Another 'Gem' from Greg - just released.

[pbehn]

pbehn - We weren't talking about the Pacific, although I did say "the war." My mistake. Having said that, even in the Pacific there exists to this very day debate about whether or not the use of the atomic bomb was necessary or justifiable. I feel safe in saying that debate is not appropriate to have now. I don't believe that strategic bombing "won the war," in Europe, and I believe (in retrospect) that the air war in EU could have been run a lot better. IMHO (more opinions!) the EU war was decided at Stalingrad.

The USAAF did not decide or choose its enemy, neither did it declare war, it was a military force that had to undeertake whatever task it was given o the best of its ability. You specifically stated that "they told the public in what amounts to little more than propaganda that strategic bombing could win the war, another lie." It quite obviously wasnt a lie, was it. In Europe the strategic bombing offensive left Germany without any industry or oil to fight with, and needing massive amounts o munitions at home to defend itself. No sensible, rational person could argue that the combined bomber offensive had no effect on the war in Europe. The doctrine argued by the "bomber mafia" did not include or exclude Europe or Japan, you only do so for the sake of Gregs argument.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

As both a pilot and someone with more than 30 years living in southern Germany I'd have to insert my humble not so much opinion that a thunderstorm does not have to be severe for aircraft to have to divert around it. Additionally, southern Germany gets its fair share of severe storms and tornadoes. Considering the small area it is confined to it can have a significant impact. There are on average 10 to 25 tornados per year in Germany. In an area the size of what, Illinois and Indiana maybe?

And yes, I currently live in the midwest, so I am aware of what "real severe weather" is.

Now I don't have a dog in everyone's debate here, other than ensuring it remains civil. I just wanted to add in my 0.63 cents that weather does not have to be severe to divert around.

 

[pbehn]

As both a pilot and someone with more than 30 years living in southern Germany I'd have to insert my humble not so much opinion that a thunderstorm does not have to be severe for aircraft to have to divert around it. Additionally, southern Germany gets its fait share of severe storms and tornadoes. Considering the small area it is confined to it can have a significant impact. There are on average 10 to 25 tornados per year in Germany. In an area the size of what, Illinois and Indiana maybe?

And yes, I currently live in the midwest, so I am aware of what "real severe weather" is.

Now I don't have a dog in everyone's debate here, other than insuring it remains civil. I just wanted to add in my 0.63 cents that weather does not have to be severe to divert around.

As I understand it, it doesnt have to even be a thunderstorm, you cannot fly a formation of 300 aircraft into a bank of heavy cloud, it will not be a formation when it comes out of the cloud and some, perhaps many will have hit each other. You certainly cannot drop bombs on targets from inside it.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

As I understand it, it doesnt have to even be a thunderstorm, you cannot fly a formation of 300 aircraft into a bank of heavy cloud, it will not be a formation when it comes out of the cloud and some, perhaps many will have hit each other. You certainly cannot drop bombs on targets from inside it.

Exactly my point. How the hell do you fly a relatively tight formation?

We used to fly formations of 7 to 10 aircraft when I was in the military (in southern Germany of all places). We would fly just a few disks apart (rotor diameters). If you can't see the aircraft to your front, rear, left, or right how do you avoid collision?

 

[Shortround6]

the air war everything in EU could have been run a lot better.

Fixed it.

Hindsight is wonderful.

Memos and letters are wonderful but they were written by men who sometimes did not have perfect knowledge. Or perhaps they desired certain outcomes without a clear idea of how to get there.

June 21, 1942
" ....it is believed that providing P-40 planes for all Marine fighting squadrons assigned to outlying bases of high importance is imperative, if the P-40 can be modified for carrier operations,"
This was from the Navy Dept to Operations and Planning Division (OPD) of the War Department that started from CinCPAC.

Now there a number of things can be read into this and perhaps it needs more context. It was written about 2 weeks after Midway and the slaughter of Marine squadron using Buffalo's was probably on their mind. We are also used to modern communications, The Navy in early June was testing a P-40F at Anacostia but given what was going in the Pacific the chances of those reports finding their way to CinCPAC, being read/evaluated and then that memo being sent back all within 2 weeks????

The memo does not give the model of P-40. What they had in the Pacific were P-40Es. Getting a P-40 to operate off a carrier also needs a lot of clarification. Be flown off to outlying base and not landed on a carrier again for months? Or actually operate like Marine F4Fs on carriers?

Now there is another memo, also shortened in many books, from Jan 19th 1942 from the Chief of the Experimental Engineering Section at Wright field that says ".....it is wrong to continue the development about the P-40 type airplane on any basis whatsoever." Maybe they should have not developed the P-40K,L,M and Ns ??????

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Fixed it.

Hindsight is wonderful.

Memos and letters are wonderful but they were written by men who sometimes did not have perfect knowledge. Or perhaps they desired certain outcomes without a clear idea of how to get there.

Well said. You just pointed out something that has plagued every Army since the dawn of time, and it has not changed today either.

 

[drgondog]

Ok, you proved me wrong.

However, I was clearly speaking of the P47 in 1942 and 43, the critical time for the only plane capable of performing escort duties in Europe for all the reasons listed by others above. The one plane that might have mitigated the horrific losses.

I'll admit that I didn't know all those previous generations of lower performance airplanes had drop tanks. But now you've piqued my interest.....if drop tanks were "normal," why the memo doing away with them? Perhaps because the brass thought self protecting bombers didn't need them?

To Ferry tanks and Army regulations and AAC doctrine, pre-1939.

Advantage of extended range in CONUS was deemed less valuable than the hazard of unsealed fuel tanks to flight safety. The AC encroached on the USN when they demonstrated that a B-17 could intercept the Rex 600 miles out from shore. That jump started increased funding for the B-17. There was no formal strategic bombing directive until AWPD-1 was codified - to wit - destroy the enemy's industrial capacity. AWPD-1 was completed Sept 1941 and codified what became and remained the only War Plan that survived the war.

As stated many times, the role and concepts Pursuit, pre-war, was interception and local air superiority -not long range escort. Plans changed when the 8th AF was smacked in the mouth - and please note that the B-17 did not suffer major losses in any other theatre, with or without escort, but the MTO proved the value of 'long-range' escort by the P-38

To P-47 as the 'only plane'?
Actually No and it wasn't not even the best available. Eaker asked for the only escort fighter with any significant range - the P-38.

Those were taken from him afterdeveloping operational experience and dispatched to MTO, circa Nov 1942 - where they were HIGHLY effective as bomber escort. This was a major seback to Eaker and crippled VIII BC ability to fly beyond Spitfire escort until the new (and very buggy) P47C became operational almost six months afterwards.

Eaker had no say in the matter, his choice was 'salute and go' or asked to be relieved. He had to fight with what he had.

You, and Greg, are certainly entitled to your opinions and outrage regarding technical events, or lack therof. Do some personal resarch into the technology of developing a self sealing tank capable of withstanding a .50 cal round without exploding, pressurized so that an auxiliary pump may withdraw fuel above 18-20K - getting the design into testing, re-design the failure, re-test - approve and issue production orders - then tool up and produce.

Ask yourself the questions - independent of the pace of Tech.Div. isn't it certain that Goodyear,B.F. Goodrich would be stimulated to enter and get a toehold as the primary supplier for such equipment - a market with unit potential sales exceeding aircraft production?

So, what concrete evidence do you have that Materiel Command intentionally ignored a Specific directive from the Chief? Or that industry dragged their feet?

You have clear evidence that Kartveli did not prioritize either an increase of internal fuel or developing racks with sway braces for cenerline bomb or fuel tank, or designing wing pylons to carry droppable tanks along with fuel feed scheme to pressurize delivery to the engine.

A last point which should seem obvious to you - even WITH two aerodynamically sound 150gal pressurized tanks, the premier 56th FG was never assigned target escort deep in Germany UNTIL the P-47D-25 with 65 gal extra fuel were in sufficient operation squadron strength to make a long range mission as a combat unit.

A year after Greg hypothesized Schweinfert was doable with a leaky, draggy unpressurized 205gal tank

 

[GrauGeist]

And it wasn't just the weather over Germany (or Europe) that created difficulties for the Bombers and Fighters.

When I asked a friend of the family, who was a B-24 pilot, what was the most stressful part of a bombing mission, his reply was not flak, Luftwaffe interceptors or even Me262 encounters.

It was the several minutes between taking off and "breaking out" above the English overcast which, according to him, lasted an eternity.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Fact is that the P-51--even more so I've found in recent months--was simply a great aircraft that did some remarkable things and did them extremely well, just like the Spitfire, Mosquito, P-38, P-47 and other designs. Granted, it did come at the expense of the P-47, which was largely relegated in the European Theater to being a tactical fighter, but it seems that it was Republic themselves who were mostly to blame for that. The Mustang being as great as it was was just the last nail in the casket until the P-47N, which to my knowledge was never fielded in the ETO.

The P-51 a great aircraft? More than you know...

P-51 Dragon Fighter - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Shortround6]

There were a lot things going on in 1942.

There were conflicting things like requests for additional fuel for fighters in the late winter or early spring of 1942, for escorting bombers or for??????
May 6th 1942, last 5 P-40s in the Philippines are destroyed by US forces to prevent capture. Again, note that is was one month before Midway.
Maybe the "bomber mafia" was planning the bombing of Germany but it was a long way away.

Once they had decided to invade North Africa, the US had to decide what they needed for aircraft.

The P-47 was not ready for combat, and would not be ready for months.
The P-39 had crap for range, even with a drop tank. And it could not fight at altitudes the Germans could easily operate at. It was used because the USAAC didn't enough of anything else.
P-40E was in the same boat and was out of production.
Oct 1942 was the first delivery of an A-36. Months too late for a Nov invasion. And any Allison P-51s had the same altitude limits as the P-39 and Allison P-40s.
So we are down to the P-40F with the Merlin which isn't what they really want but it is better than the Allison P-40. Except there are not enough of them.
The P-38s are the only planes available, they have speed and altitude performance even if not great dog fighters. What are available are P-38Fs and P-38Gs.
the Fs have 1325hp/15,000ft engines and the Gs have 1425hp/15,000ft engines. Intercooler and radiator problems limit power at 25,000ft to lower levels than the Turbos will give.
It is these planes that are brought down from England from the 8th Air force. Losses in NA are such that in Jan all available P-38s in England are ordered to NA, including P-38Es. (1150hp/25,000ft) engines. In Feb 1943 General Kennedy in the SW Pacific is told no more P-38s until summer.

A lot has already been shown about the situation at Republic in 1942, like almost tripling the work force at the home factory while adding an 2nd and helping Curtiss, at least some.
Republic had over 2600 P-47s on order when the request (?) for more range showed up, They had delivered 1 airplane. Now when in 1942 or early 1943 they should have worked on more internal fuel and/or more external fuel maybe subject to question.
There is also the Power Plant Problem. The P-47C/early D was a ground hog. It needed about the same runway to take-off at 14,000lbs (75 gal tank?) as a P-38F/G needed at 19,500lbs. (pair of 300 gal tanks?). A P-38 with a pair of 150 gallon tanks could take off with about 700ft less runway (to the 50 ft trees).

Now by the end of 1943 the P-47s got a better propeller which may have helped take-off, it certainly helped climb.
It is not quite enough to ask for more tankage, you also need the infrastructure to make things work. Long runways will not solve problems with fighters that don't have enough fuel but fighters that cannot take-off with enough fuel because of short runways also don't work.

A lot of Generals want changes in a number of things to make their job easier. What some of those changes did to other general's jobs may have been something else.

 

[WARSPITER]

From memory the 1939 memo isn't really relevant to later requirements at all.
The memo itself was more to do with interceptor aircraft protecting the US borders
as that was a priority at the time.

Spitfires and Hurricanes in the Battle of Britain eschewed drop tanks in favour of getting
off the ground and up to height faster.

In that respect the memo makes perfect sense for the time it was written.

That things changed after is not surprising given the different circumstances.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I just wanted to add in my 0.63 cents that weather does not have to be severe to divert around.

... especially when your primary aiming system is optics-based, and your secondary aiming systems see a significant drop-off in efficacy. As noted above -- was it P pbehn ? -- it's pretty hard to use a bombsight in or above cloud cover.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

... especially when your primary aiming system is optics-based, and your secondary aiming systems see a significant drop-off in efficacy. As noted above -- was it P pbehn ? -- it's pretty hard to use a bombsight in or above cloud cover.

Exactly

I didn't even touch on the cloud cover over the target. I was speaking only directly to the flight to and from the target.

 

[tomo pauk]

From memory the 1939 memo isn't really relevant to later requirements at all.
The memo itself was more to do with interceptor aircraft protecting the US borders
as that was a priority at the time.

Spitfires and Hurricanes in the Battle of Britain eschewed drop tanks in favour of getting
off the ground and up to height faster.

In that respect the memo makes perfect sense for the time it was written.

That things changed after is not surprising given the different circumstances.

Was there an option for drop tanks for Spitfires and Hurricanes during the BoB?

 

[SaparotRob]

The P-51 a great aircraft? More than you know...

P-51 Dragon Fighter - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Just like bullseyeing womp rats at Beggar's Canyon.

 

[pbehn]

... especially when your primary aiming system is optics-based, and your secondary aiming systems see a significant drop-off in efficacy. As noted above -- was it P pbehn ? -- it's pretty hard to use a bombsight in or above cloud cover.

It was also more than pretty hard to find a target under what was called "haze" or industrial and domestic pollution at the time. In cold still weather all industrial cities in Europe were covered by a cloud of crap, I am reliably informed that from 25,000 feet all clouds of crap look the same.

 

[Shortround6]

It was also more than pretty hard to find a target under what was called "haze" or industrial and domestic pollution at the time. In cold still weather all industrial cities in Europe were covered by a cloud of crap, I am reliably informed that from 25,000 feet all clouds of crap look the same.

Coal power!!! that is ticket!!! keeps you free from foreign oil and keeps your cities invisible to pesky enemy bombers

Pardon me while I cough up a lung.

 

[pbehn]

Coal power!!! that is ticket!!! keeps you free from foreign oil and keeps your cities invisible to pesky enemy bombers

Pardon me while I cough up a lung.

I used to work in London in an office block in Grosvenor Square, central London it is surrounded by big old houses, the number of chimney pots you see on thee top of them is quite literally "breath taking", and to help things along they built a coal fired power station there too at Battersea.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It would be nice if Greg would actually come and debate Bill here rather than block him from replying to his YT feed. Sounds to me Greg doesn't like hearing/debating facts with accomplished authors and historians, who also have a family background and history in the air war fought over Germany.

 

[GrauGeist]

Greg will not allow posts that run contrary to his narrative, no matter who it is or how well versed they are on the subject.