Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Boak
A sortie loss rate is independent of the size of the force.
|
Graham, a loss rate calculation does not in and of itself take the size of a force into account, but this does not mean that the force size is irrelevant. For Bomber Command, a 5% loss rate was considered the maximum acceptable, on the assumption that this was spread across the entire force. For the A-36 groups, the losses in July 1943 amounted to something like a fifth of all serviceable aircraft, a level of attrition which clearly could not be sustained.
As to price issues, my discussion was tongue in cheek, in response to Larry's post. I do not think that it is particularly useful to discuss exchange rates or aircraft prices in a wartime situation, where all prices are assigned by a planning mechanism and are therefore shorn of most meaning. The only use for wartime prices is to compare the assigned resource costs of items. Therefore, based on your figures it is possible to say that the A-36 and Spitfire Mark I had a similar assigned resource cost. In practice, the A-36 would have been significantly more expensive, because of its greater airframe weight, heavier armament and other factors. It would be best to compare the price of the A-36 to that of other aircraft ordered by the USAAF at the same time.
I am fairly certain that Apache was the name of the A-36 used in USAAF documents throughout 1943, but Frank certainly knows better and I hope he will clarify if one of us is wrong.
Warm regards,
Paul