How Could The US Have Been More Prepared to Fight WW2?

[Dana Bell]

Sorry Dook, but you have oversimplified almost everything. For example, the battleship was not obsolete - its role simply changed. Those long range aircraft would drop their bombs and return to base to refuel and rearm - out of action for hours. A battleship could loiter 20 miles from an island target and pound it continually for hours at a time. Also, splitting the fleet (Guam!), stationing elements around the Pacific would have allowed Japan to destroy ships piecemeal - remember Prince of Wales and Repulse? How about the US Asiatic Fleet?

In 1939 the US expected to fly most combat missions below 20,000 feet - there was shock in mid-1940 when reports from the battle of Britain had most combat taking place above that altitude. Arnold wanted multiple guns in the the wings of his P-40s, but when the first production deliveries arrived in spring 1940 he could only come up with the money for one .30 in each wing.

B-29s were great, but where would you base them (if you had time to work out the developmental issues)? Nearly all British runways were too short for a fully loaded B-29 to take-off or land.

You have the makings of a fun wargame "what if" but you time might be better spent trying to understand why decisions (and mistakes) were made at the time.

Cheers,


Dana

 

[Dook]

With a significant isolationist /anti war movement how much political capital can the govt spend on military expansion .
Was joe taxpayer willing to pay for all these aircraft and ships ?

All aircraft production would be cancelled other than the new B-29 design (not in production yet), the naval P-51, the TBF (already being designed), and the P-38. So, cancelling orders and starting new ones may cancel out.

The M4 Sherman was in production in October of '41. A new gun and turret would increase the cost a bit but they could simply reduce the number of tanks to compensate. Then, once the war started, the tank order would have been increased again.

Modifying the destroyers wouldn't be that costly, you could reduce your destroyer order by one or two to pay for it.

I haven't looked at all of the production costs yet but that sounds like something I could do today.

 

[Dook]

Firstly who is "we". Secondly do you know how long it takes to get a factory up and running for engines and air frames? Thirdly lose the attitude.

We is all of the admirals and generals.

How long does it take to get a factory up and running for engines and airframes? For an already designed and built aircraft I would say it takes two weeks to be up and running. It just depends on the desire. The first P-51 went from nothing to flying in months. If there's no desire then it takes 3-4 years, like the P-51.

I should lose the attitude? You guys started it. If you can't handle your own medicine then maybe find another thread?

 

[buffnut453]

All aircraft production would be cancelled other than the new B-29 design (not in production yet), the naval P-51, the TBF (already being designed), and the P-38. So, cancelling orders and starting new ones may cancel out.

Cancelling all bombers except the B-29 means you won't have any attacking bomber force in the front line. The formal specification was released in December 1939 but, even with the onset of war, the first prototype didn't fly until 21 Sep 1942. There's only so many ways you can shorten the design scope, particularly for such an advanced aircraft that represented a step-change compared to all that went before it.

Again, you're not thinking of the challenges of building a front-line force while developing these more advanced concepts. You're also ignoring the combat experience that directly drove many of the technological innovations.

 

[pbehn]

We essentially agree but you are too accepting of mediocrity from the admirals and generals. Hold them to a higher standard. Their job should have been to get the best equipment to their war fighters but too often they stood in the way.

How is it fantasy level fore sight to realize that a new fighter plane should have the best engine possible? If you are going to design a new aircraft are you going to accept using outdated parts?

One general of the army refused to upgrade the gun on the M4 Sherman tank simply because he wanted a new tank design and thought that if he upgraded the gun on the Sherman then he wouldn't get his new tank. His new tank arrived a few weeks before the end of WW2 in Europe and had no effect on the war. He cost a lot of men's lives.

Admirals and generals had nothing to do with the P-51 being designed and put into production. It was ordered by the British for the British and it was known when ordered that the performance at altitude would not be good. When the P-51 (actually Mustang Mk1) was ordered the two stage Merlin that powered it and the fuels it needed didn't exist. The Packard Merlin didn't need either designing or testing, look how long it took Packard from first agreement to getting mass production running at volume. If the British hadn't taken a risk and trusted N/A to build a better plane than the P-40 there would have been no P-51 for Admirals or Generals to see. In any case it was unsuitable for carrier operations as it was and would need extensive modification as a Spitfire did to make a Seafire.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I should lose the attitude? You guys started it. If you can't handle your own medicine then maybe find another thread?

What? Excuse me?

 

[Dook]

No it's not, for a whole host of reasons. The initial expansion in US military manufacturing in 1938-1940 was largely driven by cash purchases for equipment from UK and France. The US wasn't ordering huge quantities of equipment because it intended to remain neutral.

The reason the USMC still had the Buffalo is because the F4F wasn't available in sufficient numbers. Taking the Buffalo out of service won't magically generate more F4Fs...the USMC would have to retrograde to F3F biplanes. Despite flying in 1937, the first operational F4F was only completed in Feb 1940 and widespread adoption within the US Navy took another 12-18 months. There were still F3F biplanes in front-line use in the last quarter of 1941...and that was despite VF-2 and VF-3 operating the F2A-1, -2 and -3.

You also have to consider prevailing doctrine. There wasn't a formal doctrine for fighter aircraft providing CAS for ground forces in 1938-1940. That requirement evolved as combat experience grew and the abilities of fighter aircraft improved to enable delivery of an appropriate amount of punch per aircraft.

You make many detailed arrangements about force dispositions but those require foreknowledge of where and when Japan would attack. That luxury was not available and so such movements are not within the scope of US abilities (yes, I know this isn't a manufacturing problem but it's still a key flaw with the whole discussion).

We agree except that we did have weapons systems in design and production for our own use.

Other than the new high altitude bomber (B-29) the light, medium, and heavy bombers were useless. They couldn't hit a thing, so they could all be cancelled. The only use for level bombers was in using heavy bombers to destroy cities.

Taking the buffalo out of service won't generate more F-4's? Correct. When the naval P-51's arrive the older F4's would be given to shore units to defend islands and coastlines.

There was no close air support doctrine in WW2? I know there wasn't. The generals and admirals were playing too much golf and not thinking about war fighting.

Force dispositions require foreknowledge of where and when Japan would attack? We knew they were in Korea and China and we moved much of our Navy from the west coast to Hawaii and we already had some forces in Wake, Guam, and Midway.

 

[GrauGeist]

The P-51 first flew in October '40 but wasn't ready for production yet? Production just needs a desire. There's nothing that makes the P-51 unsuitable for carrier service except that the admirals had a better relationship with Grumman.

The B-17 was perfect for the job over Europe? So, an older bomber model is superior to the newer higher altitude and faster model? You're thinking just like the US WW2 generals thought which was "How do I lose as many men as possible and still win the war?"

I am not "thinking like US Generals", I am injecting reality into a fantasy world.
MANY front-line fighters of the war were designed/developed in the 1930's: Bf109, Spitfire, P-40, Hurricane, F4F, A6M, etc.

In order to make a "newer faster" aircraft, you need several key elements. First one is time: it takes time from proof of concept to production.
Then there is the issue of available components, like engines for example: was there an available engine type for the aircraft's intended performance?
The early P-51 was a good performer, but like the P-40, did not have solid high-altitude qualities.
And then you have to work out airframe issues which required wind-tunnel tests, making adjustments to the prototype, flight testing, stress testing and so on. This was all done with slide-rules, trial and error and hands-on development - there was no CAD back then.
Finally, money: who's going to pay for it? All the above is expensive. Some companies were able to fund aircraft development out of their own pocket BUT ordered aircraft took priority, so if your type under development didn't have a contract, then it would take longer to develop. Plus, in the case of the U.S., the depression saw limited spending.

So one simply was not going to wave a magic wand over a concept's blue-print and have a world-beater suddenly appear on the ramp ready to fly in the matter of weeks.

In regards to the B-17 (and B-24), they were the best for their time and later types would come along when more powerful engines became available.
In regards to "high altitude", the B-17 was capable of operating at 35,000 feet, which was about 10,000 feet higher than the B-24 and about the same altitude as the B-29 and B-32.
So that leaves me to wonder what you consider appropiate for "high altitude".

 

[Dook]

Sorry Dook, but you have oversimplified almost everything. For example, the battleship was not obsolete - its role simply changed. Those long range aircraft would drop their bombs and return to base to refuel and rearm - out of action for hours. A battleship could loiter 20 miles from an island target and pound it continually for hours at a time. Also, splitting the fleet (Guam!), stationing elements around the Pacific would have allowed Japan to destroy ships piecemeal - remember Prince of Wales and Repulse? How about the US Asiatic Fleet?

In 1939 the US expected to fly most combat missions below 20,000 feet - there was shock in mid-1940 when reports from the battle of Britain had most combat taking place above that altitude. Arnold wanted multiple guns in the the wings of his P-40s, but when the first production deliveries arrived in spring 1940 he could only come up with the money for one .30 in each wing.

B-29s were great, but where would you base them (if you had time to work out the developmental issues)? Nearly all British runways were too short for a fully loaded B-29 to take-off or land.

You have the makings of a fun wargame "what if" but you time might be better spent trying to understand why decisions (and mistakes) were made at the time.

Cheers,


Dana

The battleship was not obsolete because aircraft would drop their bombs and have to return to base to refuel and rearm? Those bombs the aircraft dropped would sink the battleship.

The only role a battleship had was in bombarding a base or city but that could only take place once all of the enemies submarines and all aircraft were eliminated.

Splitting the fleet would have allowed the Japanese to eliminate them easier? If they're going to sit and do nothing while the Japanese attack, then, yes. You have to man some of the anti-aircraft guns during daytime and you have to put some fighter pilots on alert status every day.

Where would I base the B-29's, UK runways were too short? Maybe lengthen the runways? It's war.

Time should be spent understanding why decisions and mistakes were made? I understand. The US admirals and generals thought that because they were taller than the Japanese that they were better so the Japanese would never attack. So that is why none of the anti-aircraft guns were manned and no fighter planes were on alert on Dec 7. Not one.

 

[Dook]

Cancelling all bombers except the B-29 means you won't have any attacking bomber force in the front line. The formal specification was released in December 1939 but, even with the onset of war, the first prototype didn't fly until 21 Sep 1942. There's only so many ways you can shorten the design scope, particularly for such an advanced aircraft that represented a step-change compared to all that went before it.

Again, you're not thinking of the challenges of building a front-line force while developing these more advanced concepts. You're also ignoring the combat experience that directly drove many of the technological innovations.

I would cancel aircraft production, not disband units. The attacking bomber force didn't even do anything against Germany until '43, so, it's not like they immediately went into action anyway.

I'm ignoring the challenges of building a front line force and ignoring combat experience? I'm not. Why would the army think that tank destroyers, artillery guns, were best to destroy other tanks? That's just stupid.

Why would the Army Air Corp think that level bombing could hit targets other than cities?

Why would the admirals think that level bombing could sink ships?

Why would the navy think their new torpedo wouldn't need to be tested and then not test them for years even after many complaints by sub commanders?

Why would an admiral think that a submarine was just supposed to scout ahead for battleships and not fight on it's own?

Piss poor leaders who were stuck in outdated ideas and not ready to fight WW2, that's why.

 

[Dook]

Admirals and generals had nothing to do with the P-51 being designed and put into production. It was ordered by the British for the British and it was known when ordered that the performance at altitude would not be good. When the P-51 (actually Mustang Mk1) was ordered the two stage Merlin that powered it and the fuels it needed didn't exist. The Packard Merlin didn't need either designing or testing, look how long it took Packard from first agreement to getting mass production running at volume. If the British hadn't taken a risk and trusted N/A to build a better plane than the P-40 there would have been no P-51 for Admirals or Generals to see. In any case it was unsuitable for carrier operations as it was and would need extensive modification as a Spitfire did to make a Seafire.

Admirals and generals had nothing to do with the P-51 being designed and produced? You're too accepting of mediocrity. An admirals job should be to get the best weapons for their units. That's their job. You're giving them a pass on everything they did simply because they won the war when they could have won it a year earlier and saved 60,000 US lives.

The P-51 was only unsuitable for carrier operations because it didn't have a tailhook.

 

[rochie]

Wow, just wow !

 

[buffnut453]

Admirals and generals had nothing to do with the P-51 being designed and produced? You're too accepting of mediocrity. An admirals job should be to get the best weapons for their units. That's their job. You're giving them a pass on everything they did simply because they won the war when they could have won it a year earlier and saved 60,000 US lives.

The P-51 was only unsuitable for carrier operations because it didn't have a tailhook.

Sorry but there's a lot of bullshit in that post. You need to start READING what other people are writing. The P-51 was developed to BRITISH requirements, not American. So, yes, American generals and admirals had NOTHING to do with getting the P-51 into production.

As for the P-51 just needing a tailhook? That's ridiculous. The airframe would need to be strengthened to cope with carrier landings. The entire airframe would require corrosion protection and some degree of built-in buoyancy, which adds weight and may alter a number of design features. Then you have the challenge of operating a liquid-cooled aircraft off a US Navy carrier which, until then, had only operated air-cooled radials. That's storage for coolant (which is highly flammable...ship captains don't like that!) which means less space for weapons or aircraft. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The P-51 was only unsuitable for carrier operations because it didn't have a tailhook.

Is that all it takes?

 

[Dana Bell]

Hi Dook,

I can't tell if you're playing us (trolling us?) or if you really don't understand what you're talking about. You seem to have based all of your research on back issues of Sgt Rock and his Howling Commandos. Have you ever worked in industry? Do you have any idea how long it takes to build the jigs needed to produce an aircraft, how long it takes to perfect a design before putting it into production, how long it takes to line up subcontractors, purchase stock. Hell, it takes more than a few months just to get legal to prepare a contract for signature.

I'll take your advice and find another thread - maybe enough of us will do that that this thread will will quickly be forgotten as a stupid anomaly on an otherwise decent site.

Cheers,



Dana

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Sorry but there's a lot of bullshit in that post. You need to start READING what other people are writing. The P-51 was developed to BRITISH requirements, not American. So, yes, American generals and admirals had NOTHING to do with getting the P-51 into production.

As for the P-51 just needing a tailhook? That's ridiculous. The airframe would need to be strengthened to cope with carrier landings. The entire airframe would require corrosion protection and some degree of built-in buoyancy, which adds weight and may alter a number of design features. Then you have the challenge of operating a liquid-cooled aircraft off a US Navy carrier which, until then, had only operated air-cooled radials. That's storage for coolant (which is highly flammable...ship captains don't like that!) which means less space for weapons or aircraft. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Please keep it civil. This applies to everyone.

Otherwise spot on.

 

[Dook]

I am not "thinking like US Generals", I am injecting reality into a fantasy world.
MANY front-line fighters of the war were designed/developed in the 1930's: Bf109, Spitfire, P-40, Hurricane, F4F, A6M, etc.

In order to make a "newer faster" aircraft, you need several key elements. First one is time: it takes time from proof of concept to production.
Then there is the issue of available components, like engines for example: was there an available engine type for the aircraft's intended performance?
The early P-51 was a good performer, but like the P-40, did not have solid high-altitude qualities.
And then you have to work out airframe issues which required wind-tunnel tests, making adjustments to the prototype, flight testing, stress testing and so on. This was all done with slide-rules, trial and error and hands-on development - there was no CAD back then.
Finally, money: who's going to pay for it? All the above is expensive. Some companies were able to fund aircraft development out of their own pocket BUT ordered aircraft took priority, so if your type under development didn't have a contract, then it would take longer to develop. Plus, in the case of the U.S., the depression saw limited spending.

So one simply was not going to wave a magic wand over a concept's blue-print and have a world-beater suddenly appear on the ramp ready to fly in the matter of weeks.

In regards to the B-17 (and B-24), they were the best for their time and later types would come along when more powerful engines became available.
In regards to "high altitude", the B-17 was capable of operating at 35,000 feet, which was about 10,000 feet higher than the B-24 and about the same altitude as the B-29 and B-32.
So that leaves me to wonder what you consider appropiate for "high altitude".

It takes time to go from proof of concept to production? But the P-51 first flew a year before Pearl Harbor.

The F4 was a capable aircraft. For me the main reason to change to the P-51 was range. The F4's combat range was only 350 miles.

How could the US afford all these changes? Cancel all other aircraft production.

The B-17 was the best for it's time? But it was designed in the 30's and outdated for WW2. Also the idea that it could fight it's way in with no fighter protection at all was ridiculous.

The B-17 and B-29 could operate at the same altitude? Okay, I was under the impression that the B-29 operated at higher altitudes but I can admit I was wrong.

 

[pbehn]

Admirals and generals had nothing to do with the P-51 being designed and produced? You're too accepting of mediocrity. An admirals job should be to get the best weapons for their units. That's their job. You're giving them a pass on everything they did simply because they won the war when they could have won it a year earlier and saved 60,000 US lives.

The P-51 was only unsuitable for carrier operations because it didn't have a tailhook.

Where do you put the tail hook? Will the tail take the strain of repeated landings? Same for the main landing gear, what was the stall speed and low speed handling like? If the British purchasing commission hadn't ordered it no admiral or general in the US or UK would have seen it. That is not my acceptance of mediocrity, it is what happened. If you want to cancel all bombers except the B-29 can you explain why, it couldn't hit anything but a city from 30,000ft, its most devastating raids were done at night using incendiaries apart from the A Bomb for which it had to be modified. The B-29 wasn't just a different shaped B17, all sorts of technologies and materials were developed to make the project work, you cant just say "I want it sooner" it went into service ASAP (probably too soon). Cancelling all other projects means nothing was learned from those projects. It took a long time even to get the B-17 to work as expected.

 

[Dook]

Sorry but there's a lot of bullshit in that post. You need to start READING what other people are writing. The P-51 was developed to BRITISH requirements, not American. So, yes, American generals and admirals had NOTHING to do with getting the P-51 into production.

As for the P-51 just needing a tailhook? That's ridiculous. The airframe would need to be strengthened to cope with carrier landings. The entire airframe would require corrosion protection and some degree of built-in buoyancy, which adds weight and may alter a number of design features. Then you have the challenge of operating a liquid-cooled aircraft off a US Navy carrier which, until then, had only operated air-cooled radials. That's storage for coolant (which is highly flammable...ship captains don't like that!) which means less space for weapons or aircraft. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

The P-51 was developed to British requirements, not American? I know because the US admirals and generals were out playing golf instead of doing their jobs.

The P-51 airframe would have to be strengthened to cope with carrier landings? Not really, just where the tailhook attaches to would need to be stronger.

The entire airframe would need corrosion protection? You mean paint?

And some degree of buoyancy? Uh, no. Not how aircraft are designed.

Carriers would need storage for coolant? You mean water? Ships produce their own water, even in WW2.

Coolant is highly flammable? Water is not flammable. It actually puts out fire.

I tell you what, you don't BS me and I won't BS you, okay?

 

[Dook]

Hi Dook,

I can't tell if you're playing us (trolling us?) or if you really don't understand what you're talking about. You seem to have based all of your research on back issues of Sgt Rock and his Howling Commandos. Have you ever worked in industry? Do you have any idea how long it takes to build the jigs needed to produce an aircraft, how long it takes to perfect a design before putting it into production, how long it takes to line up subcontractors, purchase stock. Hell, it takes more than a few months just to get legal to prepare a contract for signature.

I'll take your advice and find another thread - maybe enough of us will do that that this thread will will quickly be forgotten as a stupid anomaly on an otherwise decent site.

Cheers,



Dana

I was serious but now I know I will be banned pretty quickly so I'm going to go down in flames. I love it, playing with war nerds who have no imagination and can't think outside of the box and don't like any idea that's not there's. But you could never think of it.

I haven't seen Sgt Rock and His Howling Commando's. Not really a fan of black and white movies.

Do I have any idea how long it takes to build the jigs needed to produce aircraft? You never asked what my profession is, hehe... I might know a bit more about it than you do, hehe... Two weeks, if you're not in a hurry. So you're under the impression that businesses don't really want to sell their stuff to aircraft manufacturers? You must be Russian, that's why you don't understand how capitalism works.

You're going to leave my thread? Aww darn, I was so looking forward to your interesting and helpful comments, hehe...

Here's a suggestion that you won't take because you think you're smarter than everyone else and you're not. Next time, ask the new person a few questions to find out what their occupation is before acting like you know more than they do about aircraft production.