Thumpalumpacus
Lieutenant Colonel
Morale matters.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Military people are not 8 year old girls or boys. Their happiness is not a thing.
Men and machines of the 8th AF + their accomplished missions + the earlier attrition of the LW trumps the hurt feelings of the RAF recon units' men.Morale matters.
Men and machines of the 8th AF + their accomplished missions + the earlier attrition of the LW trumps the hurt feelings of the RAF recon units' men.
Photo recon needs of the Combined Bombing Offensive for the targets beyond Ardenes and before Summer of 1944 were mostly covered by the PR Spitfires and Mosquitoes, and later by the PR Merlin Mustangs and Lightnings. Not by the tac-R Mustang Is.Without good recon people bombed the wrong things or areas.
Recon planes were not supposed to fight, they were supposed to get the photos back to base.
Okay, lets list the happiness cases. Increased happiness:I didn't say it was decisive. Your claim that happiness in the ranks is irrelevant, however, is far from the truth.
They bombed a lot of targets in Belgium, Holland and France. Many times as "training" for the bomber crews before they did the German missions. And building up target files for the later transportation (railroad/barge) missions.
Okay, lets list the happiness cases. Increased happiness:
- for the bomber crews and their commanding officers, for the USAAF directly, and for the RAF BC indirectly
- for the fighter pilots, that have a machine that is decidedly superior to what the LW is flying, and can reach into Germany proper
- for the other Allied servicemen (including the tac-R pople), that will have less to worry from the Germans due to the earlier attrition of the LW and earlier successful bombing of Axis Europe
- for the civilians that will want for the war to end as soon as possible
In the another corner, we have the decreased happiness of the tac-R folks because the aircraft they deemed the best is taken away and replaced with something they don't rate to be as good.
I choose the 1st paragraph.
Please note that I was not commenting on morale, but on happiness.Again, I didn't say morale was decisive. I pointed out that it matters. You wrote "Their happiness is not a thing." Consideration of morale is a priority in most militaries precisely because soldiers and airmen and sailors who get shitty food, who get no mail, who have to risk their lives in crummy equipment, who have to suffer under shitty leadership, are unhappy, and don't fight as well.
I'm not arguing about the Mustang or Tac-R. I'm pointing out that morale matters.
Please note that I was not commenting on morale, but on happiness.
You don't think that having means to take the air war to Germany proper in 1943 via the escorted bombers is good? Odd.You don't think happiness is part of morale? What an odd point of view.
You don't think that having means to take the air war to Germany proper in 1943 via the escorted bombers is good? Odd.
The supposed efficiency of Willow Run is a myth. I have posted on this previouslyPeople don't seem to like my post here. Production oriented automotive firms were not impressed with the documentation and organization of aerospace companies. This is true of Ford and England and Packard of USA making Rolls Royce engines, and it is true of Ford of USA when they manufactured Consolidated B24s. I am an old mechanical designer, and I am proud of my drafting skills. I don't hesitate to tell people that my drawings are better than everyone else's
Here is the Merlin production from one of Bill Gunston's books...
Plant Production Rolls Royce Derby 32,377 Rolls Royce Crewe 26,065 Rolls Royce Glasgow 23,647 Ford in Manchester 30,428 Packard in Detroit (V-1650) 55,523
Rolls Royce and Consolidated made lots of Merlin engines and B24 Liberators. Did they do it as efficiently as the automotive firms?
This a bit off topic, but I am curious about how they managed to build 11,462 Vickers Wellingtons. In the 1930s, the geodetic construction was considered to be too expensive for civilian use, and only suitable for the military. A lot of work was put into making it manufacturable. There is a great documentary about building a Wellington in 24 hours, but the geodetic construction is pre-fabricated.
I guess that depends on what we mean by mass production. Packard was all over the place in 1930s so we can pick and choose what suits our own argument.Packard was not a mass producer of automobiles, they were luxury make similar to Roll Royce.
"Ask the man who owns one."So is Packard a mass producer of automobiles or not?
An automatic trunk closure switch would have been a great idea.My Sergeant in the prop shop USAF Res had one of two 1938 Packard mother in law coupes made. It was a closed coupe, no back seat, the mother in law seat as usual opened from the trunk. Communication from the rear to front was through the rear window which could only be rolled down from in side the car. Seemed like a great idea which could be useful for wives who like to give directions. I just can't figure why they only made two. I've never seen that exact format in other manufacturer's products. A lost business opportunity.
Actually Packard built over 370,000 cars in that time frame.I guess that depends on what we mean by mass production. Packard was all over the place in 1930s so we can pick and choose what suits our own argument.
Packard production in 1930-39 varied from a low of 4800 (production and sales are not equal in the early part of the 30s) to a high of of over 122,500 (1937) but the US recession of 1938-39 saw Packard production fall to under 25% in 1939.
Now compared to Ford or Chevrolet or Dodge that is certainly not large but Rolls-Royce only made around 8300-8500 cars total from 1930 to 1939.
So is Packard a mass producer of automobiles or not?
Packard built over 230,000 cars in 1935-39.
I forgot to attach the article I took the Packard production table from.Actually Packard built over 370,000 cars in that time frame.
View attachment 855454
Packard was building 50,000 cars a year until the great depression hit. I don't think anyone considered that mass production.
370,000 pales in comparison to what the big three are doing in that time frame. When Packard hits its peak in 1937 is is still half the size of each of Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Buick and those three are sharing bodies and other parts. Ford and Chevrolet are an order of magnitude above Packard as is the combination of Plymouth and Dodge. Outside of the Big Three I don't consider the other auto companies to be mass producers.
View attachment 855457
I have attached the full spreadsheet this was based on. Willys and Hudson were the only manufacturers outside of the Big 3 to exceed 200,000 units a year which they did in the late 20's.
As to the comparison to Rolls Royce I would reiterate that Roll Royce had become an aircraft engine company with a small portion of the firm devoted to cars. It had somewhat more employees than Packard in 1940 and was producing more large aircraft engines that any other firm at that time.
As an interesting aside here's how Packard built bodies in the 1920s
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bepiCejrfHc
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnpFXdOpSTw#ddg-play
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkxuZZlPjsI