You know, looking back, this line caught my eye. Absolutely true...BUT at 0755, 12/7/41 the definition of "first class aircraft that met it's needs" abruptly changed. The goalposts were moved and the field restriped. There was a new game in town that didn't play by the old rules, which was to our old game as cricket is to baseball: incomprehensible!
What if the U.S. and the USAAF had paid attention?
- Thread starter Akuma
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Cricket and baseball are basically the same game with the same ethos and roots, Europe had been playing Rugby for two years when Pearl Harbor was attacked.
Well they both involve swinging a bat at a ball, but beyond that point I find similarities a bit elusive.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
One thing that American baseball clearly lacks, is a "googly".
Although Kent Tekulve of the pirates may have come close...
Hard to believe but true, once you have two different code making bodies games can change quickly. Soccer, Rugby Union, Rugby League, and Gridiron American football all come from the same game. There are two main differences, whether you can pick the ball up or not and whether you can throw it forward or not. Rugby League started because one rule of Rugby Union was it had to be amateur. I read somewhere that it all came down to the invention of the lawn mower.
- Thread starter
- #187
The whole point of the question is could the U.S. have had an airplane that would have been "First Class" as and after the goal posts moved. So far the general consensus seems to be 'No'.
By coming late to the game, the USA may have been briefly caught short, but the designs they had in train and factories under construction meant very quickly they were able to replace the not so good with stuff that was first class. There were very few planes that were considered leading edge in Sept 1939 or Dec 1941 that lasted to the end of the war.
The impression I get from all I've known and what I've learned here is that given the powerplants that were or could have been available in the US, a Spitfire-like tour de force, just wasn't in the cards here in that time frame, especially with the US penchant for robust structure and heavy survivability aids like self sealing tanks, armor, and IFF. The failure of USAAC early on to emphasize, promote, and fund high altitude fighter performance at a priority level prevented the development of a Merlin/DB601 equivalent this side of the pond, necessitating expensive, heavy, turbo installations, and delaying their introduction into combat.
Can you take your tongue out of your cheek and write that again, you almost got a "funny"
- Thread starter
- #191
And while the USAAC/F was working to get the Turbochargers up and running the LW was working to get the Turbojets up and running.
USA turbo chargers were fundamental to the US bombing campaign, British superchargers were fundamental to the British bombing campaign. Both technologies were fundamental to the escort of bombers. The jet engine played no part in the conduct or progress of the war even though Me262 caused casualties. By the time Germany surrendered the USA and UK had jet powered aeroplanes in service if not in combat and a huge number or projects under development.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
In 1939, how many fighter aircraft around the world had turbosuperchargers?
Also in 1939, what was the estimated (and/or practised) altitude of aerial combat?
The USAAC was no stranger to turbosuperchargers, their P-30s, introduced in 1934, had a turbosupercharged V-1570 engine.
Last edited:
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Rearm too early, you're ahead of the early curve, but you're saddled with producing designs that may not be up to snuff. Rearm too late and you may have your best pilots flying even more outdated stuff while the superduper stuff is in the pipeline.
Shortround6
Major General
Ummm, do many of the posters here realize that the USAAC ordered 773 P-47Bs the day before they ordered the P-39D and two days before they ordered the original P-39c order changed to 75% P-39Ds ?
It was two weeks earlier (Aug 30th 1940) that the USAAC ordered 607 additional P-38s. including the YP-38s there were 79 P-38s on order before that.
There doesn't seem to be a good way to speed up the more advance planes over what was done.
It was two weeks earlier (Aug 30th 1940) that the USAAC ordered 607 additional P-38s. including the YP-38s there were 79 P-38s on order before that.
There doesn't seem to be a good way to speed up the more advance planes over what was done.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
First, define "First Class" for a 1941 fighter? I believe we had a "first class" fighter at the beginning of the war and was the P-38. With that said, it wasn't perfect by no means, but the early P-38Es and Fs could hold their own against anything in the air at the "US" start of the war (providing the pilot was well trained and had some multi engine time).
As far as your 2nd statement - with hindsight being 20-20, how far did the LW go with their "turbojets"?
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
But did we field a follow-on to the P30? Nope. That made it an anomalous orphan.
Was it deployed in time to stem the initial onslaught of Japanese aggression? Nope again.
They were going six ways to Christmas, with all kinds of promising aircraft in the works; they just ran out of time and resources.
Hah! You remind me of my fifth grade teacher: "You spew out words like puke out of a puppy!" My classmates never let me live that one down. Seems the "old dog" hasn't learned any new tricks.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Actually it was, once it was able to be supplied in numbers. Don't forget, a P-38 Squadron did this...
Death by P-38: When America Killed Japan's Top Admiral
Admiral Yamamoto, commander of the Imperial Japanese Navy’s Combined Fleet, was the Harvard-educated, poker-playing mastermind of the December 7, 1941, attack.
www.historynet.com
