[Paul Thompson]

Originally Posted by drgondog

Thanks for the 332nd operational statistics Paul. The July statistics do reflect the single group (A) policies that existed at that time (with exceptions for occasional A and B with perhaps 28-30 apiece). In the fall of 1944 in both 8th and 15th AF the two force Group had enough pilots and aircraft in the TO&E to fly them frequently. You might look at the 332nd mission numbers for comparison.

You are welcome, Bill. Do I understand that the A and B Groups would have about 36 aircraft each, for a total of 72, and a possible C Group with 12 more? Following a more detailed look at Mahoney, I can report that the 46 Mustangs on 17 July was at the very bottom of the range of sorties for the 332nd. The highest number of aircraft put up by the 332nd FG in 1944 appears to have been 64 Mustangs on 23 October. This number must be slightly higher than the average for a 15th Air Force Fighter Group during that year. On 12 October, the 52nd, 325th, and 332nd sortied 163 aircraft between them. The highest number for the 306th Fighter Wing that I can find is 185 P-51s on 20 November. Note that Mahoney sometimes lists the number of aircraft flown by each Fighter Group separately, in other places he quotes just the total for a mission or a Wing.

The sortie numbers listed by Mahoney for the 332nd FG in 1944 range from 39 to 64, with the average at about 52 aircraft. In short, its strength was very similar to that of the other Mustang groups, notwithstanding the presence of the fourth squadron.

Originally Posted by drgondog

The only documents that might provide insight would be the squadron Engineering daily status logs recasting availability based on inventory, battle damage, engine changes, etc. One other thought is that the 332nd may have flown a non-typical 12 Mustang squadron in three flights rather than four flights of four. Perhaps the policy of maintaining 100% Black American pilots placed a 'supply' problem for replacement pilots.. more likely, and less likely is a maintenance issue in which a lot of a/c were grounded for lack of crews.

Both Mahoney and the 332nd Osprey profile mention the problem of a lack of replacement pilots, so that was most likely the primary problem. I haven’t read either book fully, as yet, so I will be able to say more once I have done so. The losses suffered by the group were fairly low and there is little mention of maintenance problems, so technical issues were less important.

Originally Posted by drgondog

Yes the task of copying USAF 85 line by line was arduous - and done before USAF populated database at USAFHRC at Maxwell AFB. Equally challenging was pinpointing change of equipment (i.e from P-47 to P-51) to perform the distribution analysis of victory credits.

How helpful of the USAF to do the database so many years after the war. I wonder if part of the reason for that is that were no concerns about unit effectiveness, as there were during and after the Vietnam war. On the subject of equipment changes, did any of the Fighter Groups ever fly two different aircraft types in combat at the same time? My impression is that this would have been very rare, but various combinations of sub-types of the same aircraft were flown regularly, depending on supplies of new aircraft.

Originally Posted by drgondog

As to the P-38 being able to perform adequate escort for 8th AF? I agree, given a priority of stripping PTO to replace P-47s in ETO that the escort population would have enabled the 8th AF to continue deep raids after March 1944 when the supply of P-38J-15s arrived with 110 gallons in LE of wing and improved intercooler. The J-25s arrived after D-Day so the dive flaps and boosted ailerons would not be present to extend the P-38 performance envelope.

I certainly agree that the increased range and performance of the J-15 was important, but I was making a broader point, returning to the idea that deep raids were not essential. Even with a hundreds more pilots and aircraft, the Luftwaffe could not seriously challenge Operation Overlord, because the overall standard of German equipment and training was very low compared to the Allies. They would have needed, at a minimum, hundreds of new aircraft with the two-stage supercharged Jumo 213E/F and turbocharged BMW 801J. They barely achieved this in the case of fighters in 1945 and never came close in the case of strike aircraft. Given that this was the case, any D-Day strike would have confronted large numbers of Allied fighters with superior altitude performance, which could engage the Luftwaffe at will. It is possible to imagine higher Allied casualties in the air and on the ground, but I would say no serious disruption to the landings was possible, even in 1943.

Regards,

Paul