An even greater inter-Allied cooperation on the technical & tactical matter?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Military people are not 8 year old girls or boys. Their happiness is not a thing.

Morale matters.

 

[tomo pauk]

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.

 

[Shortround6]

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.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

I didn't say it was decisive. Your claim that happiness in the ranks is irrelevant, however, is far from the truth.

 

[tomo pauk]

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.

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.

 

[tomo pauk]

I didn't say it was decisive. Your claim that happiness in the ranks is irrelevant, however, is far from the truth.

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.

 

[Shortround6]

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.

 

[tomo pauk]

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.

There is whole 1943 for the Allies to make more recon Spitfires (both PR and FR) to cover the short range tasks. Including the Griffon II powered ones. With LW fighters having their hands full with Mustang X and the bombers East of Ardenes, as well as with Typhoons, Spitfires and P-47s (these once available) covering the shorter ranges, there will be far less LW fighter available to contest the recce Spits.

There is also a good deal of 1944 to improve upon that, including the greater availability of the Mustang airframes and whole fighters.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

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.

 

[tomo pauk]

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.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Please note that I was not commenting on morale, but on happiness.

You don't think happiness is part of morale? What an odd point of view.

 

[tomo pauk]

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.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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 difference is that you literally wrote what I attributed to you, but here you're busy erecting a straw-man, because I never wrote that "taking the air-war to Germany proper in 1943 is a bad thing".

Go back and reread this exchange. I won't waste any more time on this crap. You either understand my point or you don't; you can either acknowledge it or you cannot, for whatever reasons of your own.

Go back and read what I wrote ... this time for comprehension and not argumentation.

*plonk*

 

[Reluctant Poster]

People 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.

The supposed efficiency of Willow Run is a myth. I have posted on this previously

B24 ceiling vs. B17 ceiling

The B-24 was not easy to produce, that is one of the great myths of WWII. It was actually more expensive that the B-17. Add in the fact that it required much more modification than the B-17 to make it combat ready and the $60,000,000 estimated cost of losses in training and it becomes even more...

ww2aircraft.net

Consolidated took less man hours to build a B-24 than Ford until the mid point of 1944 when production was being cut back. Note that Consolidated also had the burden of producing specialized versions of the B-24.

Packard was not a mass producer of automobiles, they were luxury make similar to Roll Royce. They were actually slightly smaller than Rolls Royce at the beginning of the war. I have posted on this before:

An interesting read about the Packard built Merlin engine.

I have read that article before and agree that it is better than most I have read this article in the past. The author makes some good points, but I have to disagree with his characterization of Packard “operating at a scale that dwarfed Rolls Royce.”. As I have noted in the past Packard had...

ww2aircraft.net

 

[Shortround6]

Packard was not a mass producer of automobiles, they were luxury make similar to Roll Royce.

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.

 

[SaparotRob]

So is Packard a mass producer of automobiles or not?

"Ask the man who owns one."

 

[special ed]

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.

 

[Frog]

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.

An automatic trunk closure switch would have been a great idea.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

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.

Actually Packard built over 370,000 cars in that time frame.

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.

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

 

[Reluctant Poster]

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

I forgot to attach the article I took the Packard production table from.