By 2LNT they can just be openly declared as escort carriers under the unlimited carrier tonnage? Its just a matter of being willing to really open the flood gates on carrier tonnage first.
Looking for a way to improve Naval Aviation prewar in the 1930's.
- Thread starter Naval Aviation Fan
- Start date
- Status
Amazed that the US just didn't cheat on the treaty, others were...give the Wichita and the 2 St Louis an extra 1500 to 2000 tons displacement, with all the attendant benefits. Something similar for the Wasp, as well. Hide a fleet oiler or two in some obscure part of the budget. Put some pork in a bill that floats a couple of nice tankers that could have a future as MAC ships, either for us or on Lend Lease. Like McPherson suggested, find a way...
Since by 2LNT US/GB where the only ones really interested in the treaty (apart from others wanting it limiting them) does walking out in response to Japan not make far more sense?
I simply don't think US (USN/DoN/Congress/free press) was united sufficiently to hide a cheat reliably?
Cheating on displacement? Not really a problem, is it? Since there are so many ways to estimate displacement, based on what is or isn't included in the figure. So change the "loadout reg" so standard displacement (as used by Treaty) doesn't accurately reflect full war load.
About aviation, could Hughes buy out Brewster? Or Detroit Aircraft? Or both? Buying Brewster gets him the car maker & a powerboat builder, as well as the aircraft company. Detroit gets him, in effect, control of Lougheed...
IDK if you can get the VS-300 layout before 1939; IMO, the Flettner's intermeshing rotors make it unnecessary.
About aviation, could Hughes buy out Brewster? Or Detroit Aircraft? Or both? Buying Brewster gets him the car maker & a powerboat builder, as well as the aircraft company. Detroit gets him, in effect, control of Lougheed...
This has one really interesting & important potential butterfly: helicopter development. Seaplanes proved less than effective in blue water, but a helo could land on a flat space on a liner (in this model), tanker, or tincan...& that makes WW2 ASW much more effective. (For practical ASW, you'd need to get so something akin to the Fl-282 with about a 500hp R1340, but that shouldn't be too hard; if you want an executive helo of, say, 4 seats, akin to the 47J, a 2-seater armed version, a bit like the Cobra from the Huey, isn't a stretch.)
IDK if you can get the VS-300 layout before 1939; IMO, the Flettner's intermeshing rotors make it unnecessary.
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
Brewster was brought to life for $30,000 in 1932. Detroit Aircraft, and all it's subsidiaries like Ryan and Lockheed was bankrupt in 1931, pennies on the Dollar
That's all just pocket change to HHjr. He spent far more on his movie _Hells Angels_
SwampTiger
Banned
British had started the M-N defense network in WW1, with one tower completed and installed. Hughes certainly knew of the offshore drilling platforms off California and the Texas coasts. You could have someone envision a drillship 20 years early.
Hughes could start a project to track oilers and land flying boats or large seaplanes out to the oilers testing disaster training and planning, replenishment and emergency repair activities. Private aircraft/seaplane carriers had been envisioned by others besides Junkers. Hughes had the opportunity to develop his own.
I wonder if Hughes had developed interests in helicopters, could the contra-rotating rotor or spaced multi-rotor helicopters have been more advanced.
Hughes could start a project to track oilers and land flying boats or large seaplanes out to the oilers testing disaster training and planning, replenishment and emergency repair activities. Private aircraft/seaplane carriers had been envisioned by others besides Junkers. Hughes had the opportunity to develop his own.
I wonder if Hughes had developed interests in helicopters, could the contra-rotating rotor or spaced multi-rotor helicopters have been more advanced.
All I wanted to point out was that the 2LNT allowed auxiliaries to have a maximum speed of up to 28 knots.
Though, I think that if Congress was willing to really open the flood gates on carrier tonnage, it would also have funded the construction of more "proper" aircraft carriers utilise the tonnage.
I was thinking less "can he afford it' than "would he do it". Doesn't he already have an aircraft company?
marathag
Banned
Hughes Aircraft did date to 1932 as a subdivision from Hughes Tool, for tax advantages so HH could write off his hobby expenses. Wasn't till 1935for the planning for his around the World flight and for his H-1 racer did it really exist as a real company
For all the emphasis on better or more ships, I wonder if we've missed Hughes' real passion. Shouldn't we be trying to build better carrier planes?
What are the chances of getting to an *F4U sooner? Say Hughes wants to beat the DC-3 (247?) & demands a twin with 2000hp/side (instead of something closer to the L.049). He gets something like a CW.20 with something like R2600s or R2800s around 1938, & enters the USN fighter competition, beating the F2A with an FH-1 Bandit, which has shorter nose & better low-speed handling (slats? split flaps?), in service by 1941.
Impossible? Or too improbable?
Edit:
Dropping the Meuse bridge would've been a great deal easier, Battles or SBDs, had the mission not launched after the Germans had all their flak in place...which is to say, go a day sooner & you succeed, whatever a/c you use.
Edit 2:
What are the chances of getting to an *F4U sooner? Say Hughes wants to beat the DC-3 (247?) & demands a twin with 2000hp/side (instead of something closer to the L.049). He gets something like a CW.20 with something like R2600s or R2800s around 1938, & enters the USN fighter competition, beating the F2A with an FH-1 Bandit, which has shorter nose & better low-speed handling (slats? split flaps?), in service by 1941.
Impossible? Or too improbable?
I'd suggest ways to build more & better diesels. This improves the Cimarrons' endurance, avoids the shortages for LSTs & DEs later, & might benefit the Sub Force (& avoid the lousy HOR/MAN engines).
Edit:
Dropping the Meuse bridge would've been a great deal easier, Battles or SBDs, had the mission not launched after the Germans had all their flak in place...which is to say, go a day sooner & you succeed, whatever a/c you use.
Edit 2:
Have a look at the source cited for that if you don't believe it. (I can't recall; it's been too long. Same source as the MB8 page, IIRC.)
Last edited:
McPherson
Banned
If you build "better" aircraft, you need better base ships.
--F4U? Stall drop, inversion during bolters, fuselage and wing planform have to be fixed. The propeller is not ready before late 1940 and the welding of fuselage panels to frame was a "problem"
--Hughes was not in the business of making flying garbage like the C-76 Commando
--Same again with the Corsair. He would wind-tunnel test and see the wing droop problem.
--1 chance in 3 see remarks on F4U plane problems
--1 chance in never. See problems with engines.
--1 chance in 3. After the issues with stall, what about the landing gear?
Diesels.
5,000 kwatt diesel? I could see that happening. Fast Cimarron could use 4 diesel electric motor/generator sets, but that would be a bit large for a Gato. (2 sets.)
Dropping the Meuse Bridges
Nothing fails like the cast of senior commanders leading the AdA and RAF in 1940. Aside from Dowding, and maybe Park, the whole senior leadership should have been retired, reassigned or jailed for malfeasance and incompetence. The planes and pilots were fed into the sausage machine with no clue as to proper battlefield interdiction or CAS practices. (Learned in WWI and AdA forgotten. The RAF was CLUELESS.)
MB8 was a razzle dazzle that had 1 success. The Taranto Raid. The rest of it, including the Greece-bound convoys was a BUST.
Yes, but not Hughes to do it.
Not suggesting identical, necessarily, just same performance class.
Given something akin to the R2600 or R2800, AIUI, the large-diameter prop is required, which more/less forces the gull wing, unless you get a better prop design. I'm unaware of Hughes ever being involved in that (or the engine side), but it might be a good idea. It may be (& IDK) the fuselage/wing design could accomodate a different prop.
OTOH, & IMO more likely (& easier), less power & performance could be achieved & still beat the F2A/F4F. (Something like the R2180?)
Again, not suggesting identical, but in that size class, & not 4-engined.
No argument with any of that.
Not defending the plan. Just sayin', if there's a claim for the fuel system, the source looks solid. I've read it. (Whether he's right, OTOH, I can't say, since I've only seen it once; not anything like expert on Op Judgment.)
I was unaware of a single part of MB8 failing - while every aspect had a purpose most of it was secondary to op Judgement and was intended to give the appearance that the RN was simply moving lots of convoys around the Med - sort of Business as usual.....nothing to see here.
Operation Coat - Delivery of troops and supplies to Malta - Success
Operation Crack - attack on Cagliari (intended as a diversion and to sow yet more confusion) - Success
Convoy MW 3 - All ships arrived in Malta (also intended as a diversion and to sow yet more confusion) - Success
Convoy ME 3 - All ships arrived in Malta (also intended as a diversion and to sow yet more confusion) - Success
Convoy AN 6 - All 4 tankers (and their slower escorts!) arrived safely at Piraeus (main escort detached earlier and sunk 4 Italian Merchant ships in the Straits of Otranto) - Success
Operation Judgement - Success
I would be interested as to which aspect you think was a BUST?
Your spotting tower is:
- a sitting duck
- a tempting target
- completely unnecessary
- useless beyond LOS
I'm also not convinced gun barges make enormous sense. Something like an LCT with a battery of 1000 or so 5" rockes, OTOH...
McPherson
Banned
Only one comment about Joe Infantry's best friend; Arty. You need good maps, a way to grid everything as you survey guns in, and you need to train everybody how to call fires and call down air strikes onto that grid system. I mean everybody gets trained including cooks and clerk typists. Arty is a lifesaver, like CPR and first aid.
Amen.
That training needs to teach how it's done right. I've heard of cases where, as late as 'nam, field infantry officers
didn't know to get ranging rounds OT before calling fire for effect. (Even I know better than that.)I look at Remagen & ask myself, "Didn't they have field phone & radio? Or was all the arty committed? Couldn't they get as little as a couple of 107mm mortars?"
Oh, well. C'est le guerre.
McPherson
Banned
Well... One reads about the exception that proves the rule. For example: the storming of Remagen bridge was covered by tank destroyers and tanks in the direct fire Arty role. Would SPGs and/or mortars and CAS to beat the defenders back opposite shore have been useful and much safer? Sure, but it was a "bounce on the run" operation with a lot of ad-hock and not much plan. Tanks and tank destroyers had to shoot just over the heads of the infantry and cover them as they crossed the bridge. Lots of mistakes, blue on blue and collaterals, but the bounce worked. Reminds me of what did not happen at Nijmegen or Pons. Sometimes the rushing way requires the "Russian weigh" of the odds.
Last edited:
- Status