)	Officer or Airman	1​
OM503	1-Jun-44​	HB	Air Gunner	Airman	3​	2 to be trained in armament duties and the third trained in airframe maintenance duties.
OM503	1-Jun-44​	HB	Flight Engineer/Fitter IIE - Air Gunner	Airman	1​
OM528	10-Jul-44​	HB	1st Pilot	Officer	1​
OM528	10-Jul-44​	HB	2nd Pilot	Officer or Airman	1​
OM528	10-Jul-44​	HB	Navigator	Officer	1​
OM528	10-Jul-44​	HB	Air Bomber	Officer or Airman	1​
OM528	10-Jul-44​	HB	Wireless Operator Air (G)	Officer or Airman	1​
OM528	10-Jul-44​	HB	Wireless Operator Air (E)	Officer or Airman	1​
OM528	10-Jul-44​	HB	Air Gunner	Airman	4​	2 to be trained in armament duties and a third trained in airframe maintenance duties. This requirement cancelled in OM549
OM528	10-Jul-44​	HB	Flight Engineer/Fitter IIE - Air Gunner	Airman	1​
OM579	2-Oct-44​	HB	1st Pilot	Officer or Airman	1​	Normally be an Officer
OM579	2-Oct-44​	HB	2nd Pilot	Officer or Airman	1​
OM579	2-Oct-44​	HB	Navigator (Loran Trained)	Officer or Airman	1​	Normally be an Officer
OM579	2-Oct-44​	HB	Air Bomber (L.A.B. Trained)	Officer or Airman	1​
OM579	2-Oct-44​	HB	Wireless Operator Air (G) (Radar Trained)	Officer or Airman	1​
OM579	2-Oct-44​	HB	Wireless Operator Air (E) (Radar Trained)	Officer or Airman	1​
OM579	2-Oct-44​	HB	Air Gunner	Officer or Airman	3​
OM579	2-Oct-44​	HB	Flight Engineer/Fitter IIE - Air Gunner	Airman	1​	May be officer. One officer per sqn will be provided on establishments.
OM647	28-Dec-44​	HB	1st Pilot	Officer or Airman	1​	Normally be an Officer. May be GR trained
OM647	28-Dec-44​	HB	2nd Pilot	Officer or Airman	1​	GR trained
OM647	28-Dec-44​	HB	Navigator (Loran Trained)	Officer or Airman	1​	Normally be an Officer
OM647	28-Dec-44​	HB	Air Bomber (L.A.B. Trained)	Officer or Airman	1​
OM647	28-Dec-44​	HB	Wireless Operator Air (G) (Radar Trained)	Officer or Airman	1​
OM647	28-Dec-44​	HB	Wireless Operator Air (E) (Radar Trained)	Officer or Airman	2​
OM647	28-Dec-44​	HB	Air Gunner	Officer or Airman	3​
OM647	28-Dec-44​	HB	Flight Engineer - Air Gunner	Airman	1​	May be officer. One officer per sqn will be provided on establishments.
OM647	28-Dec-44​	GR/HB	1st Pilot	Officer or Airman	1​	Normally be an Officer, GR trained
OM647	28-Dec-44​	GR/HB	2nd Pilot	Officer or Airman	1​	GR trained
OM647	28-Dec-44​	GR/HB	Navigator (Loran Trained)	Officer or Airman	1​	Normally be an Officer
OM647	28-Dec-44​	GR/HB	Air Bomber (L.A.B. Trained)	Officer or Airman	1​
OM647	28-Dec-44​	GR/HB	Wireless Operator Air (G) (Radar Trained)	Officer or Airman	1​
OM647	28-Dec-44​	GR/HB	Wireless Operator Air (E) (Radar Trained)	Officer or Airman	2​
OM647	28-Dec-44​	GR/HB	Air Gunner	Officer or Airman	3​
OM647	28-Dec-44​	GR/HB	Flight Engineer - Air Gunner	Airman	1​	May be officer. One officer per sqn will be provided on establishments.
OM733	26-May-45​	201 Flt	1st Pilot	Officer	1​
OM733	26-May-45​	201 Flt	2nd Pilot	Officer or Airman	1​
OM733	26-May-45​	201 Flt	Navigator	Officer	1​
OM733	26-May-45​	201 Flt	Wireless Operator Air (G) (Radar Trained)	Officer or Airman	1​
OM733	26-May-45​	201 Flt	Wireless Operator Air (E) (Radar Trained)	Officer or Airman	3​
OM733	26-May-45​	201 Flt	Air Gunner	Officer or Airman	3​
OM733	26-May-45​	201 Flt	Flight Engineer	Airman	1​	May be officer.
OM757	27-Jul-45​	HB	1st Pilot	Officer or Airman	1​	Normally be an Officer. May be GR trained
OM757	27-Jul-45​	HB	2nd Pilot	Officer or Airman	1​	GR trained
OM757	27-Jul-45​	HB	Navigator (Loran Trained)	Officer or Airman	1​	Normally be an Officer
OM757	27-Jul-45​	HB	Air Bomber (L.A.B. Trained)	Officer or Airman	1​
OM757	27-Jul-45​	HB	Wireless Operator Air (G) (Radar Trained)	Officer or Airman	1​
OM757	27-Jul-45​	HB	Wireless Operator Air (E) (Radar Trained)	Officer or Airman	2​
OM757	27-Jul-45​	HB	Air Gunner	Officer or Airman	3​
OM757	27-Jul-45​	HB	Flight Engineer - Air Gunner	Airman		May be officer. One officer per sqn will be provided on establishments.
OM757	27-Jul-45​	GR/HB	1st Pilot	Officer or Airman	1​	Normally be an Officer, GR trained
OM757	27-Jul-45​	GR/HB	2nd Pilot	Officer or Airman	1​	GR trained
OM757	27-Jul-45​	GR/HB	Navigator (Loran Trained)	Officer or Airman	1​	Normally be an Officer
OM757	27-Jul-45​	GR/HB	Air Bomber (L.A.B. Trained)	Officer or Airman	1​
OM757	27-Jul-45​	GR/HB	Wireless Operator Air (G) (Radar Trained)	Officer or Airman	1​
OM757	27-Jul-45​	GR/HB	Wireless Operator Air (E) (Radar Trained)	Officer or Airman	2​
OM757	27-Jul-45​	GR/HB	Air Gunner	Officer or Airman	3​
OM757	27-Jul-45​	GR/HB	Flight Engineer - Air Gunner	Airman	1​	May be officer. One officer per sqn will be provided on establishments.
OM757	27-Jul-45​	201 Flt	1st Pilot	Officer	1​
OM757	27-Jul-45​	201 Flt	2nd Pilot	Officer or Airman	1​
OM757	27-Jul-45​	201 Flt	Navigator (Loran Trained)	Officer	1​
OM757	27-Jul-45​	201 Flt	Wireless Operator Air (G) (Radar Trained)	Officer or Airman	1​
OM757	27-Jul-45​	201 Flt	Wireless Operator Air (E) (Radar Trained)	Officer or Airman	3​
OM757	27-Jul-45​	201 Flt	Air Gunner	Officer or Airman	3​
OM757	27-Jul-45​	201 Flt	Flight Engineer	Airman	1​	May be officer. Will not be provided when 2nd Pilot is qualified engineer

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Interesting! Would you please provide the reference for these documents?

thanks! Jim

Sorry, I usually include my references. Its USAF Historical Studies No.194 (in 3 parts)

Numbered USAF Historical Studies 151-200

 

[PAT303]

One of the surprising facts is that the Germans did NOT use contact fuses and that it was a deliberate decision not to do so. By the time it was adopted the situation was hopeless.


View attachment 713756
View attachment 713759

I don't know if this has been asked before but what would have been the impact of VT shells on the daylight bomber offensive?, it had a startling impact in the Pacific theatre, I can't imagine over Germany would have been less so.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't know if this has been asked before but what would have been the impact of VT shells on the daylight bomber offensive?, it had a startling impact in the Pacific theatre, I can't imagine over Germany would have been less so.

I suspect it would've severely curtailed it, provided the Germans could have produced the millions of sets required. Or maybe they would have earmarked more-limited supplies to high-value targets?

 

[Reluctant Poster]

The first PRODUCTION LINE models with the nose turret were the -

Ford built B-24H-1 delivered from 30 June 1943 followed by
North American built B-24G-1 (26th production B-24G model to come off the line) followed by
Consolidated San Diego B-24J in Aug 1943 and
Consolidated Fort Worth B-24J in Sept 1943.

BUT nose turrets were fitted to B-24D models at Modification Centers from late 1942, those being:-

For bombers intended for the Pacific / CBI units:-
Hawaiian Air Depot both in Hawaii & Australia (both conversions of new build and combat veteran aircraft starting Nov 1942. 322+); and
Oklahoma City Air Depot (98+ with most to the Pacific but 4 to 11th AF & 6 to 14th AF. First completion June 1943.)

Anti-submarine warfare
Fairfield Air Depot (prototype only completed June 1943)
Middletown Air Depot, Pennsylvania (62 conversions - tail turret moved to nose)
Most of these went to 479th & 48th ASG in 8th AF initially until the ASW task was moved to the USN at which point they were reallocated.

Here's an excellent website illustrating some of the many permutations and combinations of the B-24.
380th BG History -- Part V: Aircraft Types
Judging by the number of criticisms I make of the B-24 it may be thought that I dislike the B-24 when actually it's my favorite bomber. I have more books on the B-24 than any other bomber. As a kid I thought it was the best looking of all the heavies, the B-17 seemed old fashioned to me. I was also fascinated by the sheer number of variants. 18,000 were built and it seemed like no two looked alike. However, the more I learned about the B-24 the more I realized my idol had feet of clay. The endless variations were a symptom of the underlying problem. All these extensive modifications were necessary to make it battle worthy. In contrast, after its early extreme make over, the B-17 settled down to a run of thousands of look alikes, the only significant visual differences being the chin turret and the more subtle Cheyenne rear gun position.
A parallel situation occurred with the Lancaster/Halifax combo. The Lancaster is even more boring than the B-17. After the major reset from the Manchester, Lancasters were as alike as peas in a pod, with the exception of a few 617 squadron examples. In contrast the Halifax was undergoing significant revisions throughout its career. The underling reason is the same as for the B-24, the revisions were required to make it battle worthy

 

[Snautzer01]

The Lancaster is even more boring than the B-17.

Go wash out now.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

As far as fighters go the main enemy was definitely light flak. The attached paper describes the USAAF 8th problems with flak and their counter measures in great detail.

The effectiveness of flak per Gary Larson

Attached are a few other USAAF reports I have collected on German flak.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

October 1943, North American acceptances 10 B-24G and 2 G-1 for the month, the first to have a front turret was 42-78070 accepted on the 31st, but did not leave the modification centre until 31 December.

Do you have information on how long the first Willow Run B-24Hs spent in modification centers?

 

[JDCAVE]

Attached are a few other USAAF reports I have collected on German flak.

Thanks for these!

Jim

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Do you have information on how long the first Willow Run B-24Hs spent in modification centers?

No. Over the course of the war the USAAF delivery logs changed format several times. This is what they have for the first Ford built B-24H. Later page formats drop the engine serial number columns to enable recording of modification centre dates. Looking at the aircraft cards might help match dates to any modification centre stays.

First B-24H page, columns for serial, acceptance date, country and priority. Next is group I, covering grounded date, grounded short, flyable date, flyable short. Next is group II with date, short and destination. After that are columns for the block number and engine serials. The group I dates are the acceptance dates, the first 6 entries are in grounded, the rest in flyable, where the short field in group I has data it is the letter C or S, the short field in group II has no data.

Serial 42-7465 Accepted on 30-Jun-43 Priority 28 Short S Group II Date 13-Jul-43
Serial 42-7466 Accepted on 30-Jun-43 Priority 34 Short S Group II Date 16-Jul-43
Serial 42-7467 Accepted on 30-Jun-43 Priority 33 Short S Group II Date 14-Jul-43
Serial 42-7468 Accepted on 30-Jun-43 Priority 33 Short S Group II Date 13-Jul-43
Serial 42-7469 Accepted on 30-Jun-43 Priority 33 Short S Group II Date 16-Jul-43
Serial 42-7470 Accepted on 30-Jun-43 Priority 33 Short S Group II Date 13-Jul-43
Serial 42-7471 Accepted on 12-Jul-43 Priority 33 Short C Group II Date 16-Jul-43
Serial 42-7472 Accepted on 12-Jul-43 Priority 33 Short (empty) Group II Date 16-Jul-43
Serial 42-7473 Accepted on 21-Jul-43 Priority 34 Short S Group II Date 2-Aug-43
Serial 42-7474 Accepted on 9-Jul-43 Priority 33 Short S Group II Date 13-Jul-43

The second delivery log page has a different format, Serial, Acceptance date, group A date, group A short, then similar for group B, C and D, then destination, destination date and engine serials. On this page the destination date is used for the block number, group A is used as country and priority, group B is empty, group C repeats the acceptance date, leaving group D as the probable continuation of group II. All the short columns are empty.

Serial 42-7516 Accepted on 28-Aug-43 Priority 41 Group D Date 31-Aug-43
Serial 42-7571 Accepted on 20-Aug-43 Priority 39 Group D Date 21-Aug-43
Serial 42-7518 Accepted on 23-Aug-43 Priority 39 Group D Date 24-Aug-43
Serial 42-7519 Accepted on 16-Aug-43 Priority 36 Group D Date 19-Aug-43
Serial 42-7520 Accepted on 16-Aug-43 Priority 39 Group D Date 19-Aug-43
Serial 42-7521 Accepted on 31-Jul-43 Priority 34 Group D Date 5-Aug-43
Serial 42-7522 Accepted on 31-Jul-43 Priority 36 Group D Date 10-Aug-43
Serial 42-7523 Accepted on 17-Aug-43 Priority 39 Group D Date 19-Aug-43
Serial 42-7524 Accepted on 31-Jul-43 Priority 36 Group D Date 5-Aug-43
Serial 42-7525 Accepted on 9-Sep-43 Priority 41 Group D Date 9-Sep-43