Dec 1941 RLM decision. Produce BMW 801. Cancel Jumo 222.

Juha · Feb 9, 2012

Tante Ju said:
This is typical of European left arguement I must say, for some reason, no bad things about communism can be said, like it occupied a good number of countries while Hitler was doing same at same time. The old communist arguement was, that was only to "protect" these poor states, Finnland was only attacked to "secure" Leningrad, from Hitlerist aggression.. I may be wrong, but you seem to argue along these lines It seems you wish to push the blame from communist Stalin to nazi Hitler for what happened to Baltic states....

Oh God, that's funny. Now this is ot subject so I wanted to keep it short and only wanted to show that Siegfried's argument, that Hitler and co were surprised by the annexion of Baltic States to SU, was errorous. So there was no need to write an essey on the history of Baltic States in 30s.

Tante Ju said:
I don't quite see how resetlement of Baltic Germans plays a role here - ethnic Germans were resettled along whole Europe, I think several hundred thousend were resettled from otherwise friendly Rumania at same time, for example...

Yes, but only areas more or less emptied from etnic Germans were Baltic States and later in 40 those areas of Rumania which were annexed by SU. Every one who had read memoirs of the pilots of JG 52 has noticed that even in 44 there were areas inhabitated by ethnic Germans in Rumania proper.

Juha

davebender · Feb 9, 2012

Four heavy bomber groups were scheduled for deployment to the Philippines.

19th Group was in the Philippines during December 1941 with a total of 33 B-17s.

7th Group was enroute to the Philippines during December 1941 aboard Convoy 4002. Some of their B-17s were destroyed in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

I don't know who the other two heavy bomber groups were. However 35 additional B-17s and 35 B-24s were in the pipleline, approved for deployment to the Philippines. Perhaps the final talley would have been three B-17 groups plus one group equppped with the new B-24.

Heavy bomber units are logistical hogs and Big Mac gave them priority during the U.S. military buildup which began 26 July, 1941. This decision was partially responsible for the extremely slow mobilization of Philippine Army reserve infantry divisions during August to December 1941.

davparlr · Feb 9, 2012

davebender said:
It wouldn't be a problem if the U.S. Army Air Corps recognized the issue during the 1930s as the Luftwaffe did. Then some other U.S. aircraft type(s) such as the A-20 and B-25 would have gotten the maritime bomber mission.

Very good comment.

Early in the morning June 4th, 1941, a combined force of TBFs, SBDs, and B-26s from Midway attacked the main battle fleet of the Japanese. The four B-26s carried torpedoes. Of these four bombers, three made it to within torpedo release distance, one flew over the deck of the Akagi strafing the ship as it went by and another crashed after trying to ram the Akagi bridge. Two made it back to Midway. One could imagine what could have happened had there been twenty B-26s, with torpedoes that worked and crews properly trained (maybe Navy?), if 75% been able to launch their torpedoes in range. The Japanese may have been decimated, certainly crippled, and the battle may have ended at that point with only clean up required. Unfortunately, the war gaming and testing that would have allowed this philosophy to mature and the required teaming between the AAF and Navy did not happen.

davparlr · Feb 9, 2012

Shortround6 said:
The US coast line was (is) thousands of miles long, not including the US possessions of the time, the A-20 was too short ranged to provide the needed coverage. The B-25 is better but it is later in timing and not at all a competitor in the 1930s.

The problem was the tactics. AAF considered high altitude bombing sufficient. However, high altitude bombing was ineffectual against moving ships. Low altitude attacks with bombs and torpedoes, if they worked, could be very effective. If used in this manner the B-17 may have indeed been able to protect the coast, at considerable risk. It certainly was faster than the TBDs and most likely the TBFs. If used as a torpedo bomber it would have needed better ones that could be dropped higher and faster and worked. B-23 could probably be effective and so would the A-20 to a lesser extent.

If it is true the Doug must have been a bigger idiot than he is usually credited with even by his most strident critics.

The First B-17s don't make it to the Philippines until Oct of 1941, about a year after the daylight part of the BoB ends. Any general that believed that 30-50 4 engine bombers could do what you claim not only hadn't been paying attention, they were living in a complete fantasy land. many of the B-17s in the Philippines were the C/D model with NO power turrets and 4-6 .50 cal guns and a single .30. Again, anybody who believed that was a good defensive armament for a bomber had been studiously avoiding the combat reports from Europe and would have grossly misused ANY type of bomber they were given.

Yeah, but everyone knew the Japanese were buck toothed with thick glasses and built cheap toys. What chance would they have against a modern American bomber, even a lesser armed one.

Siegfried · Feb 9, 2012

davparlr said:
The problem was the tactics. .

I would suggest the problem was technology: they needed something like Fritz-X, which clearly could do an excellent job of it.

Siegfried · Feb 9, 2012

Juha said:
Now as I wrote this is ot but have you really not heard the resetlement of Baltic Germans in late 39-early 40? Germany sent ships to Baltic States to evacuate Baltic Germans, a significant minority there, and to resettle them into annexed areas of Poland. IIRC this evacuation/resettlement began already in Oct 39 . One wonder why???? Why agree this with SU if eHitler and co didn't know what would be the destiny of Baltic States. Maybe Hitler and co were less sentimental and much more cynical than you think and gave a damm to those "ancient and affectionate links with all the Baltic states through the Hanseatic league".

Juha

This is a case of wearing filtered googles. Berlin was developing as much of an intelligence network into the Soviet Government as it could, it knew what was comming and acted to protect its folk, the Nazis took a profound interest in the wellbeing of Germans, that was what the ideology was about afterall. Secondly there is the often neglected evolving tendancy of persecution of ethnic Germans by a surging Baltic nationalism. The ethnic Germans in these countries, whicle few, tended to dervive from the classic german city state: ie a town with an elected burgermeister (due to their orgin as tradesman and traders) and were in that respect 'priveledged' in that they did not have a history of sefdom typical of the Russian empire. The supposed 'priveledged status' caused some resentment. The threat against ethnic germans was not just from the Soviets.

tyrodtom · Feb 9, 2012

And I thought the reichs ministry of propaganda died with Goebbels ,LOL.

davebender · Feb 9, 2012

That's true to a point. The B-17 would have been effective against maritime targets if pilots had been taught to use the Swedish Turnip Method (i.e. German skip bombing technique). However it's also a large, slow target for enemy light flak.

IMO the fast and inexpensive A-20 would have been ideal for short range maritime attack. Use the B-25 for longer range missions. Acquisition of British made Mk XII aerial torpedoes would have made them even more effective.

The B-26 might work but it had a bad reputation early on. Work the bugs out over land before performing combat missions over the Pacific.

Shortround6 · Feb 9, 2012

Very short ranged maritime attack.

B-17C could carry 4000lbs 2400 miles, that is going to be a bit shorter with combat allowances, forming up and formation flying. An A20-A was good for 1200lb bomb load over 675 miles. now apply combat allowances, forming up and formation flying and see how far you go. Needing 3 times the number of A-20s to carry the same bomb load kind of takes them out of the "inexpensive" category.

Juha · Feb 9, 2012

Hello Siegfried
Partly the Baltic Germans were descents of urban traders but partly descents of knights and soldiers of the Brothers of the Sword/the Teutonic Order which had conquered the area of present-day Baltic States in 13rd century and subdued the natives to serfdom and the resentment towards Baltic Germans was mostly consequence of that, Germans remained privileged and lords of the manors straight up to the independence of Baltic States in 1918-19. But that resentment settled down, at least amongst the Baltic people, when after independence most of the lands of manors were confiscated and distributed to the farmers. After that IIRC there were not much problems between Baltic Germans and Balts/Estonians, It might be better that we concentrate to planes and aero-engines.

Juha

davparlr · Feb 9, 2012

davebender said:
That's true to a point. The B-17 would have been effective against maritime targets if pilots had been taught to use the Swedish Turnip Method (i.e. German skip bombing technique). However it's also a large, slow target for enemy light flak.

A descending approach could be used to keep the speed up but it would still be a large and slow target, but not as bad as the Devastator, who flew at around 100 kts. I believe the B-25 used skip bombing to great effect in the Pacific.

The B-26 might work but it had a bad reputation early on. Work the bugs out over land before performing combat missions over the Pacific.

The only real bug the B-26 had was that it was slightly ahead of its time and had a feature that all military pilots soon had to learn to cope with successfully, high wing loading. This should have been solved by training and not by rebuilding the wing.

Shortround6 said:
B-17C could carry 4000lbs 2400 miles, that is going to be a bit shorter with combat allowances, forming up and formation flying. An A20-A was good for 1200lb bomb load over 675 miles. now apply combat allowances, forming up and formation flying and see how far you go. Needing 3 times the number of A-20s to carry the same bomb load kind of takes them out of the "inexpensive" category.

No less capable than the TBF and a whole lot faster. Does any one know if the Navy ever showed any interest in navalizing the A-20? It was heavier than the TBF by about 5000 lbs., but certainly would have added punch to the carrier. At 347 mph, it was faster than the Zero and cruised at a speed, 295 mph, much faster than where the zero began to be difficult to maneuver.

Shortround6 · Feb 10, 2012

davparlr said:
No less capable than the TBF and a whole lot faster. Does any one know if the Navy ever showed any interest in navalizing the A-20? It was heavier than the TBF by about 5000 lbs., but certainly would have added punch to the carrier. At 347 mph, it was faster than the Zero and cruised at a speed, 295 mph, much faster than where the zero began to be difficult to maneuver.

A carrier plane has to take off from and land on the carrier. The A-20 actually had less sq footage of wing area than a TBF, meaning stall speeds are going to be higher. Higher take-off speed and higher landing speed. landing speed is important not only for the safty of the crew and aircraft but affects impact loads on the deck and affects the ability of the arresting system to stop the aircraft. With the non folding wing and 17ft 7in high tail the A-20 had a couple of strikes against it just fitting on a carrier. While you could speed time and effort designing folding wings, a folding tail, special flaps and other items needed to "navalize" it ( or build bigger carriers) you might as well design new aircraft.

davebender · Feb 10, 2012

Exactly what the U.S. needed for sinking IJA troop transports when they entered Philippine coastal waters. The A-20 would have worked equally well on Guadalcanal ILO short range SBDs and TBFs.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Feb 10, 2012

Just a reminder everyone, play nice. This thread has the typical makings of a playground fight.

tomo pauk · Feb 10, 2012

Good call about A-20s (or, even better, the B-25s) in the Philippines Guadacanal. Or Beaufighters in Malaya? Unless they got caught on the ground, but even the Me-262 was not immune at that.

davparlr · Feb 10, 2012

Shortround6 said:
A carrier plane has to take off from and land on the carrier. The A-20 actually had less sq footage of wing area than a TBF, meaning stall speeds are going to be higher. Higher take-off speed

I don't see this as a particular problem. The A-20A has about 30% better power to loaded weight ratio over the TBF. If the TBF could operate off a light carrier, the A-20 should be able to operate off a fleet carrier.

and higher landing speed. landing speed is important not only for the safty of the crew and aircraft but affects impact loads on the deck and affects the ability of the arresting system to stop the aircraft.

I do see this as a problem that would have to be addressed.

With the non folding wing and 17ft 7in high tail the A-20 had a couple of strikes against it just fitting on a carrier. While you could speed time and effort designing folding wings, a folding tail, special flaps and other items needed to "navalize" it ( or build bigger carriers) you might as well design new aircraft.

In 1939, I don't think a whole new plane would provide any improved performance over the A-20 and navalizing, as you well defined it, may have been quicker and cheaper. A trade-off would have to be made. The performance capability of the A-20 over contemporary Navy planes was significant. If you look at it, the A-20 was almost a 1939 version of the F7F. In fact, it was faster than the F4F-3/4, and had about the same power to loaded weight ratio and probably would have out-climbed it if configured as a fighter. Speaking of a new aircraft, if we took the A-20 and slimmed down the fuselage, made it a single seater thus lightening it up, installed six 50s in the nose with plenty of ammo, boost the engines to raise critical altitude and you get a heavy fighter with 350 mph +, which walk away from and out climb the front line Navy fighter and have good range, all being delivered in 1941! Interesting thought.

davebender · Feb 10, 2012

Consider availability.

The U.S. was awash in A-20s by 1941. That's why hundreds were being exported to nations such as France and the Netherlands. I assume the USAAF had priority so acquiring 100 or more A-20 maritime attack aircraft for USAFFE (U.S. Armed Forces Far East) shouldn't have been difficult.

The B-25 didn't enter large scale production until January 1942. Too late for the Philippine military build up during the fall of 1941.

davparlr · Feb 10, 2012

A little aside from this thread but this is an interesting interview with some B-26 crew members that were involved in the Battle of Midway.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSm055a0394

davebender · Feb 10, 2012

Could the B-26 operate from forward area airfields with grass or dirt runways? In the Philippines that would have been a normal runway.

davparlr · Feb 10, 2012

davebender said:
Could the B-26 operate from forward area airfields with grass or dirt runways? In the Philippines that would have been a normal runway.

I think the B-25 was better suited for this environment. I think the interview does support the fact that the B-26 was a tough old bird. What did the guy say, every prop blade had bullet holes in them.

Dec 1941 RLM decision. Produce BMW 801. Cancel Jumo 222.

Senior Master Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Banned

Banned

Senior Master Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Major General

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Major General

1st Lieutenant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Creator of Interesting Threads

Senior Master Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Senior Master Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Senior Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads