I may not be placing this in the right area, I trust the admins will know where it properly belongs. I'm looking for a breakout of American WW2 aircraft production, by overall category at least (bombers, fighters, etc), at a monthly level. It's easy to find production numbers by year, but I need a finer cut that I haven't been able to locate so far. Does anyone have the data?
WW2 monthly aircraft production numbers?
- Thread starter OldGeezer
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,354
- Jan 31, 2021
Monthly production by aircraft model and by factory can be found in the document Official Munitions Production of the United States By Months, July 1, 1940 – August 31. 1945. If you search online you should be able to find it for download.
I have entered the production data for fighters and bombers by factory into a spreadsheet. If you or anyone else is interested, I can upload that.
I have entered the production data for fighters and bombers by factory into a spreadsheet. If you or anyone else is interested, I can upload that.
Shortround6
Major General
be aware that there may be some discrepancies between factory figures and government figures. In part because the factory is counting planes completed or built vs the government counting planes as "accepted." On any give day there could be number of planes sitting waiting for an acceptance test flight and sign off. Sometimes it could be something like weather hindering flights.
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,354
- Jan 31, 2021
Here is the Excel file I mentioned. It shows the production by factory and aircraft model, along with a total column for that aircraft model. Cells in green indicate the total matches the sum of the individual factories, whereas red shows a mismatch between the stated total and the factory sum. The factory and location cells in blue identify Canadian production included in the OMPUS document.
I think I used some custom colors in the file, so they might be different if on other computers.
I think I used some custom colors in the file, so they might be different if on other computers.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Staff Sergeant
- 922
- Sep 30, 2021
Note the US counts aircraft it paid for but built in Canada as US production.
You want the 1945 and 1945 supplement, does not count prototypes and does not break down Naval types, table 74 page 112 gives monthly production January 1940 to August 1945, the supplement continues that to December. Other tables give more detailed break downs by USAAF types.
cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org
War production board, July 1940 to August 1945, with more details on naval types and includes prototypes, with a bonus Canada from September 1939.
The USAAF, USN, CAA and WPB effectively sat around a table and decided the official production figures, as a result their reports all tend to agree. There are only a small number of military types that flew January 1940 to August 1945 that are not in the reports, generally because they crashed while doing acceptance flights.
There was also civil aircraft production 1940/41 and in 1945. The USAAF Statistical digest counts 12 or larger seat transports as military in 1940/41, even if they were for a civil customer. There are monthly civil production figures reported in various industry publications.
The above should provide the monthly production by category, any finer detail required?
You want the 1945 and 1945 supplement, does not count prototypes and does not break down Naval types, table 74 page 112 gives monthly production January 1940 to August 1945, the supplement continues that to December. Other tables give more detailed break downs by USAAF types.
World War II Operational Documents
Contains data on actual production by months from July 1, 1940 at the beginning of the War Program, through August 31, 1945, the last month of actual fighting against Japan. Covers aircraft, ships, ordnance and automotive vehicles (guns and small arms, ammunition and bombs, combat and motor...
The USAAF, USN, CAA and WPB effectively sat around a table and decided the official production figures, as a result their reports all tend to agree. There are only a small number of military types that flew January 1940 to August 1945 that are not in the reports, generally because they crashed while doing acceptance flights.
There was also civil aircraft production 1940/41 and in 1945. The USAAF Statistical digest counts 12 or larger seat transports as military in 1940/41, even if they were for a civil customer. There are monthly civil production figures reported in various industry publications.
The above should provide the monthly production by category, any finer detail required?
- Thread starter
- #6
Great stuff guys, completely answered my question. I had read that despite the failure to finish the war in Europe by Christmas 1944, and with the invasion of Japan still far off in the future, we started ramping down combat aircraft production in mid-1944 but I couldn't find the data. This shows it very clearly. Thanks!
Barrett
Senior Airman
A favorite story about aircraft production, from my F6F book.
In '44 the War Production Board (?) sent a delegation to Bethpage to see why Grumman was producing such high numbers month after month. During a tour of the Hellcat line one of the DC guys asked about maintaining a supply of hose clamps. The foreman dug into a 55-gal drum and scooped out enough clamps to reveal a red line about 1/3 of the way down with the legend "See Joe."
In '44 the War Production Board (?) sent a delegation to Bethpage to see why Grumman was producing such high numbers month after month. During a tour of the Hellcat line one of the DC guys asked about maintaining a supply of hose clamps. The foreman dug into a 55-gal drum and scooped out enough clamps to reveal a red line about 1/3 of the way down with the legend "See Joe."
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Brilliant.
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,354
- Jan 31, 2021
Factory acceptances of aircraft by the USAAF can be found in the document Army Air Forces Statistical Digest — World War II which is available online. It also details the number of aircraft and crews on hand by month and theater, along with many other things.
GregP
Major
Did you not notice reply #5? There's a link to the statistical digest of WWII.
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,354
- Jan 31, 2021
Missed the small link, only saw the big link to the Official Munitions Production of the United States document..
GregP
Major
Too bad the Navy doesn't save the SAME DATA, huh? It would be very nice to be able to do a comparison, but the Navy doesn't break out air and ground kills directly and the USAAF doesn't give us the same table the Navy does for victories. So, we're left to dig out what we can.
Ah well. Nobody ever said it would be easy!
Ah well. Nobody ever said it would be easy!
drgondog
Major
Kinda quibling - AAF accepance = contractor gets paid for complete aircraft was agreed by AC contract stipulation. Mod centers get paid for complete changes/mods that AAF desired AFTER contract stipulation have been met.
Installing 85 gallon fuselage fuel tank in 1943 Mustangs are excellent example.
P-51B-1 and -5 accepted by AAF and contractually paid for, to NAA without 85 gal tank. NAA is contracted to build 1200 kits. Bell Bufallo is contracted to install kits and paid for each such modification to an accepted airframe.
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
The USN reported at least 6,243 enemy aircraft destroyed on the ground (including 30 in Operation Dragoon). These are in addition to whatever was reported as air-to-air destruction, which, as we know, can be a moving target as one reads reports of JUST bomber and fighter types versus reports of ALL types.
GregP
Major
Sorry, I said that backwards above, but the conclusion is correct.
The Navy breaks out Losses on action sorties to aircraft, AAA, and Operational losses, and shows air and ground kills. They also show Total victories without breaking out air and ground victories. That comes from Naval Aviation Combat Statistics for World War Two.
The USAAF shows total combat losses without breaking out the reasons for the losses. But they DO break out victories by air and ground. That comes from the Statistical Digest of World War Two.
So, you can get a great breakout of losses for the Navy/Marines but not the USAAF and at least an air/ground breakout for USAAF victories but not for the Navy/Marines. In other words, the Navy/Marines track losses quite well. They aren't as good at reporting victories. The USAAF tracks victories decently and aren't very good at all at reporting losses.
So, like I said above, it would nice if they reported the same information so an apples-to-apples comparison could be made. I am assuming they do not report the same data exactly so an apples-to-apples comparison CANNOT be made. Neither side wants to be on the bottom of that comparison. Imagine the weeping and gnashing to teeth if they could be easily compared.
Of course, there is no real comparison to the missions flown. The USAAF is generally flying over ground occupied by the enemy and where finding enemy aircraft and AAA is not difficult, and the USN/MC is generally flying over vast stretches of water that make the enemy hard to find and many flights are out there specifically to FIND the enemy so he can be attacked. The statistics per sortie will always be different because the probability of finding the enemy on any particular flight is wildly different between the two, as are the number of aircraft involved per sortie. One is in the hundreds or more per encounter and other is usually in the 4 v 4 or 4 v 8 level of participation.
And there are people who say interservice rivalry doesn't amount to much! Bah. Humbug, says I.
The Navy breaks out Losses on action sorties to aircraft, AAA, and Operational losses, and shows air and ground kills. They also show Total victories without breaking out air and ground victories. That comes from Naval Aviation Combat Statistics for World War Two.
The USAAF shows total combat losses without breaking out the reasons for the losses. But they DO break out victories by air and ground. That comes from the Statistical Digest of World War Two.
So, you can get a great breakout of losses for the Navy/Marines but not the USAAF and at least an air/ground breakout for USAAF victories but not for the Navy/Marines. In other words, the Navy/Marines track losses quite well. They aren't as good at reporting victories. The USAAF tracks victories decently and aren't very good at all at reporting losses.
So, like I said above, it would nice if they reported the same information so an apples-to-apples comparison could be made. I am assuming they do not report the same data exactly so an apples-to-apples comparison CANNOT be made. Neither side wants to be on the bottom of that comparison. Imagine the weeping and gnashing to teeth if they could be easily compared.
Of course, there is no real comparison to the missions flown. The USAAF is generally flying over ground occupied by the enemy and where finding enemy aircraft and AAA is not difficult, and the USN/MC is generally flying over vast stretches of water that make the enemy hard to find and many flights are out there specifically to FIND the enemy so he can be attacked. The statistics per sortie will always be different because the probability of finding the enemy on any particular flight is wildly different between the two, as are the number of aircraft involved per sortie. One is in the hundreds or more per encounter and other is usually in the 4 v 4 or 4 v 8 level of participation.
And there are people who say interservice rivalry doesn't amount to much! Bah. Humbug, says I.
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
Funny, Table 25 in the Naval Aviation Combat Statistics shows overall Air-to-Air (the maddening bombers & fighters only) and a separate column for aircraft destroyed on the ground, for the entire war. Table 26 shows same for major campaign areas. Obviously someone was keeping a separate count.
GregP
Major
Right, R Leonard. I agree.
1) Doesn't tell you what aircraft was being flown.
2) Doesn't tell you what aircraft was the victim.
4) Doesn't tell you much other detail data.
All but useless if you are compiling a table of individual aircraft designations for effectiveness. Since they HAVE these data that are in the table, I assume all the above data and more are available, IF YOU CAN FIND the records they used to produce table 25. If they have action sorties and sorties engaging enemy aircraft, they have the type of aircraft flown, too, as well as other data for the mission.
So... why not make the data actually useful and give the data that tell us what type mission was being flown by what type aircraft, how many were sortied and how many engaged, what type the victim was. etc. Overall war dat i somewhat useful, but not really. You have no idea what airplane was flown, what the mission was, what units was engaged, what got shot down, or much of anything else.
So, it is useful in a backhand sort of way only. Let's you talk about Naval Aviation, not Hellcats or Corsairs or Wildcats. That's all the Navy is interested in, patting Naval Aviation on the back to maintain funding. Any actually-useful data are kept internal.
I think the data since Naval Aviation began should be released for all combat operations as a condition of basic continued funding. But, hey, that's just my thinking. I'm sure the Navy thinks that anything that might let anyone find out anything useful about Naval Air Combat has to be suppressed. At least, it sure seems that way. Might not BE that way, but it's hard to claim otherwise unless you can come up with actual useful data to refute it.
1) Doesn't tell you what aircraft was being flown.
2) Doesn't tell you what aircraft was the victim.
4) Doesn't tell you much other detail data.
All but useless if you are compiling a table of individual aircraft designations for effectiveness. Since they HAVE these data that are in the table, I assume all the above data and more are available, IF YOU CAN FIND the records they used to produce table 25. If they have action sorties and sorties engaging enemy aircraft, they have the type of aircraft flown, too, as well as other data for the mission.
So... why not make the data actually useful and give the data that tell us what type mission was being flown by what type aircraft, how many were sortied and how many engaged, what type the victim was. etc. Overall war dat i somewhat useful, but not really. You have no idea what airplane was flown, what the mission was, what units was engaged, what got shot down, or much of anything else.
So, it is useful in a backhand sort of way only. Let's you talk about Naval Aviation, not Hellcats or Corsairs or Wildcats. That's all the Navy is interested in, patting Naval Aviation on the back to maintain funding. Any actually-useful data are kept internal.
I think the data since Naval Aviation began should be released for all combat operations as a condition of basic continued funding. But, hey, that's just my thinking. I'm sure the Navy thinks that anything that might let anyone find out anything useful about Naval Air Combat has to be suppressed. At least, it sure seems that way. Might not BE that way, but it's hard to claim otherwise unless you can come up with actual useful data to refute it.
Last edited:
