[Crumpp]

thanks for the U.E. document. now I think I remember the situation. Because of Hurricane production was satisfactory it was decided to rise the U.E. of Hurricane sqns to 22 a/c as well as that of few Spitfire sqns (Spitfire production wasn't rising as fast as that of Hurricanes). If you divided the 366 by 19 you get a bit over 19 as average Spit sqn U.E. But heavy losses at the end of Aug and at the first half of Sept forced to return to 18 a/c U.E. which was kept IIRC to around D-Day when it was again rised to 22.

There were always a few Squadrons at 18 A/C. The document includes a detailed breakdown. That is one reason why operational strength was never at 100% as not all the Squadrons achieved the 22 A/C.




If you look at the document I posted earlier, it shows the rise of U.E. like you describe.

The history distinguishes between first line and second line fighters. However it does not discuss the actions of second line fighters in any detail. It concentrates on the actions of the first line fighters, the Hurricanes and Spitfires.

The history also very much recognizes its limits and acknowledges the fact it knows almost nothing and includes almost nothing of fact about the Luftwaffe situation or Order of Battle. The information is based off Ultra Intercepts and only includes the U.E. Strengths of the Luftwaffe and not the actual strengths and are likely to be wildly overestimated in many cases.

This shortcoming is pointed out by the Mr Sebastian Cox, Head of Air Historical Branch of the Ministry of Defense.

It cautions that while the British side of the battle is accurately portrayed, the Luftwaffe side is not and that one should compare the Luftwaffe side to more recent scholarship.

As this introduction was a recent addition and not found in the archive version of the official history, I have to wonder how many scholars missed that point when viewing the documents data on the Luftwaffe.

The USAAF numbered histories tell the German side in their own words with their own surviving documentation.

All the best,

Crumpp