Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Every human activity is improved with practice, there is no doubt more practice would have improved things but a lack of foresight and practice is not evidence of a criminal conspiracy. In 1944 the USAAF was sending out raids of 1000 bombers plus escorts from UK. They didnt have 1000 bombers in USA or any escorts in 1941. Germany declared war on the USA and the US responded there is only so long that any military force can say to their leader "we are not ready yet, just another few months practice"The part about faulty airspeed procedures causing the groups to be spread out starts in the 49th minute. He flat out says that no one thought of this problem previously. That tells me that in peace time they didn't do sufficiently realistic practice missions.
What that map shows and represents is a huge effort on the ground just for form up.Every 8th AF Bomb Group had it own designated form up area where the various Group boxes could form up before departing for the target area, when Groups would form into Wings and Divisions
View attachment 766214
Form up was aided by multi-coloured unarmed formation ships like these.
Assembly Ships of the Eighth Air Force | Classic Warbirds
Introduced during 1943 these brightly painted aircraft were used to help B-17s and B-24s get into formation safely. Includes images of 6 aircraft.www.classicwarbirds.co.uk
Congratulations on your experience flying around EU, and thanks for not banning me in spite of multiple negative comments. I've agreed weather doesn't need to be a TS/TRW to cause problems.I'm well aware of how weather effects flying in Europe. I have years of experience doing it over Germany. As I already stated in a previous post, it does not need to be a Thunderstorm to cause a diversion.
As for not performing sufficient practice missions, I don't think that is necessarily the case. strategic bombing was a relatively new thing, we were still figuring it out.
Why is challenging your challenge emblematic, nonproductive, or argumentative? It's not. That is how debate take place. Sometimes you come to an agreement, sometimes you don't. But without discussion, there is no opportunity.
bloody hell, i cant tell if your paranoid or not paranoid enough !
what the hell are you going on about with coded signals, really ?
no member advocated banning you, i said why should you be banned or your posts deleted, just because you have a different opinion,.
yes i was posting about you, the guy who i was defending from another member who does think you were trolling.
but i am now getting irritated at the snide comments and jibes in your replies, so please stop them.
I appreciate the open minded-ness of the mods very much. If it were not so, I would be gone already. Thanks for those two pages, I appreciate the commitment to open debate and acceptance of differing opinions of non experts.Yeah, I'm not even going to respond anymore. The thinly vailed rude jibes are rather annoying after we literally just spent two pages defending him. I'm done.
I wouldn't call drgondog a non expert. Among others..... James William Marshall: books, biography, latest updateI appreciate the open minded-ness of the mods very much. If it were not so, I would be gone already. Thanks for those two pages, I appreciate the commitment to open debate and acceptance of differing opinions of non experts.
I was referring to myself.I wouldn't call drgondog a non expert. Among others..... James William Marshall: books, biography, latest update
Greg is obviously wrong because Greg does not have one theory he has many. You agree with Greg, so which theory on P-47 range do you agree with?Let's assume Greg is all wrong. Let's say that the bomber mafia believed in fighter escorts with drop tanks. If so, why did they screw up the implementation so badly, and why was it implemented so late?
I don't think I said I agreed with him. I believe I said that he made some good points.P PlanesandShips Your first post contained this
Greg is obviously wrong because Greg does not have one theory he has many. You agree with Greg, so which theory on P-47 range do you agree with?
1 The P-47 didnt need drop tanks because it could fly to Schweinfurt and back without them
2 The P-47 could have had drop tanks but homicidal fruitcakes in an un named mafia chose to not use them.
3 The P-47 could have used an unapproved unsafe ferry tank and cruise below the bomber formation into enemy airspace then climb up to bombers when fuel was used up. In short the bombers could have escorted the fighters.
4 The P-47 always had the internal and external fuel needed because by smoke and mirrors the longer range models were always available, even in 1943. He obviously never says when it did become available just "later" in fact so late all decisions had been made.
Lets assume Greg isnt right or wrong, all of those theories cannot be correct, so which do you agree with, sinnce you say you agree with him?
The whole "thing" about a video titled "lies deceit and treachery" is that there was deliberate lies deceit and treachery (a strong clue in the name). That is the USAAF deliberately conspired to send bombers out without escorts because, well no reason is actually given is it? Apart from they were a mafia, a criminal organisation in other words and some daft memo from 1939 is proof, still obviously valid in 1943 FOUR years later. It is a fisherman's yarn made for those pre disposed to like and believe fisherman's yarns. "Click bait" is the modern vernacular.I don't think I said I agreed with him. I believe I said that he made some good points.
Gosh, I'm loathe to even use the word, but even Wikipedia has an entry on the bomber mafia, and that entry lists some of the main members. Interestingly, Wiki quotes Haywood Hansell as having said, "It was recognized that fighter escort was inherently desirable, but no one could quite conceive how a small fighter could have the range of the bomber yet retain its combat maneuverability. Failure to see this issue through proved one of the Air Corps Tactical School's major shortcoming." We could dissect this statement ad nauseum, but drop tanks would seem to be a major part of the answer. Who bears responsibility for why they weren't in service? Some here have made a strong case that Republic was asleep on the job, Greg blames the memo/bomber mafia. If they're arguing about blame, that would seem to indicate agreement on the fact itself....ie., that tactically useable drop tanks should have been in the field in the summer of 1943.
I don't think he or I said that the bomber mafia was homicidal, or intentionally wrong. I'm sure they worked incessantly and tried real hard, most certainly putting more into their work than I ever have. But the results speak for themselves.....the drop tanks weren't ready on the planes that were in service at the time when they were most desperately needed. Why would leadership send those bombers into that meat grinder? I don't believe that they would if they knew it was a meat grinder. They thought the bombers could defend themselves. They were wrong. Apparently, I over-stated the causalities that resulted. Does that invalidate the idea that the real number of casualties were shockingly surprising to all involved, and much more than they should have been, and in fact unsustainable without changes in tactics/pull back from the most dangerous targets?
I personally believe, and it is my opinion not supported necessarily by documentation, that number 1 is possibly true. I'm not sure if they could go all the way to Schweinfurt, but even the big USAAF study that Greg quotes liberally from makes some comment crews gaining confidence and experience in the existing fighter escorts and extending their range through operational procedures (I don't have the exact quote in front of me, I'm sure the experts here will know immediately). That is a very interesting comment that might deserve its own thread. Number 2, is that a joke? Number 3, actually I'm not sure why that is met with so much scorn here. It might have been done with some degree of success. Saving fuel from warmup and taxi, and the first 100 miles would have put how much fuel back in the tanks? And unapproved, so what? Anyone who has done any reading at all can quote many examples of unapproved modifications to hardware and procedures in wartime. Number 4, I have no idea how to answer that.
I agree that is an inflammatory title to a video. If I ever meet Greg, or get his email address, I will tell him that. Maybe he did it for clicks, I dunno.The whole "thing" about a video titled "lies deceit and treachery" is that there was deliberate lies deceit and treachery (a strong clue in the name). That is the USAAF deliberately conspired to send bombers out without escorts because, well no reason is actually given is it? Apart from they were a mafia, a criminal organisation in other words and some daft memo from 1939 is proof, still obviously valid in 1943 FOUR years later. It is a fisherman's yarn made for those pre disposed to like and believe fisherman's yarns. "Click bait" is the modern vernacular.
I just reread my comments above that may have been offensive, a "fresh read," so to speak.I appreciate the open minded-ness of the mods very much. If it were not so, I would be gone already. Thanks for those two pages, I appreciate the commitment to open debate and acceptance of differing opinions of non experts.
Gosh, I'm loathe to even use the word, but even Wikipedia has an entry on the bomber mafia, and that entry lists some of the main members.
personally believe, and it is my opinion not supported necessarily by documentation, that number 1 is possibly true. I'm not sure if they could go all the way to Schweinfurt, but even the big USAAF study that Greg quotes liberally from makes some comment crews gaining confidence and experience in the existing fighter escorts and extending their range through operational procedures (I don't have the exact quote in front of me, I'm sure the experts here will know immediately).
With regards to Speer, well, that's Speer. I have all his books, plus Gitta Sereny's book about him. IMO, he is among the most skilled manipulators of all time, he saved his neck from the noose at Nuremburg while the person immediately under him on the org chart got hung. What could be more manipulative than telling your captors what they want to hear in the manner in which they want to hear it?About the Allied Strategic bombing being a failure - it was far from it.
Several top Germans, especially Albert Speer, remarked that the day and night bombings all but stopped his ability to meet the military's needs.
Yes, production increased in some areas, at the expense of cancelling or limitng production in other areas.
The Allied bombing campaign in 1943 alone, reduced German steel manufacturing by well over 200,000 tons - steel, which was a vital component in a wide range of military equipment.
Another key point - Luftwaffe aircraft production increased until reaching it's peak in 1944, however, reading German records indicate that the continuous bombing saw a large portion of those produced, destroyed on the ground or at railyards during transit to front areas.
These are but a few examples of a very long list
Thanks for all that data on the performance of the P47.Anyone who uses the phrase 'Bomber Mafia' should be regarded with great skepticism as they are almost certainly pushing an agenda, and facts are entirely secondary (if not tertiary) for them.
We can do basic calculations of the P-47's combat radius right here, right now, by using document AN 01-65BC-1A entitled, Pilot's Flight Operating Instructions for Army Models P-47D -25, -26, -27, -28, -30, and -35 Airplanes dated 25 Jan. 1945, and using its climb and cruise charts. Unfortunately, the cruise charts are only filled out to a limited degree, but there's enough data to make a rudimentary attempt.
91 gallons = amount of fuel consumed climbing to 20,000 feet at a 14,200 lbs gross weight
91 gallons = amount of fuel consumed by fifteen minutes of full MIL and fives minutes WEP
48 gallons = amount of fuel reserve (30 minutes' cruising at maximum range settings at 20,000 feet)
The above adds up to 230 gallons, leaving 140 gallons of the 370 gallon internal capacity for cruising. Column V (Maximum Air Range) shows that the aircraft gets 3.03 air miles per gallon at 20,000 feet (288 mph TAS / 95 gph). Multiplying 140 gallons by 3.03 air miles per gallon equals 424 miles. Divide by two since that distance covers the cruise out and back.
So, on internal fuel only, the later P-47s had a radius of about 212 miles. If the distance covered in the climb is included, along with a few other tweaks, then perhaps that can be increased by another 10 to 20 miles.
The theoretical maximum combat radius is limited by the amount of internal fuel remaining after deducting the fuel used in warm up, take off, and initial climb; the combat fuel allowance; and the 30 minute reserve. Warm up, take off, and initial climb consumed about 33 gallons. Adding that to the combat allowance and reserve yields 172 gallons, leaving 198 of the 370 gallons to cruise back to base. 198 gallons times 3.03 air miles equals 600 miles. So the later P-47s could have a combat radius of up to 600 miles provided you could hang enough external fuel on it. (As it happens, two 150/165 gallon drop tanks would do it — assuming the aircraft had proper pylons, sway braces, and internal plumbing for underwing drop tanks, along with the increased internal fuel capacity.)
If we keep the foregoing numbers the same but reduce the internal fuel to 305 gallons, that lowers the fuel remaining by 65 gallons, which is 195 miles, dropping the theoretical maximum radius to about 405 miles. Of course, that is not really a fair comparison since the earlier P-47 models might have had better cruise performance figures, but it might be illustrative nonetheless. (There is a PFOI available for earlier Thunderbolt models, but its cruise charts are very sparsely filled out. The air miles per gallon in Column IV and V are significantly higher than in the named PFOI, so I am skeptical of the figures' accuracy. At 10,000 feet, it has 3.24 air miles per gallon in Column IV and 3.69 in Column V. For the later P-47 PFOI, it's 2.69 and 3.00 in Column IV and V, respectively.)
Severe weather, including heavy overcast (like the sort that grounded Allied aircraft during the German Ardennes offensive) can play a major role in how missions were conducted.
Rn vs IJN
In your opinion! The following article paints a rather different picture of that first raid. 12 B-24 took off. 3 failed to reach the target due to "weather, mechanical problems and fuel shortages" only 9 reached the target. In doing so they encountered 3 separate "vicious" weather fronts that...ww2aircraft.net
Maneuverability vs Speed
It was more comfortable dying in the ETO.I'd be as worried about trying to find the airfield. Or even the end of the runway while trying to take off! Those conditions existed frequently in ETO fall, winter and spring. When my father lead the 355th home from Foggia Italy to Steeple Morden...ww2aircraft.net
Allied Fighter vs Fighter: Is it really necessary ???
And NG and Burma has no mountains? If there was one thing the ETO/MTO didnt have that made the Pacific theater so unusual was the severe weather factors that couldn't be forecast as accurately as in Europe. Many times the aircraft had to fly high, or through thunderstorms with more than a few...ww2aircraft.net
There's a wealth of reference material regarding T-storms on the forums, I just don't have time to hunt them all down.
With regards to Speer, well, that's Speer. I have all his books, plus Gitta Sereny's book about him. IMO, he is among the most skilled manipulators of all time, he saved his neck from the noose at Nuremburg while the person immediately under him on the org chart got hung. What could be more manipulative than telling your captors what they want to hear in the manner in which they want to hear it?