XP-39 II - The Groundhog Day Thread

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
Decent points, buffnut.

And I wsan't thinking of statistical charts. I was thinking of necessary data:

Available food & resupply date, clothes & necessities, ammunition, spare parts & tools& utensils (like litchen), kills, losses, accidents in several categories, aborts for mechanical that weren't verified, mechanical state of your assigned airplanes in general, and replacement personnel lead time as a bare minimum. If you don't know about any one of them, then you may not stay operational and you may not know who is doing well and who isn't.
 
I understand, and my use of the word "statistics" wasn't very apt...but my general point remains that full documentation is nice if you have the luxury to maintain it. 4

The RAF Operations Records Books for many units that operated in Malaya, Singapore and Burma, which would normally provide details of sorties flown, losses to all causes, and kills, were destroyed or abandoned in February 1942, thus the ORBs for 67, 243, 488 and 21 Sqns all peter out at the end of December 1941. There are no records for January-February which, for most of the units, was the primary period of fighting. I did manage to find a few combat reports for 67 Sqn over Burma in December 1941, and even one or two for 21 Sqn RAAF over northern Malaya earlier in the month. However, all other combat reports are lost to the mists of time.

I'm sure each day that the Squadron COs and Flight Commanders had a pretty good handle on the number of available aircraft because it would be reported to them verbally by the engineering staff. There were also returns on availability that flowed up to HQ, and some of those have survived. However, the availability numbers never reflect the true number of airframes still in use by the units because it doesn't include those machines undergoing maintenance/repair that, ultimately, were returned to operational status.

Bottom line is that people aren't going to sit in offices typing up reports if they're being shot at. They have far more important things to worry about. Equally, the Daily States chalkboard would be of much more practical use than any amount of paper files.
 

Greg,

You are in my opinion correct on what commanders should know. However, you are very data oriented, being an engineer that's understandable! However, you have to understand that not everyone is like that, or has time for detailed data collection. I've got ten planes, eleven pilots, and need to fly an 8 ship mission. Do I have enough flight leaders, a mission commander, and supervision? Yes, I can fly the mission. No, adjust and get them airborne. Maintenance what are you short of, or projected to be short of and lets get that lead turned. Bodies, planes, equipment in, bodies, planes equipment out. In Europe there were civilians you could bring into the squadron to help, in the Pacific not so much. Add attrition at all levels, rapid turnover, squadron movement, fog of war, etc., and the gators closet to the canoe got handled, and the ones further away would get dealt with when they get closer.

It certainly makes analysis 75 years later a PITA!

Cheers,
Biff
 
Hi Biff,

Offhand, I'd say that if the CO only thought that far ahead, then the unit wasn't going to be very effective for long. Yes, there are last-second detail changes and unforeseen events to handle (I've done that many times, as have you, I'm quite sure ... I bet you've flown an F-15 that wasn't 100% mission-capable, too), but parts, replacements, food and other necessary items don't come in overnight, so you HAVE to anticipate your needs or you'll run out of something vital. Want your morale to drop out of sight? Just forget food and/or toilet paper! Or the mail! The troops ain't gonna' be happy!

I'm assuming that the CO was expected to send in his list of needs and wants. He gets what he needs and as much of what he wants as they can spare ... assuming the supply boat isn't sunk or the supply train isn't blown up.
 
Greg, Buff
I think this a case of you both being right; administrative requirements to ensure operational ability vs what's practical and possible out in the field when it gets real.

However, the information that did get passed through to the relevant authorities, was collected and collated into the document that is USAAF Statistical Digest, which (along with the USN statistics) is unique; a similar overview is not available publicly for other of the Airforces. It is a little strange then, when those statistics vary compared to other sources, eg. USAF85.
 
Running the unit was tough, and I'm fully aware that saving data wasn't an objective. I just think that someone must have written down what ws going on, if only to give the CO a report. I'm sure a lot got lost, but I have trouble finding almost ANY data about regular things that most units cared about, like kills, all types of losses, sorties, etc. I think there should at lest be some good data somewhere about it.

Biff is right, of course, they were trying to fight a war, first and foremost.

I'm just thinking that SOMEONE was tracking this stuff at headquarters. Yet we only seem to have USAAF Report # 85, and it is nowhere close to being able to import for analysis. If you want to use report 85, you have to enter it yourself. It seems to me that SOMEONE in the military would be interested in the history of the biggest aerial war ever fought. But, since we are in sequester, even the Maxwell AFB database had been down for about 10 years. The data are there, but we don't have much access. The Navy likely has the data, too, but won't release it just like they maintain that they own all the crashed Navy airplanes in the ocean.

It's frustrating, but it is what it is.

Cheers.
 
You don't suppose they're comfortable with the publically accepted narrative as it stands, and don't feel the need to have their applecart upset by those pesky historians and revisionists?
 
Well, offhand, I'd say there isn't a lot of official interest in releasing data that people interested in aerial warfare during WWII want to see. It could be that they just want to piss us off, but that seems highly unlikely. Much more likely is that it takes money and time (manpower) to dig into this stuff and nobody wants to pay for it. Truth be know, taxpayers wouldn't likely approve of the expense, either. Just look at the AHFRA site that had been down for 10 years. They HAVE the data and just won't even put it on a server! That seem like a slap in the face beause it was THERE back in 2009 or so. Searchable.

So, it's left for interested parties like us to dig out. I'm just not really sure where to start digging. Where would we find the data? Data that we could trust.

Maybe we should have a sticky thread where we can post links and references to places and documents where we have found data on WWII. I have a great start on it, bit am not really sure where to go from here. Where did Ray Wagner get his data for the ETO/MTO in his 1960's book "American Combat Planes?" We shopuld be able to find THAT data, anyway. He did.

And I surely didn't mean to argue with Biff about it. It's just that I've been looking for the data for more than 35 years. off and on, and it seems as if though there should be a better way to go about it than my route ...

Cheers anyway!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Day fighter Ta 154
Replies
0
Views
533
spicmart
S
M
Pinnacle of Piston fighter: XP-72 vs Spiteful Mk XVI?
3 4 5
Replies
83
Views
5K
Jugman
J
M
P-39 Turbo - Here We Go Again
Replies
13
Views
2K
GregP
1937-45: Doubling down on the 2-engined 'day fighters'
7 8 9
Replies
175
Views
8K
Admiral Beez
A
P-39-style fighter by other people?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register