AHC: Peerless Air Ministry

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by perfectgeneral, Jun 6, 2018.

Loading...
  1. PMN1 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    Does anyone know of a handy table that has in the OTL what aircraft were made by which company, when and where for the period say 1935 to 1945????:)
     
  2. Perturabo Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2017
    Fair enough, although shortage of aircraft is unlikely to be a problem under the peerless air ministry. A pity the changes will do little to ameliorate invasion panic.
     
  3. phx1138 Bocagiste troll

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Location:
    Charlie Townsend's guest house
    In ref the 20mm-armed Spits & Hurrys: based on what Allen estimated in Who Won the Battle of Britain (& my poor recall of it;)), I'd say German losses in the Battle will be at least double OTL's, maybe as high as 4:1.:eek: It's a fair bet East Front ops are severely buggered, & keeping up bombing against Malta seems very unlikely indeed. Since I can't believe the Germans would allow Malta to continue to serve as a base, it makes Herkules more likely, IMO--provided DAK is still sent to aid the Italians in Africa in the first place...
     
  4. sonofpegasus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    I am bouncing between countries at the moment but am working on the next installment that covers the period from the end of Dunkirk to Eagle day. I hope to post it within a week or so.
     
  5. Tjyorksgeezer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2017
    Eagerly awaited, but I fully understand that RL doesn't have a pause button.
     
    Derwit likes this.
  6. Astrodragon Coffee-seeking Dragon Kicked Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Location:
    UK - Oxfordshire
    To be honest, I'd say that is a load of b*****s.
    Cannon aren't going to hit any more planes (in fact, probably less),although they will do more damage.
    Planes shot down that managed to get home damaged, yes. Maybe as high as 50% more losses over England, but x4 is sheer fantasy.
     
    Crowbar Six and Derwit like this.
  7. phx1138 Bocagiste troll

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Location:
    Charlie Townsend's guest house
    Maybe. As I recall the reasoning, it was based on damage per burst: since the 20mm do more damage, bursts that OTL didn't manage to bring anything down, with only .303s, might, & that means the number of total kills goes up. It also means the number of kills achieved by the (small fraction that were) aces would climb fairly dramatically (which is pretty obviously correct).

    Would that amount to a 4:1 rise? IDK. How much an increase would it take to have the mooted result, would you think? And would cannon fighters be able to achieve that? IMO, the chances of it still look good, 4:1 or no.
    I tend to agree, that's a good thing. (BTW, that also means the number of kills goes up.)

    OTOH, it makes me wonder a little: with more crews available, is Bomber Command (if not Fighter Command) even more willing to expend crews than OTL on futile exercises?:eek:
    I'm not so sure you need such a major push. In Canada, at least, the big hurdle was, who's going to pay? IMO, it was possible to sell it as a job-creation program: building airports & training a/c, for a start, would be helpful. That said, no Canadian PM in this era took FDR's approach, so doing it does require a change in perspective. If HMG made an open offer to pay, up front... Would that get the program up by 9/39? Maybe not. It couldn't hurt.
    That fits what I'm thinking. A lot of the basics for this work for RCAF (RAF) & civil both, & ultimately pay back postwar; it wouldn't be a hard sell, IMO, to get Ottawa to go along with a plan that would give Canada dozens of free airports, useful for a/c communication postwar. (Not to mention the trained flight crews...)

    I'm not sure if you also get spinoffs for exploration of the North, or a/c development of Norseman-like types.

    If it's true the projected a/c-building was to be 3000/mo, the number of aircrew would 9obviously) have had to increase commensurately, & AIUI, that was a persistent bottleneck, moreso than manufacturing output proper. So could the *CATP have scaled up enough, even if it was begun sooner? And could an earlier start, such as posited, have achieved that increase?
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2018
  8. pjmidd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    4 cannon vs 8 MG is according to Tony Williams 5 times the effective firepower. So I can see where the 4x best case comes from, I agree vs fighters its going to be a lot lower but against bombers not so much overall especially as these are relatively unarmored 1940 versions compared to later.( non linear effects due to potentially breaking the formation quicker , more stragglers, more crashing on the way home due to being more damaged ). An awful lot of bombers made it back just with minor bullet holes that would have not been at all minor if explosive shells had hit.
    So in terms of availability losses might hit 4x ( combined increases in lost, written off and damaged ), losses I can see as double with bombers making a disproportionate share of the increase. Of course this would just cause the Germans to change tactics so in terms of the battle of Britain it would likely become the Blitz a lot earlier so maybe 50% increase over the course of the campaign compared to OTL.
     
    Some Bloke and bobbins like this.
  9. Astrodragon Coffee-seeking Dragon Kicked Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Location:
    UK - Oxfordshire
    I'm certainly not going to argue with Tony's numbers, but in a real scenario they have to be read with caution.
    First, they exclude the chance of a hit at all - greater with 8x303 than 4x20mm.
    Second, just because an individual hit does a lot more damage, doesn't necessarily mean a far greater chanceof bringing the target down.

    The AM had actually done tests, and worked out 4x20mm was the best armament. I strongly doubt they decided it was 4 times as good, if it had been they'd have been alot more urgent at getting them in service (OK, granted, I'm assuming sense at the AM here...)
     
    Derwit and Some Bloke like this.
  10. tomo pauk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    AM was certainly trying to have 4 cannons installed on their fighters - Hurricanes, Spitfires, Whirlwinds, Beufighters, Typhoons - by the time procution of cannons caught up with production of fighters. We know that 4 cannon Hurricanes and Tphoons replaced respective 12 MG versions.
    USN was of opinion that single Hispano cannon (firing at 600 rpm) was equal to three .50s from late war (800 rpm, 2900 fps, improved ammo), and tried to have cannon-armed Corsairs, Hellcats, Bearcats and Tigercats in service, despite problems with US ww2 Hispano reliability. Germans were also fond of 4 cannons, even before B-17s appeared over Europe. Japanese were also trying to install 4 cannons in some of the late-war fighters. Soviets, with one of the best LMG and weakest 20 mm around, didn't tried the 'many LMGs' game.

    Thus, I'd say the earlier RAF can have a performer with 4 cannons, the better.
     
    perfectgeneral likes this.
  11. Some Bloke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Location:
    A small village in Arkhamshire.
    Earlier British development of the Hispanic could mean that it enters the US R&D cycle with fewer teething problems.
     
    alspug likes this.
  12. tomo pauk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    My suggestion (granted, too late for this timeline) would've been to adopt Oerlikon cannons instead, either of three models that were actually available by early 1930s. Thus having the cannon-armed Hurricanes and Spitfires by 1939.
    Oerlikons made in USA also avoid the chamber-related problems (as it was true historically), since the cartridge was head-speced at breech.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2018 at 2:30 PM
    Some Bloke likes this.
  13. marathag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2013
    The same US Ordnance department that took 4 years to speed up the M2 Browning to the M3, botched the MG-42 conversion, and wasted the entire war on a .60 caliber MG?

    No, they could have had that design in 1939 and would have had it no sooner than OTL.

    They were every bit as worthless as the Navy with torpedoes.

    No strike that, the USN at least had decent torpedoes by 1944
     
    Crowbar Six and Some Bloke like this.
  14. Ian Henderson Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2017
    Indeed, the micro argument over the proper caliber for the Garand obscures the macro level point that US Army Ordnance made a hash of almost everything in small arms they touched in this period. There’s a parallel project to this thread, where we have ordnance actually produce functional weapons.
     
  15. marathag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2013
    And then the fouling up with the 57 caliber T1 76mm to the M1 52 caliber gun, with heat treating problems on almost every 75 and 76mm monoblock shot produced, it just wasn't the little stuff.

    Then you can veer off that when everyone knew that the time of the 37mm gun was at an end when the M3 37mm was brand new, did nothing, had to borrow the excellent 6 pdr/57mm from the Brits, and in the meantime worked that 'lightweight' 76mm gun to an AT mount, it was declined in favor of the older 3" AAA from WWI that was used in the M10 Tank Destroyers, as a ground mount by using the M2 105mm howitzer carriage
    A thousand pounds heavier than the Pak40, less effective, and in service two years afterwards
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2018 at 8:46 PM
  16. sonofpegasus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    In the PAM the Current Fighter Command front line fighters have 2 x 20mm cannon except for the Defiant that has 4 but little less performance and then their are the Reaper and the Beaufighter that have 4 x 20mm but are only available in relatively small numbers. I personally think a 4 x kill rate is verging on ASB. What I think you will get is more kills and a higher degree of probable's being converted into kills by not making it back.
     
    perfectgeneral and Some Bloke like this.
Loading...