"Base Unit" designation in WWII

[JohnB]

A couple of questions for the WIX braintrust...
I was researching a AT-6F recently purchased by a friend.
Its history on the Baugher site is filled with units that do not appear to be the expected training units....

Two "Base Units"; one called "Redistribution Unit #1",
the other part of the "San Antonio Technical Air Service Command". Neither are at training fields.

Postwar it was assigned to a "Maintenance Squadron" which was part of a " Maintenance and Supply Group".
Finally in 1951, it was assigned to the "Headquarters Squadron" of the Maintenance and Supply Group at Las Vegas/Nellis.

I'm fairly sure the 'Base Groups" translate into station 'Hacks" or proficiency trainers for pilots in non-flying squadron billets.
Anyone here know differently?

Any guesses why a T-6 would be assigned to a Maintenance Squadron...other than a hack being used as a proficiency aircraft?

[quemerford]

AAF Base Unit assignments in my experience often equate to "assigned to this base" and may not reflect a precise unit.

Later it became USAF practice to sometimes pool aircraft under a Maintenance Support Group, Organizational Maintenance Squadron or Consolidated Logistics Maintenance Squadron. I think this was done to make it a more flexible way of allocating aircraft within a parent Group or Wing.

It's also worth noting that some annotations on record cards that relate to ferrying of aircraft are not really assignment in the accepted sense. Thus you get a lot of entries that are just showing that a ferry squadron (ATSC as I recall?) was given the duty of moving it from A to B.

Final fly in the ointment is that sometimes it can be really difficult to decipher record card entries: more than once I have re-visited a record card and realised that I'd transcribed it incorrectly the first time. It also pays to know what to expect when reading a card!

[JohnB]

quemerford

Are you saying a aircraft card might say it was assigned to a "Base Unit" in lieu of a specific Group/Squadron?

Again, its first unit is shown as a Base Unit at Atlantic City(?), hardly a training unit one would expect during the war.

[quemerford]

Can you tell me its identity? If I have the cards I'll take a look.

It's quite possible that the first entry on the record card shows transit locations enroute from manufacturer to final destination. It's not uncommon for a mishap to stall that transit. Quite often these are modification lines too, so it might take a while to get where it's going.

Equally, it's possible it didn't go to a training unit: it might have been a base 'hack', a test aircraft, a general's personal plaything or even surplus to requirement.

[sandiego89]

quemerford

Again, its first unit is shown as a Base Unit at Atlantic City(?), hardly a training unit one would expect during the war.

Not sure what you mean by that, but NAS Atlantic City was a huge training base during WWII training crews for single engine fighters, and continued post-war. Would not be surprised if it was just listed as assigned to the base on the paperwork, not an exact training squadron? Could it have been a Navy AT-6? Navy practice may have been different for AAF. The AT-6 was used by both the Navy and AAF.

[JohnB]

It doesn't appear to be a Navy asset. It has a AAF serial and not a BuNo.
All of its subsequent history is AAF/USAF.

Last edited by JohnB on Mon Aug 26, 2024 12:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[JohnB]

Can you tell me its identity? If I have the cards I'll take a look.

Its serial is: 44-81693.

Thanks, I appreciate your help.
All I know is what is on the Baugher site which does not show a clean cut training base history I was expecting.

[quemerford]

Can you tell me its identity? If I have the cards I'll take a look.

Its serial is: 44-81693.

All I know is what is on the Baugher site which does not show a clean cut training base history I was expecting.

I took a look at Baugher's site and the initial data looks completely wrong. This is what the record cards say (first two cards):

NA AT-6F s/n 44-81693
Project Del-5029 cancelled
Project Dom-3009 cancelled
Project Dom-3022
Accepted 16Feb45
Available 16Feb45
Delivered 20Feb45
Available 18Feb45; delayed at Dallas (weather); departed 21Feb45
Arrived Texarkana 21Feb45
Arrived Bowman Field 23Feb45; assigned to 1077th AAF Base Unit
Assigned 4122nd AAF Base Unit Hensley Field 31Jan46
Available for South Plains storage 21Feb46
Arrived South Plains 4168th AAF Base Unit 04Mar46
Assigned to 4121st AAF Base Unit Kelly AAF 30Jun47 (storage)
Redesignated T-6F 01Jul48
Assigned from AMC to Training Command 15Oct48 (Project TRC-3)
Assigned to 3555th BPT Wg Perrin AFB xxxx48 (exact date is indistinct)
Assigned to 3595th PTW Las Vegas AFB 24Feb49
Assigned to 3500th PTW Reese AFB 17Jul50
Assigned to 3395th PTW Nellis 10Jul51

So it was at Bowman Field for a year from February 1945. From 1951 onwards it seems to tie-in with the Nellis info on Baugher's site.

[aerovin]

There should be a station number next to the Atlantic City entry that may nail down the actual assignment. The source I have (Mann's book) does not show an associated Atlantic City army station.

[quemerford]

There was no Atlantic City assignment.

[JohnB]

quemerford

Many thanks for your help with this.
I have provided the information to the new owner.
Now he has not only its history but something to go by when he eventually repaints it.

As you said, the Baugher site history was way off...so no Atlantic City.

[quemerford]

I PM'd you the record cards just in case they are of use. Glad to have helped!

[JohnB]

I PM'd you the record cards just in case they are of use. Glad to have helped!

Thank you, I sent those as well.