Hedging bets

[gjs238]

In some ways it seems the US Army ended up hedging it's bets well.
For high altitude, they ended up with the P-38 P-47 (two different engines, another good hedge.)
For low altitude they ended up with the P-39 P-40.

On the other hand, they seemed to put all their eggs in one basket with turbochargers, almost an obsession.
Perhaps it would have been better to hedge their bets and support a 2nd parallel program such as 2-stage supercharging?

I suppose it could be argued that this would drain resources from turbocharger projects, but then one could argue that the P-47 drained resources from the P-38 project, etc.

 

[Shortround6]

The navy was paying for 2 stage P&W engines already. For the Army to fiance a project might be duplicating efforts.

 

[davebender]

.50cal MGs too. And arming all level bombers with large numbers of defensive MGs (pus gunners) rather then relying on high speed or bombing at night.

 

[Tankworks]

.50cal MGs too. And arming all level bombers with large numbers of defensive MGs (pus gunners) rather then relying on high speed or bombing at night.

Ask all the dead of 6 Group (and the rest of Bomber Command) how 'safe' it was to bomb at night.

 

[davebender]

German night bomber losses over Britain during 1939 to 1941 averaged less then 1% per mission. But that's a different cup of tea from bombing Germany at night during 1943 to 1945. My point is the USAAC put all their European bombing eggs in the daytime basket.