Improved interwar RAF/RN ASW

[SaparotRob]

The beer's too warm.

 

[nuuumannn]

And if I correct you I get accused of being anti-British.

Or if I ask what was modified to justify your position it gets blown off.

Give me an example of when you have corrected me, and I have accused you of being anti-British because of it?

But if I point out some of British mistakes I am accused of being anti-British.

No! Again, you're putting your own spin on it! I correct you if you deliberately state the Brits did something when they didn't or didn't do something when they did or by not putting their actions into context. Let me remind you....

You once stated that pre-war British bombers were rubbish, I asked you to justify that and you banged on about the Armstrong Siddeley Tiger on the Whitley, as you do, so I presented figures and made loose comparisons with other bombers built around the world at the time, which proved that British bombers had good and bad points but were not, on average rubbish for the time, the main take away being they could carry big bomb loads further and were fitted with better defensive armament.

You said that the RAF dedicated no resources to army co-operation between the wars and I pointed out that between the mid-1920s and the mid 1930s the RAF operated over 1,000 army co-coperation aircraft before the Lysander entered service - many air forces didn't even operate that many aircraft in total in that time.

You said the British were behind in putting constant speed propellers on their aircraft, yet when war was declared in 1939, only the RAF and USAAC had frontline fighters that had C/S propellers in service.

You claimed the British night fighter force in 1940 was disorganised and badly equipped, no other air force had a dedicated night fighter arm at that time and no other air force was fitting radar to night fighters at the time.

You repeatedly state the Defiant was not a success as a night fighter based on its kill figures, yet I have stated that these are misleading, because they don't give an accurate context of overall operations.

You also said that the British mismanaged use of the Fortress I because of the small numbers sent on operations, I stated that this was because of unserviceability, not to mention the icing issues and so on that were beyond British and US control or knowledge.

You have repeatedly made the point, in fact you opened an entire thread about how poor the RAF was at fulfilling what it stated it could do before the war, specifically its bomber fleet not being able to fly all the way to Germany and so forth, so I chimed in stating that no air force was capable of doing everything they stated at the time and I have repeatedly, REPEEATEDLY stated that by putting these things into context, it turns out that the RAF was like everyone else in this case, therefore such a thing was not remarkable, but common. To add to the bomber discussion, you have repeatedly slandered the British tactics first applied in the war, yet I have stated that no air force in the world at the time could have done anything different in combatting the German advance into Western Europe any better.

There are probably more examples. I'm gonna keep correcting you if what you state is not accurate but do us a favour, leave the presumptuousness out. Quoting me out of context doesn't do your case any favours. Case in point from a few posts back.

And use a bit of your own argument back at you. Claiming that the British had anything to do with the improvement in the ceiling of the Hudson compared to the Lockheed 14 overlooks the fact the engines used in the later Hudson's didn't exist in 1937-38 and when the engines did show up later they were American engines using American superchargers.

This is what I wrote:

It was a masterpiece of modification to an existing design and retained the original dimensions of the Model 14, Lockheed managed to keep its performance to similar parameters as the airliner. This was impressive as, while the Hudson was slightly slower in cruise and maximum speeds, it had a (considerably) higher ceiling and longer range, despite a heavier (by 1,600 lbs) empty weight and (by 2,000 lb) max loaded weight.

Where was I crediting Britain? Cut the BS and stop accusing me of saying things that I'm not.

 

[Shortround6]

From the 1938 Janes I am trying to post all the US Flying boats that are pictured in that edition, some are old and out of production.

don't bet on some of the specifications.

According the 1938 Janes The PBY-1, PBY-2, PBY-3 production was complete and the PBY-4 contract would be completed in early 1939 with 250 PBYS for the USN.
Hatches on the rear deck and not the well known bubbles. Landing gear is still in the future. Lower powered engines than later versions.

One prototype at press time. the hull needed a lot of work.
Fleetwings "Sea Bird"

Just about all of the structure is shot welded stainless steel. The first US airplane to get a an approved type certificate made of stainless steel.

Grumman G-21A

at time of writing ( The Janes edition) 14 had been completed and 31 were under construction (?)

 

[nuuumannn]

The beer's too warm.

It is and I hate warm beer, speaking of things the Brits do badly...

 

[Shortround6]

Hall PH-2 for the US Coast Guard.

Old design .
Prototype XPTBH-1

failed to met spec speed. Was destroyed by Hurricane.
Martin 156

enlarged Martin 130, sold to Russia.

Sikorsky S-42-B

Last one (out of 10) was built in 1937
Sikorsky S-43

Sikorsky XPBS-1

First flew in 1937, evaluated by the USN and used but no production contract.

 

[yulzari]

It is and I hate warm beer, speaking of things the Brits do badly...

British beer is not served warm thank you. It should be at cellar temperature which is cool. Not frozen for fear of the drinker tasting the beer like American beer.

Desperate attempt to divert the squabbling children and have them play nicely.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

1 Catalina import to UK in January 1941, another 76 by end July, plus 9 to the Far East.

The PBY-4 production ended in June 1939, the XPBY-4/5A accepted in December 1939. PBY-5 production began in September 1940, Catalina I and II production began in November. PBY-5A production began in October 1941.

UK: 28-5ME contract A-37 (SO-2), 59 aircraft accepted November 1940 to October 1941
28-5ME contract F-210, 40 aircraft accepted December 1940 to May 1941
28-5ME contract A-2587 (SO-7), 7 aircraft accepted November and December 1940

Australia: 28-5MA contract Aus 58 (SO-4), 18 aircraft accepted February to October 1941.

Canada: 28-5ME contract CAN 78, 36 aircraft accepted August to November 1941, plus 14 28-5AME (Amphibian) November 1941 to January 1942.

Netherlands: contract N-36 (SO-5), 36 aircraft accepted August to October 1941.

I think the initial Hudson production was along the lines of 200 UK, 50 Australia given arrival dates, though I know the construction numbers say 149 RAF, 1 RAAF, 27 RAF, 2 RAAF, 74 RAF, remainder of RAAF order. Lockheed had built 287 Hudson to end 1939, then 31, 21 and 12, total 64, in the first 3 months of 1940, for 351 mark I built. 250 deliveries to end November 1939.

Britain imported 138 Hudson to end October 1939, another 6 in December, 28 more went to Canada, all from the first 200 ordered. The RAF taken on charge dates were March 1939 to January 1940. RCAF September 1939 to February 1940. The RAF option for 50 have Taken on Charge dates of December 1939 to January 1940.

The RAF claims the 130 Hudsons NOT sent to the UK were 18 Canada and 18 Australia in January 1940, then 32 Australia in February, 27 Australia in March, 23 Australia, 2 South Africa and 10 unknown (Canada) in April. UK Hudson imports in the first 4 months of 1940 were 14, 26, 21, 9, total 70, all up since start of production 344 accounted for out of 351.

The RAAF had received 44 Hudson by 23 February 1940, 65 by 15 March. As of 20 October 1939 the RAAF had been promised 58 built by end 1939.

The final 3 from the RAF option for 50 more, P5163 and 5164 listed as sold to South Africa 29 February 1940, P5165 Sunk in the Pacific.

 

[SaparotRob]

Desperate attempt to divert the squabbling children and have them play nicely.

Busted.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The beer's too warm.

Fly it around in an LB-30 and enjoy it after a long day's work.

In seriousness -- following the argument it seems like both parties are saying the same thing from different perspectives. Lockheed's basic design was sound, and they were very responsive to British needs, while the Brits had a fairly clear idea of what they needed. There's credit enough to be shared, it seems to me.

 

[nuuumannn]

British beer is not served warm thank you. It should be at cellar temperature which is cool. Not frozen for fear of the drinker tasting the beer like American beer.

Desperate attempt to divert the squabbling children and have them play nicely.

It's warmer than when it's chilled. It' warm and yuk. And yes, beer is a good way of getting the kids to play nicely