Criteria for declaring an Aircraft "War Weary "?

What was the criteria involved in declaring an aircraft" War Weary" and pulling  it out of the inventory of air crafts available to fly daily   missions?   Did they become Shop Queens or were they pressed into other services ?

Another use was to strip all armament, armorplate, turrets etc,and use the aircraft as a squadron "hack"....suitable to carry personnel to a rest camp...(15th AAF..rest camp a week stay on the Isle Of Capri), and other trips, where the use of a fully equipped bomber would have meant putting a combat aircraft in use for a ferry trip.

Each squadron in my Group had a squadron "hack"....this explains why towards the end of war, that the 15th put up 1236 bombers (B-17 and B-24) out of a total of some 1280 aircraft...the others were the squadron hacks.
 
Jim :-)

Thanks, capt71, for the informative post!  "War-wearies" seem to come up in various Threads.  Just as Jim mentioned about war-wearies being used as "hacks," so too were war-wearies used as "Assembly Ships."  Here is a section of a Thread dated 10.31.11 from SHAEF1944 in which he describes their use.  "Formation assembly ships did just that. Taking off from England, it was the norm for there to be very much cloud cover, and the individual planes went up through that cloud cover separately. Once above the cloud cover, planes were usually spread out all over, and there might be from hundreds to a thousand or more of them, generally mixed up.  An assembly ship for a particular Group was painted so that all pilots in that Group could not mistake it, and it flew over the assembly area until all the squadron and Group aircraft had found this "rally" formation assembly point and got into formation. These ships were normally " war weary " crafts, stripped of armament, and would drop out of formation and return to base after assembly of the Group."

cody1947

I talked with my Dad's Ground Crew Chief about this & he related that many reasons or avenues were at play for the final decision. Some examples were:
Was maintenance/repair worth time & effort & was the need to repair there: 
      Availability of parts - time factors related to repairs - was there another ship in the system to replace or stand-in for damaged ship or was there one from another unit to reassign for this ship. 
 Mission reports: Crew responses on how the ship performed: how engines & controls responded.
I could go on & on but he said the ultimate decision was made by the commander. On my Dad's ship he said she was off her 117th mission having control problems. When evaluated the commander said to Declare her War Weary because he didn't want to risk a crew based on her performance over her last five missions & besides three new aircraft were enroute to the unit. That was 12 Dec. 1944.

Richard,  Thanks for sharing the informatio and insights from your dad!  Two items struck me in your post: (1) the "final decision" based on "common sense" and the crew's safety made by the Commander (bold print); and (2) the availability of parts, time and/or another replacement ship (bold print).  The 2nd item brought to mind an interview I had several years ago with Ray Betcher who was on the maintenance crew for the "Witchcraft," (he is pictured on the right in the attachment).  Ray said, as you have indicated, that the "availability of parts was always critical, and often times their "parts depot" was made up from "less fortunate" planes." It is easy to understand that the "ware and tear" on individual A/Cs varied due to climate conditions, nature of damage, structural stress along with all the "inflicted damage" and then the ability to find/fab replacement parts.  It is a wonder that there were any early war-wearies at all even "fit" to become hacks and assembly ships!  

After receiving their new B-24J's in late 1943, the 308th Bomb Group kept a working pool of D-model "war wearies" to carry supplies from India over the "Hump" into China.  These aircraft could be the "weariest of the wearies" considering that during their rough combat lives, the planes had to fly three Hump circuits to stockpile enough supplies for a single combat mission.
 
B24copilotniece had sent me a copy of an accident report involving one of the 308th's "retired" B-24s.  After numerous missions and Hump flights, it was assigned to transport duty and was destroyed in a fatal crash in India. The accident report contained pilots' statements such as "the aircraft ... had been termed 'Unhumpable' (not fit for Hump flight duty) due to poor fluorescent lighting, stiff and sluggish control action, and vibrations at low airspeed." After being declared unfit for transport duty, the aircraft was then being used for "night take-off and landing transitioning" -- familiarizing new pilots/crews with flight procedures -- when it crashed. The unflattering descriptions of the aircraft are consistent with what one would expect after it had survived hard combat and transport life during squadron duty, was "retired" to fly the supply lines and then finally downgraded to a practice airplane.
 
 

AlanStarcher
"... B24copilotniece had sent me a copy of an accident report involving one of the 308th's "retired" B-24s.  After numerous missions and Hump flights, it was assigned to transport duty and was destroyed in a fatal crash in India. The accident report contained pilots' statements such as "the aircraft ... had been termed 'Unhumpable' (not fit for Hump flight duty) due to poor fluorescent lighting, stiff and sluggish control action, and vibrations at low airspeed." After being declared unfit for transport duty, the aircraft was then being used for "night take-off and landing transitioning" -- familiarizing new pilots/crews with flight procedures -- when it crashed. The unflattering descriptions of the aircraft are consistent with what one would expect after it had survived hard combat and transport life during squadron duty, was "retired" to fly the supply lines and then finally downgraded to a practice airplane."

Alan, Nice writeup in your post #9!  Having read several books on the CBI and having a friend whose 1st cousin was KIA-MIA while in the CBI Theatre, I recall passages about the extreme dangers "flying the hump."  The last sentence seems to say it all, and for those B-24s which found themselves in this final "retirement position," it just wasn't quite as glarorous as becoming a "hack" or "assembly ship," but certainly necessary!  Thanks for sharing B24copilotniece's comment!

cody1947
Steven,
       Nice color shot of the 379th BG aircraft #41-9100 "Birmingham Blitzkrieg". I have two shots of her on my tribute site but they are B&W.

Richard, Thought I'd throw this one at you also, BUT with a question: Do you know if this had been a recently added"assembly ship," in as much as the "armament is still in place?"  Usually,  this would be one of the items removed, but then again, at least on B-24s as I can't speak for the B-17s.

It is indeed an adapted computer model.
 
The original 41-9100 can be seen with all armament removed in the colourised photo upthread, and the black & white version in this thread: http://forum.armyairforce...eg-419100-m113213.aspx
 
All the best,
PB

I have sent a message to my Dad's Co-Pilot & Ground Crew Cheif about this aircraft to get their imput. There are some doubts about any color photos ever being taken of this ship. I have been told that all or any color photos are or have been altered by computers(?????). I cannot verify this but it does seem a little strange that some of the B&W photos I have of it highly resemble those in color.  I have also heard that it was never sent to the 379th as a combat operational ship & that it was sent there so that the newer aircraft that was being used as a transport could be made combat ready. There was some limited fire power supposedly added to it but not anything a combat aircraft had nor can I verify when or by whom. I understand that it became a VIP transport among other duties. Here is a copy of written testimony of an Airmen who claims to have seen & actually been on this ship:
Here is a testimony of a man has seen this aircraft .

     He stated that on Toulouse mission 25 June 1944 his plane landed in the Channel &:
      "The following day we were picked up by an aircraft and brought back to Kimbolton. The aircraft had white bands around each nacelle and white stripes the length of the fuselage."
   "According to one of the officers, the aircraft was used by permanent personnel for anything deemed appropriate. It had been well modified, had individual seats and was most comfortable. I was told that occasionally this aircraft made booze runs to Scotland".
   "I do not know of it being used as a formation ship, but it sure makes sense to do so. Several times we had difficulty in finding our group. Two aircraft failed to find the formation for above mission”.

Harry S Hurlburt Jr, Bombardier
 
This sounds to me as if the red stripes had not been painted on as of June 1944. I might add that Mr Hurlburt was assigned to the 379th BG until Mid September 1944.