Daz,
I think your last sentence is probably closer to the truth than might at first seem plausible.
Aircraft maintenance was not an exact science by any means, although maintenance 'intervals' were specified. In wartime, the added components were the loss of an aircraft and the physical damage which could be inflicted on an aircraft which returned from operations and which required to be repaired before the aircraft could continue in use.
Some damage eg patching holes in the skins, replacing engines without colateral damage, could be done at unit level and reasonably quickly but other damage would require the aircraft to be sent away to a specialist repair facility. In some cases the aircraft might be flown away but in others it might have to be broken down (hence, something called the 'transportation joint', where and aircraft could be 'naturally' broken apart).
The practice remains to this day with 'rectification' of faults and 'scheduled' or 'preventive' maintenance being carried out periodically.
Aircraft would be 'handed down' to lower level units when cast off by operational squadrons and the pace of wartime developments meant this was a more rapid process than might otherwise have been the case. Furthermore, new 'Marks' of aircraft appeared fairly regularly, whereas now the air vehicle is lilkely to be enhanced and updated rather than physically replaced by a newer version.
I have heard it said that some bomber types were manufactured against standards of construction which actually assumed that they would not or were unlikely to reach a stage where deep maintenance was required. Basically, aircraft became obsolete or obsolescent, more rapidly. Of course, at the war's end some aircraft were flown direct from the manufacturer to a salvage unit where they were immediately broken up and smelted down (Halifax at Childs Ercal). The rationale here being that you couldn't just stop all production without crippling the manufacturer
May I suggest that you accept that logic was not the prime driver in this process and for every example you can cite for one course of action, there will be a contra example! One could lose an awful lot of sleep, I feel, trying to ascribe any rules to the process!
Colin Cummings
Bookmarks