Meeting production metrics is more important than quality. You can hand out some Six Sigma buttons and everything will be fine.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Meeting production metrics is more important than quality. You can hand out some Six Sigma buttons and everything will be fine.If you knew anything about the level of quality control that existed in India at the time you would think twice about that thought
Yep, they got a train load of Hawk 75 kits (manufactured by Curtiss in the US) that were evacuated from China. Somewhere between 40 something and low 50s kits were on the train in addition to tools and machinery needed to complete the kits. India completed less than 10(?).India built a handful of P-36's under license before the decision was made to concentrate on repair/overhaul of other aircraft. If they had gone into full scale production, they could have been producing thousands of P-36's by 1944. They also could have taken over Curtiss-Wright technical support with an Indian phone call center.
Indeed, I'd take a hundred roughshod T-34s over a dozen superbly engineered and (assuming no slave labour) excellently assembled Panzerkampfwagen V Panthers.Meeting production metrics is more important than quality. You can hand out some Six Sigma buttons and everything will be fine.
100 T-34s would be a lot more expensive than 12 Panthers. In fact, I doubt if there is much difference in the unit price between both tanks.Indeed, I'd take a hundred roughshod T-34s over a dozen superbly engineered and (assuming no slave labour) excellently assembled Panzerkampfwagen V Panthers.
I think you second statement is definitely wrong.100 T-34s would be a lot more expensive than 12 Panthers. In fact, I doubt if there is much difference in the unit price between both tanks.
In the case of aircraft production, I would imagine that it is just as cost effective and cheap to build an aircraft with exemplary quality control as it is to build it with poor quality control - was an F4U Corsair built in a more cost effective manner when it was put together by Brewster than when it was being built by Vought?
I've worked mod programs on 30-40 year old transport aircraft and we uncovered a lot of poor workmanship when disassembling major structure. One old mechanic said "This has been flying for years without a problem. Why do you want everything to be so perfect?" I said "We caught it just in the nick of time." and he got a good laugh out of that. Outside of high stress areas of the wing, you can get away with a lot of bad work. If you expect the airplane to be destroyed within a year, quality is even less important. We had a program where none of the management had experience on the aircraft and very few first line supervisors or workers had any experience. All that mattered was meeting schedule and the Air Force Program Office cooperated because they weren't competent to manage the program but knew that they would look bad if the program fell behind schedule.I think you second statement is definitely wrong.
I worked on a GM production line for a while, at Tarrytown, NY.
When GM wanted to increase production, they would lay off some quality inspectors.
People on a production line can get pretty sloppy if you don't keep a check on them, you'll end up with a lot of hidden faults, if you just inspect the final product.
Plus if you take the time to check on unit prices T-34 verses Panther, I think you'll find a great deal of difference.
That's even with the German production using a lot of slave labor, which kept prices low.
In 1939-42 a lot of people/countries might have wanted more Hawk 75s (not P-36s) and P-40s.
By 1943 The US considered them trainers and by 1944 no body wanted them and production stopped.
So time period is important. They made about 4250 P-40s in 1943, they only made 2002 in 1944. Had the US wanted them they could have made thousands more in 1944 and a few thousand more in 1945 but they were pretty much scrap metal in 1945 even before the war ended.
To get more in 1941-43 you need a second factory (or two) for the airframes and one or more factories for the engines. From the original post " The 'zero sum' 'rule' should be used - cancel or don't make something else so the resources are available......"
The easiest way to get more P-40s is to make fewer P-39s
2nd easiest way is to make fewer P-38s.
But that approach certainly doesn't do much for America's fighter situation in general.
Which leaves converting one or more bomber factories and using radial engines for some sort of Hawk 75/radial P-40 Hybrid.
ANd a single stage R-1830/R-1820 really isn't that good a plane once you stick in armor, self sealing tanks, better armament (unless you are happy with six .30 cal guns) beef up the structure accordingly.
No Allison P-40 was as fast or climbed as well as any contemporary P-39. A Merlin P-40F/L had about the same performance as a P-39D/F/K/L but not nearly as good as a P-39N. A clean (no drop tank) P-40E/K could just barely reach 20000'. A P-40 was a dangerous airplane when it had top cover, but alone it was always looking up at its opponents.This is a bit exaggerated. Of course you can take into consideration the production lag, but by 1943 the P-40 was the primary US fighter in the MTO (equipping 5 fighter groups by the middle of that year) and it was the primary land-based fighter in the Pacific and China as well. In other words all three Theaters where the US was active. P-40s were still important for the RAF / DAF all the way through 1943 and in Russia also. The Hawk 75 or P-36 (whatever you want to call it) was still being used in Burma through 1944.
By the time of Anzio (Jan-June 1944) the P-40 was still one of the most important US fighter types in Italy, was still in heavy use by the British as a fighter-bomber, and remained a critical front line fighter and fighter-bomber type in China / Burma, and was still on the front line in the Pacific especially in the hands of the Australians and New Zealanders.
There were also considerably less capable types active in these Theaters including the P-39 and the Hurricane.
So on that basis I'd say there was still considerable demand for more P-40s through the middle of 1944, and in Tertiary Theaters, (Burma) the Hawk 75 was still somewhat in demand.
However timing would be key, because it's true there was very little demand for either by the very end of the war. Accounting for production lag (maybe 3-6 months?) there was probably demand through the middle of 1943.
I would say you could steal some (maybe half) P-39 production and North American Hurricane production, as well as (more controversially perhaps) in Britain, as well as some production capacity in Australia from the wirraway etc.
The combat history of the P-39 was bad in the MTO, fair to mediocre in the Pacific, and marginal in Burma. If you compare US kill claims in those Theaters,
P-40s accounted for 592 in the MTO, 660 in the PTO, and 973 in the CBI, for a total of 2225.
P-39 / P-400 accounted for 25 in the MTO, 288 in the PTO and 5 in the CBI, for a total of 320.
Clearly the P-40 was more useful for the USAAF, and you can extend that to our new Allies in the Med like the French and Italians who lost many pilots to accidents in the P-39s and had little luck with them.
However the P-39 was quite useful for the Soviets, so every one shipped to Russia was probably worth building. Same for the P-63. So I'd say stop production of the P-39s going to US, Free French or Aviazione Cobelligerante Italiana units, and redirect whatever capacity that left over to build P-40s, or P-47s or Mustangs... but keep making the ones which got sent to Stalin.
They were producing quite a few Hurricanes in Canada, and many of those got Merlin XX or equivalent engines. The engines alone would have definitely been much more useful in P-40s and far more in demand both by the Americans and by the Brits, had they been available, because that would have easily meant another 700+ P-40F or L models which were definitely in demand in the MTO through mid 1944. I gather making a Hurricane is easier and less demanding of materials (alluminum alloy) than a P-40 so I don't know how efficiently that production could have been adjusted. From what I gather few of those Canadian Hurricanes made it into combat, and some of them may have been used for things P-40s probably couldn't do (i.e. Catapult fighters or Sea Hurricanes).
I would not cut P-38 production in favor of P-40s, in spite of all the problems with the early P-38s, because they were still useful particularly in the Pacific (but they claimed 1431 kills in the MTO as well).
Anyway, that's my $.02 on this one.
This is a bit exaggerated. Of course you can take into consideration the production lag, but by 1943 the P-40 was the primary US fighter in the MTO (equipping 5 fighter groups by the middle of that year) and it was the primary land-based fighter in the Pacific and China as well. In other words all three Theaters where the US was active. P-40s were still important for the RAF / DAF all the way through 1943 and in Russia also. The Hawk 75 or P-36 (whatever you want to call it) was still being used in Burma through 1944.
By the time of Anzio (Jan-June 1944) the P-40 was still one of the most important US fighter types in Italy
I would say you could steal some (maybe half) P-39 production and North American Hurricane production, as well as (more controversially perhaps) in Britain, as well as some production capacity in Australia from the wirraway etc.
Not much of an exaggeration. The production/shipping lag explains quite a bit. The rest can be explained by projected production figures.
There is also a large difference between still doing useful work and being the fighter of choice.
At some point in 1943 the US Army decided that no NEW fighter groups would be formed using P-40s as equipment and that existing P-40 Groups in combat theaters would be re-equipped as supplies of P-47s and P-51s allowed. P-40s were sent to training schools, sent to allies under lend lease, which is how it wound up flying for something like 28 countries.
P-40s were also sent sent overseas to combat units already equipped with P-40s to keep up strength While new units were equipped with P-38s, P-47s and P-51s. As I already said, as supplies of the better fighters improved it was planned to convert the existing P-40 fighter groups to the newer types.
Since you mentioned it. Production of the 4 types of fighters from Jan through June of 1944.
type...................P-40..........................P-38......................P-47.............................P-51
Jan....................275.............................317.......................651................................370
Feb...................241.............................313.......................633................................380
March.............283.............................352.......................648.................................482
April................203..............................342.......................623.................................407
May.................200..............................352......................601..................................580
Jun....................73...............................355.......................600.................................581
The peak month for production of the P-40 was Aug of 1943 with 463 built, so the low numbers in 1944 don't have anything to do with production capacity.
The P-40 may have been a very important fighter (or fighter bomber) in Italy in the first 1/2 of 1944 but it was NOT what the Generals wanted to be using if they could get other aircraft.