Name five plausible things the US can do to better enter WWII?
- Thread starter McPherson
- Start date
marathag
Banned
Besides far lower maintenance, not needing waterstops and easier refueling, all advantages worth switching for, there is the Multiple Unit capability.
Wheel slip hurt the effectiveness of when Steam consists need a helper for grades, needed really skilled operators in both engines.
With the EMD, you just hooked up the 'B' unit, and they acted like one big unit. or add two Bs to the A cab for very heavy pulls , or the full A B B A lashup. One crew.
Some Railroads ordered their FTs with drawbars and not AAR Couplers, so an A-B would be treated as a single unit for Union crew requirements, and not have to pay for an extra crew for the 'B' to be manned, that had no controls beyonst simple controsl to move a unit in a switchyard.
As it turned out, the Unions didn't push that point but did hold out for decades, that each diesel crew had to have a fireman, with the job being totally superfluous.
So each crew had that guy as a professional seatwarmer for decades to come. Engineer and Conductor would get pissed if he just sat and read paperbacks, so most would help out, but most didn't have a lot of controls on his side of the cab, fewer were dual control than you would think. Later on fireman was more for on the job training for new Engineers.
Not precisely what we're suggesting. If the Blenheim had no guns, ammo and the minimum crew of only two the plane would have been even faster. What we want is something more like a Mosquito, not a B-25.
Last edited:
The point was that engine technology in the mid 1930s was far less developed and limits what can be achieved.
Certainly the fast bombers must still be escorted by equally fast escort fighters. This is starting to resemble the modern day strike package. Where upon if the enemy has a BARCAP setup in the strikes path the escorting fighters will disrupt it. The fast bombers can complete their runs before the enemy can reform. Maybe.
But unless there was some development of precision bombing then it will still be necessary to conduct area bombing large raids even with the fast bombers. Low level attacks would be more accurate but are too costly unless the target has weak flak defenses and a heavy fighter escort is provided.
Ok my 5 plausible things the U.S. could have do better before entering WWII.
The Second London Treaty was just dumb. The USA, UK, and France were limiting themselves, after Japan, and Italy pulled out of the negotiations. The 8,000 ton limit on cruisers effected the Atlanta Class CL's. The Atlanta's should have had 2,000 tons more displacement, for broader hulls for stability, and better armor protection. As they were top weight was always a major problem, and limited secondary AA, radar, and fire directors. In later subclasses two twin turrets were removed, and another turret was lowered to the weather deck. These fine ships lacked the armor, and structural strength to stand in battle with enemy cruisers. After Guadalcanal the navy never risked them in a surface engagement again, only using them as AA Cruisers. Both the North Carolina's, and the cramped South Dakoda's would have been 30+ knot Battleships, able to keep up with aircraft carriers.
Fix the torpedoes. Not as easy as most people think, because it wasn't just one problem. Much more extensive live fire testing was needed. A MK-14 Torpedo cost $10,000, and production was too low to meet the requirements of arming new ships, so not many were fired. People focus on the defective firing pin, and say it should've been obvious, and easy to fix. Testing should have found it, and it was the easiest problem to fix. Making the contact exploder problem more complex were changes in torpedo speed, and weight. The failure of the magnetic exploders was much harder, because it involved magnetic sea conditions, depth issues, and circling issues as well. All the problems of contact, and magnetic exploders, were made harder to detect because of changes in torpedo weight, which created depth control problems. The problem of circling torpedoes were never fully solved.
So the fact that the navy was trying to fix 4 problems at the same time, along with a torpedo shortage should help people understand it wasn't that people were stupid, or incompetent. Only greater budgets, and more prewar production could've solved these problems. So although I add fix the torpedoes it may not be very plausible.
Improve the BAR. I know many on the board think adapting the Bren would've been the best solution, I think it would be more likely the army would elect to improve an existing domestic design, considering the time constraints involved. In 1938 FN Herstal was working on an improved BAR with a pistol grip, and a fire rate reducer, but the project was canceled because of the army insisting that all parts be interchangeable with existing BAR's. The Polish Army had adapted the BAR as their LMG in the 20's, and their version had advantages over the American M1918A2. Lighter weight, a better replaceable barrel system, and improved sights. FN could've incorporated all these improvements into their new BAR. The U.S. would have entered WWII with a greatly improved BAR.
Accelerate development of a select fire version of the M-1 Carbine. The M-1 Carbine was originally planned to have selective fire capability, but that requirement was dropped to speed production. When the demand for select fire was reintroduced in 1944 conversion kits were ready in 4 months, and production of factory produced units started in less then a year. If the request had been made at the beginning of it's production run conversion kits would have been shipped to state side units in the late spring of 1942, and the M-2 Select Fire Carbines would have been in production by the Fall of 1942. This weapon was less then half the weight, and cost of the Thompson SMG, and used a cartridge of twice the power, and had more controllable fire. The ammo was also cheaper, and used none corrosive primers, which was big help in the South Pacific. The M-2 Carbine could have replaced both The Thompson, and late war M-3 Grease gun.
Fix the 20mm Hispano Cannon. All they had to do was produce what the British were making. Guns over 20mm were the responsibility of the ordinance department, and in their wisdom decided the round needed more tolerance then the British Version, so they designed a larger chamber. The result was an unacceptable rate of misfires. With a reliable 20mm Hispano American fighters would have had cannon, rather then just 0.50" MG's. The Navy wanted to transition to 20mm cannon on a number of their fighters, and the army wanted the P-51 Mustang have it's inboard 50's replaced with 20mm's. The P-38 did have a 20mm, and Harvester built in a work around which showed what a more effective 20mm could have done for other U.S. Fighters.
So I would say my 5 are practical, except for the torpedo fix, which is a big stretch. Cancelling the 2nd London Naval Conference would have greatly improved the Atlanta Class CL's, making them more effective ships. The North Carolina's, and South Dakoda's would've been fast enough to keep up with carriers, making them better escorts, and the South Dakoda's wouldn't have been so cramped. The FN BAR, and the M-2 Carbine would've significantly improved the firepower of a rifle squad. Fighters armed with 20mm cannon would've been significantly more deadly.
The Second London Treaty was just dumb. The USA, UK, and France were limiting themselves, after Japan, and Italy pulled out of the negotiations. The 8,000 ton limit on cruisers effected the Atlanta Class CL's. The Atlanta's should have had 2,000 tons more displacement, for broader hulls for stability, and better armor protection. As they were top weight was always a major problem, and limited secondary AA, radar, and fire directors. In later subclasses two twin turrets were removed, and another turret was lowered to the weather deck. These fine ships lacked the armor, and structural strength to stand in battle with enemy cruisers. After Guadalcanal the navy never risked them in a surface engagement again, only using them as AA Cruisers. Both the North Carolina's, and the cramped South Dakoda's would have been 30+ knot Battleships, able to keep up with aircraft carriers.
Fix the torpedoes. Not as easy as most people think, because it wasn't just one problem. Much more extensive live fire testing was needed. A MK-14 Torpedo cost $10,000, and production was too low to meet the requirements of arming new ships, so not many were fired. People focus on the defective firing pin, and say it should've been obvious, and easy to fix. Testing should have found it, and it was the easiest problem to fix. Making the contact exploder problem more complex were changes in torpedo speed, and weight. The failure of the magnetic exploders was much harder, because it involved magnetic sea conditions, depth issues, and circling issues as well. All the problems of contact, and magnetic exploders, were made harder to detect because of changes in torpedo weight, which created depth control problems. The problem of circling torpedoes were never fully solved.
So the fact that the navy was trying to fix 4 problems at the same time, along with a torpedo shortage should help people understand it wasn't that people were stupid, or incompetent. Only greater budgets, and more prewar production could've solved these problems. So although I add fix the torpedoes it may not be very plausible.
Improve the BAR. I know many on the board think adapting the Bren would've been the best solution, I think it would be more likely the army would elect to improve an existing domestic design, considering the time constraints involved. In 1938 FN Herstal was working on an improved BAR with a pistol grip, and a fire rate reducer, but the project was canceled because of the army insisting that all parts be interchangeable with existing BAR's. The Polish Army had adapted the BAR as their LMG in the 20's, and their version had advantages over the American M1918A2. Lighter weight, a better replaceable barrel system, and improved sights. FN could've incorporated all these improvements into their new BAR. The U.S. would have entered WWII with a greatly improved BAR.
Accelerate development of a select fire version of the M-1 Carbine. The M-1 Carbine was originally planned to have selective fire capability, but that requirement was dropped to speed production. When the demand for select fire was reintroduced in 1944 conversion kits were ready in 4 months, and production of factory produced units started in less then a year. If the request had been made at the beginning of it's production run conversion kits would have been shipped to state side units in the late spring of 1942, and the M-2 Select Fire Carbines would have been in production by the Fall of 1942. This weapon was less then half the weight, and cost of the Thompson SMG, and used a cartridge of twice the power, and had more controllable fire. The ammo was also cheaper, and used none corrosive primers, which was big help in the South Pacific. The M-2 Carbine could have replaced both The Thompson, and late war M-3 Grease gun.
Fix the 20mm Hispano Cannon. All they had to do was produce what the British were making. Guns over 20mm were the responsibility of the ordinance department, and in their wisdom decided the round needed more tolerance then the British Version, so they designed a larger chamber. The result was an unacceptable rate of misfires. With a reliable 20mm Hispano American fighters would have had cannon, rather then just 0.50" MG's. The Navy wanted to transition to 20mm cannon on a number of their fighters, and the army wanted the P-51 Mustang have it's inboard 50's replaced with 20mm's. The P-38 did have a 20mm, and Harvester built in a work around which showed what a more effective 20mm could have done for other U.S. Fighters.
So I would say my 5 are practical, except for the torpedo fix, which is a big stretch. Cancelling the 2nd London Naval Conference would have greatly improved the Atlanta Class CL's, making them more effective ships. The North Carolina's, and South Dakoda's would've been fast enough to keep up with carriers, making them better escorts, and the South Dakoda's wouldn't have been so cramped. The FN BAR, and the M-2 Carbine would've significantly improved the firepower of a rifle squad. Fighters armed with 20mm cannon would've been significantly more deadly.
The problem with the idea of fixing the North Carolinas and South Dakotas was the fact that by the time of the 2nd London Naval Treaty the North Carolinas were about to be laid down and thus most of the material for them was already being built/ordered and design work for the South Dakotas was well underway. Simply put the navy didn't have enough time nor enough design personnel to make such changes.
You may be right. It depends on when the plug is pulled on the conference. The thinking of naval architects in the mid 30's was shaped by the expectations of London, and many idea's were in flux. North Carolina was conceived as a 30kt ship, but at the last minute it was decided the 16" guns were more important. If they didn't have to make the compromise they would've had both 16" guns, and more powerful engines. A few thousand tons would have made the difference. The South Dakoda's had more time for changes. But your right, it would have been cutting it close.
^^^ IF you could adjust one or both of the North Carolinas, or South Dakotas class designs, do they come out as Iowa-lite? If you can adjust the North Carolina's, then just extend the design for the South Dakotas to more-or-less mirror the NC's? Lotta IFs in there....
I don't think they could have been Iowa's, their designs were just to far along. I think they would've been just stretched versions of themselves. They would have been faster. But even the Iowa's had no better protection then the NC's or SDs. The Iowa's were so much heavier because they had 212,000 shp vs. 130,000 shp engines, and 16" 50 vs. 16" 45 guns. The SD's had better armor protection then NC's by angling the armor, so that would've been retained. Stretching the armored citadel to accommodate more engine power would have added a few thousand tons, but not as much as the Iowa's.
Practice the simplest of anti-submarine warfare techniques on the East coast - blackouts, proper air scouting, convoys - thus minimising the impact of operation drumbeat and the second happy time - about 3.1m tonnes were sunk at the key moment of America’s entry into the war
Driftless
Donor
Thinking on the idea of the better designed North Carolinas' and South Dakotas', does that alter the requirement for the Iowas' to come? The NCs' and the SDs' had useful careers as it was, so improved versions should be more capable, so you still need the Iowas' (or something like them) to be able to run with the carriers? I'm guessing yes, but the Iowas' will be incrementally improved based on lessons learned from the improved NCs' and SDs'
Last edited:
If you can fix the North Carolinas vibration problem in the design stage then you might see them at Midway and possibly Coral Sea which would probably save Yorktown and might save Lexington. Mind you the USN would need more Oilers in the Pacific to support them
Last edited:
I'm sure they would have built the Iowa's anyway. The navy wanted more Fast Battleships, but their thinking was still in flux. The had reports of the Japanese building a new class of very large post treaty Battleships, (The Yamoto's) but they didn't know about the 18.1" guns. So for the next class (The Montana's) they upped the armor by as much as 25%, and gave them 12 16' 50's, but dropped engine power, and speed back to 28kts like the SD's. The still wanted a superior battle line. An Iowa, or a Montana would've had the advantage over the Yamoto, because of their superior fire control radar, and fire direction systems. If the battle was at night Yamoto would have very little chance. "Where is Task Force 34?. The World wonders."
ma;;e
I don't think so. The reason they spent most of the war in reserve, or as carrier escorts is the USN didn't want to commit battleships to the confined waters of the South Pacific. They committed South Dakoda, and Washington at 2nd Guadalcanal because the IJN committed the Hiei, and Kirishima, in an all out effort to take the Island. That was the critical moment of the Guadalcanal Campaign, and the most desperate hour, for the USN, and USMC.
It's actually hard to say what the USN would be building in the late 30's without the WNT. The Lexington's would've been 6 Battlecruisers, the original SD's would've been 6 unit's with 12 of an earlier designed 16" 50 gun, without extra heavy shells, and we'd have a 4th Colorado Class. Instead of the Lexington, and Saratoga conversions, we would've had 2 smaller built from the keel up carriers. The WNT so effected thinking about naval designs it's hard to imagine what the next phase would have been like. We know what was being planned in 1922, but it's hard to know what would have come next. Battleship Designs were reaching the limits of size, and power.
I don't think so. The reason they spent most of the war in reserve, or as carrier escorts is the USN didn't want to commit battleships to the confined waters of the South Pacific. They committed South Dakoda, and Washington at 2nd Guadalcanal because the IJN committed the Hiei, and Kirishima, in an all out effort to take the Island. That was the critical moment of the Guadalcanal Campaign, and the most desperate hour, for the USN, and USMC.
It's actually hard to say what the USN would be building in the late 30's without the WNT. The Lexington's would've been 6 Battlecruisers, the original SD's would've been 6 unit's with 12 of an earlier designed 16" 50 gun, without extra heavy shells, and we'd have a 4th Colorado Class. Instead of the Lexington, and Saratoga conversions, we would've had 2 smaller built from the keel up carriers. The WNT so effected thinking about naval designs it's hard to imagine what the next phase would have been like. We know what was being planned in 1922, but it's hard to know what would have come next. Battleship Designs were reaching the limits of size, and power.
Could the US claim the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as a unilateral alteration of the naval treaties and withdraw accordingly?
McPherson
Banned
1. How do the Germans know what to expect; until they encounter the American 4 engine bombers? I think the German reaction is a non-sequitur in pre-war American Douhet type thinking. They still have only 2 choices, basically: guns pointing in all directions and with a slow-draggy lower flying bomber as a result, or something like a better version of the G3M/G4M. I will have something to suggest on that line as speculation in a moment.
2. The politics is complicated. The Grant Administration tried to marshal a plan for federal integration in the 1870s, but the program stalled when Garfield, traded short term political power and economic benefits for long term social reform. Reconstruction stalled. Now Woodrow Wilson, that piece of work, extolled by some historians, was every bit the son of an unreconstructed Confederate generation. He, during his maladministration, destroyed the slow integration of the US Revenue and Marshal Services, Segrtgated and purified the Post Office and instituted policies where segregated units of the American army, ELITE existing combat units, were taken out of the Federal line, and relegated to "labor duties" or farmed off to the French army in WWI. None of what Wilson did was "New". It was a continuation or a rollback of the crap that Garfield allowed, when the racist scumbags of the former confederacy who became government appointed employees under the sponsorship of the senators and representatives of the "reconstructed" states.
I'll give you one guess, who the traitor was, that was the direct ancestor of Breckenridge Long, the state department diplomat of the Roosevelt administration, who did so much to prevent Jewish rescue efforts that the United States SHOULD have conducted, and would have conducted if that walking piece of bigotry and racism, had not disobeyed his president's intents.
3. T'was done, but more could have been tried.
4. National Recovery Act and Works Progress Administration. CCC is a cover for training the New Model Army. I have noted elsewhere that Canada is part of the Empire Tariff System and it is not realistic to expect the massive shift in Canadian political perspective until they see France 1940, and then see Japan rampage. The Ottawa government is not going to listen at all, until it is the Americans who make more sense to them than the British. That is just the politics.
Under 5. Railroads...
a. The USN (^^^) funded a diesel electric (EMD) program that produced diesels for locomotives, diesel electric dynamo power trains for subs and subchasers, and with a little bit of work could have produced diesel powered landing craft and torpedo boats.
b. flatcar and box car rolling stock and with a little forethought, containerized shipping.
c. people making "small" donkey engine locomotives = people making tanks.
Under 6 SCIENCE!
a. Dual use technology; example is weather forecasting = radar meteorology and sonars and sonobuoys.
b. Closed combustion fuels and motors. Clearly this means torpedo propulsion.
c. Cybernetics and signal chase logics. Clearly this means robot chase to kill types of weapons as well as data analysis and census taking (RTL done to create USN chase weapons and fire control direction systems .
d. Light and sound. Radar, sonar and proximity fuses based on those principles.
e. Better enemy dying through chemistry. Name a few things known but not developed as quickly as should have been, Propellants, explosives, poisons, etc.
f. Better living through medicine; vaccines, wound treatment, mental health assessments (especially commanders and leaders.)
The problem is 7. WHO is responsible?
a. Personal accountability for programs in training, weapons procurement and doctrine.
b. Testing takes time, money and dedication. Whether weapon or man, someone has to be held accountable.
c. Specific requirements are so many, that one can pick ANY WWII US material programs and suggest improvements. One that worked well was the American army artillery program as to fire direction and assignment of tubes to targets serviced. Rocket artillery could have handled area bombardments, while call fires could have been simplified between howitzers at division and counter battery by GUNS at corps. IOW 10.5cm howitzers and 15.5cm guns.
d. AAA is always a force multiplier with triple use ammunition and tube capability. Whether tank, grunt or plane the 9.0cm/L50 should have a mission to disrupt, dislocate, an d discombobulate Johann Jingleheimer in his tank, plane, trench or at his own 88.
8. Relative motion of the 3 body problem.
a. Chase: the motion of the launch platform vis a vis the motion of the target is vector summed and solved to give the absolute closure rate and THAT is vector solved for the acceleration of the projectile launched from the chase platform to the target. THAT is a negative acceleration in the frame. If the target launches a projectile going the other way, the same process is followed and the result is a POSITIVE acceleration toward the chase platform.
8b. See 8a.
8c. See 8a.
8d. See 8a.
8f. Called Inertia.
But this is a digression from your OP.
" McPherson.
9. Battlefield Interdiction Mission = Fast twin engine bomber as the Means. (If you are going this route, you might as well make it glide bomb and anti-ship projectile capable...\
10. Armor is not as important as compartmentation and torpedo defense. It is all about the float bubble. A ship plan of something like a Fletcher layout with 5x2 12.7cm/ 38, 4 x 4 2.8cm /L70 and a 2 x 5 53 cm TT torpedo battery and the directors to go with it and you have a fleet escort. The 8,000 tonnes is reasonable with range and speed comparable to a Cleveland.
11. Fix the torpedoes. Not as easy as most people think, because it wasn't just one problem. Much more extensive live fire testing was needed. A MK-14 Torpedo cost $10,000, and production was too low to meet the requirements of arming new ships, so not many were fired. People focus on the defective firing pin, and say it should've been obvious, and easy to fix. Testing should have found it, and it was the easiest problem to fix. Making the contact exploder problem more complex were changes in torpedo speed, and weight. The failure of the magnetic exploders was much harder, because it involved magnetic sea conditions, depth issues, and circling issues as well. All the problems of contact, and magnetic exploders, were made harder to detect because of changes in torpedo weight, which created depth control problems. The problem of circling torpedoes were never fully solved.
12. No.
HERE was what was done.
a. four dummy warhead torpedoes into a net. ALL torpedoes recovered and reused to determine what to do at 12c.
b. Warhead section of torpedos dropped on to a steel plate. Warhead section reused 12 times until firing pin problem solved.
c. One lousy torpedo in a wave tank. Fixed depth control problem after12+ runs.
d. Several dozen reassignments and numerous ruined careers.... including that ASSHOLE, Stark.
13. Total time, 19 months. Total torpedoes needed 6. Total admirals required to ruin careers and send idiots to the Aleutians? 3. King, Nimitz and Uncle Chuck Lockwood who handled 12a. and 12b. and passed on recommendations for 12c. and 12d.
14. Circular run was solved by signal chase and artificial horizon autopilot postwar.
15. War Production Board and a few threatening letters to certain Congressman solved the "political production bottleneck".
16. People were STUPID and INCOMPETENT. Harold Stark was FIRED as CNO, sent to the UK, to get him out of the way and King brought in to clean up Stark's fuckups.
17. One has little time. I would prefer the Ruger machine gun as it was designed for the 30.06 USG issued ammunition. However, the fact is that the BAR as improved was available in 1935?
17. Belgian FN Model D . Only 1 problem. The 30.06 version is 1946. Better adopt the Johnson or the Ruger. And since the Johnson is not ready and will not be ready before 1941, that leaves the RUGER.
18. I suggest one look at the ATL possibles in 1935. I think we are stuck with the SMGs of Russia (wrong ammo), Finland (wrong ammo) or italy (right ammo 9 mm).
19. (^^^) Hire the Japanese and have them make the Browning in .78 in and with an Oerlikon 20 ,mm shell.
20. The LNT is to America's advantage. it forces the American shipwrights to become creative while hobbling the other treaty compliant signatories.
21. 4 lousy months?"
22. That was a function of the screws. Only way to test is open ocean at full power trials. RTL... no "cure possible" except the real one trialed by error... Still have to change the diameter, shape, number of lobes, and spin count on the screws.
23. Battle of the Atlantic and TORCH. That is why the USN fast battleships were no shows during August WATCHTOWER.
24. Basically? the 1923 program?
10 BBs
6 BCs
18-24 CAs
18-24 CLs
The WWI destroyers (270 of them)
plus about 100 submarines of all types
Most of it would have been junk.
No. The treaty reads that all that is legally required is a violation or decision by another treaty signatory. As long as the UK adhered to the treaty terms, the only way the US could withdraw under the treaty provisions is if the treaty is denounced as it was by Japan. Even then the Americans kept to the treaty and invoked the battleship guns escalator clause.
True enough but if the North Carolinas are built to different design(maybe the USN figures out bulbous bows earlier than otl)or finished earlier they might not have the same problems due to different screws being used or the USN will have fixed the problem by say late January of 1942 which should give enough time for the North Carolinas to head west in time for Midway and maybe Coral Sea. Mind you if a dozen more fast Oilers were built before the war Nimitz will have a much easier time getting the fuel for them.
Also on another note what do you think of the Atlantas? Could another 500 or so tons of displacement have fixed the bulk of their problems? I'm well aware that you'd prefer a Fletcher esk design with twin turrets but assume that the General Board wants something resembling the otl Atlanta for whatever reason
Last edited: