AHC: Your very own USAAC/USAAF

A bit on the never much liked P-39 and -40.
The P-39 will not receive that heavy and numerous armament set-up - kills the rate of climb and speed instead Axis machines & men. At the end of the day, it would be probably a belt-fed 20mm through the prop and two .50s. Not over-doing radio sets and armour suite would also keep the weight acceptable. Once the better V-1710s are available (hopefully a bit before mid-1942 as historically) adding a bit of fuel, both internal and external should be done.
The P-40 - no more than 4 .50s. Burrying two coolers in the wing, as done with the XP-40Q might shave some drag. Try and fit 150 gal drop tank under the centreline ASAP.

Once the firing starts, the USAAF will get some British-produced aircraft, as in OTL. Like the Spitfire V - see whether the 150 gal DT can fit, install the 30-35 gal tank behind the pilot (similar to what was done historically). Perhaps some Bendix carbs can be retro-fitted (gain 10 mph vs. float-type), also a bit better stacks (gains 7-8 mph). Perhaps delete four .303s and install two .50s per aircraft.
Once Spitfire VII/VIII/XI is available, try to shove as much of fuel on these as possible. Get as much of Mosquitoes as possible.
 
Development of a copy of the MG-151 or some American 20mm

US small arm development was really troublesome for cannons.
They botched the Hispano 20mm, Madsen 23mm(these both were working weapons before being 'Americanized') and wasted much of the war playing with multiple versions of a .90- caliber round, based roughly off the USN 1.1" round, shortened and necked down.

They never took the obvious way of just upscaling the .50 Browning like the Japanese did, the Ho-5, in 1942, that used a less powerful version of the 20mm Hispano
20mm-aircraft-cannon-ho-5.jpg
86-104 lbs, 950rpm 2300fps
 
Considering that the main targets of the USAAF are fighters and ground vehicles, not bombers, .50 cal is perfectly satisfactory. ROF could certainly be improved by installing the 1450 rpm boosted versions of the M2/M3. Tank busting with cannon instead of rockets and bombs is a tricky business, and by mid-war you'll need 37/40mm class cannons at the lightest.
 
The USAAF resisted fiercely ground support missions, particularly direct ground support instead of interdiction. That said, the 50 caliber and bomb load of all mid and late war American fighters was more than adequate for that interdiction mission and it gradually did adapt to the role. The USAAF wanted to focus on strategic bombing and shooting down enemy aircraft (in that order).

Which seems strange considering that it developed excellent medium bombers and attack capability. There was some pressure to make it a more balanced force and that paid off.

In my view the USAAF never had enough transport aircraft, and it had lots of them. Some more of those would have been handy. But transport aircraft are not 'sexy' in warmaking terms and its hard to make command rank being in charge of a airlift wing.

Personally I am a huge fan of the F4U Corsair, and I think it would have served the USAAF admirably in Europe and in the South Pacific.
 
Personally I am a huge fan of the F4U Corsair, and I think it would have served the USAAF admirably in Europe and in the South Pacific.[/QUOTE]
The Corsair was cheaper than a P-47 better Air to air and about equal air to ground.If the high altitude performance could be improved the P-47 might not have been necessary.
 
The excellent reading on the subject of airborne guns is here:
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/MG/
The Volume II can be accesed in another web page, Google it for yourself.

US small arm development was really troublesome for cannons.
They botched the Hispano 20mm, Madsen 23mm(these both were working weapons before being 'Americanized') and wasted much of the war playing with multiple versions of a .90- caliber round, based roughly off the USN 1.1" round, shortened and necked down.
They never took the obvious way of just upscaling the .50 Browning like the Japanese did, the Ho-5, in 1942, that used a less powerful version of the 20mm Hispano
...
86-104 lbs, 950rpm 2300fps

The Ho-5 was indeed an excellent piece, too bad the Americans didn't do similar thing themselves. There was also the .60 round and gun for it, firing a high MV projectile, that went nowhere.

Considering that the main targets of the USAAF are fighters and ground vehicles, not bombers, .50 cal is perfectly satisfactory. ROF could certainly be improved by installing the 1450 rpm boosted versions of the M2/M3. Tank busting with cannon instead of rockets and bombs is a tricky business, and by mid-war you'll need 37/40mm class cannons at the lightest.

Belgians were offering several versions of the Browning .50 that were making 1000-1200 rpm before they were invaded, so there was a fast & early way to improve firepower of us fighters and bombers.
Tony Williams states that M3 .50 was good for 1200 rpm.
 
The USAAF resisted fiercely ground support missions, particularly direct ground support instead of interdiction. That said, the 50 caliber and bomb load of all mid and late war American fighters was more than adequate for that interdiction mission and it gradually did adapt to the role. The USAAF wanted to focus on strategic bombing and shooting down enemy aircraft (in that order).

Which seems strange considering that it developed excellent medium bombers and attack capability. There was some pressure to make it a more balanced force and that paid off.

The USAAF/AF spend quite the resources in order to have ground-support aircraft. They have had the 'attack' category of aircraft, eg. A-20, A-26, A-31, A-25 (Dauntless), A-36 etc. Agreed that Americans were very much fixed on big bombers, though.

In my view the USAAF never had enough transport aircraft, and it had lots of them. Some more of those would have been handy. But transport aircraft are not 'sexy' in warmaking terms and its hard to make command rank being in charge of a airlift wing.

Personally I am a huge fan of the F4U Corsair, and I think it would have served the USAAF admirably in Europe and in the South Pacific.

Indeed, transport aircraft are/were necessary. A 4-engined 'pre-Hercules' would've been interesting - perhaps a spin-off from the B-24?

..
The Corsair was cheaper than a P-47 better Air to air and about equal air to ground.If the high altitude performance could be improved the P-47 might not have been necessary.

Corsair was indeed cheaper, at ~75000 USD. That it was better in air combat I don't believe, at least not above 20000 ft. The P-47 was not a worse diver (and got better), carried bigger firepower and more ammo per gun and total, and, once the AAF recognised it will need a long range fighter (that we don't need to wait in this thread), the P-47 was a better choice.
 
Indeed, transport aircraft are/were necessary. A 4-engined 'pre-Hercules' would've been interesting - perhaps a spin-off from the B-24?

Budd Conestoga or Fairchild Packet had the wingspan to be four engined. The Budd was very underpowered with just two 1200hp R-1830, and the C-82 was slightly underpowered with two 2000hp R-2800.
Postwar, the XC-82B used the 3500hp R-4360 Wasp Major, that was later used on the C-119

Now the C-87 pretty much was a standard B-24 made to a cargo plane, with a hinged front nose cap
C-87-nose-Fort-Worth.jpg


Now the B-24 could have been reworked more, after all, look at the Boeing B377 Stratoliner super guppy conversions
b377.jpg
 
carried bigger firepower and more ammo per gun and total, and, once the AAF recognised it will need a long range fighter (that we don't need to wait in this thread), the P-47 was a better choice.

Operating cost killed the P-47 postwar, while F4U soldiered on.
 
If we define 'post war' as between 1945-50, the P-47 also soldiered on. Whether we look at USAF, National Guard units, or overseas airforces.
Operational cost (fuel, lubricant oil) was the same with F4U and P-47 - there is no workaround for the R-2800's high fuel consumption, and USN did not have the 'Sea Mustang' that will give ~80% better mileage over either F4U or P-47.
It also took quite some time before USN fielded jets, those replaced both P-51s and P-47s in the USAF earlier than it was the case with Corsair.
 
The AAF could adopt the F4U Corsair for use in the Pacific thus making logistics easier. Maybe if the Army shows interest in the aircraft after the Navy rejected it for carrier service then the AAF could help work the bugs out of the early model Corsairs. Of course you would have work out the problem of the Navy/Marines feeling the AAF is stealing planes from them.
If I were running the Air Force I would play nice with the Dept. of the Navy. Perhaps trade some P-38s for Reconnaissance use.
So imagine all three services flying the F-4U like its jet age version the F-4 phantom. You have the New Zealanders flying Corsairs as well so you only have to supply parts for one main fighter that can also serve in the attack mode. The P-38 handled the Zero plenty well OTL so leave them in the Pacific with added fuel range.
Another bonus is the Corsair is a carrier plane. Easier to deliver an Army fighter squadron on some island. You could also have some cross training with Marine pilots. Attach Marine Pilots to Air Force squadrons like in the Korean War.
 

Driftless

Donor
Circling back to the OP.... What lessons might be learned differently, with the POD of May 1940 for the full press of USAAC/USAAF build up. To be sure many programs were already underway, but with the apparent success of the Luftwaffe tactical focus in the attacks on Poland, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, and France; would that alter the message received in Washington? The Battle of Britain showed some the limitations of the Germans tactical air, but those lessons-learned would start to appear by the fall of 1940.
 
If we define 'post war' as between 1945-50, the P-47 also soldiered on. Whether we look at USAF, National Guard units, or overseas airforces.
Operational cost (fuel, lubricant oil) was the same with F4U and P-47 - there is no workaround for the R-2800's high fuel consumption, and USN did not have the 'Sea Mustang' that will give ~80% better mileage over either F4U or P-47.
It also took quite some time before USN fielded jets, those replaced both P-51s and P-47s in the USAF earlier than it was the case with Corsair.

Post War, as Corsairs were doing combat missions for the French in Vietnam, with last combat in 1969, with the 'Soccer War' between El Salvador and Honduras.
I don't believe the P-47 was in combat anywhere after 1945. The reason I've seen, was a real lack of spare parts, despite more P-47s built.
 
marathag makes some good points about USAAF transports and their engines.
C-87 Liberator Express benefitted from B-24's great range, built that long range came at the expense of sluggish take-offs. B-24 was too finely-balanced to make a good freighter and C--87s suffered from a narrow centre-of-gravity range. It would be amusing to speculate on how C-87 would have evolved if WW2 lasted longer: wider horizontal tail, bigger cargo doors, ramp under tail, etc.

Budd Conestoga was under-powered with only a pair of R1830s. R 2800s would have been better.
Flying Boxcars were also under-powered. They only flew well when post-WW2 C-119s were fitted with R4330, 4-row engines. But the R4330 proved a maintenance hog and was shunned by civilian airlines. Marathag is correct in stating that Boxcars would have flown better with 4-engines.
R3350 proved the largest practical engine for transports and served well into the Cold War.

As for adding motor cannons to radial-engined fighters ...... easy on a single-row radial, but difficult on twin-rows. On a single-row radial engine, you just redesign the propeller reduction gear to displace the propeller above or below the crankcase (ala. Pobjoy) and poke the cannon barrel out between a pair of cylinders. On some engines, this would require re-designing the carburetor or oil-sump.
 
Last edited:
I don't believe anyone was serious wit adding a motor-cannon to the radial-engined fighter :)
Post War, as Corsairs were doing combat missions for the French in Vietnam, with last combat in 1969, with the 'Soccer War' between El Salvador and Honduras.
I don't believe the P-47 was in combat anywhere after 1945. The reason I've seen, was a real lack of spare parts, despite more P-47s built.
P-47 were in combat in Algeria in 1954.
The French Corsairs (F4U-7), that saw combat were produced in 1952 (so were the spare parts), by what time Republic was producing jets.
But, at any rate, the use of ww2 aircraft in minor wars have, IMO, no bearing on what USAF might do different in ww2. Our nascent air force was using An-2 as nigth bombers and Utva-75 as anti-tank aircraft, does not mean the major air force will use them in same vein.
 
Geography played a role in the USAAC (and USN) interest in big aircraft. Maybe also be why the USAAC wasn't as interested in ground attack. The USMC was more interested in ground attack, and the USN's carrier planes were naturally bomb carriers.
 
Couple quick questions. When was that armistice again? May, not June? I wasn't born yet, so that's out. If I'm my age, I'm too busy and need too many naps.
If I'm to replace Hap Arnold, there is a bunch to do.
Where did you get your price for the Corsair, and at what stage of production, at which factory, and does it include GFE?
You don't have to change anything to get some Spitfires, and play with fuel tanks, but the Supermarine factory won't like it.
Republic had two factories and Curtiss in Buffalo making Jugs, and there's no reason not to make turbo, and non turbo Jugs. I'm Just Hap, dammit. Make it so. And make sure the radios work before they sail. The Turbo Jug is the one with the pressurized cockpit. Just like the Lightning.
Also, nobody told Douglas to stop producing DC5s, so they have to have a clamshell door at the back. Like the one on the all-aluminum Budd Conestoga.

I need a nap. It's almost midnight. There's so much to do, but......
 
Indeed you're right - 22th June, not May, as I've wrote in the 1st post here. I'll edit that.
I got the price for Corsair some time ago, when researching about prices of the US aircraft. BTW - the Hellcat was even cheaper.
Not so sure that Supermarine will not like it, once they receive reports about their products ranging (pun intended) & achieving much more than expected. The 29 imp gal (~35 US gal) rear tank was used on Spitfires in 1942 in OTL, so I'm not suggesting anything outrageus.

Good thing that a new boss of the USAF might do is to make Curtiss sort out their production of the P-47, since they produced just 354 copies in 18 months in OTL. Cancelling all of the (X)P-60 saga might help here, so could the cancellation of USAF part of Helldiver development & production, and indeed having a simpler P-47 version to produce. Now that we're at sorting out boched jobs, a more stiff control on the Wright Lockland plant would be in order (link for OTL).
 
I got the price for Corsair some time ago, when researching about prices of the US aircraft. BTW - the Hellcat was even cheaper.
Not so sure that Supermarine will not like it, once they receive reports about their products ranging (pun intended) & achieving much more than expected. The 29 imp gal (~35 US gal) rear tank was used on Spitfires in 1942 in OTL, so I'm not suggesting anything outrageus.

Good thing that a new boss of the USAF might do is to make Curtiss sort out their production of the P-47, since they produced just 354 copies in 18 months in OTL. Cancelling all of the (X)P-60 saga might help here, so could the cancellation of USAF part of Helldiver development & production, and indeed having a simpler P-47 version to produce. Now that we're at sorting out boched jobs, a more stiff control on the Wright Lockland plant would be in order (link for OTL).

I had the cost figure myself, long ago, and it was much the same as the Thunderbolt, due to extra cost factors such as flush spot-welding. Trusting such figures is questionable, because there are factors which vary the price over time. The R-2800 went from $26,600 in 1942 to $13,483 in spring 1945, for one. I've read that the Hellcat was $35,000 plus GFE, and $50,000 total. That's not realistic, when the price of the engine, as quoted from Nash/Kelvinator, is added to the price of a propeller, radio, and machine guns.
The British didn't like the mods on the Spitfires. The 16.5 gal wing tanks affected the integrity of the wing, and they thought the teardrop 108's were too wiggly. The fuselage tank was made smaller, and largely fitted to heavier-engined Spitfires not to extend range, but to restore it, with 13 gal wing tanks and the use of the 90 gal slipper tank for range. Acceptance of a very large fuselage tank, as done, would require a head nod from Portal, and he was very stiff-necked.

There's a man named Truman, Harry Truman, who would be interested in Curtiss-Wright shenanigans. Inspectors will be inspected, judged and sent to Leavenworth. It would appear that car manufacturers did a far better job of mass producing aero-engines than aero-engine manufacturers, and had better quality control, since hand-fitting and mass manufacturing do not go hand in hand.

There were a number of policies and doctrines in the Air Corps that needed a new overview and re-assessment. The use of external fuel tanks was expressly forbidden, until the need arose, requiring covert development by those scoundrels who disregarded expressed policy. When the need arose, to fly Lightnings to England, the designs were ready. I don't know if those scoundrels were adequately rewarded. Shouldabeen.

I recently discovered that the Lightning wasn't designed as an intercepter at all, but was designed to thwart a policy whereby pursuit aircraft armament is limited by weight to 500 lbs. This policy is no more.

The Mustang was ordered as the A-36 Apache to take advantage of an availability of attack aircraft funding. I'm head of the Air Corps, and can come up with a better arrangement to produce a Mustang with wing hardpoints, plumbed, and either .50 cal, or revised Hispano cannons to supplant and replace hard done by Cobras and P-40s.

Those 'Cobras known as P-400s, with 20mm cannons, weren't a popular mount, and the 37mm Olds gun was popular with PT boat crews, so my P-39s retain the original 37mm cannon and a pair of .50s.

Some day, I must get around to establishing an attack aircraft policy that makes sense. With hindsight, it shouldn't be too hard.

One more thing. Remember the Bomber Mafia? How old is Robert Kennedy at this time?
 
I had the cost figure myself, long ago, and it was much the same as the Thunderbolt, due to extra cost factors such as flush spot-welding. Trusting such figures is questionable, because there are factors which vary the price over time. The R-2800 went from $26,600 in 1942 to $13,483 in spring 1945, for one. I've read that the Hellcat was $35,000 plus GFE, and $50,000 total. That's not realistic, when the price of the engine, as quoted from Nash/Kelvinator, is added to the price of a propeller, radio, and machine guns.

I'd welcome if someone can come out with well-sourced price figures for the USN aircraft, that is not so easy to come by as it was for the AAF stuff.

The British didn't like the mods on the Spitfires. The 16.5 gal wing tanks affected the integrity of the wing, and they thought the teardrop 108's were too wiggly. The fuselage tank was made smaller, and largely fitted to heavier-engined Spitfires not to extend range, but to restore it, with 13 gal wing tanks and the use of the 90 gal slipper tank for range. Acceptance of a very large fuselage tank, as done, would require a head nod from Portal, and he was very stiff-necked.

The 1st official approval for the 29 imp gal rear tank was issued on 7th July 1942 (per Morgan & Shacklady, pg. 148), the tests commenced with Spitfire V. Tests on slipper tanks, up to 170 imp gals, were conducted even earlier, in Spring of 1942. Intent was to make Spitfires 'self-deploy' on distand bases, like Malta for example. So again - I'm not asking for something outrageous from Supermarine.
16.5 gal wing tank was US mod (that I'm not suggesting it here), as a part of intent of USAF to prove that Spitfire can be a long range fighter. Mod also included rear tank and two drop tanks. The 13 gal wing tanks were the 'official' improvement, found on the Spit VII/VIII/XIV for example.
Once USAF actually has Spitfires, Portal has no call on those.

There's a man named Truman, Harry Truman, who would be interested in Curtiss-Wright shenanigans. Inspectors will be inspected, judged and sent to Leavenworth. It would appear that car manufacturers did a far better job of mass producing aero-engines than aero-engine manufacturers, and had better quality control, since hand-fitting and mass manufacturing do not go hand in hand.

P&W produced plenty of engines themselves. They also have had common sense to proceed with production licenses towards Ford, Nash Kelvinator etc. Unlike them, C-W have had several factories over the US eastern half and probably thinkered it would be a good idea to use those. The later policy sometimes worked, sometimes warranted Leavenworth indeed.

There were a number of policies and doctrines in the Air Corps that needed a new overview and re-assessment. The use of external fuel tanks was expressly forbidden, until the need arose, requiring covert development by those scoundrels who disregarded expressed policy. When the need arose, to fly Lightnings to England, the designs were ready. I don't know if those scoundrels were adequately rewarded. Shouldabeen.

1st re-assesment would've probably be the lesson learned from BoB - day bombers need escort.
The 1st P-38s with drop tanks were the Alaska-bound P-38E, that got drop tank's facility retrofitted by May 1942. The F-4 (photo recce version of the Lightning was outfitted with 75 gal DTs and arrived as such in Australia on 7th April 1942.
1st P-39s with drop tanks were delivered during April 1941 - the P-39 lost 50 gals of fuel vs. P-39C since self-sealing tanks were introduced.
P-40C, the 1st version with drop tanks, was delivered 1st during March 1941.

I recently discovered that the Lightning wasn't designed as an intercepter at all, but was designed to thwart a policy whereby pursuit aircraft armament is limited by weight to 500 lbs. This policy is no more.

Interesting - who made the claim re. weight limit of pursuit armament and all?

The Mustang was ordered as the A-36 Apache to take advantage of an availability of attack aircraft funding. I'm head of the Air Corps, and can come up with a better arrangement to produce a Mustang with wing hardpoints, plumbed, and either .50 cal, or revised Hispano cannons to supplant and replace hard done by Cobras and P-40s.

+1 on this.

Those 'Cobras known as P-400s, with 20mm cannons, weren't a popular mount, and the 37mm Olds gun was popular with PT boat crews, so my P-39s retain the original 37mm cannon and a pair of .50s.

The unpopularity of the P-400s was not due the having 20mm instead of 37mm, but due to still lugging around 4 .30s and thousands rounds for it, along with extensive radio and armor suite - the weight of those items was same as on the P-38 that have had twice the engine power and turbos to boot.

Some day, I must get around to establishing an attack aircraft policy that makes sense. With hindsight, it shouldn't be too hard.
One more thing. Remember the Bomber Mafia? How old is Robert Kennedy at this time?

Bomber Mafia was the US way of implementing Douhets/Trenchards doctrine. The recent BoB can tech anyone a lesson or two.
 
Top