special ed
2nd Lieutenant
- 5,599
- May 13, 2018
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I would point out, for the conversation, even after PH there remained much isolationism. For example, the "Why we fight" series was produced and several of the period movies had a character who said people who fought were suckers. That movie character was soundly defeated along with patriotic lines to refute the idea. These films would not have been produced if isolationism had been eliminated. If citizens had been adequately transformed to war thinking, all the early war movies would not have been needed. John Wayne could have continued with cowboy movies instead of "The flying tigers", "They were expendable", "Back to Bataan" and such.
Probably wont go down well here, to learn that there never was a "Brisbane tank." It is a fictitious name, likely introduced earlier this century by a vanity press author, and accepted uncritically ever since. It often happens in popular history forums, that a idea is repeated often enough until, eventually, it morphs into an inviolable truth. Should you have any doubts, then see for yourself if you can find a contemporary primary (not secondary) source reference to the term.Go on Bill!
Neil
As I recall, she was a Representative from Washington state, however it has been decades since I read it.
Probably wont go down well here, to learn that there never was a "Brisbane tank." It is a fictitious name, likely introduced earlier this century by a vanity press author, and accepted uncritically ever since. It often happens in popular history forums, that a idea is repeated often enough until, eventually, it morphs into an inviolable truth. Should you have any doubts, then see for yourself if you can find a contemporary primary (not secondary) source reference to the term.
As memory serves, she also voted "No" in 1917 when the declaration of war against Germany was called for, however at that time she was not the only one.Jeanine Raskin (? Top of my head answer) from Montana.
You're right that isolationism survived PH. It indeed survives to this day, and I do myself at times feel its strains. Not so much about Ukraine or our invasion of Afghanistan, which I think are both well-supported. Iraq 2003, not so much, that was a needless division of effort at a time when OBL was still on the loose. Never divide your forces in the face of the enemy. The Japanese have, I'm told, a proverb: "He who chases two hares catches neither." I was against invading Iraq 2003-version and don't recant that view at all.
There's a lot of argument in my own head about 1990 Desert Storm as well of which I am myself a veteran.
So to put it short, there's good and bad about isolationism. But with world economy being what it is nowadays, I think isolationism is not viable. I think, too, that while isols in the 30s may have some of the same thoughts springing around their heads as do I in mine own, it was less viable back then. Not too much less than now, as we see Russia, China, Iran, DPRK, and other countries lining up and taking aim at democracy. Is piecing out Czechoslovakia much different than urging Ukraine to accept any peace offer? I think not.
Sorry for the long answer, but I wanted to make sure we're straight-and-level. I've got too much respect for you to simply give your points a hand-wave, because there is truth in them.
ETA: Jeanette Rankin and not "Jeanine Raskin". God, I hate getting old.
So are you saying the name Brisbane Tank was never used at the time or that there was no drop tank at all at that time that corresponds with what some now refer to as the Brisbane Tank?
The 'Ford'/Brisbane belly tank of 200gal, designed by 27 Air Depot Squadron at Eagle Farm, Brisbane and contracted to Ford for 3000 units. It was designed to attach to the same four point suspension as the Republic 200gal paper/composite Ferry tank. The Ford tank was made of steel and was a.) reusable, and b.) designed for ejection without arming the airframe. Neither tank were compatible with the B-7 Belly Shackle introduced as production article on the P-47D-5.This discussion would have been great without Marshalls' connection issues, which is understandable because he is an old geezer like me.
After 1'st page the discussion went south (Is that the proper term ?)
What I gather these posts:
With 200 gal belly tank early P-47 (pre-D25) would have had combat range of about 400 miles, not enough to reach Berlin
][...]
B. Do you REALLY think the Nazi's were going to be placated?
With 200 gal belly tank early P-47 (pre-D25) would have had combat range of about 400 miles, not enough to reach Berlin
The P-47 C/D/G etc. were indeed capable for carrying a 200 gal belly tank. Trick with that tank was that it was not possible to reliably pressurize it (sorta big deal when 25000+ ft operations are in question), and that there was probably a meager amount of these manufactured (see how difficult is to find a photo of it), since the role of that tank was to be used in ferrying the fighters, that did not required high altitude operation, and thus the need for pressurization was not an issue.My note: This statement in the thesis pertains to the second Schweinfurt raid 14th October 1943 and here written in black and white is a clear intention to escort the bombers within the range capabilities of the escorts. So if the P-47 really could carry a 200 gallon tank at this time and extend the escort range even further, then why didn't they fit it? Well probably simply because it was not feasible to do so.
Due to further political pressure applied by the Combined Chiefs, a suitable 150 gallon drop wing tank was quickly developed. In September of 1943, the monthly production of 150 gallon wing tanks for the P-47 was only 300; by December it was 22,000.
If the tasking was taken seriously a year earlier, this one innovation could have decreased bomber losses during the fall of 1943 but emphasis arrived too late.
Which expolited the victory? That's blatantly short-selling the P-51s.The P-47 was supplemented by the P-51 Mustang, in numbers by the summer of 1944, which exploited the victory.
Also, the USAAF's disinterest in the P-51 Mustang prevented the plane from being in action six months earlier and at a crucial time.
I suppose there is always a risk that those who do not like the conclusions from this document may say that an officer like Greg Grabow has a horse in this race for some reason. However, it's a thesis after all and if what is written here is not historically correct then there would not only be a problem of some isolated individuals attempting to rewrite history, but a huge academic problem.
Why? Well because in that case a masters thesis at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College has passed muster but completely missed the fact that the P-47 actually could escort all the way to Schweinfurt with a 200 gallon tank and that some dog headed Generals sabotaged this opportunity.
And in summary, to me Greg Grabow makes a very strong case in his masters thesis that the P-47 was unable to provide long range escort at the time simply because a suitable drop tank was not available. And in my opinion, the onus lies on those who think this thesis is wrong (about the 200 gallon tank) to provide credible evidence to support that. Not the other way around.
The P-47 C/D/G etc. were indeed capable for carrying a 200 gal belly tank. Trick with that tank was that it was not possible to reliably pressurize it (sorta big deal when 25000+ ft operations are in question), and that there was probably a meager amount of these manufactured (see how difficult is to find a photo of it), since the role of that tank was to be used in ferrying the fighters, that did not required high altitude operation, and thus the need for pressurization was not an issue.
USAAF used to fill it to half of the volume, in order to use up the fuel before climbing up to the hi alt (= low pressure).
Which expolited the victory? That's blatantly short-selling the P-51s.
See the impact the P-51s have had already during the Big Week, despite the low number deployed (roughly 1 per each 6 P-47s).
Greg Grabow was doing his thesis for the US Army, not the USAF, 45+ years after the combat. How much of a 'heavy-weight' connoisseurs were the Army officers into what is not their cup of tea in 1990?
Note that G. Grabow says that combat radius of the P-47, after the increase of both internal and external fuel, was 400 miles*. It is about 520 miles from Dover and Schweinfurt.
Granted, P-47's will need to reach at least RAF bases in Kent, since East Anglia is too far away. This also assumes no wiggle room - ie. an ideal path to the target and back.
*wrong numbers, though
Trick was, partially, that "suitable drop tank was not available". Other part of the trick to reach Schweinfurt was in having more fuel internally.
Indeed, his words, not yours.That's not what I'm saying: Those are Grabows words and the P-51 is another discussion entirely:
I'm not sure what you are getting at here? Sounds a lot like you are discounting Grabow for being an Army officer and not being AF? And if +45 years is a problem then I guess all historian and those who post here can pack up and go home since none of us were around at the time. In addition, this is a master thesis, so I would not discount it so easily. How about pointing out what's wrong with it instead?
Fair enough, maybe it was 520 and not 400 miles AFTER drops tanks could be carried. But the issue of the debate was the claim that there was a "Bomber mafia" who intentionally did not make use of a supposedly available and suitable 200 gallon tank for ideological reasons. And I still don't see any evidence that there was one at the time.
Again, no one is saying that the internal fuel did not matter. Of course it did. But again, the debate was about the supposed availability of 200 gallon tank that the "Bomber mafia" were unwilling to use for ideological reasons.
Well, day 1 was before Sept 13 1940 ( near the end of the BoB) when the Army ordered 773 P-47Bs. Granted they could modify things later. P-47 already (on paper) carried almost twice the fuel of the P-40. Not twice the range but more range than the P-40 had. Once they fitted self sealing tanks to the P-38 it had about the same fuel capacity as the P-47 but had about over 30% more low speed drag. Once you go through all the more complicated calculations the the P-38G had about 15 more miles of range than a P-47C/early D on internal fuel, at best cruise for each plane and both of them were way short of what was needed to even escort a B-25.USAAF certainly missed the train with specifying the wing tanks facility for the P-47s from day 1.
Well, day 1 was before Sept 13 1940 ( near the end of the BoB) when the Army ordered 773 P-47Bs. Granted they could modify things later. P-47 already (on paper) carried almost twice the fuel of the P-40. Not twice the range but more range than the P-40 had. Once they fitted self sealing tanks to the P-38 it had about the same fuel capacity as the P-47 but had about over 30% more low speed drag. Once you go through all the more complicated calculations the the P-38G had about 15 more miles of range than a P-47C/early D on internal fuel, at best cruise for each plane and both of them were way short of what was needed to even escort a B-25.
It wasn't until the P-38 got drop tanks that it showed any real advantage over the P-47 in range.
If you slowed down the production of early P-47s by demanding changes were you really going to get more P-47s in Spring and Summer of 1943?
Since Grabow was an Army officer, and these are excerpts from his master (not even doctoral) thesis, and it was Army that greenlit his work - yes, I'll discount his work, not just since there is a number of factual mistakes or assumptions. Pointing them out:
- the listed radius of P-47 with increase of both internal and external tank
- P-51 was good only for simply 'exploiting the victory'
- there was a need to reinvent the wheel with the 150 gal drop tank,
- assumption that P-47s were plumbed for wing tanks,
- assumption that P-51s suitable for the ETO escort job were easy to be had without accounting for the historical production problems of the 2-stage Packard Merlins
Doing otherwise will imply that any scholarship that disagrees with his numbers and conclusions, is to be discounted by default.
Well like Grabow, I only have Masters, albeit in aeronautical engineering specializing in aerodynamics and structural engineering. But I gather from your reply you think anyone with less than a doctorate is not worth listening to. Tell me, in which field is your own PhD? Would be good for me to know so I'll know if it's worth reading your posts.
Well, this was in part, to compensate for the reduction of 100 gallons of internal fuel by the self sealing tanks. Wither this was tactically motivated (escort) or strategic motivated ( move from one air field to another) may be a question.P-38Es were being retrofitted with drop tanks by May 1941. This 'surgery' did not happen without USAAC/AAF blessing and wishes. P-38Fs (with wing tanks as standard?) were being delivered earlier, Feb 1942.
Nobody knew what they were going to run into in late 1942 and early 1943 and the US Army was not happy with the P-39 and P-40. They were buying and issuing them because they didn't have enough P-38s and P-47s.There is no need for more P-47s (10% less will do), but that those are with a much longer range.