Project Squadron - Revision history

WikiSysop: /* Discrepancies */

2022-07-14T20:02:21Z

Discrepancies

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:02, 14 July 2022
Line 321:		Line 321:


	? B 41-39188 possible Hunter 9/19/44 9/22/44 <br/>		? B 41-39188 possible Hunter/DOW 9/19/44 9/22/44 <br/>
	? B 41-39195 possible Hunter/DOW 9/9/44 9/13/44		? B 41-39195 possible Hunter/DOW 9/9/44 9/13/44

WikiSysop: /* Discrepancies */

2022-07-14T20:02:03Z

Discrepancies

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:02, 14 July 2022
Line 321:		Line 321:


	? B 41-39188 possible Hunter 9/19/44 9/22/44		? B 41-39188 possible Hunter 9/19/44 9/22/44 <br/>
	? B 41-39195 possible Hunter/DOW 9/9/44 9/13/44		? B 41-39195 possible Hunter/DOW 9/9/44 9/13/44

WikiSysop: /* Identifying the Squadron Planes */

2022-07-14T20:00:27Z

Identifying the Squadron Planes

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:00, 14 July 2022
Line 153:		Line 153:
	\|B		\|B
	\|41-39186		\|41-39186
	\|~~Maybe~~		\|Probable
	\|Hunter/DOW		\|Hunter/DOW
	\|8/14/1944		\|8/14/1944
Line 162:		Line 162:
	\|B		\|B
	\|41-39187		\|41-39187
	\|~~Maybe~~		\|Probable
	\|Hunter/DOW		\|Hunter/DOW
	\|8/10/1944		\|8/10/1944
Line 171:		Line 171:
	\|B		\|B
	\|41-39189		\|41-39189
	\|~~Maybe~~		\|Probable
	\|Hunter/DOW		\|Hunter/DOW
	\|8/17/1944		\|8/17/1944
Line 189:		Line 189:
	\|B		\|B
	\|41-39191		\|41-39191
	\|~~Maybe~~		\|Probable
	\|Hunter/DOW		\|Hunter/DOW
	\|8/2/1944		\|8/2/1944
Line 198:		Line 198:
	\|B		\|B
	\|41-39194		\|41-39194
	\|~~Maybe~~		\|Probable
	\|Hunter/DOW		\|Hunter/DOW
	\|8/2/1944		\|8/2/1944
Line 216:		Line 216:
	\|B		\|B
	\|41-39197		\|41-39197
	\|~~Maybe~~		\|Probable
	\|Hunter/DOW		\|Hunter/DOW
	\|8/12/1944		\|8/12/1944
Line 225:		Line 225:
	\|B		\|B
	\|41-39198		\|41-39198
	\|~~Maybe~~		\|Probable
	\|Hunter/DOW		\|Hunter/DOW
	\|8/6/1944		\|8/6/1944
Line 243:		Line 243:
	\|B		\|B
	\|41-39202		\|41-39202
	\|~~Maybe~~		\|Probable
	\|Hunter/DOW		\|Hunter/DOW
	\|8/17/1944		\|8/17/1944
Line 261:		Line 261:
	\|C		\|C
	\|41-39199		\|41-39199
	\|~~Maybe~~		\|Probable
	\|Hunter/DOW		\|Hunter/DOW
	\|8/10/1944		\|8/10/1944
Line 270:		Line 270:
	\|C		\|C
	\|41-39200		\|41-39200
	\|~~maybe~~		\|Probable
	\|Hunter/DOW		\|Hunter/DOW
	\|8/17/1944		\|8/17/1944

WikiSysop: /* Identifying the Squadron Planes */

2019-10-17T13:25:02Z

Identifying the Squadron Planes

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:25, 17 October 2019
Line 128:		Line 128:
	!Status		!Status
	!BASE		!BASE
	!Assigned		!Assigned 9AF
	!Arrived		!Arrived 9AF
	!Notes		!Notes
	\|-		\|-

WikiSysop: /* Discrepancies */

2019-10-17T06:20:56Z

Discrepancies

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:20, 17 October 2019
Line 312:		Line 312:
	==Discrepancies==		==Discrepancies==

	Both Thompson and Roeder said that Project Squadron consisted of 18 planes; 12 B models and 6 C models. The evaluation report and other contemporary documents all agree that 18 planes were in the squadron. However, there is a problem. At the time that the Squadron was sent overseas there were not enough C-models in the USAF inventory to have 6. And, our list above includes 13 B models.		Both Thompson and Roeder said that Project Squadron consisted of 18 planes; 12 B models and 6 C models. The evaluation report and other contemporary documents all agree that 18 planes were in the squadron. However, there is a problem. At the time that the Squadron was sent overseas there were not enough C-models in the USAF inventory to have 6. And our list above includes 13 B models.

	There are two likely possibilities. First, either the breakdown of how many planes of each type existed in the squadron were in error and it was actually 13 B models and 5 C models. Second, at least one of the B models had a solid gun-nose swapped out for a glass nose. Unfortunately there isn't a lot of evidence to support things either way. When an aircraft had a nose swap in other instances that we are aware of the IARC is updated to reflect that the airplane is now a different model. I cannot find any such mention of this on any of the IARC cards listed above. As such, I think this may be fairly unlikely and I am inclined to believe more of the first possibility. However, I also recognize that errors exist, even in official government records, so it's also entirely possible that a nose or two was supposed and that fact was simply not reported on the card. I can't say for certain without more evidence.

	There are also a few other planes that are going to the 9AF before any of the combat units were assigned Invaders. Remember that the 416th Bomb Group was the first unit to actually get them, and that didn't happen until ~~mid~~-~~October~~. These planes, listed below, are probably replacements for planes that crashed and had to be taken out of service.		There are two likely possibilities. First, either the breakdown of how many planes of each type existed in the squadron were in error and it was actually 13 B models and 5 C models. Second, at least one of the B models had a solid gun-nose swapped out for a glass nose. Unfortunately there isn't a lot of evidence to support things either way. When an aircraft had a nose swap in other instances that we are aware of the IARC is updated to reflect that the airplane is now a different model. I cannot find any such mention of this on any of the IARC cards listed above. As such, I think this may be fairly unlikely and I am inclined to believe more of the first possibility. However, I also recognize that errors exist, even in official government records, so it's also entirely possible that a nose or two was swappeded and that fact was simply not reported on the card. I can't say for certain without more evidence.


			There are also a few other planes that are going to the 9AF before any of the combat units were assigned Invaders. Remember that the 416th Bomb Group was the first unit to actually get them, and that didn't happen until late-September. These planes, listed below, are probably replacements for planes that crashed and had to be taken out of service. In reviewing the record cards further, I am certain of this. Project Squadron went to Hunter Field, GA. The planes that were assigned to the 416th went to Bangor, Maine. Although the plane below arrived after the Project Squadron got on station, they match the Project Squadron profile, and as such, are probably either delayed arrivals or replacements for damaged craft.


	? B 41-39188 possible Hunter 9/19/44 9/22/44		? B 41-39188 possible Hunter 9/19/44 9/22/44
	? B 41-39195 possible Hunter/DOW 9/9/44 9/13/44		? B 41-39195 possible Hunter/DOW 9/9/44 9/13/44

WikiSysop: /* Identifying the Squadron Planes */

2019-10-17T06:15:44Z

Identifying the Squadron Planes

Show changes

WikiSysop: /* What We Know */

2019-10-17T05:57:56Z

What We Know

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:57, 17 October 2019
Line 93:		Line 93:
	==What We Know==		==What We Know==
	So, at the end of all of this we have some questions and not any real answers. Let's recap:		So, at the end of all of this we have some questions and not any real answers. Let's recap:
	* Project Squadron began at Barksdale AF in Jun and Jul 1944.		* Project Squadron began training at Barksdale AF in Jun and Jul 1944.
			* Project Squadron picked up the evaluation planes from Hunter Field, GA.
	* Project Squadron was announced to 386th BG on 1 Aug 1944.		* Project Squadron was announced to 386th BG on 1 Aug 1944.
	* They arrived at Prestwick, Scotland first and spent and unknown amount of time there.		* They arrived at Prestwick, Scotland first and spent and unknown amount of time there.
Line 100:		Line 101:
	* They arrived at least before 1 Sep based on the fact that the first mission was 6 Sep and they had five failed days of flight prior to that.		* They arrived at least before 1 Sep based on the fact that the first mission was 6 Sep and they had five failed days of flight prior to that.
	* After the 386th, Project Squadron was attached to the 416th.		* After the 386th, Project Squadron was attached to the 416th.


	Now, as far as identifying these planes one thing that would be help would be Mission Loading Lists from the 386th that showed which planes were assigned to any given mission. The Mission Loading Lists for the 416th Bomb Group are accessible, but not useful for this function. The first combat mission to feature A-26s are part of the lineup didn't occur until 17 Nov 1944. So from the period of mid-September through mid-November, all of the missions that were undertaken by Project Squadron with the 416th were strictly training missions. They might list some details in the Monthly Summaries, but those are not available to me as yet.		Now, as far as identifying these planes one thing that would be help would be Mission Loading Lists from the 386th that showed which planes were assigned to any given mission. The Mission Loading Lists for the 416th Bomb Group are accessible, but not useful for this function. The first combat mission to feature A-26s are part of the lineup didn't occur until 17 Nov 1944. So from the period of mid-September through mid-November, all of the missions that were undertaken by Project Squadron with the 416th were strictly training missions. They might list some details in the Monthly Summaries, but those are not available to me as yet.

	Looking at what we do know, there are other reports that can help us to identify these planes. The first and most obvious to me, is the Accident reports. Both Hankey and Brewster agree that some Invaders crashed during arrival at Great Dunmow, although the accounts seem to differ as to how many. Hankey claims that as many as 6 were damaged in landing. Brewster says "a few". Looking at the accident reports we do find a date - 24 Aug 1944, where 2 Invaders are listed as having been involved in landing accidents at Great Dunmow. The unit they are listed as reads 553 BS, 386 BG. We know from the accounts above that this is the unit that the Project Squadron was attached to, so that fits. We also know that they arrived sometime after 1 Aug, but before 1 Sep, so that fits. And, we also know that the 553rd Bomb Squadron did NOT have any Invaders of its own during this time period, so these two planes are certainly Project Squadron planes. Certain things, such as a plane skidding off the runway into the mud, wouldn't necessarily generate an actual Accident Report as there was no damage to the plane and no personal injury involved, but it may be remembered as an "accident" by people, which could account for some of the discrepancies in Hankey's version of events. Either way, it seems very probable that Project Squadron arrived on 24 Aug 1944.

	Then, there's two other planes listed as being involved in a landing accident at Great Dunmow, an A-~~26B~~ that crash landed on 12 Sep 1944, which corresponds with the Combat Evaluation mission #277 to Scheld, Germany. These too, are listed as 553 BS, 386 BG planes, and are definitely a Project Squadron ~~bird~~.		Looking at what we do know, there are other reports that can help us to identify these planes. The first and most obvious to me is the Accident reports. Both Hankey and Brewster agree that some Invaders crashed during arrival at Great Dunmow, although the accounts seem to differ as to how many. Hankey claims that as many as 6 were damaged in landing. Brewster says "a few". Looking at the accident reports we do find a date - 24 Aug 1944, where 2 Invaders are listed as having been involved in landing accidents at Great Dunmow. The unit they are listed as reads 553 BS, 386 BG. We know from the accounts above that this is the unit that the Project Squadron was attached to, so that fits. We also know that they arrived sometime after 1 Aug, but before 1 Sep, so that fits. And, we also know that the 553rd Bomb Squadron did NOT have any Invaders of its own during this time period, so these two planes are certainly Project Squadron planes. Certain things, such as a plane skidding off the runway into the mud, wouldn't necessarily generate an actual Accident Report as there was no damage to the plane and no personal injury involved, but it may be remembered as an "accident" by people, which could account for some of the discrepancies in Hankey's version of events. Either way, it seems almost certain that Project Squadron arrived on 24 Aug 1944.


			Then, there's two other planes listed as being involved in a landing accident at Great Dunmow, A-26Bs that crash landed on 12 Sep 1944, which corresponds with the Combat Evaluation mission #277 to Scheld, Germany. These too, are listed as 553 BS, 386 BG planes, and are definitely a Project Squadron birds as the 553rs BOMB Squadron still did not have planes of own yet.


	We also know that two different Invaders crashed in landing accidents at Melun on 15 Oct 1944 ~~while~~ both listed as 670 BS, 416 BG. This is noteworthy because the 416th Missions didn't include Invaders until a month later. This is almost certainly a training flight. Based on that alone, it's difficult to say if these are Project Squadron planes, or planes actually assigned to the 416th.		We also know that two different Invaders crashed in landing accidents at Melun on 15 Oct 1944, both listed as 670 BS, 416 BG. This is noteworthy because the 416th Missions didn't include Invaders until a month later. This is almost certainly a training flight. Based on that alone, it's difficult to say if these are Project Squadron planes, or planes actually assigned to the 416th because the 416th did start receiving planes in September.

	==Identifying the Squadron Planes==		==Identifying the Squadron Planes==

WikiSysop: /* Lt. Francis "Sandy" Brewster's Account */

2019-10-17T05:52:31Z

Lt. Francis "Sandy" Brewster's Account

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:52, 17 October 2019
Line 88:		Line 88:
	Roeder continues in his book that he was able to correspond with the last surviving member of Project Squadron, one Lt. Francis "Sandy" Brewster. Brewster was an instructor pilot at Barksdale and was assigned to Project Squadron. According to Brewster, he was never assigned to a B-26 as a co-pilot by anyone. He was also never grounded or court-martialed. Brewster points out that grounding 1 pilot would have required administrative action. Hankey definitely would not have been able to ground 18 pilots on a special assignment merely by a unilateral verbal order. Brewster directly contradicts Hankey's depiction of events - he says that the runways were indeed wet when they arrived at Great Dunmow resulting in several landing accidents that were due to conditions beyond the pilot's control and not due to the pilots ignoring directions from control tower personnel.		Roeder continues in his book that he was able to correspond with the last surviving member of Project Squadron, one Lt. Francis "Sandy" Brewster. Brewster was an instructor pilot at Barksdale and was assigned to Project Squadron. According to Brewster, he was never assigned to a B-26 as a co-pilot by anyone. He was also never grounded or court-martialed. Brewster points out that grounding 1 pilot would have required administrative action. Hankey definitely would not have been able to ground 18 pilots on a special assignment merely by a unilateral verbal order. Brewster directly contradicts Hankey's depiction of events - he says that the runways were indeed wet when they arrived at Great Dunmow resulting in several landing accidents that were due to conditions beyond the pilot's control and not due to the pilots ignoring directions from control tower personnel.

	Records show that after the completion of the combat evaluation, Project Squadron as detached from the 386th Bomb Group, left Great Dunmow and arrived at Station 170 - Wethersfield where they were attached to the 416th BG as a training unit to help that unit convert over to the Invader. The 416th BG began receiving their Invaders in ~~October~~ of 1944.
			Records show that after the completion of the combat evaluation, Project Squadron as detached from the 386th Bomb Group, left Great Dunmow and arrived at Station 170 - Wethersfield where they were attached to the 416th BG as a training unit to help that unit convert over to the Invader. The 416th BG began receiving their Invaders in September of 1944.

	==What We Know==		==What We Know==

WikiSysop: /* Lt. Col. Hankey's Account */

2019-10-17T05:51:08Z

Lt. Col. Hankey's Account

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:51, 17 October 2019
Line 53:		Line 53:
	==Lt. Col. Hankey's Account==		==Lt. Col. Hankey's Account==
	"The Crusaders" book has an excerpt, cited by both Thompson and Roeder, that was written by Lt. Col. Ted Hankey, a commander in the 386th Bomb Group. The excerpt is as follows:		"The Crusaders" book has an excerpt, cited by both Thompson and Roeder, that was written by Lt. Col. Ted Hankey, a commander in the 386th Bomb Group. The excerpt is as follows:


	"I was scheduled to go home in August 1944. Some time around the first of the month Maj Gen Samuel E. Anderson, CO of the Ninth Bombardment Division, called me in and told me that there was a new aeroplane on the way, the A-26, and that it would be assigned to the 386th BG. He asked me to take charge of the unit, which had been trained at Barksdale, and lead them on the first five missions, then I could go home. The squadron was preceded by a Col, who had trained the unit. He was convinced that the A-26 would win the war single-handedly. He told us how it could bomb at medium altitude and strafe. None of us with combat experience in the Marauder believed it, and some very heated arguments ensued, almost ending in a fist fight when the Colonel squared off against Captain Al Hill, one of our lead bombardiers."		"I was scheduled to go home in August 1944. Some time around the first of the month Maj Gen Samuel E. Anderson, CO of the Ninth Bombardment Division, called me in and told me that there was a new aeroplane on the way, the A-26, and that it would be assigned to the 386th BG. He asked me to take charge of the unit, which had been trained at Barksdale, and lead them on the first five missions, then I could go home. The squadron was preceded by a Col, who had trained the unit. He was convinced that the A-26 would win the war single-handedly. He told us how it could bomb at medium altitude and strafe. None of us with combat experience in the Marauder believed it, and some very heated arguments ensued, almost ending in a fist fight when the Colonel squared off against Captain Al Hill, one of our lead bombardiers."

	Taking a moment to unpack this, we can learn a few things. We know from Roeder's book that Project Squadron was commanded by Maj. Howard Burhanna. Military Records show that Howard Burhanna was actually Howard Burhanna, Jr, and that he did eventually ~~retired~~ as a "full-bird" Colonel. It's not clear whether Burhanna was promoted to Lt. Col. at the start of the ETO evaluations and that's whom Hankey is referring to, or if this Colonel is somehow a superior to Burhanna and responsible for the overall testing project. We also learn that the planes didn't arrive at Great Dunmow until after the 1st of August, after spending an unknown amount of time in Prestwick, Scotland. It's not yet clear exactly when the planes arrived at Great Dunmow from here. The narrative continues...
			Taking a moment to unpack this, we can learn a few things. We know from Roeder's book that Project Squadron was commanded by Maj. Howard Burhanna. Military Records show that Howard Burhanna was actually Howard Burhanna, Jr, and that he did eventually retire as a "full-bird" Colonel. It's not clear whether Burhanna was promoted to Lt. Col. at the start of the ETO evaluations and that's whom Hankey is referring to, or if this Colonel is somehow a superior to Burhanna and responsible for the overall testing project. We also learn that the planes didn't arrive at Great Dunmow until after the 1st of August, after spending an unknown amount of time in Prestwick, Scotland. It's not yet clear exactly when the planes arrived at Great Dunmow from here. The narrative continues...


	"The day arrived when we got a call that the squadron had left Prestwick for Great Dunmow. I gave them a few hours and headed over to the tower with their commander to welcome to the 386th. It was a typical English day, with scud blowing around the field at 1500 feet and two layers of overcast above that. It had been raining and the runway was slippery and the Essex mud alongside even worse."		"The day arrived when we got a call that the squadron had left Prestwick for Great Dunmow. I gave them a few hours and headed over to the tower with their commander to welcome to the 386th. It was a typical English day, with scud blowing around the field at 1500 feet and two layers of overcast above that. It had been raining and the runway was slippery and the Essex mud alongside even worse."


	Not much new here. He still doesn't give an exact date. But he infers that the "colonel" from the previous paragraph was Project Squadron's commander, which suggests that it could be Burhanna. The narrative continues...		Not much new here. He still doesn't give an exact date. But he infers that the "colonel" from the previous paragraph was Project Squadron's commander, which suggests that it could be Burhanna. The narrative continues...


	"From the tower we began to pick up their chatter, the essence being, "where the hell are we and where is the field?" I got on the radio on the pre-set frequency and tried to make contact. I never got through to anyone in spite of repeating over and over that they were over our field. Then a couple of them came into our view and entered the traffic pattern. The first one landed long, used too much brake and slid sideways off the runway, across the perimeter track and into the mud. From there it was a complete fiasco. I can't remember the order in which it happened but one ended up in the mud on the right side of the runway about halfway down and perpendicular to it with its nose just over the edge. One landing was so bad that the aeroplane hit the A-26 that was in the mud on the right of the runway with his left wing. He had to have been at least 70 feet out in the mud to have achieved this."		"From the tower we began to pick up their chatter, the essence being, "where the hell are we and where is the field?" I got on the radio on the pre-set frequency and tried to make contact. I never got through to anyone in spite of repeating over and over that they were over our field. Then a couple of them came into our view and entered the traffic pattern. The first one landed long, used too much brake and slid sideways off the runway, across the perimeter track and into the mud. From there it was a complete fiasco. I can't remember the order in which it happened but one ended up in the mud on the right side of the runway about halfway down and perpendicular to it with its nose just over the edge. One landing was so bad that the aeroplane hit the A-26 that was in the mud on the right of the runway with his left wing. He had to have been at least 70 feet out in the mud to have achieved this."


	Lt. Col. Hankey doesn't paint a flattering picture here. Using Occam's Razor, I would guess that if he's trying to talk to 18 planes and none of them can hear him, then there's probably a problem with his transmitter or it's operator error because they seemed to have no trouble in communicating with each other based on his account. But I digress, the narrative continues...		Lt. Col. Hankey doesn't paint a flattering picture here. Using Occam's Razor, I would guess that if he's trying to talk to 18 planes and none of them can hear him, then there's probably a problem with his transmitter or it's operator error because they seemed to have no trouble in communicating with each other based on his account. But I digress, the narrative continues...


	"In the tower we were telling them to go around. We had the landing hut at the end of the runway firing so many flares it looked like the 4th of July! All of this was ignored and in they came. Some hit the bogged aeroplane at the end of the runway, and in all six were damaged, three of which had the glass noses that meant they could be used as lead ships. Needless to say the squadron commander was unimpressed. As the squadron was totally my responsibility, as per General Anderson, I called the A-26 pilots together and grounded the lot. Those that had landed safely I used to check out the 553rd, which was the first squadron to get the A-26s. Then they were given a quick check and used for co-pilots on the B-26s."		"In the tower we were telling them to go around. We had the landing hut at the end of the runway firing so many flares it looked like the 4th of July! All of this was ignored and in they came. Some hit the bogged aeroplane at the end of the runway, and in all six were damaged, three of which had the glass noses that meant they could be used as lead ships. Needless to say the squadron commander was unimpressed. As the squadron was totally my responsibility, as per General Anderson, I called the A-26 pilots together and grounded the lot. Those that had landed safely I used to check out the 553rd, which was the first squadron to get the A-26s. Then they were given a quick check and used for co-pilots on the B-26s."

	Now this is where it starts to get in the realm of perhaps somewhat exaggerated. According to the two paragraphs above, the whole A-26 crew was just completely inept and didn't know how to land their planes or work their radios. It seems unlikely that they would have just completed a trans-Atlantic flight with a damaged radio. And as for the flares being ignored, I'm not aware of a unified set of flare instructions. Being new to the ETO, its possible that the pilots didn't know that the flares meant to abort the landing. Given the adverse weather conditions described previously, they may have thought they were trying to mark the runway for them in the low visibility conditions. But this whole account is called into question. I cannot find evidence to support these claims. Hankey asserts that 6 A-26s were damaged in the landing. The most A-26s that I ever find listed on an accident report in a single day are 2 - Both A-26Bs. Both are reported as being involved in landing accidents on 24 Aug 1944, and both are reported as belonging to the 553rd BS, 386th BG. So, some planes probably did crash, but if it were 6 planes, then where are the rest of the accident reports? Based on the evidence, it seems that Hankey might be slightly exaggerating the landing mishap. Also, Hankey asserts that he grounded the A-26 crews and assigned them as co-pilots to his B-26 Marauders. He wouldn't have the authority to do that. Hankey is a Lt. Col, assigned to the 386th Group. We already know that there is a Colonel (or perhaps a Lt. Col) assigned to Project Squadron as their commander. Hankey wouldn't outrank this person. Furthermore, the Project Squadron was ATTACHED to the 386th BG, not ASSIGNED. That's a huge difference because it means that although the 386th Bomb Group is responsible for logistical needs for the unit, the Project Squadron would remain autonomy in command and wouldn't report to the 386th - they would be independent. The narrative continues...
			Now this is where it starts to get in the realm of perhaps somewhat exaggerated. According to the two paragraphs above, the whole A-26 crew was just completely inept and didn't know how to land their planes or work their radios. It seems unlikely that they would have just completed a trans-Atlantic flight with a damaged radio. And as for the flares being ignored, I'm not aware of a unified set of flare instructions in use during this time period. Being new to the ETO, its possible that the pilots didn't know that the flares meant to abort the landing. Given the adverse weather conditions described previously, they may have thought they were trying to mark the runway for them in the low visibility conditions. But this whole account is called into question. I cannot find evidence to support these claims. Hankey asserts that 6 A-26s were damaged in the landing. The most A-26s that I ever find listed on an accident report in a single day are 2 - Both A-26Bs. Both are reported as being involved in landing accidents on 24 Aug 1944, and both are reported as belonging to the 553rd BS, 386th BG. So, some planes probably did crash, but if it were 6 planes, then where are the rest of the accident reports? Based on the evidence, it seems that Hankey might be slightly exaggerating the landing mishap. Also, Hankey asserts that he grounded the A-26 crews and assigned them as co-pilots to his B-26 Marauders. He wouldn't have the authority to do that. Hankey is a Lt. Col, assigned to the 386th Group. We already know that there is a Colonel (or perhaps a Lt. Col) assigned to Project Squadron as their commander. Hankey wouldn't outrank this person. Furthermore, the Project Squadron was ATTACHED to the 386th BG, not ASSIGNED. That's a huge difference because it means that although the 386th Bomb Group is responsible for logistical needs for the unit, the Project Squadron would remain autonomy in command and wouldn't report to the 386th - they would be independent. The narrative continues...


	"We held five briefings for the A-26s, but due to the weather did not get any of them off. We finally got one off to Brest on 6 September against some strong points as I recall. I reported to Gen Anderson what I had done with the squadron, and that the aeroplane was practically no different to the B-26 in respect to the way that we would use them. He told me to forget the other four missions and go home."		"We held five briefings for the A-26s, but due to the weather did not get any of them off. We finally got one off to Brest on 6 September against some strong points as I recall. I reported to Gen Anderson what I had done with the squadron, and that the aeroplane was practically no different to the B-26 in respect to the way that we would use them. He told me to forget the other four missions and go home."

	This seems to support what we do know of the records. Mission #269 to Brest was the was the first combat evaluation, on 6 Sep 1944. However, it also calls into question his statements in the previous paragraph. If he grounded all of the A-26 pilots, then why would he have 5 separate mission briefings with them? That doesn't make sense.
			This seems to support what we do know of the records. Mission #269 to Brest was the was the first combat evaluation, on 6 Sep 1944. However, it also calls into question his statements in the previous paragraph. If he grounded all of the A-26 pilots, then why would he have 5 separate mission briefings with them? That doesn't make sense.

	==Lt. Francis "Sandy" Brewster's Account==		==Lt. Francis "Sandy" Brewster's Account==

WikiSysop: /* Background */

2019-10-17T05:44:21Z

Background

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:44, 17 October 2019
Line 3:		Line 3:
	The first mention of Project Squadron that I came across was on the Encyclopedia of War website managed by Dr. John Rickard. He mentions that the squadron was evaluation group sent to the European Theater for combat testing and was assigned to the 386th Bomb Group and that the squadron contained 12 A-26B models and 6 A-26C models, for a total of 18 planes. Dr. Rickard's site states that the planes began arriving in August of 1944 and underwent evaluations in September of the same year before being rotated out. I came across several other resources that all more or less stated the same thing, but none provided much more detail than that. I reached out to Dr. Rickard and he informed me that the source of his information was Scott Thompson's wonderful book "Douglas A-26 and B-26 Invader" by Crowood Press.		The first mention of Project Squadron that I came across was on the Encyclopedia of War website managed by Dr. John Rickard. He mentions that the squadron was evaluation group sent to the European Theater for combat testing and was assigned to the 386th Bomb Group and that the squadron contained 12 A-26B models and 6 A-26C models, for a total of 18 planes. Dr. Rickard's site states that the planes began arriving in August of 1944 and underwent evaluations in September of the same year before being rotated out. I came across several other resources that all more or less stated the same thing, but none provided much more detail than that. I reached out to Dr. Rickard and he informed me that the source of his information was Scott Thompson's wonderful book "Douglas A-26 and B-26 Invader" by Crowood Press.

	~~This~~ book does provide some additional information. Thompson's book asserts that a set of A-26s were assigned to Barksdale Army Air Force Base for training. This training occurred between June and July of 1944, and then from there the unit was transferred to the European Theater of Operations (ETO) for combat testing. Thompson asserts that 12 A-26Bs and 6 A-26Cs left the US in Late July and Early August for the 9th Air Force for combat testing. The book states that they arrived as a unit in early August at Great Dunmow, England and were attached to the 386th Bomb Group. He then goes on to state that the first combat missions with the A-26 in Europe was flown on 6 Sep 1944 (Mission #269). 7 more evaluation missions were conducted over the next two weeks, up until the 386th Bomb Group moved to Beaumont-sur-Oise, France, when the Project Squadron was detached from the unit and reassigned elsewhere.
			Scott Thompson's wonderful book does provide some additional information. Thompson's book asserts that a set of A-26s were assigned to Barksdale Army Air Force Base for training. This training occurred between June and July of 1944, and then from there the unit was transferred to the European Theater of Operations (ETO) for combat testing. Thompson asserts that 12 A-26Bs and 6 A-26Cs left the US in Late July and Early August for the 9th Air Force for combat testing. The book states that they arrived as a unit in early August at Great Dunmow, England and were attached to the 386th Bomb Group. He then goes on to state that the first combat missions with the A-26 in Europe was flown on 6 Sep 1944 (Mission #269). 7 more evaluation missions were conducted over the next two weeks, up until the 386th Bomb Group moved to Beaumont-sur-Oise, France, when the Project Squadron was detached from the unit and reassigned elsewhere.


	Thompson lists the following specific missions as part the list of combat evaluations:		Thompson lists the following specific missions as part the list of combat evaluations:
	- #269 - 6 Sep 1944 - Brest, France (Strong Points)		{\| class="wikitable sortable"
	- #272 - 10 Sep 1944 - Nancy, France (Bridge)		!Mission #
	- #274 - 11 Sep 1944 - Metz, Germany (gun positions)		!Date
	- #276 - 11 Sep 1944 - Leeuwarden Aerodrome, Holland		!Target
	- #277 - 12 Sep 1944 - Scheld, Germany (fortifications)		\|-
	- #279 - 14 Sep 1944 - Brest, France (strong points)		\|#269
	- #280 - 16 Sep 1944 - Bergen op Zoom Dike, Holland		\|6 Sep 1944
	- #282 - 19 Sep 1944 - Duren, Germany (Marshalling Yards)		\|Brest, France (Strong Points)
			\|-
			\|#272
			\|10 Sep 1944
			\|Nancy, France (Bridge)
			\|-
			\|#274
			\|11 Sep 1944
			\|Metz, Germany (gun positions)
			\|-
			\|#276
			\|11 Sep 1944
			\|Leeuwarden Aerodrome, Holland
			\|-
			\|#277
			\|12 Sep 1944
			\|Scheld, Germany (fortifications)
			\|-
			\|#279
			\|14 Sep 1944
			\|Brest, France (strong points)
			\|-
			\|#280
			\|16 Sep 1944
			\|Bergen op Zoom Dike, Holland
			\|-
			\|#282
			\|19 Sep 1944
			\|Duren, Germany (Marshalling Yards)
			\|}

	In the book "A-26 Invader Units of WWII" Jim Roeder also discusses Project Squadron. Roeder agrees with Thompson, Project Squadron originated in Barksdale. Roeder provides a new piece of evidence - 18 crews were selected and trained under Special Operations Order #205, Project 3AF JY Class TM 0725 and were formed into the "A-26 Combat Evaluation Project Squadron" - shortened simply to Project Squadron in common vernacular. The Squadron was led by Maj. Howard Burhanna and was comprised of 18 B-26 Marauder instructor crews that were selected and retrained on the Invader.		In the book "A-26 Invader Units of WWII" Jim Roeder also discusses Project Squadron. Roeder agrees with Thompson, Project Squadron originated in Barksdale. Roeder provides a new piece of evidence - 18 crews were selected and trained under Special Operations Order #205, Project 3AF JY Class TM 0725 and were formed into the "A-26 Combat Evaluation Project Squadron" - shortened simply to Project Squadron in common vernacular. The Squadron was led by Maj. Howard Burhanna and was comprised of 18 B-26 Marauder instructor crews that were selected and retrained on the Invader.

	Now, this is where things start to differ. Roeder says that the 18 crews from Barksdale went to Hunter Field, GA to get the Invaders - 12 B-Models and 6 C-Models, which were then flown to Prestwick, Scotland in early August 1944. From there, they went to Air Force Station 164 - Great Dunmow, and attached to the 386th Bomb Group. Now, from here both Roeder and Thompson cite another source as a reference - "The Story of the Crusaders: the 386th Bomb Group (M) in World War II", edited by Barnett B. Young.
			Now, this is where things start to differ. Roeder says that the 18 crews from Barksdale went to Hunter Field, GA to get the Invaders used in the evaluations - 12 B-Models and 6 C-Models, which were then flown to Prestwick, Scotland in early August 1944. From there, they went to Air Force Station 164 - Great Dunmow, and were attached to the 386th Bomb Group. Now, from here both Roeder and Thompson both cite another source as a reference - "The Story of the Crusaders: the 386th Bomb Group (M) in World War II", edited by Barnett B. Young.

	==Lt. Col. Hankey's Account==		==Lt. Col. Hankey's Account==