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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
After reading Dook's several entries it becomes clear he knows NOTHING about the process of designing and building aircraft, especially at a time where everything is done on PAPER. Nor does he seem to understand the process of setting up literally thousands of subcontractors, ensuring they have the capability to produce the parts, that the parts they produce are up to military specs and actually FIT, nor how long it took/takes to make machine tools and train their operators to actually produce the parts. And then, of course, there is slight problem of training mechanics, armorers, crews, building airfields and support facilities.

Even given the designs starting to be flight tested, etc. in 1940, these aircraft were so far from being combat-ready as to make them excellent targets but little else.

If one followed Dook's peculiar logic, the U.S. would have been exceptionally well equipped with obsolete, out-of-date aircraft designed in the mid-1930's. I can see German and Japanese fighter pilots licking their lips in anticipation of the high scores of kills they would have made on such aircraft -- which, even with the early versions of the aircraft we flew and fought in, was pretty much exactly the case. It is clear from the rapid and constant flow of modifications made during the war to the very aircraft Dook outlines that the U.S. had almost no concept of what modern combat really required of the weapons with which it was to be fought.

I don't think Dook should be banned. Every forum needs at least one blithering idiot to help illustrate the cost of such mindless drivel and bring out those who truly know what they are talking about and would like a round of historical fisticuffs even if dueling with an unarmed man.

shaking my head,

AlanG
 
Okay:
1) You don't have any P-51's so you'll have to use Vanguards instead. Put the 2 stage engine in it. That becomes your medium-high level interceptor.
2) Equip your A-20's with torpedoes, it became the Soviets favourite torpedo bomber.
3) More B-25's. It was the Soviets favourite strategic bomber.
4) Remove half the wing guns, maybe all, from the P-39, reduce the armour. Use them as your low-medium level point defence interceptor across the Pacific. The P-40 becomes your air superiority fighter.
5) The aircraft with turbos can come later.
6) Scuttle your old WW1 battleships in shallow waters to provide shore defence and AA guns in the Philippines, Guam, Wake, Midway, Samoa. Its notoriously difficult to sink a battleship that's already been sunk. That's the lesson the Germans learnt at Leningrad.
 
But unfortunately, the mod and admin staff has to keep civility amongst the forum members. Otherwise it becomes complete chaos. He was incapable of civility or humility.
It was his complete contempt for the people at the time that took my breath away. All playing golf or being useless at everything. No US (or allied) bomber could hit anything so cancel them all and build one that flies higher and faster? Its an insult to everyone involved at the time. All the aviation industry of the allies produced on airframe and one engine that could do what was needed in 1943/4 from a standing start it was developed and produced in numbers despite the engine and airframe coming from different countries. To do that in 3 years is a staggering achievement, even if they did forget the tail hook.
 
Darn, late to the party again, I miss all the fun.

Although I must admit, I would have liked to see how he was going to explain how to get an engine/aircraft factory up and running in two weeks.
 
Darn, late to the party again, I miss all the fun.

Although I must admit, I would have liked to see how he was going to explain how to get an engine/aircraft factory up and running in two weeks.

Magic?

He did say butt-kicking was involved. Of course, generals and admirals delegate all butt-kicking to NCOs, who are without peer in the role. On the other hand, engineers (and STEM professionals, in general) are masters at being passive-aggressive. Some of the shenanigans that the scientists on the Manhattan Project performed had Leslie Groves rethinking his career choices.

Even Stalin, with the threat of the Gulag, had trouble forcing projects to go faster than resources allowed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread