"The case for the P-47 Thunderbolt being the greatest fighter of the Second World War "

[Greg Boeser]

Well, does the Canadian Army plan to invade the US or do they make plans in 1920s/30s to invade somebody else using the Canadian Navy to transport them to the Invasion site?

September 1939, however, the RCN still had only six River-class destroyers, five minesweepers and two small training vessels,[21][22][23] bases at Halifax and Victoria, and altogether 145 officers and 1,674 men. And this was it's high point after the end of WW I. they had 366 men in 1922.

At least you can make and criticizes plans to invade the US, they know they would lose but it is training. Just saying march to dock, get on board the HMCS Nonexistent and sail to Norway doesn't even provide that.

March across the sea ice in January.
How hard can it be?

 

[BobB]

In the 1920s and 1930s, the Canadian army actually planned an invasion of the USA.

If you are an army planner and it is peacetime, you have to practise planning stuff.

They still have a plan for invading the US. Their undercover agents are in Florida and Arizona all winter, laying the groundwork for when they strike.

 

[Greg Boeser]

They still have a plan for invading the US. Their undercover agents are in Florida and Arizona all winter, laying the groundwork for when they strike.

And seeking to overwhelm US health care facilities everywhere. Not to mention trying to debase our economy with near worthless Canadian coins.

 

[EwenS]

The USA had a whole series of colour coded war plans in the 1920s and 1930s covering war scenarios with just about everyone. Most famous was War Plan Orange to fight Japan. But they included plans to fight Britain and its Empire, War Plan Red with various sub plans in shades of red to deal with parts thereof. Canada was War Plan Crimson.

On the outbreak of WW2 in 1939 the "Colour" plans were replaced by a series of "Rainbow" Plans.covering different scenarios.

United States color-coded war plans - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[SaparotRob]

The Canadians are planning to invade here claiming to "protect" the English speaking Americans.

 

[yulzari]

The Canadians are planning to invade here claiming to "protect" the English speaking Americans.

The English comment:
B'aint gurt Yanks wi' t'lingo. Us only hears Yankee from they Johnnies. Us is proper job.

 

[pbehn]

The Canadians are planning to invade here claiming to "protect" the English speaking Americans.

Why not send a taxi to get them all out?

 

[Peter Gunn]

Why not send a taxi to get them all out?

Taxi? What century are you living in, we modern hipster types are using UBER and LYFT to send them Canucks packing...

 

[Reluctant Poster]

I agree in part, but heres a slightly contrarian view from me.

Guernica had a massive impact on global political thinking that merely confirmed a lot of the fears evolving in Europe during the 20s and 30s. Were the 'Bomber Mafia' and doomsayers like Stanley Baldwin, Lidell Hart etc. wrong only in as much that as poor as the aircraft proved as accurate delivery systems, it was the nature of the conventional the bombs they carried that was insufficient without total air superiority?

In that context, Stanley Baldwin's statement that 'the bomber would always get through' has a potentially different nuance. I think he *was* essentially right, wasn't he? There was no complete protection from a bomber attack at a strategic level. In fact, I'm unaware that any major attack on a civilian target by a bomber force was ever completely turned back by fighters and AA. The best any defence could do was nullify its effectiveness and make it a costly and uneconomic exercise in the long term. But bombers did indeed almost always 'get through'.

That retrospectroscope seems to be being used whilst forgetting that these guys had been through WW1 only two decades before. If biological and chemical weapons had been advanced as far as the aircraft that could carry them had since WW1 and had actually been widely used over densely populated areas, then perhaps we'd have a different take? What if Germans had chosen to make a maximum effort raids that included large amounts of the new nerve agents such as sarin, tabun or soman? Or even some other more deadly chemical agent, from a nation renowned for its world beating chemical and industrial capabilities? What if the Germans had been as unscrupulous as the Japanese in China in their use of biological weapons? These were known and feared potentialities. Look at any newsreels of British civilians in 1939 and 1940 carrying gas masks for the proof

I think we often forget the context of the times in our judgements. And of course, just six years after the outbreak of war, only one bomber had to get through to destroy an entire city, and two to end resistance from one of the most fanatical warrior nations of the 20th century. I'd say that made them correct, to be honest.

Gas is not as effective a weapon as often portrayed. You need lots of it and the weather has to cooperate. To kill a soldier in WWI required a lot of gas. I had calculated it at one time and it was tons.

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/combat-studies-institute/csi-books/leavenworth-papers-10-chemical-warfare-in-world-war-i-the-american-experience-1917-1918.pdf

The Tokyo sarin attacks were not that effective.

Tokyo subway sarin attack - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't think WWII bombers could achieve the concentrations necessary to launch effective gas attacks

 

[Reluctant Poster]

I recall reading that over the war about 50% of UK industrial output was spent on BC. Which is really a staggeringly high fraction if you think about it. With a heavy bomber lasting on average something like 10 missions before being shot down, it took a lot of production effort not only to expand the force but just to replace losses.

So it's quite clear the opportunity cost of that was huge. I think a good case can be made on spending part of those resources on something else with a better cost-benefit ratio. Though of course in addition to the damage from the bombing itself, it also extracted a big cost from Germany in terms of night fighters, flak, radars etc.

This has been posted previously on this website:

https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/handle/2123/664/adt-NU20050104.11440202whole.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y

 

[SplitRz]

Gas is not as effective a weapon as often portrayed. You need lots of it and the weather has to cooperate. To kill a soldier in WWI required a lot of gas. I had calculated it at one time and it was tons.

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/combat-studies-institute/csi-books/leavenworth-papers-10-chemical-warfare-in-world-war-i-the-american-experience-1917-1918.pdf

The Tokyo sarin attacks were not that effective.

Tokyo subway sarin attack - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't think WWII bombers could achieve the concentrations necessary to launch effective gas attacks

#1 Whether it was or wasn't is irrelevant to the prevailing fears and understanding of the time.
#2 The Tokyo attacks were very limited and deployed by complete amateurs, so any comparison there seems a bit spurious to me (?)

A more pertinent comparison would be to look at the effect of gas as a weapon in Ethiopia
or, for a more direct comparison to the effect in a built-up area we could look at what happened in Halabja.

3,200–5,000 killed
7,000–10,000 injured

... all achieved in '14 bombings in sorties of seven to eight planes each'.

Although modern jets operated by the Iraqis might have carried comparatively more payload by weight, a raid of 150 aicraft carrying 3000lbs of gas munitions was well within the capability of the Luftwaffe. Additionally, theres every reason to believe that German produced poison gas may have been more deadly, given the direct experience of developing and using it in WW1 and their vats chemical manufacturing capabilities.

The British may have equipped the majority of the population with gas masks, but their effectiveness was never put to test against the nerve agents the Germans had at their disposal.

 

[gruad]

If I was a pilot then I would fly P47 above all given the protection and indestructible nature of the beast.

However most people forget that the P47 cost the same as two P51s. So as a commander it would never be the greatest fighter...

 

[pbehn]

If I was a pilot then I would fly P47 above all given the protection and indestructible nature of the beast.

However most people forget that the P47 cost the same as two P51s. So as a commander it would never be the greatest fighter...

If it was indestructible why didnt they produce a wingless version to knock out tanks with 50 Cal guns on the ground. It is a huge leap of faith to believe a half inch bore MG can take out a tank if mounted on an aircraft, but cant take out an aircraft if mounted on a tank.

 

[gruad]

If it was indestructible why didnt they produce a wingless version to knock out tanks with 50 Cal guns on the ground. It is a huge leap of faith to believe a half inch bore MG can take out a tank if mounted on an aircraft, but cant take out an aircraft if mounted on a tank.

Relatively indestructible. Radial Engine. Turbo in the Rear. Tight cowling. Plenty of armour compared to others given 2800hp.

 

[gruad]

If they just fitted rear tanks and plumbed them for DT's from the factories the Spit would have been the best overall in my opinion.

Biggest mistake of war keeping Spit as interceptor when allies on offense...

 

[Greg Boeser]

If it was indestructible why didnt they produce a wingless version to knock out tanks with 50 Cal guns on the ground. It is a huge leap of faith to believe a half inch bore MG can take out a tank if mounted on an aircraft, but cant take out an aircraft if mounted on a tank.

A wingless version would not be combat effective as the armament of a P-47 was located in the wings.
An airborne battery of .50s is a bit more effective against tanks than a ground based one because turret roof and engine deck armor tended to be a lot thinner than hull and turret front and side armor.
.50 caliber AA guns did knock down their share of low flying aircraft.

 

[pbehn]

A wingless version would not be combat effective as the armament of a P-47 was located in the wings.
An airborne battery of .50s is a bit more effective against tanks than a ground based one because turret roof and engine deck armor tended to be a lot thinner than hull and turret front and side armor.
.50 caliber AA guns did knock down their share of low flying aircraft.

The wingless fuselage is purely for protection, you can bounce 50 Cals off the turret of a tank in the same way P-47s bounced rounds off the ground to knock tanks out hitting them underneath where they have no protection.

 

[GrauGeist]

A friend of mine, who was with the 82nd Airborn at Normandy, had mentioned that of all the aircraft he saw in action from Normandy onward, it was the P-47 and Typhoon that were the most fearsome.

While he never mentioned any tanks destroyed, he did say that the damage inflicted on vehicles, structures, animals and humans was the stuff of nightmares.

 

[tomo pauk]

Biggest mistake of war keeping Spit as interceptor when allies on offense...

[citation needed]

 

[pbehn]

Biggest mistake of war keeping Spit as interceptor when allies on offense...

The RAF was and is first of all there for defence of the UK. It was also responsible for defence of USA assets in UK. It may be possible in hindsight to say that the UK was over protected, but to not have any air defence in 1943/44 could have been a massive mistake.