timtom
Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline
|
The sources used for the CHS 1.60 USAAF OOB are:
Mauer, Mauer (ed.): Combat Squadrons of the Air Force World War II. Albert F. Simpson Historical Research Centre & Office of Air Force History Headquarters USAF 1982.
Mauer, Mauer (ed.): Air Force Combat Units of World War II. Office of Air Force History 1983.
Both are available (under M, of course) in PDF format here: https://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/authorindex.htm
The same sources have been used in this review, which works on the premise that it accepts the sqds allocated to the database rather than review the OOB in its entirety - so it isn't, strictly speaking, comprehensive.
Combat Squadrons of the Air Force World War II (CSAF) has played the starring role in this work, and Air Force Combat Units of World War II (AFCU) has only been used for sublementary information. CSAF, being a squadron by squadron account, obviously offers more detailed information, but I've organised this review on a group-by-group basis, as this seems to have been the basis unit of organisation, ie the squadrons with each group follow similar or identical trends.
CSAF holds information about hundreds of individual squadrons and the information given is thus necesarily brief. The main weakness for our purpose is the information about aircraft types and their usage by date, which is given somewhat generically. Type is given generally (B-17, B-24, B-25 etc) and on a year-by-year basis, so ofttimes a fair degree of guestimation is necesary.
The quicklink provided with each group leads to information lifted strait from AFCU.
Overall, I've been able to find little fault as such with the existing work other than a couple of honest mistakes which are quite possibly in the area of data entry rather than research. The questions I do raise are related to primarily to design and interpretation.
The main problem faced when working with the USAAF OOB is the question of what to do with the 100+ squadrons that were stationed on the West Coast at one time or another before heading for the East Coast and/or Europe. Very considerable strength was at hand at any one time if necesary. In the game, a situation might arise that would call upon this strength, so how do we represent it without making these squadrons available to the Allied player for service in the Pacific? Without a withdrawal function there's not really any good ways of representing this waxing and waning of WC strength.
CHS has taken a minimalist, and, I think, rather sensible approach to the problem. Basically, if a bombardment squadron served in the PTO at any one time, it's included. If not, well, it's not. However there's a grey zone. Five groups (29 BG (H), 30 BG (H), 38 BG (M), 41 BG (M), 42 BG (M) ), that is to say 20 squadrons, trained extensively on the WC while flying patrol missions, and didn't actually enter combat proper until the second half of '43 onwards. These five groups have been made available from early to mid '42, with a view, I take it, to address the above problem.
The problem is, of course, that the Allied player won't meakly leave the units on the WC. It's a good bet they'll be crated up and packed off for the front ASAP. I think it's fair to say that here's a consensus of sorts that the game moves too fast and that at least part of problem is "too much, too soon". Further, 29 & 30 BG's are heavy bomber outfits and having 96 extra heavy bomber airframes available early doesn't help with the whole heavy bomber issue. So how do we keep the the Allied player from exploiting the early arrival of the above five groups?
I see three solutions:
1. Leave things as they are and encourage a houserule to keep the groups on the WC. Particularly relevant if PDU = ON.
2. Use the later movement overseas as the arrival date. Particularly relevant with regards to AI games.
3. Tie them down by emulating their still-in-training status by a) changing HQ to WC b) lowering the squadron XP to encourage the player to train them on-map c) lumbering them with obsolete aircraft and an upgrade path that places the upgrade to frontline types as late as possibly (only works with PDU = OFF).
Pet Peeves:
29 BG (H): Essentially a training establishment. Personally I would like to see it deleted.
12 BG (M): Another BG available early. Historically it left the west coast 2/42, went to the MTO and later to CBI in '44. I'd like to see the later CBI arrival date used.
This still leaves 180 AAF bombers in 15 squadrons on the west coast to ward off KB.
The issue of overrepresentation of strength is further acerbated by the fact that 18 (scn 154 = 13) squadrons were disbanded, withdrawn to the US for training duties, or sent to the ETO. In fairness a number of these reappeared flying B-29's with 20th Air Force. 19 BG (H) was withdrawn to the US by the end of '42. In the game their heavy bombers will likely soldier on through 43-44. Scn. 155 makes another six squadrons, including five heavy bomber squadrons, available to the player. None of these served in the Pacific proper until retooling with B-29's.
Under the proposed scheme, the B-26G is entirely eliminated. I was hoping someone could educate me on the B-26G, but meanwhile I refer to Lemurs! who states
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lemurs!
The B26B came in two main versions, with the extra nose guns and without. In the Pacific theater it was decided to use the B26 as a medium altitude level bomber while the B25 was going to handle low level duties.
Thus, the heavy nose gun B26B was only sent to Europe, and also remember that the heavy nose gun version carried 1000lbs less bombload. (edit: In CHS 1.60 it's the other way round - the G carries 1,000 lbs more than the B)
Mike
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=887550&mpage=1&key=��
Gimme the A-29 instead!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 BG
8 BS: No Comments
13 BS: Proposed: A-20B -> B-25C -> B-25J -> A-26B
89 BS: No Comments
90 BS: Proposed: A-20B -> B-25C -> B-25J -> A-26B
Note: Flew a mixture of A-24, A-20, B-25, and A-26. It seems 8 & 89 BS' flew B-25's mainly in 43, while 13 & 90 BS' flew B-25's 42-44 before switching back to A-20's. In CHS 1.6 all four sqd's upgrade A-20B -> A-20G -> A-26B, except 8 BS which upgrades A-24 -> A-20B etc. I would suggest allowing 13 & 90 BS' to upgrade A-20B -> B-25C -> B-25J -> A-26B, which I feel better reflects the aircraft they actually flew as well as the mixed nature of the group.
http://www.armyairforces.com/dbgroups.asp?Group=11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 BG
23 BS: No Comments
31 BS: No Comments
72 BS: No Comments
394 BS: No Comments
http://www.armyairforces.com/dbgroups.asp?Group=17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 BG
3 BS: Withdrawn 11/43
29 BS: Withdrawn 11/43
74 BS: Withdrawn 11/43
397 BS: Withdrawn 11/43
Note: 6 BG was stationed in the Canal Zone when war broke out and spend the next couple of years flying patrol- and ASW missions before being disbanded in November 43. It's sqd's transferred to VI Bomber Command in the US and trained replacements and did R&D work from then on. A new 6 BG (VH), which will appear in CHS 2.00, was raised in April 44. It was stationed on Tinian from January 45 and flew its first combat mission the following month.
In the game, while the sqd's starts with B-18's, they upgrade B-18A -> B-17E -> B-24J. With little to do, they'll likely be send off to pommel the Japanese somewhere in the Pacific.
I would suggest deleting them or at the very least have a houserule restricting their deployment.
This is of course a non-issue in scn 154.
http://www.armyairforces.com/dbgroups.asp?Group=19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 BG
9 BS: No Comments
436 BS: Proposed: B-17E -> B-24D -> B-24J
492 BS: No Comments
493 BS: No Comments
Note: In CHS 1.60, all the sqd's upgrade along the B-24D path, except 436 BS, which is set to the default B-17E -> B-24J. CSAF suggests that 436 BS was flying B-24's in 42, hence I would suggest the above upgrade path.
http://www.armyairforces.com/dbgroups.asp?Group=21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 BG
26 BS: No Comments
42 BS: No Comments
98 BS: No Comments
431 BS: No Comments
http://www.armyairforces.com/dbgroups.asp?Group=30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 BG
81 BS: ASW WC, EC 420227, then MTO, India 440320
82 BS: ASW WC, EC 420227 (WC 6/42), then MTO, India 440319
83 BS: ASW WC, EC 420227 (WC 6/42), then MTO, India 440321
434 BS: ASW WC, EC 420227 (WC 6/42), then MTO, India 440321
Note: Flew ASW missions off the Pacific coast before being send east in February 42. The flying echelon of all but 81 BS made a brief return to California in June 42 before being packed off to the MTO. Transferred to CBI in March 44.
Arguably this latter arrival date should be used.
http://www.armyairforces.com/dbgroups.asp?Group=32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19 BG
14 BS: Disbanded 5/42
28 BS: Withdrawn 10/42, OTU & replacement training, B-29 4/44, on Guam 450116
30 BS: Withdrawn 10/42, OTU & replacement training, B-29 4/44, on Guam 450116
93 BS: Withdrawn 10/42, OTU & replacement training, B-29 4/44, on Guam 450116
435 BS: Withdrawn 11/42, OTU & replacement training, B-29 4/44, on Okinawa 450805 (333 BG)
Note: The group was withdrawn to the US late 42 and spend the next 18 months functioning as an OTU and later training replacements. Disbanded in April 44 and immediately reactived as 19 BG (VH) with B-29's. Joined 20th AF in January 45 and flew its first mission against Japan the following month.
Unless the Allied player agrees to a voluntary withdrawal scheme, obviously these 5 sqd's will be available throughout.
http://www.armyairforces.com/dbgroups.asp?Group=151
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22 BG
2 BS: Proposed: B-26B -> B-24J.
19 BS: Proposed: B-26B -> B-24J.
33 BS: Proposed: B-26B -> B-24J.
408 BS: No Comments
Note: 22 BG (M) flew B-26’s, and from late 43 also B-25’s until being renamed 22nd BG (H) and reequipped with B-24’s. In CHS 1.60 all 22 BG sqd’s except 408 BS upgrade B-26B -> B-26G -> B-25J -> A-26B. 408 BS however upgrade B-26B -> B-24J. I would propose that the entire BG follow the upgrade path of 408 BS. This better reflects its capabilities in operational terms, ie being a medium group through 42-43, then becoming a heavy group. Further, it never flew A-26’s, but did fly B-24’s from early 44 onwards.
http://www.armyairforces.com/dbgroups.asp?Group=44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25 BG
59 BS: Disbanded 440620. Proposed: A-20B -> B-25J, A-20B -> B-18A, or A-20B -> B-18A -> B-25J.
Note: ASW- and patrol missions in the Canal Zone and Carribian until withdrawn to US and eventually disbanded. According to CSAF, it flew A-20's 41-43, B-18's and B-25's 43-44. As it would be the only sqd to upgrade to the B-18A, A-20B -> B-18A -> B-25J could even be accomodated.
http://www.armyairforces.com/dbgroups.asp?Group=47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27 BG
16 BS: Withdrawn 420501, send to MTO and renamed 522 FS. New 16 BS formed as part of 16 BG (VH), which is already in the CHS 2.00 database.
17 BS: (not in game) Withdrawn 420501, later send to MTO and renamed 523 FS. New 17 BS formed as part of 16 BG (VH), which is already in the CHS 2.00 database.
91 BS: Withdrawn 420501, later send to MTO and renamed 524 FS.
Note: I would suggest including the 17 BS with an identical makeup to 16 & 91 BS'. 16 & 17 BS' aren't dublicates of their later namesakes, which were formed entirely separately, and now that we'll have a 16 BG, at least the naming issue is gone. The early 17 BS is more deserving most of the borderline sqds that have been included, so unless it is felt that this particular sqd should be made an example of, I can't see why it shouldn't be included.
http://www.armyairforces.com/dbgroups.asp?Group=50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28 BG
36 BS: To ETO 11/43
73 BS: Disbanded 11/43
77 BS: No comments
404 BS: No comments
http://www.armyairforces.com/dbgroups.asp?Group=51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29 BG
6 BS: Proposal: Delete
43 BS: Proposal: Delete
52 BS: Proposal: Delete
411 BS: Proposal: Delete
29 BG was based in Idaho from mid-42 to mid-44, when it moved to Kansas. It functioned as an O.T.U. and later in replacement training capacity. It was renamed 29 BG (VH) in April 44 and reequipped with B-29’s. It was on Guam 450117 and flew its first mission against Japan on 450225.
The problem of course is that these four sqd’s aren’t going to stay on the WC. They’re going to be shifted off post haste to wherever the Allied player is planning his next 8th Air Force-style carpet bombing offensive. I think we can all agree that the ability of the Allied player to mass heavies is overstated, particularly in the first half of the game. While reducing the replacement rates helps, about 200 B-17E’s & 455 B-24D’s will still have been received as replacements by the end of 42.
I think CHS should strive towards limiting the use of game crutches such as heavy bomber massing. The reduced replacement rate already points in that direction. It could be further by eliminating sqd’s whose inclusion is at least debatable. I feel this concern should take priority over the more remote concern of defending the WC against KB.
Hence I propose that the four sqd’s of 29 BG should be deleted and replaced by a new unit - 29 BG – flying B-29’s and arriving on the WC sometime before 450117.
At the very least they should have their HQ assignment changed from CenPac to WC.
http://www.armyairforces.com/dbgroups.asp?Group=151
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 BG
21 BS: Disbanded 11/43, new 21 BS (VH) formed as part of 501 BG. Proposed: Arrive 411225, HQ WC.
27 BS: WC ASW and replacement training, to HI 10/43. Proposed: Arrive 411225, HQ WC.
Historically flew: 1941: A-29, B-18, 1942: A-29 1943: B-24.
CHS 1.60: LB-30 -> B-24D -> B-24J
Proposed: B-18 (ideally A-29) -> B-24J, or if this felt too restrictive, LB-30 -> B-24J.
38 BS: WC ASW and replacement training, to HI 10/43. Proposed: Arrive 411225, HQ WC.
Historically flew: 1941: B-18, B-17, 1942: A-29, B-18, B-24, B-25, LB-30, 1943: B-24.
CHS 1.60: B-18B -> B-25C -> B-25J -> A-26B
Proposed: B-18 -> B-24J, or if this felt too restrictive, LB-30 -> B-24J. B-18B -> LB-30 -> B-24J is possible, but means that the LB-30 has to be dropped from 9 BS (7 BG) upgrade path. 9 BS is the only sqd that upgrades to the LB-30, and it's would probably only a minor fudge to have it go straight to B-24D from B-17E. B-18B -> LB-30 -> B-24J could then be applied to 27 BS as well. Of course the Allied player would have to be very conservative with his LB-30's to ensure an orderly upgrade
392 BS: WC ASW and replacement training, to HI 10/43. Proposed: Arrive 411225, HQ WC.
Historically flew: 1941: B-18, B-17, 1942: LB-30, 1943: B-24.
CHS 1.60: LB-30 -> B-24D -> B-24J
Proposed: B-18B or LB-30 -> B24J, or B-18B -> LB-30 -> B-24J (see above).
819 BS: No Comments
Note: The group arrived on the WC 411225. It flew ASW missions while functioning in replacement training capacity over the next 18 months, except 21 BS which was send to Alaska in June 42. To HI 10/43, and, now joined by 819 BS, began combat operations proper the following month.
While on the WC, it flew a mixture of B-17, B-18, B-24, B-25, LB-30 & A-29 (not in database, but would be nice). By the time it was transferred to HI, it was fully B-24.
Obviously another group that is likely to find itself on the frontline well before its actual entry date. One possible solution, other than shifting its arrival date forward to October 43, would be to attach the sqd's (except 819 BS) to WC, lower their sqd XP to somewhere in the 20-40 range to reflect their non-combat ready status, equipping them with the worst possible aircraft supported by the evidence, and having them upgrade directly to the B-24J, which becomes available 9/43. (21 BS upgrades to B-29). The point is of course to try to force the Allied player to retain the sqd's on the WC as long as possible.
http://www.armyairforces.com/dbgroups.asp?Group=53
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
38 BG
71 BS: Ground echelon in OZ 420225, air echelon arrive OZ 8/42. Proposed: B-26B -> B-25C or B-25J
405 BS: Ground echelon in OZ 420225, air echelon arrive OZ 8/42. Proposed: B-26B -> B-25C or B-25J
822 BS: No Comments
823 BS: No Comments
Note: Originally comprised of 69, 70, 71 & 405 BS'. Ground echelon moved to Oz 2/42. 69 & 70 BS' moved overseas in May, but only got as far as Midway and was subsequently assigned to 42 BG. 71 & 405 BS' moved overseas in August. In CHS 1.60 the latter two become available 1/42. Possibly these could be candidates for lowered sqd XP and/or attachement to WC to encourage the player to keep them on a bit longer. CSAF indicate that they were flying B-25's in '42, so possibly they should upgrade B-26B -> B-25C or B-25J, skipping B-26G, which would otherwise mean that they have to wait till the second half of '43 before upgrading to B-25 as the B-26G only becomes available beginning 6/43 - two months after B-25J. 822 & 823 BS' are B-25 sqd's.
http://www.armyairforces.com/dbgroups.asp?Group=60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 BG
44 BS: CZ till 6/43, then withdrawn to US and reequipped with B-29's. Arrive CBI 440411.
45 BS: CZ till 6/43, then withdrawn to US and reequipped with B-29's. Arrive CBI 440409.
395 BS: CZ till 6/43, then withdrawn to US and reequipped with B-29's. Arrive CBI 440409. Dispanded 441028.
Note: Operated in the CZ area until withdrawn to US and re-equipped with B-29’s, then India from 4/44. Given that most players seems to have a house rule prohibiting enemy movement into the shaded area when playing scn 155, there’s little actual work for 40 BG, and thus 44 & 45 BS' (395 BS doesn't appear until 4/44) seems candidates for going west.
I would suggest deleting the sdq’s and creating a new B-29 40 BG unit.
http://www.armyairforces.com/dbgroups.asp?Group=62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
41 BG
46 BS: East Coast 8/42. Proposed: B-18B -> B-17E -> B-24J.
47 BS: WC ASW and training, to HI 10/43 Proposed: HQ WC, B-18B -> B-25J.
48 BS: WC ASW and training, to HI 10/43. Proposed :HQ WC, B-18B -> B-25J.
396 BS: WC ASW and training, to HI 10/43. Proposed: HQ WC, B-18B -> B-25J.
406 BS: To ETO 11/43. Proposed: B-26B -> B-24J.
820 BS: No Comments
Note: Another BG appararently flying A-29's in '42. Did ASW work while training. 46 BS went east early, became part of AAF antisubmarine command and was redesignated 22nd Antisubmarine Squadron (H) before being disbanded late '43. To my mind a candidate for the chop. 406 BS went to Alaska in June 42 and eventually the ETO. The remaining sqds were joined by 820 BS and went overseas in October '43.
I would suggest using the same method proposed with 30 BG - lowered sqd XP, HQ WC, B-18B -> B-25J - to retain it as long as possible in the US, 406 BS excepted.
http://www.armyairforces.com/dbgroups.asp?Group=63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42 BG
69 BS: Ground echelon in OZ 420225, air echelon leave US 420522. Proposal: B-26B -> B-25C or B-25J, HQ WC
70 BS: Ground echelon in OZ 420225, air echelon leave US 420602. Proposal: B-26B -> B-25C or B-25J, HQ WC.
75 BS: Proposal: B-26B -> B-25C or B-25J, HQ WC
100 BS: No Comments
390 BS: No Comments
Note: On the WC throughout 42 training and flying patrols before moving overseas 3/43, where they were joined by 69 & 70 BS', formerly of 38 BG. By early 43 the group had entirely retooled with B-25's. I would propose a similar scheme as with 38 BG to retain it on the WC. I also feel that the upgrade path B-18B -> B-26B -> B-25C or B-25J better reflects the equipment of the group. This path requires changing the default upgrade of the B-26B, but it will be noticed that under the proposals in this post, the B-26G has been eliminated entirely.
Like the rest of 38 BG, 69 & 70 BS' send their ground echelon to Oz early 42. In CHS 1.60, all the sqds of 38 BG arrive 420119, except 69 BS, which arrive 420515. I take this to be a mistake, as 69 BS went through the same assignments as the rest of the group.
75 BS is a bit of a mystery squadron in that there's no info on it in CSAF, which usually signifies that the squadron in question has been renamed, fx the entry for 46 BS is under 22nd Anti-Sub Sqd - information that Mauer unfortunately doesn't provide. I've failed to locate the renamed 75 BS, however according to Air Force Combat Units of World War II it was carried on 42 BG's strength throughout the war. Further, this is supported by this site ( http://web-birds.com/ ) which carries the following info "While at Portland the 75th was under the operational control of the Navy since coastal patrol and sub patrol work had to be closely coordinated. Aircraft flown for these missions were B-18’s and B-18H’s until the early part of May when A-29 Lockheed Hudson Bombers were assigned to the Squadron. Through an entire period of 13 months, daily patrol missions were flown with but one fatal crash...Finally, on February 10, 1943, the 75th Bombardment Squadron along with the 42nd Bombardment Group was alerted for foreign service. " There's no info on when the sqd went to B-25's - in fact there's no direct evidence in this bit of text to suggest that the sqd even used B-25's. However according to AFCU the entire group went B-25, although it also holds that none of its sqds flew A-29, which in turn conflict with CSAF, but that shouldn't surprise as the former is somewhat generic in places. However I don't really see any reason to doubt that 75 BS followed the same general trend as the rest of the group.
http://www.armyairforces.com/dbgroups.asp?Group=64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
43 BG
63 BS: No Comments
64 BS: No Comments
65 BS: No Comments
403 BS: No Comments
http://www.armyairforces.com/dbgroups.asp?Group=65
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
90 BG
319 BS: No Comments
320 BS: No Comments
321 BS: No Comments
400 BS: No Comments
http://www.armyairforces.com/dbgroups.asp?Group=111
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
307 BG
370 BS: No Comments
371 BS: No Comments
373 BS: No Comments
424 BS: No Comments
http://www.armyairforces.com/dbgroups.asp?Group=128
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
308 BG
373 BS: Proposal: Arrive Middle East or Karachi 430306.
374 BS: Proposal: Arrive Middle East or Karachi 430306.
375 BS: Proposal: Arrive Middle East or Karachi 430306.
425 BS: Proposal: Arrive Middle East or Karachi 430306.
Note: Air echelon sent to CBI via Afrika sometime after January 2, 1943. In China (Kumning) from March 20, 1943 and spend the rest of the war in the CBI. In CHS 1.60 the sqds arrive 430102 in Seattle. As the player is supposed to be the theatre commander and not the supreme commander, at least from the perspective of reconstructing the OOB, I think forces should be assigned to the theatre they were historically. A WC placement makes it unlikely they'll ever reach India.
http://www.armyairforces.com/dbgroups.asp?Group=129
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
312 BG
386 BS: Proposal: AD 430413 or 431028, P-40N -> A-20G
387 BS: Proposal: AD 430413 or 431028, P-40N -> A-20G, HQ SWPac
388 BS: Proposal: AD 430413 or 431028, P-40N -> A-20G
389 BS: Proposal: AD 430413 or 431028, P-40N -> A-20G
312 BG (Light) trained on the A-36 among others, flew P-40’s in combat initially before receiving A-20’s. There's nothing really to suggest that it flew A-36's in combat and certainly not the P-47's that lies along its CHS 1.60 upgrade path.
CHS 1.60 has the sqds arrive 430518. Historically, the group arrived in California 430413, and is last recorded in California before going overseas 431028. The CHS 1.60 date possibly represents a compromise, but for reasons of methodological consistancy, I think the AD should be either 430413 or 431028.
387 BS arrives attached to WC, which I take to be a slip-up.
http://www.armyairforces.com/dbgroups.asp?Group=133
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
319 BG
437 BS: No Comments
438 BS: No Comments
439 BS: No Comments
440 BS: No Comments
http://www.armyairforces.com/dbgroups.asp?Group=140
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
341 BG
11 BS: No Comments
22 BS: No Comments
490 BS: AD 421230
491 BS: AD 421230
Note: 490 & 491 BS' were activated in India on 420915, joining 11 & 22 BS', formerly of 7 BG, to form 341 BG. Entered combat early 43. CHS 1.60 has the former arrive on their activation date, which I think is a tat generous. I would suggest the arrival date as the date they shifted from Karachi to Chakulia near Calcutta (421230).
http://www.armyairforces.com/dbgroups.asp?Group=162
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
345 BG
498 BS: No Comments
499 BS: No Comments
500 BS: No Comments
501 BS: No Comments
Note: A B-25 only group. If desired, this could be reflected by having it arrive (CHS 1.60 AD 430415) with B-25J's with no upgrade path to keep it from upgrading to A-26B's. But then again, who knows what'd happen if the war continued past 8/45.
http://www.armyairforces.com/dbgroups.asp?Group=166
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
380 BG
528 BS: No Comments
529 BS: No Comments
530 BS: No Comments
531 BS: No Comments
http://www.armyairforces.com/dbgroups.asp?Group=201
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
417 BG
672 BS: No Comments
673 BS: No Comments
674 BS: No Comments
675 BS: Missing from database
Note: 675 BS is missing, which I take to be an error of omission. Like 345 BG, 417 BG was a one-type BG (A-20's), and like the 345 BG this could be reflected by curbing its upgrade path.
http://www.armyairforces.com/dbgroups.asp?Group=238
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
494 BG
864 BS: No Comments
865 BS: No Comments
866 BS: No Comments
867 BS: No Comments
Note: Moved to HI 6/44 and trained further, and didn't actually enter combat until 11/44. Hence possibly the arrival date 4/44 is a bit generous.
http://www.armyairforces.com/dbgroups.asp?Group=304
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also:
58 BS (no group) renamed 531 FS (21 FG) early 44, Proposal: A-20B -> A-24 -> P-39D -> P-38J. This would require the default upgrade path of the A-24 to be changed, but 58 BS would be the only sqd to upgrade to the A-24.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
679 BS, B-29, 444 BG, disbanded 441012
771 BS, B-29, 462 BG, disbanded 441012
795 BS, B-29, 468 BG, disbanded 441012
I take it Andrew just forgot to include these three sqds in the posted change list?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< Message edited by timtom -- 5/27/2006 3:59:40 AM >
_____________________________
Where's the Any key?  |
Printable Version
Review of USAAF Bombardment squadrons - 
) I will take a look at these changes as well. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread