Mosquito Individual Code letter

[Mancunian airman]

I am just about to start a build concerning a Mosquito lost during the night of 17th May 1943.

Mosquito DZ712 flew with 151 Squadron and the units codes were 'DZ'

The individual letter is unknown but I wonder if such a letter was even allocated ? I have the impression that the aircraft wasn't ON the squadron very long before its loss ?

Does anybody know of squadron records or aircraft history of the Mosquito types where I might find details of the individual letter ?

 

Any help or pointers would very much be appreciated

Ian

[GordonM]

Someone on here posted a list of s/n / codes of all known Mosquito aircraft, unfortunately DZ712 isn't listed, along with DZ714. Whether as you surmise it didn't last long enough to get a code, or simply isn't listed I have no idea. I do know whoever compiled the list had used every source possible and spent a very long time on it, so if they didn't source a code I'm not sure it's possible to find out. Sorry I'm not more help.

[Ossington 2]

I've just looked up the relevant pages on the ORB. See 'Discovery' the TNA website. AIR27/1021/8 and 9. I didn't pay for the pdf's, but it's plain to see between the boxes that they didn't note down any individual aircraft letters.  Handwritten, they list lots of serial numbers but NO individual letters. I would have thought that if something was painted onto the airframe, it would have been used as an identifier. Why would someone go out of their way not to record something? Was it mandatory to use codes?

[JasonC]

13 minutes ago, Ossington said:

Was it mandatory to use codes?

 

I believe so. Many ORB's exhibit the same characteristic. The reason, I presume, was that over time a number of aircraft would have used the same code letter, wheras the serial was unique. Doubtless it would have been more complete to record both, but clearly nobody had a modeller's interests at heart!

 

J.

[mhaselden]

1 hour ago, Ossington said:

Why would someone go out of their way not to record something? Was it mandatory to use codes?

 

Because completing the F540 was a secondary duty for some poor officer who probably had enough on their plate with their "day job" let alone spending hours recording information that, to them, was of little value.  This also accounts for the variability between records, even within the same squadron.  One officer would be diligent and record lots of detail while another would jot down the bare minimum. 

 

Op tempo also had an impact - recording the F540 becomes a very low priority if you're flying rate is high.  Records also went in abeyance due to the localized operational environment - it's tough to maintain any records when you're fighting for your life, hence why records for the fighting in France in 1940, Greece in 1941 and the Far East in late-41/early-42 are so scarce.  The 151 Sqn records probably don't fall into the latter categories but the issue of different authors who documented activities in different levels of detail is absolutely pertinent. 

 

The comment about different serials wearing the same code letter is also relevant.  Aircraft being rebuilt by MUs or actually lost on operations would be removed from a squadron's equipment list and the individual code would be reassigned to a new airframe.

[RJP]

Because it was the serial number that counted, really the surest way to keep track of an airframe.  The code letter, while interesting after the fact, would not have had much relevance to getting the work done.  

 

This is not limited to air force units either.  My wife has just finished tracking her great grandfather's service in WW I and she noted the wide variation in the paperwork detail between battalions.  

[Graham Boak]

This raises the point about the value of the individual letter, particularly on night operations.  Operationally it would seem to have been to be of little use outside of quick recognition in day fighting.  For larger aircraft, it has a benefit in communicating by radio, it being easier to send a single letter rather than a serial - which would be of some intelligence value to the enemy.  Fighters would use colour codes for sections and numbers anyway.  It makes life easier on the blackboard in the Ops room (or wherever such was placed) - tonight we are sending out C, J and M.  It would be a morale factor for the ground crew, who would normally be attached to a single letter, following a one-for-one replacement.  It's a morale boost for the higher ranked/more successful pilot - I always fly D, it's my lucky letter.  It's a bit easier for the pilot/crew going out to find their allocated aircraft among a widely-dispersed group of identical ones.  It's a bit easier for those on the ground to identify returning aircraft a little quicker.

 

Perhaps there wasn't a single good reason but a collection of smaller ones, hinging around security, identification and  morale.

 

PS perhaps it's simply a lot easier, under normal unit operations, to refer to aircraft by a single letter than rattle off a serial with all the possibilities of error and confusion.  It does seem to have been one WW2 habit that has lasted, so it must have considerable value in practice.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Graham Boak

[Grey Beema]

It was the Serial that was used to identify airframes.  During the life of an aircraft it could be issued to many different squadrons and carry many different ID letters.  The only thing consistant about its ID was the Serial.  

 

Having said that, some pilots recorded the aircraft ID letter in their log books, so it might be worth trying to get hold of a number of Squadron pilot Log Books to see if any identified the airframe..

[Ossington 2]

That's the awkward bit. Who has got a log-book? How do we get a shufti? Occasionally I've asked to view those where location and or squadron coincide with my interests, and usually the ones held by next of kin, not the airman (they never refuse) but some think that letting me take notes somehow devalues something that they think is on par with Tutankhamen's mask. As a teenager, I fondly assumed that the National Archives had all the engineering reports to all the squadrons, photos galore etc., (both sides of course) but something simple as serial/code tie-ins still defy.

[Bengt]

The aircrafts letter (A, B, C........) was used by the flying controll at the aerodeome. It was also used, as already mentioned, by the ground crew and the flying personell because it was much more easy then "NF316, LN762......" and so on. That's why there was only one aircraft "A"  at the squadron at any given time. Some squadron ORB have only the aircraft letter with no mention of the serial number. They are almost impossible to get the tie-up between the serial number and the code because other documents like Squdron appendices, RAF staion ORBs and appendices, Group ORBs and appendices, Command ORBs and appendices normaly gives the aircraft letter. By cross checking the squadron ORB with these documents I've been able to tie-up serial number with aircraft letter. Sometimes the often overlooked squadron appendices gives away both! A win/win situation! The problem with all the mentioned documents except the squadron appendices are that they are not digitized and you have to visit the National Archive or order them as paper- or digitized copies (expensive).  

 

Bengt