AHC: Your very own USAAC/USAAF

Looking at the cost charts (post #5), I can understand the stiff cost for the twin engine P-38. Why is the P-47 so much more expensive than it's other single-engine counterparts?

The 18 cyl engine will be more expensive than a 12 cyl one, the turbo system (turbocharger, intercooler, plumbing/piping) cost money, bigger airframe will cost more than small one. The P-47, however, allows for 450-600-1000-1300 (thousand three hundred) mile combat radius, while carrying 8 HMGs and 425 rounds per each gun. All of that while making 430-450-470 mph. Or, carry up to 2 x 2000 lb bombs.
In light of that, price tag looks fair.

View attachment 301438
It was contrary to policy at the time, but one could wonder what could be done with a Thunderbolt without a turbocharger. Like the P-38, they were designed to perform in the stratosphere, but were never equipped with a pressurized cockpit, and spent much of their service life at lower altitudes.

If the installed R-2800 is of the 2-stage version, we'd probably see the Thudrebird going to 400+ mph without water injection, ie. comparable with Corsair. The P-47 was making almost 430 mph in early B and C versions, again without water injection.
The P-47 was the 1st Allied fighter that escorted bombers at 25000 ft, 375 miles away, while being good at that, so turbo is a good thing for that job. There are intercepted German messages where Fw 190 pilots declind to attack B-17s if P-47s are spotted nearby (link). No wonder, the P-47 was 30 mph faster than Fw 190A at 25000 ft, and non-turbo P-47 would not be able to replicate that performance edge at such high altitudes. In 1943, the UK-based P-47s spent much of their life above 20000 ft.
 
Earlier acceptance of the Merlin engined Mustangs and try sticking Merlins on a P-38 getting escort fighters in service earlier.Embrace jet power earlier. Development of a copy of the MG-151 or some American 20mm.Put more development funds for smart weapons.Adopt a cannon armed radial engined fighter bomber optimized for low level, a modified P-47 or a Corsair most likely. Get the ballistic missile program away from the Navy. Development of a dedicated long range high altitude reconnaissance aircraft with an operating altitude of over 50,000 feet .Those projects would be paid for by cancelling dead end programs.
 
Well fighters look cheap so buy a lot of them :)

Basically I would start talking to RAF and Navy as much as possible, to learn fighter direction and lessons of BoB and bombing Germany. As well as set up a trial to work out the best way to kill ships testing torpedoes :p and different types of bombing and bombs...
Finding out the Mk 13 torpedo doesn't work before the shooting starts will have major effects on the early battles in the Pacific.
 
There are intercepted German messages where Fw 190 pilots declind to attack B-17s if P-47s are spotted nearby (link). No wonder, the P-47 was 30 mph faster than Fw 190A at 25000 ft, and non-turbo P-47 would not be able to replicate that performance edge at such high altitudes. In 1943, the UK-based P-47s spent much of their life above 20000 ft.
Using your link as the basis, one could presume that FWs never entered combat with Thunderbolts. I read somewhere that such was not always the case. By the middle of 1944, Jugs spent much of their life just off the deck, toting their turbos as so much baggage.
 
The docs I've posted the links can't describe the air war above Europe in 1943, nor it is my intention to claim it it that simplistic a way. The battles were raging, each side taking the losses. The presence of escort fighters, whether initially Spitfires, P-47s, P-51s, even P-38s, negated the LW fighters doing their task, that was killing as many big bombers as possible.
I don't want to wait until 1944 with P-47, but intend to have a long range fighter that can perform at any practical altitude already in 1943. BTW - the P-47Ds with water injection, and that is middle of 1944, were having 2600 HP on tap, and 2800 HP with 150 grade fuel. Not possible with non-turbo R-2800 in 1944.
 
Earlier acceptance of the Merlin engined Mustangs and try sticking Merlins on a P-38 getting escort fighters in service earlier.Embrace jet power earlier. Development of a copy of the MG-151 or some American 20mm.Put more development funds for smart weapons.Adopt a cannon armed radial engined fighter bomber optimized for low level, a modified P-47 or a Corsair most likely. Get the ballistic missile program away from the Navy. Development of a dedicated long range high altitude reconnaissance aircraft with an operating altitude of over 50,000 feet .Those projects would be paid for by cancelling dead end programs.

Packard-RR deal stipulated that 1/3rd of production of Packard Merlins will go for the USA, other 2/3rds for the UK. That would mean that out of 7300 of V-1650-1 engines produced before 1943, USA gets a bit more than 2400. Enough for Mustangs before 1943, but lacking for P-38s that need 2 per aircraft to boot?
About the P-38 - having additional source of production would've mean that there is plenty of long range fighters for 1942, also helping Lockheed to introduce the tweaks needed (better intercoolers, prop, dive flaps, boosted ailerons etc). Good payload capability for lugging around heavy firepower.
US story about the 20mm was a sad one indeed, hopefully this time around they will do better :) Ballistic missiles??

Finding out the Mk 13 torpedo doesn't work before the shooting starts will have major effects on the early battles in the Pacific.

The earlier USAAC forgets about torpedos, the better - just IMO. Also forget about A-24, A-25 and A-31, test the A-20, P-40, -38 and P-47 outfitted with dive brakes, pick the best two for production.
 
What if the USAAF developed RED HORSE squadrons in WWII? RED Horse are the current USAF version of combat engineer/Seabee battalions.

The concept would be born with the AAF creating an engineer battalion that would specialize in airfield repair. After an air raid they would move out and fill bomb craters and get the runways operational again.

After Pearl Harbor the battalion would become the Air Force version of the Seabees but their focus would be on constructing airfields.

I would also recommend getting the Air Force to work with the fledging paratroops. Air Force pathfinders assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division for Sicily. By the time of Normandy there would be C-47 pilots attached to Division pathfinder teams. In the air there would be C-47 lead crews similar to bomber lead crews available for airborne operations. I could see experiments using a B-26 or A-20 as a pathfinder aircraft for airborne operations. Instead of a bombardier in the nose have a crew member looking for visual signs from pathfinders on the ground.
 
Packard-RR deal stipulated that 1/3rd of production of Packard Merlins will go for the USA, other 2/3rds for the UK. That would mean that out of 7300 of V-1650-1 engines produced before 1943, USA gets a bit more than 2400. Enough for Mustangs before 1943, but lacking for P-38s that need 2 per aircraft to boot?
About the P-38 - having additional source of production would've mean that there is plenty of long range fighters for 1942, also helping Lockheed to introduce the tweaks needed (better intercoolers, prop, dive flaps, boosted ailerons etc). Good payload capability for lugging around heavy firepower.
US story about the 20mm was a sad one indeed, hopefully this time around they will do better :) Ballistic missiles??



The earlier USAAC forgets about torpedos, the better - just IMO. Also forget about A-24, A-25 and A-31, test the A-20, P-40, -38 and P-47 outfitted with dive brakes, pick the best two for production.
Two turbosupercharged Merlins and a pressurized cockpit could get a P-38 over 40,000 feet getting a untouchable long range reconnaissance platform.
A 20mm or any gun capable of putting a API round through 1½" of armor is needed,that's the armor thickness on the roof of German tanks and the armor on Japanese destroyer's torpedo tubes.They can up armor but that would take away production capability the Japanese don't have to spare and for the Germans put more weight on a overstrained drivetrain and suspension.
as for missiles the development would be important post war a head start would be nice.
 
As a newly appointed chief of the USAAC, how flexible can I be before I get thrown out, will Roosevelt protect me?

I would ideally start rotating 'volunteers' though the eagle squadrons, also including in fighter commands higher levels of command and radar sites. Not that I think RAF/AM was great but war experience on the cheap is always going to win out over peacetime training. I would probably have to insist that not many US personnel are deployed outside 'safe' postings such as GBAD or ground and office staff so they cant be captured, but I cant see the RAF not agreeing with high level HMG telling them to and free pilots and officers.

I concentrate on buying training equipment, a main force of P40s as defence is cheaper than attack. C47 for transport and with PYBs/B24 for longer range anti submarine search and a very small force of B17/24 with P38 escorts for evaluation.
 
Two turbosupercharged Merlins and a pressurized cockpit could get a P-38 over 40,000 feet getting a untouchable long range reconnaissance platform.

There was plenty of things to iron out on the P-38 before it becomes viable for 30000+ ft very-long-range work. Like cockpit heating, installation of generators on both engines instead of just one, relocating the intercoolers under the engine (gives greater intercooling capacity while freeing the space in outer wing for fuel tankage). Having the second production source should enable all of the improvements to be available by, say, early 1943 instead of mid-1944.
Having the Merlin instead of V-1710 does not buy much for the P-38 raw capability, since it does not adress the listed shortcomings, along with low Mach number (problems in dive, partially solved by dive flaps) or slow rate of roll (improved when boosted ailerons were fitted).

A 20mm or any gun capable of putting a API round through 1½" of armor is needed,that's the armor thickness on the roof of German tanks and the armor on Japanese destroyer's torpedo tubes.They can up armor but that would take away production capability the Japanese don't have to spare and for the Germans put more weight on a overstrained drivetrain and suspension.
...

The 20 mm would need to be installed on a dive bomber in order to pierce the roof armor on any decent tank.
As for dedicated AT aircraft - perhaps A-20 with two AAA-derived 37mm, or even better the Bofors 40 mm?
 
As a newly appointed chief of the USAAC, how flexible can I be before I get thrown out, will Roosevelt protect me?

I would ideally start rotating 'volunteers' though the eagle squadrons, also including in fighter commands higher levels of command and radar sites. Not that I think RAF/AM was great but war experience on the cheap is always going to win out over peacetime training. I would probably have to insist that not many US personnel are deployed outside 'safe' postings such as GBAD or ground and office staff so they cant be captured, but I cant see the RAF not agreeing with high level HMG telling them to and free pilots and officers.

I concentrate on buying training equipment, a main force of P40s as defence is cheaper than attack. C47 for transport and with PYBs/B24 for longer range anti submarine search and a very small force of B17/24 with P38 escorts for evaluation.

How about having a "liaison" officer with Chennault in China? Basically someone who is still officially in the AAF but is acting like just another volunteer with the Flying Tigers. You could also cut a back room deal with Chennault himself. Let him know before the war starts that his "volunteers" will be recalled when hostilities break out and that military ranks will be restored.
 
By the summer of 1944, most WALLY fighters were flying ground attack missions in Normandy because there were no more Luftwaffe airplanes to chase. P-51s, Spitfires,Typhoons and P-47s were re-purposed for ground attack because they were available in large numbers and far more accurate (straffing and rocketing) than purpose-built heavy bombers.
 
Viperjock,
If you keep that up ....... next thing you will suggest is USAAF pilots jumping with the first wave of paratroopers and earning their keep as forward air controllers.
Next off, you will have USAAF medics jumping in as para-rescue, etc.
 

Driftless

Donor
The 20 mm would need to be installed on a dive bomber in order to pierce the roof armor on any decent tank.
As for dedicated AT aircraft - perhaps A-20 with two AAA-derived 37mm, or even better the Bofors 40 mm?

What is the difference in aircraft mounted gun weights between a 20mm (Hispano?), the US 37mm AA, and the Bofors 40mm? I did a cursory Google search, but couldn't come back with a reliable number - most include the weight of the whole unit (gun, mount, trailer)
 
By the summer of 1944, most WALLY fighters were flying ground attack missions in Normandy because there were no more Luftwaffe airplanes to chase. P-51s, Spitfires,Typhoons and P-47s were re-purposed for ground attack because they were available in large numbers and far more accurate (straffing and rocketing) than purpose-built heavy bombers.
But I would be willing to bet none of the 1944 aircraft got built pre 1942, Planning with hindsight from 22th May 1940 I think we can afford to look at what we might need for late 41/42 and simply prepare training and production capacity for later rather than actual bombers apart from test examples?

I think with hindsight you want to look at what can help in late 41. I think,
1- Better ASW patrols for the Atlantic
2- Defence of pacific islands
3- Good army support force ready for Torch
4- Bomber and escort formations to win control of northern Europe and destroy the LW
5- Force to support attack on Japan

In that order...
 
There was plenty of things to iron out on the P-38 before it becomes viable for 30000+ ft very-long-range work. Like cockpit heating, installation of generators on both engines instead of just one, relocating the intercoolers under the engine (gives greater intercooling capacity while freeing the space in outer wing for fuel tankage). Having the second production source should enable all of the improvements to be available by, say, early 1943 instead of mid-1944.
Having the Merlin instead of V-1710 does not buy much for the P-38 raw capability, since it does not adress the listed shortcomings, along with low Mach number (problems in dive, partially solved by dive flaps) or slow rate of roll (improved when boosted ailerons were fitted).



The 20 mm would need to be installed on a dive bomber in order to pierce the roof armor on any decent tank.
As for dedicated AT aircraft - perhaps A-20 with two AAA-derived 37mm, or even better the Bofors 40 mm?
Your still going to want to hose infantry and light vehicles a 20mm is better at that.Or copy the German MG-105 30mm the gun isn't as important as the round.A "Aggressor Squadron" for training might be a good idea.Development of midair refueling would make life extremely difficult for U-Boats as well as allow the earlier bombing of Japan.
 

Driftless

Donor
Pre-war the Madsen 23mm (a necked out 20mm) was the penciled in gun in that size range(for the P-38 and the F5F, etc), but I don't think it was ever deployed by the US. Was that based on fire testing, or that the Dane's got overrun in April 1940, and the business side got too complicated?
 
Last edited:
How about having a "liaison" officer with Chennault in China? Basically someone who is still officially in the AAF but is acting like just another volunteer with the Flying Tigers. You could also cut a back room deal with Chennault himself. Let him know before the war starts that his "volunteers" will be recalled when hostilities break out and that military ranks will be restored.
The Flying Tigers became famous after the opening of hostilities, being the prime source of military successes amongst a sea of defeats. Chennault also left Gordon Saville as a replacement in his post, who went to observe the BoB and wrote the "Air Defense Doctrine" piece ignored by the Army until after the opening of hostilities. This combined Dowding and Chennault's ideas into one. Saville also trained Kenneth Bergquist as operations officer on Oahu to try to establish that unaccepted doctrine, which was accomplished only days after Pearl Harbor. Chennault wasn't what you need. Just his writings on air defense doctrine, as well as air combat doctrine. These writings, and his teachings were in place, only lacking someone important to listen and have them acted on.
 
What is the difference in aircraft mounted gun weights between a 20mm (Hispano?), the US 37mm AA, and the Bofors 40mm? I did a cursory Google search, but couldn't come back with a reliable number - most include the weight of the whole unit (gun, mount, trailer)

The Hispano II and it's US equivalent were at 50 kg, US 37mm AA was at 166 kg (just gun, obviously without the mount, sights, training mechanism etc.), German BK 3,7cm (installed on the Ju 87G) was at 296 kg. I have no weight figure for the Bofors. The weight for the US 37mm looks suspiciously favourable for aircraft use.

Your still going to want to hose infantry and light vehicles a 20mm is better at that.Or copy the German MG-105 30mm the gun isn't as important as the round.A "Aggressor Squadron" for training might be a good idea.Development of midair refueling would make life extremely difficult for U-Boats as well as allow the earlier bombing of Japan.

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for the US 20 mm to became actually a wide spread gun. A four cannon P-47 will be even more menacing, and P-39 with belt-fed 20mm is a better thing than a P-37 with 37mm M4 cannon - trajectory matches with .50s, along with greater rate of fire. After all, the P-38 and P-61 were outfitted with 20mm, so were some versions of Hellcat and Corsair.
For the twin-engined aircraft, the maths might look like this - the B-25 will sport, say, 8 x .50s in the nose, or 4 x 20mm, or two 37mm. Eight .50s will shread any vehicle without problems, ditto for infantry.

IIRC there was no such thing as a MG 105, at least not in service. There was MK 108 around, a heavy hitter gun of light weight, but with low MV - great against un-suspecting target, not so great if intended target can either maneuvre well, or can hit back with high MV gun, or the target is at long distance. The MK 101 and MK 103 were heavier (at around 140 kg each, bare gun), with lower rate of fire (~250 or ~ 400 rpm, respectively), greater bulk so Bf 109 could not use them as-is, but also greater MV. These two were probably far more suited as AA guns, rather than for air-to-air combat, although the variants of the Ta-152, Me-262 and Do-335 were to have them installed by 1945.

Good idea for the 'Agressor squadron' - perhaps strip down the P-36 and/or P-35 and use those?
Also good idea for in-flight refueling.
 

Driftless

Donor
Development of midair refueling would make life extremely difficult for U-Boats as well as allow the earlier bombing of Japan.

Also good idea for in-flight refueling.

There was historical use in the US going back to the late 20's anyway
qmar.png
 
Top