Talk:Avro Manchester

207 squadron had 80 aircraft on strength?

The article quotes Bowyer's 1974 book as giving a barely believable '80' aircraft for on strength for 207 squadron by the end of 1940. This is out of a total production of 202. This sounds more like the total strength for the whole RAF, not just one squadron.

It is clear that 207 had the first pick of early Manchesters, to the extent that in the ten months ending 14th January 1942 they lost 17 aircraft whilst all the other RAF units only lost 10 aircraft between them. And yes I specifically chose 14th January as the cut-off, because immediately after that the tide turned with 61 squadron losing seven in the space of the following five weeks. Meanwhile 207 losses fell away to almost zero, maybe because they were taken out of front-line duties to recover?

• Firstly, AFAIK normal squadron strength was 12 serviceable aircraft with another 4 in reserve.
• The squadron code 'EM' could only support a maximum of 26 aircraft, from 'EM-A' to 'EM-Z', assuming they even used all 26 letters of the alphabet.
• Against this, 207 is the only squadron identified as using the Manchester through until February 1941. So, if around 80 Manchesters had in fact rolled off the production line, where were they and who 'owned' them?

Obviously, as individual aircraft were lost, code letters were re-assigned to new aircraft when they arrived, leading to some very 'unlucky' combinations that nobody really wanted to fly. For example aircraft coded EM-R were shot down twice in quick succession. But 80 aircraft at one squadron is simply way too many. Before I attach a {{dubious}} template, is there a sensible explanation?

WendlingCrusader (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

See resolution below. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Serious error in numbers of Mk.1s (i.e. with triple tail)

The article states that only 20 Mark 1s were built, but this is blatantly wrong.

I believe a much larger total of 173 (out of 202) were built first time around as Mk.1s with a triple tail, of which 43 are known to have subsequently been converted to Mk.1a twin-tail standard, presumably returning to the factory for re-working. The article notes that operational strength was often reduced whilst individual aircraft returned to Avro for various modifications.

Do I have a specific source to back this up this 173 - er, not one that Wikipedia is likely to accept. And Wikipedia makes it clear that it prefers a bona-fide verifiable source to the actual truth, but bear with me anyway, please.

If we believe that only the first 20 aircraft were Mk.1s with triple tails, we would expect these to bear the serials L7276 to L7295. So kindly explain the existence of photographs on the internet, such as;

• L7319 EM-X 207 sqdn (the first to be lost in combat)
• L7380 EM-W 207 sqdn, subject of numerous photos taken by the Germans after it crash-landed on mud-flats near Ameland, Holland, September 1941
• L7382 OF-J 97 sqdn
• L7427 OL-Q 83 sqdn
• R5784 VN- ? 50 sqdn

All of the above are shown with triple tails, and are therefore Mk1s, not Mk.1a. But the serial range goes way beyond the first 20 off the production line. I also have the serials of the 43 aircraft converted to Mk.1a standard, and they cover a wide serial range too. Plus you cannot start with just 20 Mk.1, and then arrive at 43 conversions to Mk.1a.

The clincher; if the twin tail was introduced on the production line as early as suggested, why did the much later Lancaster prototype, the Manchester Mk.III, go back to a triple-tail? It does not compute!

I do not have access to any of the original sources, but I wonder if at least some of them might have covered these points, but it somehow got lost in translation en-route to the Wikipedia article. I am guessing that the first 20 are indeed different in some way, but not in the way stated in this article.

Meanwhile, don't worry, I'm not editing the article on the basis of mere facts. I know enough to leave it just as it is. Happy landings!

WendlingCrusader (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The value is eight, not 80. It was inserted in this edit. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)