'What If' posed to Elon Musk

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

G

Greyman

Tech Sergeant
1,868
1,580
Jan 31, 2009
In the latest Hardcore History Addendum episode Dan Carlin had a discussion with Elon Musk and Bill Riley from SpaceX. One question he asked them that didn't get the type of answer/discussion he was hoping for was the following:

I have a Star Trek episode in mind I want to involve you in.

If I take you back to ... one of the Allied aircraft engineering rooms and just say 'OK Elon, you're working with whatever those people have to work with what's the easiest, quickest thing that you can suggest to them that they can do that will make a difference'. In other words you can't do anything too sophisticated -- they cant get from here to there -- but you could say something like 'you know you guys are missing something really obvious here that you'll discover five years from now'. I mean is there anything right away that you look and you go 'if they'd only done this sooner...'

I thought it would be interesting to post here and see what could come up.
 
A lot of WWII development looked like a good idea at the time.

The Germans and Japanese needed two-stage superchargers of some sort. I think turbochargers were too much work. Stanley Hooker's decision to double up his impellers, was a good one.

What if the British had pushed to get the Bristol Centaurus into production earlier? If a Centaurus fit onto a Hawker Tornado, a Pratt and Whitney R-2800 would have too.

The Americans could have allowed Allison to develop better superchargers. This ultimately did not matter, since Packard Merlins were available.
 
Last edited:
Greyman said:
In the latest Hardcore History Addendum episode Dan Carlin had a discussion with Elon Musk and Bill Riley from SpaceX.
Click to expand...

Darn it, Elon Musk.
"At the beginning of ww2, when on Pacific theater the clashes between the Japanese and American...", or to that effect at minute 10 here.
SpaceX's engineer: "... P-51 with Rolls Royce engines with turbosuperchargers" at min 16.
I've stopped at Musk's "the best Merlin engine was the one made in the US, that was the turbo-supercharged Merlin", min 21.
 
I am listening to that podcast. Musk and Carlin do not understand the technology. Even if a Roman gladius was more martensitic than a Gallic sword, that does not make it better. Martensite is brittle, a bad quality for any sort of clobbering device. The Romans believed in stabbing people rather than slashing at them. This is a tactical policy, not a technological one.

"Turbosupercharged Merlins?"
 

A few questions:
- when the decision needs to be made?
- who are the Allies?
 
Greyman said:
- no timeline
- the good guys
Click to expand...

That makes UK+ Commonwealth and French before France falls; UK +CW between Spring of 1940 and Summer of 1941; UK + CW + Soviets in the last 6 months of 1941; UK+CW + SU +USA after that (no offense to the others, Germany will not be stopped by what Poland, Belgium or Yugoslavia does)

Case 1: French are in such a mess of their own doing, top-down. Boys, you are really doing it wrong. Even swapping their all fighters with Spitfires will not help. OTOH, in case the French and British do the impossible (eg. bulk of the RAF FC + radars + AA guns is deployed in France, the French swap the leadership with the one that is as good as what Germany has) and France holds just north of Paris, that means Germany never goes East to bleed dry there - instead France suffers even greater casualties than it was the case in ww1. Some techy stuff needs to be done at the UK, it will materalize too late, though (an earlier cancellation of a lot of aircraft and engine types).

Case 2: order the Spitfire III, Mosquito, Manchester with 4 Merlins, Mustang with Packard Merlin V-1650-1; deploy 4-engined A/C to shut the U-boat threat, together with asking Portugal to honor the alliance and let British base the A/C at Azores? Merlin 60 is a great thing, back that one. Bristol Hercules needs a proper S/C.

Case 3: Soviets need to do stuff. Make a mid-altitude Mikulin engine (in-between the AM-35A and AM-38); focus on M-82 while phasing out the M-88; make the ANT 58 into production ASAP; drop tanks are a good thing. British: start testing the 2-stage Merlin, so by 1942 the production can be started, and by winter of 1942/43 it can equal the production of 1-stage engines.

I will stop now - my conclusion is that technical things need time to be developed, produced, used and to make them matter. It is not a thing of "let's do it now and war ends in 3 or 6 months". Not the ww2 anyway.
 
The Gladius, like any front line military piece of equipment, evolves over time.

The Pilum was the stand-off weapon, the Gladius was for closing in and engaging and was designed for slashing as well as thrusting, the later steel iteration being the most effective.
But like many weapons over the course of time, it was replaced by the Spatha as a heavy infantry weapon in the first century A.D., the Gladius being relegated to a back up or light infantry weapon from that time, onward.
 

It's a wonder he didn't suggest battery-electric supersonic VTOL bombers.
 
Might it be possible to make a decent long range (or at least considerably longer-ranged) escort fighter before done historically? Or get the Lightning fit for northern Europe earlier? And considering how early the Japanese used drop tanks, may there be a way forward here? I'm thinking escorted daylight Lancaster raids in 1942, or possibly 41 with Tomo's Manchester. Make the lean mean. And the Eight being set up from the word go.
 

'Yes' to all the questions.

The long-range fighter (or the lack of it) had much more to do with doctrine, rather than with technology of the day as present in the 'major' countries (USA, UK, Germany, Italy, Soviet Union, Japan; France before it fell). Especially after 1940 when engines with greater power were starting to be available en masse.
Lightning better and earlier fit - can be done. P-47 for long range is an even easier job. P-51 with a Merlin of the day - again can be done, entering service in winter of 1942/43 instead a year later.
Germans were using drop tanks in late 1930s. Americans were using teardrop-shaped auxiliary tanks on Curtiss biplane fighters and dive-bombers. So there is a knowledge of what can be done, but it was almost forgotten.
 
tomo pauk said:
'Yes' to all the questions.

The long-range fighter (or the lack of it) had much more to do with doctrine, rather than with technology of the day as present in the 'major' countries...
Click to expand...
During WWI, gunners in bomber and in two seat fighters like Bristol F2Bs were effective against single engined fighters. In the 1930s, it was understood that bombers in formation would defend themselves, and there was no need for escort fighters. A lot of stuff developed mid-war was based on very painful, practical experience.

​
 
Howard Gibson said:
During WWI, gunners in bomber and in two seat fighters like Bristol F2Bs were effective against single engined fighters.
Click to expand...

Only if used like 1-seat fighters, so they could bring the front MGs in action. The rear gunner was useless for active pursuit of the enemy.

Howard Gibson said:
In the 1930s, it was understood that bombers in formation would defend themselves, and there was no need for escort fighters. A lot of stuff developed mid-war was based on very painful, practical experience.
Click to expand...

It was quickly understood that opposite was true during the Spanish Civil War, both sides tries to prevent the interception by own fighters providing escort (or at least trying to escort).
 
Howard Gibson said:
A lot of stuff developed mid-war was based on very painful, practical experience.

​
Click to expand...
The Japanese learned it over China long before they attacked Pearl Harbour. They didn't fill the Zero with fuel just to make it vulnerable,and they started the development of the Ki-45 as an escort fighter. Though only entering service in 42, it was conceived in 37 or thereabouts.
 
tomo pauk said:
Only if used like 1-seat fighters, so they could bring the front MGs in action. The rear gunner was useless for active pursuit of the enemy.
Click to expand...
Andrew McKeever was credited with thirty kills with the Bristol Fighter. His gunner, L.F. Powell was credited with another eight. It was possible for a nasty, determined pilot to set up his gunner. On a big aircraft, it was possible to place gunners at all quarters. WWI fighters did not have the gross speed advantage of fighters in WWII.
tomo pauk said:
It was quickly understood that opposite was true during the Spanish Civil War, both sides tries to prevent the interception by own fighters providing escort (or at least trying to escort).
Click to expand...
It was not obvious to the British and the Americans.
 
tomo pauk said:
Case 3: Soviets need to do stuff. Make a mid-altitude Mikulin engine (in-between the AM-35A and AM-38); focus on M-82 while phasing out the M-88; make the ANT 58 into production ASAP; drop tanks are a good thing
Click to expand...
Yesss. And I-185, please?
 
Howard Gibson said:
It was not obvious to the British and the Americans.
Click to expand...

It was to the British, in fact it was made plainly clear to them by one of their own, they just chose to ignore it. Bomber Command C-in-C Edgar Ludlow-Hewitt in 1939 wrote the following,

"Experience in China and Spain seems clearly to indicate that with the aircraft in use in these to theatres of war at present, Fighter Escorts [his capitalisation] are considered absolutely essential for the protection of Bomber aircraft. So far as I am aware this policy runs counter to the long view held by the Air Staff."

The British failed to learn the lesson and implement escort fighters, even Chief of Air Staff Portal voiced his opposition to escort fighters well into the war, even when it was being demonstrated that that was something needed for daylight bombing operations.

The Americans eventually got it, but not to begin with and the US 8th Air Force on its arrival in the UK in mid 1942 clung to the hope of unescorted daylight raids, as was its doctrine. At least they eventually learned from their mistakes, but it took time. The RAF had previously operated Fortress Is unescorted and had a couple shot down, which drew Bomber Command to the conclusion that bombing should be carried out at night. The thing was, the British never got to trial the Fortress at night because the US observers and advisors preferred daylight operations. The British use of the Fortress I was keenly watched by the USAAC/F and a small cache of US advisors was sent, who provided support to the RAF during its misbegotten first use of the B-17 in combat.

The common view of this, held by a few on this forum is that the type's use by the RAF was the fault of the British, but that view is erroneous, as the RAF was being advised on high altitude tactics by the American advisors, not only that, but the venture was being wholeheartedly supported back in the USA, congress being keen to demonstrate the strength of at the time neutral USA's bond with its British Allies. But constant mechanical malfunction grounded aircraft, which meant raids were flown at less than optimal strength, although this did not explain the severe icing the airframes suffered at height; the USAAC/F having not, apparently becoming aware of the severity of the issue, which jammed controls and froze equipment, the former inducing vibration so severe in one aircraft that on the type's first combat sortie that particular machine had to descend to a lower altitude and return the the UK.

On the cessation of the type's use with Bomber Command - the survivors going to Coastal Command with a handful heading to North Africa where the type's combat debut echoed that of its mainland British usage, Boeing had already taken heed of the lack of defensive armament and had begun drawing up a new tail section incorporating a defensive position, but the lesson of unescorted bombers ranging over Europe had not been learned, by either the UK or the USA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

W
What if the Me109Z instead of Bf110?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Admiral Beez
A
German artillery what-if: going all-in with gun-howitzers past 1935
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
A
What if the Germans had radar proximity fused AA shells?
3 4 5
Replies
92
Views
9K
Snautzer01
A
What if - Four-Power Pact 1933 is confirmed
Replies
3
Views
848
Zmauky
Z
What if the Luftwaffe gained air superiority during d-day?
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
6K
tomo pauk
Menu
Log in
Register