AHC: P-40 lasts the whole war

[marathag]

Might not be perfect for shore bombardment duties.
Elevation on the main guns could be to small, limiting indirect fire solutions, and might be very vulnerable to plunging shells.
The USN had a lot of old BB that made better shore bombardment platforms, having bigger guns, more of them, being better protected and being a lot easier to move around.

Note that that was just diagram from 1883 designs, but 3" was an amazing amount for that era

My idea were to be for direct fire support for landing troops, in as close as the Destroyers at Omaha did when they raced in to support that troubled landing, not doing indirect fire a mile or two behind the beach.
That's what the cruisers and battleships are for

 

[Johnrankins]

That's probably a claims (as in total of Zeros claimed) vs actual losses (as in recorded P-40 losses against Zeros) statistic.
No fighter unit in WW2 turned down a change to P-51 or P-47s to keep their P-40s. In VVS use the P-40 was regarded as inferior to the P-39 for air to air, and by 1944 most of them had been relegated to rear area PVO units.

Of course they didn't , a person who would keep a P-40 when they can get a P-51 is called an idiot. I didn't say they should keep them until the end of the war, merely that it would take time to switch in the best circumstances and the plane was viable in the Pacific until the end of the war. Not great, but good enough.

 

[marathag]

The USN had a lot of old BB that made better shore bombardment platforms, having bigger guns, more of them, being better protected and being a lot easier to move around.

But they couldn't get within 1200 yards of the shore and blast away for pinpoint direct fire

 

[Don Quijote]

Of course they didn't , a person who would keep a P-40 when they can get a P-51 is called an idiot. I didn't say they should keep them until the end of the war, merely that it would take time to switch in the best circumstances and the plane was viable in the Pacific until the end of the war. Not great, but good enough.

I would like to emphasise, only when you have to fight in it. As a vintage warbird, I'll take the P-40 any day.

 

[JEF_300]

Some people think that happened. (Brewster Aircraft is the example cited, though I think Curtiss is a better case.)

Let's try to land on the Cotentin Peninsula with an intact LW? Naaah.
a. Salerno Lesson. Kill all the LW pilots and USS Savannah does not get replicated 2dozenX
b. Schwinefurt Lesson. Kill all the LW pilots and Daylight Precision Bombing and Eisenhower's "railroad desert" can happen in broad daylight. Also US destroyers can sail right up to the beach ground out and give Gunther and Hans a 5/38 birthday bunker buster party all day long making Omaha gruesome going the other way: cause there ain't no LW to bother them.
c. Where do you kill LW pilots? In Germany ... deep inside Germany. Cause that is where they have to fight or they lose the war on the home turf..

I don't understand this point at all. There must be a million ways for just the USAAF to destroy the Luftwaffe's ability to fight, before D-day, while working entirely on its own, without long-range daylight bombing raids. And the USSAF doesn't have to fight on its own.

Also, let's not exaggerate how short the P-40s legs were. It might not be able to make it all the way to Berlin, but P-40Es could fly to the Rhineland and back easily enough. The majority of Germany's population would still be under threat.

(Image depicts P-40E range, adjusted to be accurate on the Mercator projection, centered on London.)

 

[bsmart]

I don't understand this point at all. There must be a million ways for just the USAAF to destroy the Luftwaffe's ability to fight, before D-day, while working entirely on its own, without long-range daylight bombing raids. And the USSAF doesn't have to fight on its own.

Also, let's not exaggerate how short the P-40s legs were. It might not be able to make it all the way to Berlin, but P-40Es could fly to the Rhineland and back easily enough. The majority of Germany's population would still be under threat.

(Image depicts P-40E range, adjusted to be accurate on the Mercator projection, centered on London.)

View attachment 603959

How much combat time does that allow or is that a total 'fly at economical speed and return' range? Also what Altitude? The P-40 just didn't have the altitude capability to operate effectively at the altitude the bombers were working at.

 

[McPherson]

I don't understand this point at all.

Examine the map you cited. and then this map.

World War 2 Allied Bombings. | Map, Earth map, Instagram

America's war is GLOBAL and interlocking with at least 7 interdependent fronts. SEVEN fronts.

The P-40 does not cut the mustard. It NEVER did, which is why it was backwatered the moment the Americans could build and deploy better aircraft from 1942 onward.

The P-40 served in New Guinea and Burma and for a while in North Africa, but when it came time to bring the LW to battle over its own airfields and in its own airspace in Germany where it was bomber lured from RUSSIA to be killed, the aircraft that had to do the killing had to fly from the Midlands (or from Foggia in Italy) to BERLIN and points east. The P-40 could never do that and be competitive or even have combat minutes over LW fields in East Prussia where the LW PILOT SCHOOLS WERE.

Killing LW pilots means P-51s. Killing IJNAS pilots means the same over Japan.

 

[marathag]

How much combat time does that allow or is that a total 'fly at economical speed and return' range? Also what Altitude? The P-40 just didn't have the altitude capability to operate effectively at the altitude the bombers were working at.

Have them doing fighter sweeps. lot cheaper than using Thunderbolts, who should be using their high altitude performance to it's best advantage, than shooting up trucks and trains

 

[bsmart]

Have them doing fighter sweeps. lot cheaper than using Thunderbolts, who should be using their high altitude performance to it's best advantage, than shooting up trucks and trains

Fine have them do sweeps, that doesn't defeat the Luftwaffe over Germany where they are attacking the bombers. Low level sweeps also cuts range.

 

[McPherson]

Have them doing fighter sweeps. lot cheaper than using Thunderbolts, who should be using their high altitude performance to it's best advantage, than shooting up trucks and trains

Apaches...

Also; I hate Curtiss with a passion. 13,700 units that should have been capped at 5,000 or so (stinking politics) and the superior and economically costed equivalent Apaches and Mustangs should have replaced the 8,300 inferior airframes built at the insistence of the New York congressional delegation at Buffalo, New York. Crap engines, too.

 

[marathag]

Apaches...

Also; I hate Curtiss with a passion. 13,700 units that should have been capped at 5,000 or so (stinking politics) and the superior and economically costed equivalent Apaches and Mustangs should have replaced the 8,300 inferior airframes built at the insistence of the New York congressional delegation at Buffalo, New York. Crap engines, too.

from the wiki
However, tactical reconnaissance training with P-51 and A-36 aircraft had delivered some disquieting accident rates. At one time, A-36 training had resulted in the type having "the highest accident rate per hour's flying time"[19] of any USAAF aircraft. The most serious incident involved an A-36A shedding both wings when its pilot tried to pull out from a 450 mph (724 km/h) dive.[15] Combat units flying the A-36A were ordered to restrict their approach to a 70° "glide" attack and refrain from using dive brakes.[20] This order was generally ignored by experienced pilots, but some units did wire dive brakes shut until modifications made to the hydraulic actuators.[20] Nevertheless, the A-36 was used with great success as a dive-bomber, acquiring a reputation for precision, sturdiness and silence.[21]

Say what you will about the P-40, being able to pull the wings off in a Dive, even at VNE, wasn't one of them

 

[JEF_300]

Examine the map you cited. and then this map.

World War 2 Allied Bombings. | Map, Earth map, Instagram

America's war is GLOBAL and interlocking with at least 7 interdependent fronts. SEVEN fronts.

I agree. I never said that the P-40 had plenty enough range, period, full stop. But it had enough range to be workable for Europe.

 

[JEF_300]

Fine have them do sweeps, that doesn't defeat the Luftwaffe over Germany where they are attacking the bombers. Low level sweeps also cuts range.

They don't need to defeat the Luftwaffe over Germany, they need to defeat the Luftwaffe. There are dozens of ways that could be done. Launch feint invasions of the continent that the Luftwaffe has to respond to, on the off chance they're real. Bomb France, Italy, and the lowlands, and let Germany choose between rebuilding their occupied areas or defending them. Hell, they could've shipped American fighter squadrons to operate with the Soviets on the Eastern Front and beat the Luftwaffe there if that was necessary. Or any combination of these, and other ideas. The Luftwaffe would've been defeated even without long-range daylight bombing raids.

 

[Belisarius II]

Of course they didn't , a person who would keep a P-40 when they can get a P-51 is called an idiot. I didn't say they should keep them until the end of the war, merely that it would take time to switch in the best circumstances and the plane was viable in the Pacific until the end of the war. Not great, but good enough.

Respectfully the P-40 wasn't viable till the end of the Pacific War. It could hold it's own against the Zero, which isn't the same thing. It was far outclassed by the Tony, Frank, George, Tojo, and Jack, and lacked the range for the escort duty that the P-38, and P-51 excelled at. The P-38 was also a much better fighter bomber, and served as a radar night fighter, recon plane, and even Pathfinder Bomber.

 

[Belisarius II]

They don't need to defeat the Luftwaffe over Germany, they need to defeat the Luftwaffe. There are dozens of ways that could be done. Launch feint invasions of the continent that the Luftwaffe has to respond to, on the off chance they're real. Bomb France, Italy, and the lowlands, and let Germany choose between rebuilding their occupied areas or defending them. Hell, they could've shipped American fighter squadrons to operate with the Soviets on the Eastern Front and beat the Luftwaffe there if that was necessary. Or any combination of these, and other ideas. The Luftwaffe would've been defeated even without long-range daylight bombing raids.

The USAAF did need to defeat the Luftwaffe over Germany. In the period 1941-42 the RAF launched the None Stop Offensive over France, and the low countries. They far outnumbered the Luftwaffe fighter forces in the West, and used medium, and fighter bombers attacking airfields to force the Germans into combat. It was a complete failure, with the Germans choosing the time, and situation for air combat, they out fought the RAF inflicting 4 to 1 fighter losses. By the time the USAAF was in the war in 1942 the FW-190 was in service. At medium, and low altitude it outclassed the Spitfire MK-V, the P-40 would've been slaughtered.

Launching Dieppe type raids to lure the Luftwaffe into the air would have been bloody disasters. The 2nd Canadian Division was mauled, and the Allies weren't even able to gain air superiority. Allied air loses were far heavier then German. Deploying USAAF units to the Eastern Front would've been logistically demanding, and the Soviets didn't want them, they could just send the planes. The Russians thought the P-39 was a better fighter then the P-40, and the P-63 was a lot better.

 

[James Ricker]

Some modifications in 1943 to improve the P-40's ability as a ground attack aircraft
As an attack aircraft in low threat areas you could have lasted the entire War because it was cheap to produce

 

[DougM]

You still need to account for a simple fact.
The US had access to better designs (38/47,51) and had enough production capability to easily make the switch. So in order to stop the US from switching to better aircraft and producing them in huge numbers you have to eliminate said aircraft. So if you want to keep the obsolete P-40 you have yo eliminate three aircraft and then you have to stop the US from building different aircraft that would have been designed if those three didn’t exist.

 

[McPherson]

They don't need to defeat the Luftwaffe over Germany, they need to defeat the Luftwaffe. There are dozens of ways that could be done. Launch feint invasions of the continent that the Luftwaffe has to respond to, on the off chance they're real. Bomb France, Italy, and the lowlands, and let Germany choose between rebuilding their occupied areas or defending them. Hell, they could've shipped American fighter squadrons to operate with the Soviets on the Eastern Front and beat the Luftwaffe there if that was necessary. Or any combination of these, and other ideas. The Luftwaffe would've been defeated even without long-range daylight bombing raids.

@Belisarius II has a fine antithesis. I cannot improve on it much, beyond the interlocking air campaign map I cited and worked to illustrate.

You still need to account for a simple fact.
The US had access to better designs (38/47,51) and had enough production capability to easily make the switch. So in order to stop the US from switching to better aircraft and producing them in huge numbers you have to eliminate said aircraft. So if you want to keep the obsolete P-40 you have yo eliminate three aircraft and then you have to stop the US from building different aircraft that would have been designed if those three didn’t exist.

You can keep HAP Arnold past his expiration date when he should have been fired for incompetence and replaced. (1942 at the latest.) This is what actually happened and part of the reason for all those extra P-40s kept rolling out of Buffalo, many to be scrapped without ever seeing service. (About 2000?). The CoS USAAF should have been a TACAIR honcho. I nominate Quesada or Doolittle. Both men had the operational and technical backgrounds to understand watts to wings (Jets for a classic example of the four aeronautical influences of lift, drag, gravity, thrust solution.) and Doolittle understood how to fight an air campaign against an enemy air force. He was one of the architects of the bomber-bait scheme to lure the LW away from the Russians.

 

[Bougnas]

@Belisarius II has a fine antithesis. I cannot improve on it much, beyond the interlocking air campaign map I cited and worked to illustrate.

You can keep HAP Arnold past his expiration date when he should have been fired for incompetence and replaced. (1942 at the latest.) This is what actually happened and part of the reason for all those extra P-40s kept rolling out of Buffalo, many to be scrapped without ever seeing service. (About 2000?). The CoS USAAF should have been a TACAIR honcho. I nominate Quesada or Doolittle. Both men had the operational and technical backgrounds to understand watts to wings (Jets for a classic example of the four aeronautical influences of lift, drag, gravity, thrust solution.) and Doolittle understood how to fight an air campaign against an enemy air force. He was one of the architects of the bomber-bait scheme to lure the LW away from the Russians.

What were the failures of Curtiss during the war, and what could they have done instead? What can they build instead of P-40s in 1942 when the alternatives are I believe the P-39 and P-47?

 

[McPherson]

What were the failures of Curtiss during the war, and what could they have done instead? What can they build instead of P-40s in 1942 when the alternatives are I believe the P-39 and P-47?

Ass-ender is an example of where Curtiss molested the dog. It is one of many WWII failures of their design and engineering staff.

I have thought about what Curtiss could have done to make the progression of the P-36 better. I guess it comes down to a wrong decision to adopt the Allison without putting in the proper work to make the aspiration work or to CLEAN UP the airframe and modernize the way it was assembled. Lack of wind tunnel work and Curtiss' lack of a really talented equivalent to Ed Heinenmann or Kelly Johnson who had a natural intuitive understanding of the types of drag and how to balance and control for yaw, pitch and roll. I also think Don R. Berlin goofed when he chose the Allison as the future watts path.

I suppose what I mean, is that if Berlin had stuck with the Pratts or even used crappy Wright radials, the P-36 could have followed the same path as the P-35 went into the P-47. There is no reason that a continued line of development could not have result in a Kartvellied type outcome with a Curtiss/Wright version of the Thunderbolt at the end of the evolution. Maybe a bit lighter and with better corner turn?

It is a what-if that has intrigued me.