Should The Allies Have Bypassed Italy?

Vincenzo · Jul 12, 2012

drgodong i've already noted thar 324th was not operative (post 137) but i think they had their planes.
so just for fun
hand planes for group
P-40 groups: 125
P-38 groups: 121
P-39 groups: 145
A-36 groups: 116
Spit groups: 94

this incluse obviously not only reseves at group lvl but also reserves at higher lvl (if there were idk), Spit are lower probably because is a foreign plane.

drgondog · Jul 12, 2012

Vincenzo said:
drgodong i've already noted thar 324th was not operative (post 137) but i think they had their planes.
so just for fun
hand planes for group
P-40 groups: 125
P-38 groups: 121
P-39 groups: 145
A-36 groups: 116
Spit groups: 94

this incluse obviously not only reseves at group lvl but also reserves at higher lvl (if there were idk), Spit are lower probably because is a foreign plane.

Vincenzo - The Fighter Groups' had only 20-26 operational fighters on the average and sometimes less due to combat attrition, and only at the 24-26 level consistently in 1944. The US order of battle was 16 plane squadrons in combat, 3 squadrons per mission, plus spares to fill in for early returns.

From late 1943 through September, 1944 the average number of fighters per group was 48-52 per mission (60 for max effort, if available). When 60 a/c were available, the tradition of dispatching an A and B Group, each comprised of One full squadron plus fill in flights from the third squadron flying with A and B. In that way (and generally for 1945 - never 1943) each A and B group might have 5 to six flights of four. In 1945 each fighter group in MTO and ETO were up to full TO&E strength of 25-26 fighters each for 75-76 flying in total for a split A and B effort. The latter was Very Rare. When that many were available two missions were often assigned.

drgondog · Jul 12, 2012

Vincenzo said:
drgodong i've already noted thar 324th was not operative (post 137) but i think they had their planes.
so just for fun
hand planes for group
P-40 groups: 125
P-38 groups: 121
P-39 groups: 145
A-36 groups: 116
Spit groups: 94

this incluse obviously not only reseves at group lvl but also reserves at higher lvl (if there were idk), Spit are lower probably because is a foreign plane.

I was referring to post 137, then made the comment that they not only had their planes during 're-training' but would have been included in the Statistical Digest - and still, the Statistical Digest had to completely overstate the strength of P-40s in MTO for all the reasons we discussed. No TO&E in MTO in 1943 was staffed at more than 25-26 fighters because the full production had not yet been sent to all the theatres - and all the Allies - around the world.

Vincenzo · Jul 12, 2012

the question is not how many fighters were autorized in mission for a FG, this can be also 50 but you need reserves and the numbers give that all models had "overstrenght" as is right.
example in november there were 7 P-47 FGs in ETO with 1005 fighters as 31st october, so 144 for group (the alone 38 group had 105).

the statistical digest not overstated the P-40 give us the actual numbers, and if all days operational P-40 squadrons were understrenght this more true for the spit squadrons, see that had less spit in reserve

drgondog · Jul 12, 2012

As of October 31 1943 there were 4, 56, 78, 352, 353, 355, 356, 358 Groups, plus 495th Fighter Training Group were in England by October. The 361, 362 were in England in November. That would be 9 P-47 FG's plus one Training Group by October 31.

You may perform divisions into the Digest numbers but no single Fighter Group had more than 75 aircraft on hand in 1943 and most of 1944.

Specifically, and for example, the 355th FG had 67 P-47s on hand on October 31, 1943 and had 56 on hand November 15. That is directly from the Engineering section of the Group History. The drop in Inventory reflects the losses (11) of Nov 5, 7, 13 and 15 - mostly weather and fuel related - but not One replacement aircraft arrived before the afternoon of the 17th of November.

If you want to think more about this, ask your self why the use of a 'bar' underscoring the squadron code was so rare in 1943 in Any squadron? Simply because there were no more aircraft than letters in the Alphabet.

The squadron codes were (in case of 354FS/355FG) WR-A through WR-Z with various gaps in between. There were special and unusual circumstances for a WR-A to exist because it was rare to have A through Z in operation with no gaps for a replecement ship. For example when WR-B was shot down there might not be another replacement for weeks in 1943. When the replacement ship arrived it would be coded usually to fill in the loss and be assigned the same crew chief and pilot(s).

If your theory was correct there would be many duplicate squadron codes with an 'underscore' to identify as different from the original squadron code.

Your theory is Not correct with respect to Group inventory. Having said that, there were many P-47s being assempled from recent surface ship shipments which had not received necessary ETO modifications to radios, fuel tank pylons, water injection mods, etc and as they emerged from assy and modification centers they were shipped to individual bases as replacements

parsifal · Jul 12, 2012

Vincenzo said:
for the USAAF Statistical digest airplanes on Hand in MTO
(end of august '43)
338 B-17, 115 B-24, 398 B-25, 270 B-26, 137 A-20, 362 P-38, 290 P-39, 625 P-40, 231 P-51, 43 Night Fighters, 188 Other Fighters, 51 F-45, 22 F-6, 30 Other Recces

It seems then that the P-40, was in fact very close in numbers to the Spite. There is not nearly the difference I had assumed, though the Kittyhawk/P-40 numbers are still less than the Spits, when the committments of all the allies are looked at.

Again, relying on: C.J.C. Molony, F.C. Flynn, H.L. Davies, and T.P. Gleave, The Mediterranean and
the Middle East, Vol. V, The Campaign in Sicily 1943 and the Campaign in Italy, 3rd
September 1943 to 31st March 1944, London: HMSO, 1973.

and also Ellis's book on the MTO

...I arrive at a total of 2339 a/c not including those attached to the USAAC, divided as follows

522 Spit, 348 Hurri, 188 Beafighter, 75 Aircobra, 25 Kittyhawk, 22 Mosquito, 6 Lightning, 283 Well, 144 Baltimore,, 80 Boston, 72 Blen, 64 Dakota, 64 Hudson, 54 Catalina, 46 Halifax, 45 LeO45, 38 Bft, 33 Lodestar, 26Albamarle, 24 Auster, 18, Albacore, 16 Marauder, 12 Sworfish, 12 Walrus, 6 Liberator, 2 Ventura, 104 "Other"

Adding up the total numbers of fighters for both US and non US formations, that gives the following

368 P-38/Lightning, 365 P-39/Aircobra, 650 P-40/Kittyhawk, 231 P-51, 231 "Night Fighters"/Beafighter, 710 "other Fighters" (USAAC Spits mostly)/Spits, 51 F4/5, 22F6, 348 Hurri 22 Mosquito. Thats a total fighter force of 2767 a/c

Vincenzo · Jul 12, 2012

Drgodong
4, 56, 78, 352, 353, 355, 356, 358 this are 8 (i take 7 because i've read my already did list for operational FG on novemebr '43, and 358th was not operational), 495th is a training unit they are not counted in mto so neither in eto. 1005/8=126 arouns the same of P-40 in mto.
the point is not the planes available in a FG is that plane in theater for a FG.

p.s Parsifal it's too late for reply to you, sorry

Vincenzo · Jul 13, 2012

parsifal said:
It seems then that the P-40, was in fact very close in numbers to the Spite. There is not nearly the difference I had assumed, though the Kittyhawk/P-40 numbers are still less than the Spits, when the committments of all the allies are looked at.

Again, relying on: C.J.C. Molony, F.C. Flynn, H.L. Davies, and T.P. Gleave, The Mediterranean and
the Middle East, Vol. V, The Campaign in Sicily 1943 and the Campaign in Italy, 3rd
September 1943 to 31st March 1944, London: HMSO, 1973.

and also Ellis's book on the MTO

...I arrive at a total of 2339 a/c not including those attached to the USAAC, divided as follows

522 Spit, 348 Hurri, 188 Beafighter, 75 Aircobra, 25 Kittyhawk, 22 Mosquito, 6 Lightning, 283 Well, 144 Baltimore,, 80 Boston, 72 Blen, 64 Dakota, 64 Hudson, 54 Catalina, 46 Halifax, 45 LeO45, 38 Bft, 33 Lodestar, 26Albamarle, 24 Auster, 18, Albacore, 16 Marauder, 12 Sworfish, 12 Walrus, 6 Liberator, 2 Ventura, 104 "Other"

Adding up the total numbers of fighters for both US and non US formations, that gives the following

368 P-38/Lightning, 365 P-39/Aircobra, 650 P-40/Kittyhawk, 231 P-51, 231 "Night Fighters"/Beafighter, 710 "other Fighters" (USAAC Spits mostly)/Spits, 51 F4/5, 22F6, 348 Hurri 22 Mosquito. Thats a total fighter force of 2767 a/c

i've some doubt in your number
the airacobra afaik were not used in MTO from RAF (for true just see a limited use in 601st squadron in nwe). 25 Kittyhawk are too few AFAIK there were 112th, 250th, 260th and 450th squadrons flying with Kitty III. For final sum i think that british Lightning were recces.

drgondog · Jul 13, 2012

Vincenzo said:
Drgodong
4, 56, 78, 352, 353, 355, 356, 358 this are 8 (i take 7 because i've read my already did list for operational FG on novemebr '43, and 358th was not operational), 495th is a training unit they are not counted in mto so neither in eto. 1005/8=126 arouns the same of P-40 in mto.
the point is not the planes available in a FG is that plane in theater for a FG.

p.s Parsifal it's too late for reply to you, sorry

Vincenzo - Whether the 358 was operational (it wasn't) in October 1943 - it (and its full compliment of operational P-47s) was in England at the time of the 'quoted' inventory. If you wish to count only operational P-47s in the 1000+ range you have to slide forward to March through May, 1944 when most of the 9th AF groups became 'operational'.

If I recall, the question was how many P-40's in MTO, and now P-47s in ETO? The 495th had P-47s. The 358 FG had P-47s. In England. In ETO.

None of the Fighter Groups in the MTO or ETO had more than an average of 75 fighters on their respective base and more often less because of operational losses.

Your taking the numbers you extracted from Statistical Digest and dividing by number of 'active' groups to obtain a mathmatecally sound average has no relevance to the USAAF standard TO&E for Bomb and Fighter Groups, nor to the historical reality of actual numbers contained within each Group.

Therefore, for the Statistical Digest to be accurate, there must have been at least half the entire force in depots, sitting idly and waiting to be withdrawn to provide replacements. Using the October 31, 1943 data you supplied (and using my count to give you the benefit of the doubt), there were a maximum of 9 times 75 P-47s assigned to existing Fighter organizations in the ETO (all of 8th And 9th AF) - 75x9=675 which is 330 P-47 'somewhere' in England that were sitting idle. Nearly 50% of the 'operational' units.

And BTW the 495th FTG standard compliment was about 16-20 P-47s at that time - not 75 - as it was to provide training for new pilots in ETO procedures, not fly combat missions. So the reality from your data is that 2/3 of the stated P-47s were assigned, and 1/3 'not assigned' when the 8th AF was desperate to get fighters in the air over Holland and France.

Not likely. For similar reasons the USAAF - MTO didn't have 50% of their P-40's sitting idle.

Vincenzo · Jul 13, 2012

drgodong you don't understand me sorry. i repeat i'm not discuting how many aircraft had a FG, just show that is no strange that in mto there were 125 P-40 for each group, the theater need reserves. You can check the statistical digest yourself, table 90 for mto and table 89 for eto.
for 358th i've admit and explain my wrong, there were 8 FG with 47 plus a training unit with '47 (and i repeat we had not counted the trainig units in mto so for apples for aplles we need sdon't count it in nwe) so 126 P-47 pro quota for FG same of 125 pro quota for the P-40 in mto.
This is my last reply at your pointless istance

drgondog · Jul 13, 2012

Vincenzo said:
drgodong you don't understand me sorry. i repeat i'm not discuting how many aircraft had a FG, just show that is no strange that in mto there were 125 P-40 for each group, the theater need reserves. You can check the statistical digest yourself, table 90 for mto and table 89 for eto.
for 358th i've admit and explain my wrong, there were 8 FG with 47 plus a training unit with '47 (and i repeat we had not counted the trainig units in mto so for apples for aplles we need sdon't count it in nwe) so 126 P-47 pro quota for FG same of 125 pro quota for the P-40 in mto.
This is my last reply at your pointless istance

Lol - thank you !! You are clueless on any basis of average fighter group inventory for USAAF. That is my sole and only point. Parsifal's count except for his source missing the 324th Fg and designating P-38s to the 335th - was correct. All in, it was an impressive and DETAILED accounting of the operational strength of All aircraft in the MTO.

The Statistical Digest regarding GROSS In Theatre fighter strength could Only be correct if there was a huge and un-assigned inventory in centralized depots approaching 50-60% of their 'in theatre count' of any fighter count you extracted from the source. If you believe the Digest is correct, then you must find an additional location and count for a large number of unassigned/non operational fighters in each category. I could be convinced of depot strength of significance - but I do not yet believe it to be 50% of op strength.

Good luck on that, but I would be delighted if you could shed light on something I don't know, or know how to find, about USAAF ETO data. Your P-47 analogy was absurd on the calculated strength of the existing fighter groups.

Vincenzo · Jul 13, 2012

Check best parsifal count there were errors also for the british (example there were none Kittyhawk unit), and show on paper strenght of unit.
My analogy is right but it is not for calculating the strenght of FG.
Sure i believe to Statistical Digest and not your strange idea that a theater non need reserves.

stug3 · Jul 13, 2012

stug3 said:
I disagree, I think the P-40 was the most numerous (and therefore dominant) type being utilized by the Allies in the MTO by 1943.

I stand by my assertion- throughout 1943, more Allied fighter groups (American, UK, SAAF) in the MTO were equipped with P-40s than any other type. I havent seen any evidence proving otherwise.

parsifal · Jul 13, 2012

Vincenzo said:
i've some doubt in your number
the airacobra afaik were not used in MTO from RAF (for true just see a limited use in 601st squadron in nwe). 25 Kittyhawk are too few AFAIK there were 112th, 250th, 260th and 450th squadrons flying with Kitty III. For final sum i think that british Lightning were recces.

Hi vincenzo

The Aircobras mentioned in my reference were not RAF controlled. They were being flown by the Free french Air force, specifically

I/4 Squadron FFAF (25 P-39 Airacobras)
I/5 Squadron FFAF (25 P-39 Airacobras)
III/6 Squadron FFAF (25 P-39 Airacobras)

I found it rather odd that there were so few Kittyhawks in the RAF inventory as well. i will try some alternative sources to cross check

parsifal · Jul 13, 2012

stug3 said:
I stand by my assertion- throughout 1943, more Allied fighter groups (American, UK, SAAF) in the MTO were equipped with P-40s than any other type. I havent seen any evidence proving otherwise.

What have you got to back up your claim....we all have assertions, as you can see, now we have to produce the evidence o support those opinions....

Vincenzo · Jul 13, 2012

parsifal said:
Hi vincenzo

The Aircobras mentioned in my reference were not RAF controlled. They were being flown by the Free french Air force, specifically

I/4 Squadron FFAF (25 P-39 Airacobras)
I/5 Squadron FFAF (25 P-39 Airacobras)
III/6 Squadron FFAF (25 P-39 Airacobras)

I found it rather odd that there were so few Kittyhawks in the RAF inventory as well. i will try some alternative sources to cross check

Sorry i've not undersdand that total include the french, so include also the south africains?

Vincenzo · Jul 13, 2012

just for info
French fighter unit in MTO
GC 1/4 P-39
GC 1/5 P-39
GC 2/3 D 520
GC 2/5 P-40
GC 2/9 D 520
GC 3/6 P-39
GC 2/7 Spit V
GC 1/3 Spit V&IX
GC 1/7 Spit V (activè from 16th september)
GC 1/2 D 520

Vincenzo · Jul 13, 2012

SAAF fighter unit in MTO
1st Spit VIII&IX
2nd Spit V
3rd Hurri II
4th Spit V
5th Kitty III
7th Spit V
40th Spit IX
41st Hurri II

parsifal · Jul 13, 2012

Vincenzo said:
Sorry i've not undersdand that total include the french, so include also the south africains?

The list posted claims that it includes all nationalities under MAC (Med aircraft command). There appear to be some obvious gaps, however. Tere were, from memory 6 RAAF squadrons for example, the fighter squdrons of which were equipped with either P-51s or P-40s at that time (September 1943). I should be able to look that up and check

Vincenzo · Jul 13, 2012

i've already did a list with RAF fighter squadrons (incluse XV article unit) in mto as september '43 unlucky is not here i post it when i back to home (need 4 hours maybe), remember there were 44 F/FBsquadrons single engined and 10 with twin engined (9 + a det). Most common sure the Spit probably more that half os S/E F squadrons.
for not article XV RAAF squadron i remember the 3rd with Kitty at time

Should The Allies Have Bypassed Italy?

Should The Allies Have Bypassed Italy?

yes

no

Senior Master Sergeant

Major

Major

Senior Master Sergeant

Major

Colonel

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Major

Senior Master Sergeant

Major

Senior Master Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Colonel

Colonel

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Colonel

Senior Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads