They could build P-47, P-38, P-51, F4U, F4F, B-25, B-17, B-24, A-20/P-70. Any of those would have been a better use of resources.
AHC: P-40 lasts the whole war
- Thread starter JEF_300
- Start date
isn’t this largely a matter of sticking a decent high-altitude engine into it? The bf109 was after all pretty much a contemporary of the 109 and the Germans managed to squeeze an amazing amount of performance out of it. The US instead deployed better more modern aircraft rather than pursue every possible option for wringing more out of the old stuff.
The failure of most such RAF operations was that they went after targets the Germans didn’t care that much about, and could therefore decline combat if they felt the odds were against them. Things like massed raids against the Ruhr or an invasion they can‘t ignore. A sustained offensive against airfields would likewise force them to fight or cede control, as OTL. So in the run up to D-Day there would be options for blunting the Luftwaffe to the point they could be held off the beaches
Maybe it wouldn’t be feasible to weaken the Luftwaffe as much as they were OTL, but OTL the Luftwaffe was outnumbered something like 40:1 over Normandy. And that’s with the US going the “quality not quantity“ route.
Burying the FW190s under an avalanche of P-40s would be rough on the allied pilots, but it would work. Bear in mind that the early unescorted B-17 raids were taking losses of 10% per mission and the generals in charge were going “hmm, if these losses get much worse we may need to re-think”, they only folded when losses were getting to double that.
Again that assuming they were well manufactured, well maintained and with good pilots which was increasingly rare for Japan in 1945. You aren't flying against what is theoretically best but what they manage to put up. The last may be both the most important and the most lacking. A veteran pilot who knows what he is doing is going to do better with an obsolescent plane than a poorly trained rookie pilot with a better plane who doesn't have a clue what he is doing.
marathag
Banned
The USAAC wanted the Allison. For the XP-37 and P-40.
Personally, should have gone with the R-2600, and then fan cool it after the first FW-190 is examined, to allow the close cowling that didn't work so well with the XP-42
McPherson
Banned
The Allison was not perfected to the same stage the Merlin was. Also, the decision to turbo from exhaust instead of supercharge off the crankshaft was a P-38 decision that misled Allison engineers down the wrong aspiration path. It could have been fixed if caught early in the engine's development cycle. But it is now 1941 and the war is on and the necessary fixes and back-fits will take years. It is just as quick to take the existing Merlin and license it and drop it into the better Mustang. Curtiss tried to Merlin the P-40 and they boloed it. Same problems with cleanup and windtunnel time not put in.
Hence the USAAF target priorities lists and the American air generals' obsessions with choke points in industrial production (ball bearings). Should have hit Ploesti and kept hitting it at all costs until the oil choke-off happened. Same for the coal fields. Kill the coal miners and impede mining operations. Disrupt the U-boat war cause dead coal miners=s no U-boat crew recruits. LACK of USAAF imagination. Post war OBVIOUS because of the USSBS lessons learned, but during the war? Second best was the bomber bait and kill the LW pilot cadre gambit. At least that one worked, because without it there can be no amphibious landings on northern France. LET ME WRITE THAT CLEARLY...
If the LW does not die IN GERMANY, there can be no OVERLORD. If as few as 300 LW TACAIR or so sorties can strafe or bomb the transports off Sword, Gold or Juno and break up the first waves of Anglo-Canadians then the vital left shoulder which the Anglo-Canadians have to establish so the Americans can try for Cherbourg does not happen, the Mulberries do not successfully deploy and the Wallies cannot sustain a lodgment. Then you have to go with Plan B which is too horrible to contemplate for a Wally offensive option.
This is the result of the first competently fought air campaign in WWII that was not purely defensive in nature. I think the original American model was the French air service's air campaign of 1917-1918 where they wore the German air corps down through pilot attrition. Veterans of WWI such as General Spaatz would have remembered what the French did and how they did it. Murder German pilots by any means necessary. If that meant dead bomber crews and dead French fighter pilots, too, the French played the attrition card. They also made sure to make their machines just good enough to make the numbers game work. Wonder why the AdA forgot what they did in WWI?
The unescorted bombers were sent in, not because the American air generals thought the bombers could do it without fighters, but because the targets the American bomber generals wanted to "precision" hit, the choke points, were beyond the range of any fighter (Aside from the A6M and the P-38 which was not ready.) known to be able to reach from the British midlands. The planned fighters would not be ready until 1943 at the earliest. In the meantime, the LW had a practical free hand against the Russians. SOMETHING had to be done to take German TACAIR off the Red Army. The Russians (Stalin, the rat bastard.) would not allow British or US TACAIR to help on the eastern front, thinking politically and logistically, that Russian pilots flying Wally aircraft made more Russian front sense. Cannot have Russians seeing British and American air forces ACTUALLY saving the Red Army IN RUSSIA. Makes Stalin look bad in front of the Russian people. So let the Wallies do it from the British Isles. Cynical save his own neck Stalin, there, folks. What's 40,000 American and British bomber crews killed as LW fighter bait as long as Uncle Joe can still draw oxygen and murder a few hundred thousand more "political enemies" during his nation's fight for its very life?
Anyway... as soon as the fighters were ready, the escorts went in. This was always American planned. The USAAF were not idiots. It was a technical issue of time in hours aloft in machines that could compete with German target defense interceptors. Pure and simple.
McP.
McPherson
Banned
True.
Criticisms.
1. Landing gear placement disallows hardpoints for BOMBS.
2. Wing chord is unsuited for autocannon or HMG placement.
3. Ballast point is just ahead of the USAAF heraldry stripe. Bad place to trim CM/CG.
4. Tail control is not sufficient in area to bite for yaw (rudder) and ailerons also look too small for trim in yaw.
5. How about that cowl? You know the R2800 has to BREATHE?
And the list goes on and on. (Pilot view over the nose is hideous as an example.)
All in all, USAAF's decision to make Curtiss build P-47s instead was the correct call.
Just to be clear, the directive of US daylight bombing was the destruction of the LW, not the bombing factories etc. The point of bombing the factories was to draw up the LW so they (and their air superiority) could be destroyed. Without that prerequisite, the invasion of Europe could not occur. Destruction of German resources was a side benefit (albeit of questionable result until very late in the war). The P-47 did the majority of the damage to the LW, when the LW ruled the skies over Europe. BTW - it was a conscience decision by the USAAF command, that prevented deployment of drop tanks for the P-47 in ‘43 (with tanks, the P-47 could reach Berlin), that resulted in unescorted bombers getting slaughtered. The P-51, while a great airplane, gets many laurels that were earned by the P-47.
ric350
ric350
mial42
Gone Fishin'
In OTL WW2, there's no good way to do it, since the US had much better fighters that it could easily mass produce and better fit the war's requirements. Thus, the obvious way to do it is a shorter and/or earlier war. There are several ways to do that, such as a 1939 war over the occupation of Prague in which the US gets involved quickly, or an alternate battle of France. If WW2 ends in 1942 or 1943, then the P-40 can be the USAAF's main fighter throughout the war because there simply aren't enough of the other types, especially if the US is bombing Germany from bases in France instead of the UK.
The points your making about Japanese technical problems are valid, but you can't build a strategy around them. Are you going to tell a pilot. "Your going up against a superior aircraft, but there's always a chance he may suffer a mechanical failure, or his engine won't perform to specs, so that might save you." The issues your talking about added to the level of attrition the Japanese were suffering. WWII was a war of mass attrition, but at the point of combat you had to have at least qualitative equality to generate favorable attrition rates.
Certainly pilot quality was a major factor, but the fall off in Japanese skills occurred because of high combat, and operational losses. If the P-40 is the primary USAAF frontline fighter Japanese fighter losses 1943-45 would be lower, so the quality of their pilots would be higher, which would also help lower the operational losses. On the American side combat, and operational losses would be conversely higher. The Pacific War was fought over vast stretches of water, and jungle. Many pilots were saved by the superior range , and second engine of the P-38. I should also add that an American advantage that doesn't get the attention it's do, is that they made a major effort to save downed fliers, and the Japanese didn't.
Considering the numbers of US fighters the Japanese will still be attritted to death. They still would have all the deaths prior to getting better planes and be massively outnumbered. It less "always a chance" and more "a pretty good chance" as Japan was running out of skilled workers, well maintained equipment, raw materials and time. Badly maintained planes was close to the norm in 1945 as Japan was running out of spare parts, good technicians and time.
McPherson
Banned
4,000 Kamikazes launched off Okinawa in 200 attack waves. 50% shot down air to air. Another 25% splashed by AAA or observed mechanical failure. ~ 500 successful target hits and 500 misses (lousy pilots).
Point? Olympic was expected to face 8-10,000 Kamikaze attacks in about 500 attack waves. Figure 100 US ships LST size or larger SUNK and about 10,000 USN sailors killed. Double that number of embarked Marines and soldiers. US aerial losses? Anywhere from 500-1500 aircraft, because there was understood in the USNAS VF squadrons that RAMMING a Kamikaze to save a ship might be demanded of American aircrew.
Doesn't have to work more than once to be a serious threat. The Pacific War was really that desperate in the closing stages. TO THE DEATH.
McP.
In the Pacific Theatre, to my knowledge, the vast majority of the air war was fought by the Navy. So whether the same Hellcats and Corsairs as in OTL are being backed up by P-51s or P-40s seems largely academic in the grand scheme of things. Of course it will matter, but it's not going to shift the course of the war in the Pacific.
I didn't say there wasn't a serious threat, just Japan was bound to lose in the long run even if the US was reduced to using P-40s.
Ford is allowed to to ahead with its V-1650 had these engines are prioritized for P-40s. Realistically Curtiss screwed up every project post P-40
Yes the Americans would win, but that's not really the point of this discussion. In the Pacific the USN would have to carry most of the load, and USAAF loses would be so much higher. In Europe basic strategy would be totally changed, and losses on land, sea, and air would be much higher. Post war the recriminations would be terrible. The question on everyone's lips would we why did this happen? Why wasn't American Industry able to provide the USAAF with a fighter that was a match for what the Axis had? How was it that the navy had much better fighters then the army did? If the navy had been stuck with the F4F for the whole war it would've suffered the same problems.
The Allies won the air war because American Industry was able to provide them with not just large numbers of barely adequate aircraft, but with superior designs. P-51's had to fly CAP over German Jet fighter bases, I can't imagine how the P-40 would deal with the ME-262. Without air superiority over Germany our heavy bombers would've been destroyed. I just don't know how the war would've changed if the Strategic Bomber forces had been defeated. RAF Bomber Command was taking prohibitive loses in the Winter of 1943-44, the P-51 also destroyed the German night fighter force, and allowed the RAF to win their war over Germany as well. Being stuck with the P-40 is a negative game changer.
I can't tell you what the % on that were, but the army engaged in very large air battles in the South West Pacific, South East Asia Command, and in China. The navy handled the Central Pacific offensive. The USAAF was also involved in the air battles over Okinawa, and the bombing of Japan. P-51D's, and P-47N's were ranging over Japan during the last few months of the war, and P-40's sure couldn't do that.
Even with a Packard Merlin a P-40 is never going to compare to a P-51D, and it's not going to have even half the range.
Actually some P-40s were fitted with Packard built Merlins. F and L models. Performance was better than the early Allison models but iirc they only had a single stage supercharger
marathag
Banned
Less internal fuel(reduced by 40 gallons in the -N), and only one external fuel tank connection on the centerline, it was never set to have extremely long range.
the P-40F had the British Merlin XX, with a single stage, two-speed supercharger, not what the P-51 with the Packard version of the Merlin 60
the XX was Rated at 1,240-horsepower at 2,850 rpm in low gear at 10,000 feet and +9 lb boost; 1,175-horsepower at 2,850 rpm in high gear at 17,500 feet at +9 lb boost.
The Merlin in the Spitfire IX was the model 60, and that far outperformed the Spitfire with the intercooled two-stage, two-speed supercharger with 300hp more at altitude
My entire point was that the P-40 was "good enough" to win against Japan. not that it was a superior plane to what replaced it, nor that it wouldn't be stupid to use it when there were better planes coming out in large numbers by the end of the war, merely that it would be good enough to win.