Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Lancasters. More than 1/2 of them. 3,640 Mark IIIs, Xs and VIIs = 14,560 Packard Merlins plus spares.I certainly appreciate your posts.
I don't have the British/American agreements for Merlin production and initial agreements were not the same as production and production was not the same as deliveries.
The US was originally supposed to get 3000 single stage Merlin out of the 1st 9,000 made. I am not sure they got all of them and the need for spare engines (which the US did not allocate enough for) means that the production numbers for US Merlins will come up short of the Merlin engined P-40s.
It took Packard until some time in March of 1943 to complete the initial 9000 engines. That would be the Merlin 28s (?) and the V-1650-1 combined?
Packard built 615 engines in March so when they made the switch or switches was probably very early.
The switch to the engines for the P-51 is something of a smoke screen or even a Furphy.
Packard never built more than 850 engines in one month in 1942 and early 1943. However by May of 1943 they were building over 1000 single stage Merlins a month.
I don't know when the follow up orders for engines were placed. Obviously well before the 1st contract ran out.
In 1944 Packard built over 7,000 single stage Merlins for the British or about 100 less single stage engines than they did in 1942. In 1944 they built almost 15,800 2 stage engines.
Yes they were having trouble getting the two stage engines built but that seems to have a problem with plant expansion.
From Sept through Dec 1943 Packard never built less that 1200 single stage engines and never less than 450 two stage engines in one month.
Basically Packard production doubled from March of 1943 to Sept of 1943.
Whatever the British were using single stage Merlin engines for seems to have been more important to the Allied war effort than building a few hundred more P-40Ls.
It is also worthwhile remembering that, when considering whether or not an aircraft was "lost", that the RAF operated an extensive Repair and Salvage organisation in North Africa. From an article in The RAF Historical Journal issue 51
"Under Air Vice Marshall Graham Dawson, the Desert Air Force had developed a highly effective Service-manned network of forward Maintenance Units with thirteen mobile Repair Sections and twelve mobile Salvage sections. Behind these were a further three mobile Salvage Sections and six mobile Repair sections for heavy bombers. This spider's web of units, criss-crossing the desert, was supported by secure, dispersed depots around Cairo."
The earliest of these units had formed in June 1940. What couldn't be repaired / rebuilt became a very useful source of spares for other aircraft.
Here is a photo of one convoy of recovered aircraft. Hurricanes were really easy to break down for recovery.
View attachment 702259
ROYAL AIR FORCE OPERATIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA, 1939-1943
View attachment 702260
And even the odd enemy aircraft
View attachment 702261
I stumbled across this video about the NA aviation campaign tonight which seemed germane to the discussion here:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFGHXWT-yTE
Still watching, halfway through, no personal opinion on the presentation yet, but it's interesting all the same.
It was pretty good, though very broad strokes.
The RAF generally or 205 Group in the Med?By the time of Anzio (1944) there seem to be quite a few RAF Liberator squadrons. Not something i was really aware of...
Totally agree with every aspect of this postingSomeone clicked a react to one of my posts in this thread, and I just went back and read the whole thing. This Ehlers book basically reaffirms everything I was suggesting in the first few pages, plus more. The losses in early 1942 were in fact devastating to the DAF. Ehlers calls that the Axis high point. The reorganization of the fighter arm did in fact take place in mid-1942. The later model P-40s (especially P-40F) and Spitfire were of critical importance. Those two factors did put the Luftwaffe and RA on their back heels in the second half of 1942. It's abundantly clear that the Axis fuel, ammunition and supply shortages prior to second El Alamein especially were very severely impacted by air power. Rommel himself was painfully aware of this and commented on it at length. The British also did make major improvements to their whole close air support system at this time, in fact the system used in Normandy in 1944 was built in the Western Desert in 1942-43. The Stuka had clearly been a major concern for the British and this threat was sharply declining from Mid 1942 and in the words of the British commanders, was basically over by second El Alamein (though it would be back, briefly, for Kasserine Pass).
The parts I wasn't aware of so much were the 24 hour nature of the bombing, and in turn the importance of the Wellington in that night bombing role, and the key role of the Albacore in target marking with flares. Also, the US heavy bombers were more significant in the anti-shipping role than I ever knew, and were having an impact much earlier than I thought.
All the endless detours into whether an aircraft has it's tail "Shot off" / vs. "Shot away", the precise details of when and how many P-40K were on hand, or endless harangues about how many M7 priests there were (apparently significantly more than someone originally estimated) was all an immense waste of time. Frankly I'm a little bit disgusted by how patient I was. Next time I'll just skip it. The signal to noise ratio in this discussion basically disappeared for most of it.
There is a lot of knowledge in this place. But too many people just kind of sit in their holes, and try to weaponize what they know or what data they have access to, and just engage in a game of one-upsmanship trying to pick apart other people's posts. This prevents real conversations from happening or the aggregation of knowledge into something greater than we individually started with. I'm involved in other communities of specialist knowledge, and I can tell you, it doesn't have to be like this.
Also, it's quite clear that the DAF was indeed decisive in both battles of El Alamein, and in particular to the second one.
What I still don't know is how much impact they had on individual guns and the heavier armored vehicles. That will require a bit more digging.