• Air force personnel ratio

    From Mario@21:1/5 to All on Mon Dec 12 17:54:11 2016
    What was the personnel ratio between people who flew the
    airplanes and people who serviced the airplanes?

    flying personnel : technicians


    (Is that ratio changed since then?)


    --
    oiram

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Phillipson@21:1/5 to Mario on Tue Dec 13 08:33:54 2016
    "Mario" <mario@mario.mario.invalid> wrote in message news:o2n9q9$1h1v$1@gioia.aioe.org...

    What was the personnel ratio between people who flew the
    airplanes and people who serviced the airplanes?

    This varies with time and type of aircaft, and samples can be
    found in administrative histories of air forces.

    E.g. in the Battle of Britain each fighter required (nominally)
    one pilot and two ground crew (a "rigger" for the airframe and
    a "fitter" = mechanic:) but this pair omits other technical
    specialists e.g. armourer (mechanic for guns and bombs)
    and instrument technician. By contrast, bombers needed
    no more ground staff but carried several aircrew (two in
    Mosquitos, 10 in a Flying Fortress.)
    --
    Don Phillipson
    Carlsbad Springs
    (Ottawa, Canada)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Geoffrey Sinclair@21:1/5 to Mario on Tue Dec 13 10:55:46 2016
    "Mario" <mario@mario.mario.invalid> wrote in message news:o2n9q9$1h1v$1@gioia.aioe.org...
    What was the personnel ratio between people who flew the
    airplanes and people who serviced the airplanes?

    It is a function of the aircraft, things like number of engines,
    amount of electronics, crew size and mission.

    flying personnel : technicians

    The USAAF official history has a table of group strengths in 1945.

    B-29, 45 aircraft, 60 times 11 man crews, 2,078 officers and men.
    B-17/24, 72 aircraft, 96 times 9 to 11 man crews, 2,261 officers and men. B-25/26, 96 aircraft, 96 times 5 to 6 man crews, 1,759 officers and men. A-20/26, 96 aircraft, 96 times 3 to 4 man crews, 1,304 officers and men. P-40/47/51, 111 to 126 aircraft, 108 to 126 pilots, 994 officers and men.
    P-38, 111 to 126 aircraft, 108 to 126 pilots, 1,081 officers and men.

    C-47 (troop carrier), 80 to 110 aircraft, 128 times 4 to 5 man crews,
    1,837 officers and men.

    C-46/47 (combat cargo) 125 aircraft, 128 times 4 man crews,
    883 officers and men

    The rest are squadron strengths,

    P-61/70 night fighter, 18 aircraft, 16 times 2 to 3 man crews,
    288 officers and men.

    P-39/40/F-6/L-4/5 tactical reconnaissance, 27 aircraft, 23 pilots,
    233 officers and men.

    F-5 (P-38) photographic reconnaissance, 24 aircraft, 21 pilots,
    347 officers and men.

    F-9(B-17)/F-7(B-24) combat mapping, 18 aircraft, 16 times 9 man
    crews, 474 officers and men.

    So if you like about 32% of the B-29 unit were aircrew, 38 to 47%
    of the B-17/24, 27 to 33% of the B-25/26, 22 to 29.5% of the
    A-20/26, 11 to 12.7% of the single engine fighter, 10 to 11.7%
    of the twin engined fighter, 28 to 35% of the troop carrier, 68%
    of the combat cargo, 11 to 16.7% of the night fighter, 10% of the
    tactical reconnaissance, 6% of the photographic reconnaissance
    and 30% of the combat mapping.

    Ignoring the combat cargo the general rule is the bigger the
    crew the higher the percentage of aircrew in the unit.

    The difference between the combat cargo and the troop carrier
    shows how manpower can be a function of mission as well as
    the aircraft in use. The change from single engined fighters to
    the twin engined P-38 gives an idea of the manpower needed
    per engine.

    (Is that ratio changed since then?)

    Yes, think of more electronics but generally simpler engine work.

    Geoffrey Sinclair
    Remove the nb for email.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich Rostrom@21:1/5 to Geoffrey Sinclair on Tue Dec 13 11:58:49 2016
    "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinclairnb@froggy.com.au> wrote:

    So if you like about 32% of the B-29 unit were aircrew, 38 to 47%
    of the B-17/24, 27 to 33% of the B-25/26, 22 to 29.5% of the
    A-20/26, 11 to 12.7% of the single engine fighter, 10 to 11.7%
    of the twin engined fighter, 28 to 35% of the troop carrier, 68%
    of the combat cargo, 11 to 16.7% of the night fighter, 10% of the
    tactical reconnaissance, 6% of the photographic reconnaissance
    and 30% of the combat mapping.

    That's the proportion of air crew in the various
    units (thanks for the data), but it doesn't give
    the proportion of ground crew. The non-flying
    personnel in these units would include riggers,
    fitters, mechanics, and armorers, but also the
    "housekeeping" functions. I.e., clerks, cooks,
    drivers, orderlies, medics, signalmen, the
    commander and his staff, meteorologists.

    These latter men were all needed in operations,
    but they didn't "service the airplanes".
    --
    The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

    http://originalvelvetrevolution.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Geoffrey Sinclair@21:1/5 to All on Wed Dec 14 09:25:48 2016
    "Rich Rostrom" <rrostrom@comcast.net> wrote in message news:rrostrom-127FDD.10520013122016@news.eternal-september.org...
    "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinclairnb@froggy.com.au> wrote:

    So if you like about 32% of the B-29 unit were aircrew, 38 to 47%
    of the B-17/24, 27 to 33% of the B-25/26, 22 to 29.5% of the
    A-20/26, 11 to 12.7% of the single engine fighter, 10 to 11.7%
    of the twin engined fighter, 28 to 35% of the troop carrier, 68%
    of the combat cargo, 11 to 16.7% of the night fighter, 10% of the
    tactical reconnaissance, 6% of the photographic reconnaissance
    and 30% of the combat mapping.

    That's the proportion of air crew in the various
    units (thanks for the data), but it doesn't give
    the proportion of ground crew. The non-flying
    personnel in these units would include riggers,
    fitters, mechanics, and armorers, but also the
    "housekeeping" functions. I.e., clerks, cooks,
    drivers, orderlies, medics, signalmen, the
    commander and his staff, meteorologists.

    These latter men were all needed in operations,
    but they didn't "service the airplanes".

    Quite right. Note the original question was the ratio of aircrew to
    service people, which I read as basically mechanics, armourers,
    fuel and the electronics technicians etc., not the weather people
    or flying control or guards etc.

    Now add the repair and maintenance units that were in addition to
    the combat units, to do major overhauls or repairs etc.

    As for the housekeeping functions that would need the relevant
    tables of organisation, whether they were part of the combat
    units or not. Hence why I only mentioned the flying personnel.

    For example on 31 December 1943 the 44th Bomb Group, with
    24 B-24 had 452 officers and 2,433 men including auxiliary units at
    Shipham, Suffolk. That is 2,885 personnel versus the 1945 idea of
    a bomb group of 72 B-24 aircraft and 2,261 personnel.

    Roger Freeman reports for the station basing the 305th bomb group
    on 10 May 1943 the personnel roster looked like this,

    54 in Group HQ, 1,487 in 4 bomb squadrons, 102 in HQ and HQ
    squadron of service group, 211 in service squadron, 36 in part
    quartermaster company, 41 in part chemical company, 40 in
    ordnance maintenance company, 52 MPs, 9 weather people, 4 in
    gas defence unit, 8 in finance, total 282 officers and 1,762 men.

    Freeman reports the personnel on an 8th Air Force bomber station
    rose to around 2,600 in 1945, for fighters 1,600.

    As of 31 December 1943 the HQ 8th Air Force had 294 officers and
    1,169 men. VIII Bomber Command 262 officers and 1,362 men.

    Unassigned/in transit were 71 officers and 1,786 men.

    1st CCRC had 282 officers and 1,434 men, 2nd 131 officers and
    1,273 men, all up there were 6 CCRC (Combat Crew Replacement
    Center)

    The 1st Base Air Depot and auxiliary units at Burtonwood had 457
    officers and 11,340 men. It did a lot of maintenance amongst
    other work. All up 3 BAD, with the 3rd small as of early 1944.

    Most airfields had an attached sub depot to handle more involved
    maintenance and salvage, at around 200 personnel each.

    If you like in the strength listing each bomb group has 7 lines, each
    fighter 6 lines, most other units require 2 lines, and all up 8 pages of foolscap to list all units of the 8th Air Force as of the start of 1944.

    Plenty of the units did at least some maintenance. So if you are
    serious you need to have the full listings then the break downs
    where units had maintenance and non maintenance personnel.

    Geoffrey Sinclair
    Remove the nb for email.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dave Smith@21:1/5 to Geoffrey Sinclair on Wed Dec 14 18:12:29 2016
    On 2016-12-14 9:25 AM, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
    "Rich Rostrom" <rrostrom@comcast.net> wrote in message

    Quite right. Note the original question was the ratio of aircrew to
    service people, which I read as basically mechanics, armourers,
    fuel and the electronics technicians etc., not the weather people
    or flying control or guards etc.

    Now add the repair and maintenance units that were in addition to
    the combat units, to do major overhauls or repairs etc.

    Out of curiosity, I Googled "Spitfire ground crew" and at the top of the
    list of hits was a Youtube video that shows at least ten people push a
    Spitfire and prepping it for operations. There is a narration and the
    pilot talks about some of the repairs that needed to be done, like to
    the engine hood that would not open. Then he talks about the
    instructions from the controller who is telling them to take off ASAP
    and patrol the base. These guys were going up, getting into combat and returning to be refueled, rearmed, repaired if needed, and often going
    right back up again, so it is not as if they had a surplus of men
    working on only one plane at a time.




    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icsvCwF0Kr4

    Looking at pictures of ground crews for other types of fighters yielded
    similar results. A photo of a Mustang ground crew showed 6 men just for
    the belts of ammunition.


    This page has shows the number of planes, crews and total compliment of
    an AAF Group:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_group

    For Very Heavy Bombardment Group (B 29) there are 45 aircraft, 60
    crews, 11 men in a crew, then 2,078 total personnel. Knock of the 660
    men in air crew and that is what it seems to have taken to run the group.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Geoffrey Sinclair@21:1/5 to Dave Smith on Thu Dec 15 09:35:10 2016
    "Dave Smith" <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:R6k4A.103826$kD2.15479@fx15.iad...

    Out of curiosity, I Googled "Spitfire ground crew" and at the top of the
    list of hits was a Youtube video that shows at least ten people push a Spitfire and prepping it for operations. There is a narration and the
    pilot talks about some of the repairs that needed to be done, like to the engine hood that would not open. Then he talks about the instructions from the controller who is telling them to take off ASAP and patrol the base. These guys were going up, getting into combat and returning to be
    refueled, rearmed, repaired if needed, and often going right back up
    again, so it is not as if they had a surplus of men working on only one
    plane at a time.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icsvCwF0Kr4

    Yes but be aware that it is staged vision.

    Think of it this way, the number of maintenance personnel depends on
    three factors, the amount and type of regular work you want the unit to do
    to keep its aircraft flying, regular engine checks, airframe inspections, repairs
    and so on. Next is the aircraft being used. Then comes how quickly you
    want to turn the aircraft around after a mission. The quicker the turn
    around
    required the more people and equipment like refueling trucks per aircraft.

    Do you want the unit to repair or simply replace faulty radios? Radars?
    and so on.

    What rules apply to decide when damaged or defective aircraft should be
    handed over to specialist maintenance units? Aircraft carriers often jettisoned aircraft rather than try to repair them for example given the
    limits on space and crew size.

    Looking at pictures of ground crews for other types of fighters yielded similar results. A photo of a Mustang ground crew showed 6 men just for
    the belts of ammunition.

    Essentially the armament section would visit each aircraft in turn to
    rearm it, rather than each aircraft having its own armament team.
    Similar for the fuel people. Then it becomes how many aircraft
    you want to refuel and rearm at a time and ensuring these
    personnel have enough work to fill in a "proper" working week.
    If there are enough refuelers around to refuel all the aircraft in
    an hour what do they do for the rest of the day?

    In the Battle of Britain the RAF certainly liked rapid turn arounds
    for fighter units and was willing to pay the "cost", the 8th Air Force
    usually did not need that sort of fast service

    Generally an individual aircraft would have a team dedicated to
    the mechanics, the airframe, controls and the engine for example.
    They would then ask for unit assistance for items outside their
    expertise and to rearm and refuel. Unit engineering officers had
    as part of their duties making decisions about whether an
    aircraft could be repaired by the unit or not.

    But of course the above is a generalisation with plenty of
    specific exceptions. The air forces spent plenty of time trying
    to figure out ideal unit sizes and organisations.

    In the Battle of Britain James Lacey was rather proud of the
    fact one day he glided back to base a very shot up Hurricane,
    until the engineer officer pointed out they would now have to
    repair it instead of obtaining a new one.

    The RAF ended up with maintenance units which were assigned
    to squadrons or to airfields, thereby enabling quick transfer of
    what was essentially the flying element only. It moved and picked
    up new maintenance personnel at the new base. In theory it was
    elegant, in practice it cost in terms of the pride maintenance
    people took in linking with a specific aircraft and/or crew.

    This page has shows the number of planes, crews and total compliment of an AAF Group:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_group

    For Very Heavy Bombardment Group (B 29) there are 45 aircraft, 60 crews,
    11 men in a crew, then 2,078 total personnel. Knock of the 660 men in air crew and that is what it seems to have taken to run the group.

    Yes, that essentially is taking the figures from the US official history.

    The actual organisation charts for the units is required to break down
    the personnel into specific jobs. Then comes any other units present on
    the airfield like military police, runway and building maintenance people
    for example. Then comes all the other units, like the those doing major maintenance and overhauls, handling training etc.

    Geoffrey Sinclair
    Remove the nb for email.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Phillipson@21:1/5 to Dave Smith on Thu Dec 15 10:10:31 2016
    "Dave Smith" <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:R6k4A.103826$kD2.15479@fx15.iad...

    Out of curiosity, I Googled "Spitfire ground crew" and at the top of the
    list of hits was a Youtube video that shows at least ten people push a Spitfire and prepping it for operations. . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icsvCwF0Kr4

    There was nevertheless a general doctrine, developed prewar and
    continued in wartime, based on two signatures accepting responsibility.
    Each aircraft had its own maintenance log book. Every day in use,
    an aircraft had to be documented as serviceable (fit for use) by the
    signature of a competent maintenance man (most probably the
    Flight Sergeant in charge of all mechanics on a squadron;) and
    (in principle) the pilot signed for each sortie or each day of use
    that he accepted the aircraft as fit to fly. That was the theory
    anyway . . . (I used to know the RAF Form number of the
    aircraft maintenance log book, but cannot now remember it.)
    --
    Don Phillipson
    Carlsbad Springs
    (Ottawa, Canada)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich Rostrom@21:1/5 to Geoffrey Sinclair on Fri Dec 16 21:14:57 2016
    "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinclairnb@froggy.com.au> wrote:

    Aircraft carriers often jettisoned aircraft rather
    than try to repair them for example given the limits
    on space and crew size.

    In _Clear The Decks_, RAdm Dan Gallery tells of a
    damaged TBF Avenger which was handed off to his
    flight crew for practice in getting airplanes out of
    the often unusual places pilots sometimes parked them.

    After a few weeks of this, that Avenger was definitely
    not worth repairing, so he told them to run it over the
    side. But the plane's wheels dropped into the portside
    catwalk and it hung up. They tried several times, but
    couldn't get enough speed to clear the catwalk. So
    finally they shoved it off the stern.
    --
    The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

    http://originalvelvetrevolution.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Phillipson@21:1/5 to Don Phillipson on Sun Jan 8 18:09:21 2017
    "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message news:o2uboq$4h6$1@news.albasani.net...

    There was nevertheless a general doctrine, developed prewar and
    continued in wartime, based on two signatures accepting responsibility.
    Each aircraft had its own maintenance log book. Every day in use,
    an aircraft had to be documented as serviceable (fit for use) by the signature of a competent maintenance man (most probably the
    Flight Sergeant in charge of all mechanics on a squadron;) and
    (in principle) the pilot signed for each sortie or each day of use
    that he accepted the aircraft as fit to fly. That was the theory
    anyway . . .

    This was RAF Form 700, described as Aircraft Log at http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/default/archive-collection/aircraft-records.aspx
    which adds:
    "There is no other source of such records - RAF practice is to destroy such records
    shortly after the aircraft is struck off charge" i.e. certified as sold or destroyed.
    --
    Don Phillipson
    Carlsbad Springs
    (Ottawa, Canada)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)