Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I am having a little trouble following the math here. You jump from the German $300 million to an estimated US $400 million and then ASSUME the Navy spent 1/2. The US must have spending an awful lot of the budget on R&D.
From one source: [2-3
TOTAL "DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY DOLLAR EXPENDITURES" in 1940 = $ 907,160,000
According to your estimate 22% of that money was spent on aeronautical R&D??
From : Budget of the US Navy: 1794 to 2004
1939 = $673,792,000
1940 = $1,137,608,000
1941 = $4,465,684,000
1942 = $21,149,323,000
1943 = $31,043,134,000
You estimate that the US Navy spent 17.58% of their ENTIRE 1940 budget on aeronautical R&D ??
You would have to buy an AWFUL lot of prototypes to spend 200 million dollars in 1940.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. The fact that, as mention before, the Japanese FAILED to improve the Zero and Oscar anywhere near the extent that other nations improved their aircraft for more than THREE years OR provide better replacements in anything approaching significant quantities is not something the US could count on.
Oh my goodness. Well, then. Once bitten, twice shy.You poor fool! Can you see how I've duped you into thinking I might know what I'm talking about? (Fade to maniacal laughter...)
The 11% expansion bill which was authorised in April 1940, spent a little over $400m on new ships. It spent about $30m on new facilities. I dont have figures for new or replacement aircraft, but if we assume 1000 we are going to be very generous. Thats not the entire budget for the Navy, in fact the expenditures of the various expansions are over and above budget expenditures I understand.
I can only see where about $500m of that $907m was spent. where did the remainder (about $400m or so) go????
Given that Hap Arnold at the time (or just slioghtly later) was stating German R&D expenditures were being matched, and that we have at least $400m of just one part of Naval expenditures unnaccounted for , why is it unreasonable to suggest $200m on aircraft R&D???
Quoting budget expenditures for expenditures not covered in the budget seems more than a little disingenuous....
Iam not going to falsely claim that Im am sure, but quoting budegetry estimates here is clearly misleading. The whole purpose of these special enactments, like the Vinson Bill and the 11% expansion bill., were to vote extra funds for military exapansions not covered in the budget. i will look at your source when I can (havent done that yet), but if it is what it says it is, then it is clearly not the whole story for defence funding, because not all defence funding at that time was included in the budget. .
Which is deliberatly misrepresenting what ive been saying. im not going through the proess for you again.
Its a risk, but it was far less risk than the one they took by pinching on carrier production. Only by the best of sheer luck were they able to bring the competion dates of 7 carriers forward from 1944-5 some 18months on average. thats a much biger risk than soldiering on with the F4f.
And while it's been covered in other threads Still really don't get why the Hellcat and Corsair didn't replace the Seafire in the MTO unless, as was suggested, the reasons were economic and political rather than military
Yeah. I think maybe too there may have been somewhat of an under-appreciation in the ETO of just what the Hellcat could do. At least, at the start, before there were any workouts. You don't throw the horse in the race right out of the barn.I think it was simply that the Seafire was available to the FAA in larger numbers, and earlier, than the Hellcat. According to a December 1942 Ministry of Aircraft Production report from a visit to the US, scheduled Hellcat deliveries were 4 in Jan, 8 in Feb, 10 in March, 15 in April, 20 a month after that.
A summary of FAA operations for August, September and October 1943, dated December 1943, says "Two Hellcat squadrons have formed and two more are in the process of forming."
They weren't finished after the Battle of Britain and the Invasion of Russia but they were up against much the same limitations the Japanese were up against after the battles of the Coral Sea and Midway. Was their capacity to deal under those limitations better than the capacity of the Japanese? That's a very interesting question.I'm curious. Why the need for the P-51 or any long-range fighter if the LW was finished by 1943 as our esteemed colleague contends?
I'm curious. Why the need for the P-51 or any long-range fighter if the LW was finished by 1943 as our esteemed colleague contends?
Yeah. I think maybe too there may have been somewhat of an under-appreciation in the ETO of just what the Hellcat could do. At least, at the start, before there were any workouts. You don't throw the horse in the race right out of the barn.
We had the right fighter in our corner in the ETO in those P51s. For what it's worth, I knew one of those boys.*Actually - it's an under appreciation by the forum members, the AAF never remotely considered either the F4U or the F6F, nor would numbers of either really be more than the Mustang, given the USMC and USN had very high priorities for both.
So what it boils down to is 'pro-forma' performance against the adversary with the escort mission in mind, or the CAS mission in mind. [...]
Now there's the weight-class we're looking for. Not to take anything away from the F6Fs, the P47s packed the bigger punch. Not to take anything away from the P47s, leave the bombing-fighting to the F6Fs.[...] It really boils down to the P-47 vs the F6F as the range is reasonably close, the engine is close, the load carrying ability is close. The P-47D-25 and above should be compared to the F6F-5, but the F6F-5 also falls into operational window of P-47M and N... where the F6F can out turn the P-47 but that is about all there is.
I can't go there. I just don't know enough. I'll point this out, though. Every fighter Mike Tyson KO'ed had charts exceeding his reach and height.Based on wing loading the F6F could probably out turn the Fw 190, Bf 109 but probably not the Spit IX but all three were faster and could climb better - matching comparative models of each.
All three could out dive the F6F, were faster and roll better - even the 109 through most of the range of speeds and stick forces. All three had better power loading so acceleration was better than F6F.
I haven't looked at all the charts so there could be distinctions based on altitude and power settings - but the key performance profiles should be 25,000 feet and 15,000 feet if F6F was relegated to heavy bomber and medium bomber escorts - or SL for CAS.
So, F6F has range and load carrying ability over Spit IX - but is at a disadvantage compared to Spit in air combat, and for most altitudes at a disadvantage to the P-51B/D at WEP in everything but turn. Why 'buy' F6F in Europe?
I'm curious. Why the need for the P-51 or any long-range fighter if the LW was finished by 1943 as our esteemed colleague contends?
If you are so curious why not re-read what I wrote and not take it out of context? Today we know the Germans had no ability to win the war in late 43 due to material shortages. We could have simply not used the P51 and kept the bombing closer and used more low level twin engine and fighter bombers. Once we had a foot hold in Europe the range became less important.
You should be aware that Allied High Command were seriously concerned that a strong LW would contribute to a failure of the Invasion? So, they drafted ARGUMENT as a goal to destroy the LW via Daylight operations? That daylight operations were halted over Germany with the disastrous Oct 14, 1943 attck on Scweinfurt? Your lack of knowledge is appalling.
The US could have built more P-47s and P-38 with more internal fuel and drop tanks.
We did. But they were not available (late P-38J and P-47D-25) until after D-Day.. a little late to begin the systematic dismantling of the LW PRIOR to the Invasion, don't you think?
The big losses in late 43 were from twin engine destroyers (read the P-38 page and if you really want to get) The Defeat of the German Air Force Which the P38 could easily handle.
Out of idle curiosity, how many Me 110, 210, 410, Ju 88 do you suppose the P-38 destroyed in ETO (compared to P-47 and Mustang)
Set yourself free and research the toll taken by Mustangs on the Luftwaffe Day and Night Fighter T/e in March - and you will find why ZG 26 and 76 withdrew from southern and mid eastern Germany to Ne of Berlin and Dresden... which still didn't work through April, May and June.
Logistically true, but you implied the fighting was over something I never implied or stated.Not taken out of context? What context? You have maintained across several threads that the LW was done by 1943, there was no need for long range fighters and that the 8th AF bombing campaign was useless. I'm sorry, but actual history disputes every claim you've made. Or maybe now its just your opinion and we all know about opinions.....
Since The USAAF pulled the P-38 instead of supporting it (just as the cold temp high altitude problems were solved) we will never know.It looks like the P-38 was really hammering the LW doesn't it?
Since The USAAF pulled the P-38 instead of supporting it (just as the cold temp high altitude problems were solved) we will never know.
Ahhh not exactly, the 8th AF gave them to the 9th and 15th AF. The 9th used them as Ground support and the 15th as mix of escort and CAS... they replaced the P-38 with a better aircraft for long range escort, cheaper to buy, cheaper to fly, cheaper to maintain - and far more effective at cutting the LW than all the P-38s used in ETO and MTO since Nov 1942.
But logistically the Germans were running out of war material and could only produce a few more planes than they actually did.
The bombing was not as effective as though during WWII.
So, in your opinion the bombing and strafing did nothing to disrupt production and deployment?
So had an alternate approach could have been taken (low level twin engine bombers and fighter bombers, In much larger numbers numbers and they may have done worse, the same or better but the results would still be the same, the Allies were going to win regardless. They simply were building faster than they were losing planes and crew (as can be said for tank, ships too). The Germans were running out of material and had no place left to get them.
Since The USAAF pulled the P-38 instead of supporting it (just as the cold temp high altitude problems were solved) we will never know.
But logistically the Germans were running out of war material and could only produce a few more planes than they actually did.
dispite the fact that they doubled their aircraft output to what it was a year or 2 earlier??? look at the production number for the LW and you will find out this statement is simply not true. i have had discussuions with others who claimed the "big week" bombings of LW factories did them in....it did not. .
The bombing was not as effective as though during WWII. So had an alternate approach could have been taken (low level twin engine bombers and fighter bombers, In much larger numbers numbers and they may have done worse, the same or better but the results would still be the same,
dont know if the outcome would have been the same but do you understand the logistics for the much larger numbers of TE bombers? the number of ground crews, armorers, trainers, etc that would be involved? it would be staggering
the Allies were going to win regardless.
but i doubt the end would have come when it did....without long range bombing and especially escorts to keep the LW groups pinned in central europe you now cast doubt on the date and success of the D-day landings....with out the threat to the interior of germany there is more resources going to the east and western front.......stiffer german resistance to the soviet invasion.
They simply were building faster than they were losing planes and crew (as can be said for tank, ships too). The Germans were running out of material and had no place left to get them.
I will agree that the allies were out building the LW in machines.....but the german problem wasnt in the number of aircraft but more the numbers of vetern pilots. it was easierfor them to make the machines of war than it was to find a trained body to man it.
. But sorry if this annoys you, but I simply dont buy the argument that the generation of aircraft designed and developed to win the cause for freedom was done using "pin money". There are simply too many unanswered questions and circumstantial peices of evidence for me to accept such a crass argument. Saying I havent proven my case is one thing, and fair enough. Saying that it cost a few thousand dollars to design develop and organise production is much harder to accept. And still doesnt explain these enormous holes in the fiscal bottom lines ( which I could do for the abovemenetioned Vinson program as well).
I know you and most here believe that aircraft development was more or less free, and are eager to say that the US were all geniouses able to build world beating aircraft for no cost.
Lots of other programs, im sure, and I cant pin down what it actually cost to design, AND develop a given type (but incidentally the contract price for the hellcat was $35000 per copy in 1945....to put you out of your misery) was. But sorry if this annoys you, but I simply dont buy the argument that the generation of aircraft designed and developed to win the cause for freedom was done using "pin money". There are simply too many unanswered questions and circumstantial peices of evidence for me to accept such a crass argument. Saying I havent proven my case is one thing, and fair enough. Saying that it cost a few thousand dollars to design develop and organise production is much harder to accept. And still doesnt explain these enormous holes in the fiscal bottom lines ( which I could do for the abovemenetioned Vinson program as well).