It would seem that the directive was followed, despite your displeasure or discomfort.
"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
Present UK limitations are pretty much what they have always been, WRT "droppable stores and equipment", although the legal paperwork on liability and Crown indemnity will have changed many times. The bottom line is that Military can do what they wish, as long as they are not endangering lives or property. The reality is that any load is only dropped within the strictly laid down safety of Military areas and safety traces. However, any load may be dropped in emergency. But, if property is damaged or injuries caused the personnel may be subject to Military or Civil law. Civil aircraft that carry releasable loads (mainly Helicopters) are subject to Civil liability laws. However, I do not think that the CAA normally licence any droppable aircraft components or fuel tanks, even if only for dropping in emergency. The exceptions might be some Civil registered aircraft operated under contract to UK Gov.
Cheers
Eng
Yes, they decided not to develop drop tanks at their own expense, triggering 80 years of butt hurt about the poor P-47 being denied its place in history. I had no displeasure or discomfort at all until Youtube and its infamous videos started being made. Are you going to address the many issues pointed out by Drgondog or just talk abut this "directive" and spelling.
Snautzer01
Marshal
- 46,292
- Mar 26, 2007
That would be nice.
Many of his comments do not relate to the video that I originally linked to.
Accordingly, they will not be replied to.
At least you finally admitted that they did not develop drop tanks, as they were officially proscribed.
See, that wasn't so difficult was it?
Since the video references the P-47 development and events going back to 1939 drgondog's comments obviously apply to it, specifically the "stuff" that is not in the video but should be. He is, after all, discussing the P-47, not the interception of Yamamoto with P-38s.
What exactly should be in the video?
I'll post this again to give an opportunity for reply to show where aircraft manufacturers were 'officially proscribed'
not to produce drop tanks as it clearly states they were free to do so if they wished.
The C in C's directive as it reads states that the Army Air Corps was not to use drop tanks on the P-36. It also clearly states that Curtiss were
welcome to develop drop tanks but not at government expense. This obviously held for any other company who were producing aircraft.
There is nothing stating that any company was not at liberty to develop drop tanks for their aircraft designs.
The document also states no tactical aircraft was to have drop tanks.
The bomber offensive was a strategic operation, not a tactical one. Once escort planes were required for the strategic bomber force the drop
tank became a necessity as did larger internal loads along with more economical aircraft. The Mustang clearly fitted this role as it consumed half the fuel
per hour than the P-47 did. This fitted the long range "strategic" escort requirement.
Also, at the time the drop tank decision was made planes such as the P-36 carried two machine guns compared to the 12 .50 M2's of the B-17. That's
a lot of single seaters to tag along with not a lot of firepower.
The 1939 document was at the time, quite realistic and therefore valid, as was the 1942 directive which reflected the change in situational requirement.
not to produce drop tanks as it clearly states they were free to do so if they wished.
The C in C's directive as it reads states that the Army Air Corps was not to use drop tanks on the P-36. It also clearly states that Curtiss were
welcome to develop drop tanks but not at government expense. This obviously held for any other company who were producing aircraft.
There is nothing stating that any company was not at liberty to develop drop tanks for their aircraft designs.
The document also states no tactical aircraft was to have drop tanks.
The bomber offensive was a strategic operation, not a tactical one. Once escort planes were required for the strategic bomber force the drop
tank became a necessity as did larger internal loads along with more economical aircraft. The Mustang clearly fitted this role as it consumed half the fuel
per hour than the P-47 did. This fitted the long range "strategic" escort requirement.
Also, at the time the drop tank decision was made planes such as the P-36 carried two machine guns compared to the 12 .50 M2's of the B-17. That's
a lot of single seaters to tag along with not a lot of firepower.
The 1939 document was at the time, quite realistic and therefore valid, as was the 1942 directive which reflected the change in situational requirement.
drgondog
Major
You are sufficiently absent facts in this discussion to make uninformed comments with increasing velocity and magntude.
Evidently you found sage advice like "Be silent when others may not have formed an opinion regarding qualifications - or flap your jaws randomly and remove all doubt".
The comments were to elucidate you to the underlying and parallel events. Unfortunately you don't know enough to make an informed observation regarding
relevance. Precisely the same comment applies to Greg and his now infamous P-47 video..
drgondog
Major
Fact based comments would have been useful.
Start with drgndogs post and progress from there, leaving out tripe about directives in May 1939. A correct calculation of range in combat escorting bombers at 25,000 feet leaving out tripe about ferry tanks and Yamamotos interception, if possible. Nonsense about "bomber mafia" should be left in the bar.
I think it would help you to know who you are talking to, you are starting to look very foolish indeed.
Are you denying the existence of the "Bomber Mafia"?
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,356
- Jan 31, 2021
The maximum was 425 rounds per gun (3,400 rounds total), but many references state the usual load was about 267 rounds per gun (2,136 rounds total). Using the latter load would save about 392 lbs of weight.
Once again, the May 1939 directive is a fact.
Please point out his exact factual errors.
It might be useful to cross reference your contributions to the specific time(s) in the video
Yes. The Mafia are were criminal gangs originating in Italy, they never branched out into the strategic bombing of Europe.
We have covered that, it was in peacetime and allowed any manufacturer to develop drop tanks for any plane they may develop. The P-47 hadnt flown at the time, so what is your point, apart from some "bomber mafia" conspiracy nonsense?
So, you are denying the influence of the "bomber mafia" on AAC(Army Air Corps) policy?
