Just Schmidt
Senior Airman
I don't doubt he said it, I merely suspect that he may be using his source for more than it is worth.
"The case for the P-47 Thunderbolt being the greatest fighter of the Second World War " (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter NVSMITH
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
As I said earlier(post #335), the directive was ignored to some extent.
The USN(obviously not under AAC control) proceeded with development of drop tanks for the Lockheed Ventura, as per the video.
This would transfer easily to the P38.
It was apparently allowable for a manufacturer to fund their own drop tank development if the saw fit, but would not receive AAC funding.
It would be difficult, I imagine, for a manufacturer to loudly go against the documented and proclaimed directive of its Chief.
It would, by necessity, be on a "softly softly" basis.
Last edited:
IS the Document you are discussing the one by Hap Arnold in APRIL 1939, before the USA was at war and before anyone was at war? At the time the front line US fighter was the P-36 and the bomber mafia had approximately 20 B17s. Why would a peacetime USA need drop tanks? The P-47 hadn flown why does anyone think this document applies to it? If anyone at the time said "I want drop tanks to bomb Germany in a European war" they would have been sacked. Before during and after 1939 many things were developed by companies at their own cost the Merlin engine was and so to a large extent was the Mosquito. How much work is involved in a drop tnk for a plane you are selling by the thousand?
I, or rather Greg, pointed to the fact that Republic developed a "fixed" external tank which did not contravene the spirit of the directive of May 1939.
It has a "postmark" or date stamp of 16 May.
If you are referring to a different document dated April 1939 by Arnold, are you able to link to it please.
I am sure they are one and the same.
Last edited:
Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,056
- Dec 28, 2015
I have a letter signed and written by Churchill himself, forbidding PR spitfires with the new Merlin-45 engine to be flown over France in case the Germans took the engines apart and studied them.
This lasted for I think 20hours, until, in a separate letter it was countermanded by the C.A.S.
I hope the point is clear to all.
Delete, again.
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
Shouldn't you refrain from advocating a POV absent serious research on your own?
I suggest you pull Boylon's "USAF Study 136 Long Range Fighter Escort" for an exceptionally well researched history that is also richly cited from AAF written documents?
If less time is your only option, I suggest that you read "P-51B Mustang; North American's Bastard Stepchild that Saved 8th AF" and/or Paul Ludwig's "P-51 Mustang - Development of the Long Range Escort Fighter".
Each, and all the referenced documents reference common themes that somehow escaped Greg's attention because his underlying theme was:
- P-47 did not achieve 'rightful place' in history as a Long Range Escort
- The Bomber Mafia conspired to withold combat tanks in order to make the P-47 'look inadequate' when in fact it ould have easily been capable of escorting 8th AF to Schweinfurt/Regensburg on August 17, 1943.
- That even with the 75 gal combat tank, such long range would have been practical
Greg failed to recognize that the issue in 1941 was five fold:
1. AAC /AAF had a safety policy regarding use of unsealed Ferry tanks for combat operations.
2. No sealed combat tanks existed in US. In fact most AAF frontline Fighters/Pursuit were not produced with internal combat fuel cells.
3. No Pursuit in production or nearing production save the P-39 and P-40 had centerline racks for Ferry purposes.
4. Ony the P-38 achieved wng rack and plumbing by the end of 1941.
5. Nobody (Globally) believed a single engined Pursuit could be developed with combied range and performanceto escort B-17s and compete with German or English interceptor capabilities.
That said, General Arnold re-arranged the recommended R&D priorities to move "Pursuit with 1500 mile Range" from No. 4 to No. 1. Based onobservations of Spainish Civil War and Great Britain, he was NOT convinced hat the 'bomber would always get through'.
Of the existing airframes in hand of the AAF (P-38, P-39, P-40, P-47, XP-51) only the P-38 was remotely capable of extended range coupled with high altitude capability. Of those only the XP-51 had the same ferry range as the P-38 on internal fuel. The disadvantage of the P-47 from day 1 was that a.) the R-2800 was a gas hog compared to Allison V-1710, and b,) It was designed as a 'point' interceptor with less range than the P-38. With two engines and same fuel, the P38 range was greater than the P-47 (and XP-51).
When the P-47C was deployed to ETO, it did ot even have a.) Water Injection, b.) C/L rack to carry bomb or Ferry tank, c.) Pressurization scheme to feed fuel from the external tank when first available as the 200 gallon 'tub' tank. When the 200gal tank was first installed (in desparation during Blitz Week - July 1943) while awaiting the new 75 gal combat tanks from US - it would not feed above 18000 feet - therefore suitable nly for extended penetration support range from 125mi to approx 200 mi combat radius. Had escort of VIII BC B-17s been performed at 18000 feet, the 'new' combat radius could have been extended to ~ 250 mi.
On this most crucial point Greg was seriously confused regarding the assumptions planners placed to define 'Combat Radius' in order to present a reasonable set of assumptions to launch, climb to escort altiude, R/V with bombers , escort closely (S track instead of straight line), fight for 20 minutes to internal fuel still remaining, cruise home alone at optimal cruise speed and altitude (10,000 feet) in a straight line to then decend and lurk for 20 minutes before landing. I all seriousness the 'bomber mafia' wished for their escorts to live and fight another day - rather than fly to the target, fight and then bail out due to empty tanks.
The rat in the woodpile was Materiel Command - which did not light a fire under the combat tank development which was initiated at high Prority by Arold when he hosted his top staff to organize priorities for fighter and bomber enhancements in January 1942 nFighter Conference - Immediately after WWII began for US. A mouse in the honeypot was Eaker's insufficient attention to securing local solutions in UK that were available to subcontract development of external fuel tnks for P-47 more suitable that the very draggy, very insufficient/non-sealed 200gal tub tank. That wasn't 'bomber mafia' mentality by Eaker. He was bitter about losing his P-38s to Africa campaign six months earlier - just a recognition that combat tanks were in the pipeline and that the P-47 was not in the picture as a long term solution for POINTBLANK.
Eaker was generally aware of the 'promise/potential' of the new P-51B as he was continually briefed by Ambassador Winant and Col Hitchcock and General Lyons CO of Air Services Command n UK. Following tour of 8th AF Operations by Asst War Secy Bob Lovett, Lovett returned to report to Arnold in July that Eaker wanted P-38s and Mustangs - which led to a short study to return a recommendationfor the P-51B, and subsequent delivery of first P-51B FGs to 9th AF ETO. Recall (maybe you don't) but the initiatives to add major internal fuel was already in prototype testing for P-51B-1 and P-38J in parallel with Lovett's visit - but the same plan for P-47D didn't result in first first flight testing until six months later.
So, 'Greg" completely whiffed in the root cause of the P-47C/D lack of combat radius, completely whiffed on the concept of a combat radius that included a.) actually escorting the B-17/24 at 25,000 feet - and actually engaging in combat, and completely whiffed regarding a 'mysterious bomber mafia conspiracy to hold a great fighter from achieving its natural place in history'.
Summary - P-47C/D had neither internal fuel capacity, nor wing pylons and plumbing to feed the fuel until production numbers of first the P-47D-15 (wing pylon/plumbing) and P-47D-25 (May/June for 'dribbles of P-47D-25). By that time it was clear that P-51B/C was clearly superior as long range/high altitude escort and air superiority airframe for 8th and 15th AF (and later for 20th AF). The decision to shed P-38/P-47 to 2nd TAF/9th AF was easy - as early as Big Week in February 1944.
One final note - had Arnold, Spaatz, Eaker been alive when Greg spouted trash about 'bomber mafia conspiracy' to sacrifice thousands of crews to hold back the P-47, I suspect he would have been tarred and feathered, then beaten senseless. That was an outrageous comment and thesis.
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
What are you, a child? He only expressed irritation that you didn't read and absorb what he posted - on his time - and asked repetitive questions.
How about taking care of your mother and your 'moderator' responsibilities, then at your leisure research the points and come back when you are comfortable enough to not be spoonfed?
And you have the gall to comment that Snowygrouch should be Ashamed of Himself????
Yes I stand by what I said.
I bend over backwards on the forum I moderate for to find information for those members who do not have the familiarity with the material that they are seeking.
It proved very easy for snowygrouch to find the specific material, as he posted it in the first place and shortly demonstrated how easy it was for him to find.
I even later thanked him for taking the extra effort to find the document in question, or did you miss that bit?
He initially scolded me for not reading the thread(s)
I pointed out to him, with a reference, that I had read it.
Not necessarily absorbed all of the massive amount of material in these threads(including a 333 page document), but made some attempt.
I was merely asking him politely(initially) for some help by pointing me directly to the material.
Or did you miss that as well?
Your high horse will get a broken leg one day.
Me.....30 posts.
You .....8800.
I know where your attitude comes from.
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
I buy that explanation but would point out that the trapazoidal wing, constant basic wing design (airfoil airfoil thickness, combined with low drag 'as is', armament schemes that deviated incrementally - without bumps, or a wing with no wing shortening/tip alterations- while maintaining high quality butt joints on wing and fuselage surfaces - added to the Mustang advantages for repetative manufacturing velocity and constant reduction in direct labor hours.
I confess that absent individual model Spitfire process plans my comments reflect a belief that so many variations of singlular improvements to improve specific mission profiles are a major factor in my belief that many more Spits would have been delivered for same asset/resource pool had the variations been cut in half.
I'm happy to be educated on the error of my POV.
Many more ''better'' Spits would have been made is my belief.
I think you are hitting the quote button instead of the edit.
I'm sure I am not.
The "edit" is on the left of the page......the "quote" is on the right.
I just thought that you quoting your own post was a sign that you had hit the wrong button, obviously you intended to have an argument with yourself and I rudely interrupted, sorry for that.
drgondog
Major
Didn't miss any of it. I have shot my broken legged mounts many times, probably will again. Been thrown and near broken by superior scholarship. Learned a ew lessons and have used the same high horse for awhile.
Stand ENTIRELY with the comments I made regarding your petulant response to SnowyGroutch. His entire focus on your cluelessness was to assist your understanding of the points that clearly were far above your pay grade for understanding and reading comprehension - yet you were unhappy that he didn't perform more research for you, while aking you to task for not reading that he spoonfed you.
He should have simply put you on ignore after the last exchange.
That he didn't is an indication that he is somewhat more reasonable than yourself.
Just like any reasonable person, he responded to the sincere "thank you" that I offered - twice.
P.S. You might like to learn to spell.
P.P.S. It is not difficult for the originator of posted material to find it when asked.
I did so politely a few times before being stomped on.
Howard Gibson
Staff Sergeant
Just for the record folks, my copy of Victory Through Air Power, by Alexander de Seversky was published in 1943, and it states that bombers with adequate defensive armament will survive the mission. I always kept the book next to me when I watched Brute Force on what my mother liked to call the Arms and Extermination channel. It helps to know just how clueless fairly knowledgeable industry experts can be.
Defensive armament was fairly effective in WWI. It was expected to be effective in WWII, so there was no point in developing drop tanks. Then they learned, but they did not explain it to de Seversky.
Defensive armament was fairly effective in WWI. It was expected to be effective in WWII, so there was no point in developing drop tanks. Then they learned, but they did not explain it to de Seversky.
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Since we're being grammatically correct, it is required that one includes either a comma or colon after the Post Script abbreviation.
Following on from the above directive by Arnold prohibiting drop tanks(page 4&5 of 11):
DROP TANKS
USAAF
Jan Zdiarsky
https://ww2aircraft.net › drop_tanks_usaaf-pdf.550486
It would appear that Greg has referenced this document in his video, as a number of images appear in both the article and the video.
Unfortunately, there are no sources or references listed in the article by Mr. Zdiarsky.
Last edited:
I'm not sure that you are correct.
In the following example I believe that the comma is only there because there are a number of items in succession.
You will note that a comma is also after "addition" and "supplement".
1. COUNTABLE NOUN
A postscript is something written at the end of a letter after you have signed your name. You usually write ' PS' in front of it.
A brief, hand-written postscript lay beneath his signature.
Synonyms: P.S., addition, supplement, appendix More Synonyms of postscript
Postscript definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary
Postscript definition: A postscript is something written at the end of a letter after you have signed your name.... | Meaning, pronunciation, translations and examples
www.collinsdictionary.com
If the P.S. is by itself, I don't believe that a comma is required.
Wikipedia seems to take the same approach as Collins.
Postscript - Wikipedia
My degree is in Economics/Accounting major, not English.
I am prepared to be educated on this small matter.
Last edited:
