AHC: Your very own USAAC/USAAF

1st re-assesment would've probably be the lesson learned from BoB - day bombers need escort.

The first assessment could have been determined when Claire Chennault, during war games, managed to intercept incoming bombers by setting up an early warning network, despite being told not to do so, because the bombers were supposed to get through. War games could have proved something but were nevertheless just considered a cause for disciplinary action. A similar war game scenario found Pearl Harbor to be quite vulnerable, but only in retrospect. The BoB hasn't happened yet, but the lessons learned apply both to bombers and fighters, or pursuits. The pursuit armament limitation doctrine was found in a wiki article on Gordon Saville, I think, or something growing from it. USAAC pursuit aircraft doctrine was determined largely by Kelsey and Saville, though their lowly rank meant that higher ranks had to be fooled into compliance. An early leader of the Air Service, Billy Mitchell, who had rubbed elbows with both Boom Trenchard and Douhet, lacked the subtlety of tom-foolery, and was summarily booted from the service, only to be later honored as father of the Air Force.
The story of drop tanks I got from one of my yellowed Martin Caidin books on the P-38. I miss that guy.
 
The first assessment could have been determined when Claire Chennault, during war games, managed to intercept incoming bombers by setting up an early warning network, despite being told not to do so

Some joked that his official retirement from the USAAC in '37 from 'ear trouble' was actually 'Doesn't listen to superior officers'
 
Some joked that his official retirement from the USAAC in '37 from 'ear trouble' was actually 'Doesn't listen to superior officers'
The term "ear trouble" is a misnomer from the English term "'ear trouble" wherein the "h" is silent. He could hear but he chose not to heed. He actually had "'eed trouble".
 
The thing to remember here is that, fundamentally, the USAAC got most things right and where they did make mistakes they weren't serious ones. Having said that, there certainly is room for improvement given future knowledge:
  1. First of all, get as many operational research types as you can together and get them over in the UK talking to the RAF ones. The UK is way ahead of everybody else in operational research at the time, and the massive value of operational research is something that the USAAC would go on to learn during the war - so getting as much of a head-start as possible is very valuable.
  2. Related to this, as I understand it USAAC doctrine of the time includes strategic bombing - these theories are about to get a real-world test in the UK. Setting up some equivalent to the postwar strategic bombing survey (ideally combined with the operational research guys in some way) will introduce a lot of these theories to reality. The idea that the Norden bomb sight can hit precision targets in typical European conditions in combat is likely to be one of the early casualties.
  3. Introduce a lot more realistic weapons testing - there are no end of problems with the torpedoes, and IIRC there were a lot of issues with the bombs (both fusing and bomb size). Feed in the UK bomb damage reports here too - one of the results is likely to be a realisation that the existing bombs are far too small for the planned targets (factories).
  4. Give maritime patrol aircraft far higher priority than they were given in OTL - admittedly this will be difficult since the Navy will probably have a hissy-fit, but given the value of long range patrol aircraft in the battle of the Atlantic in OTL, this needs to be pushed hard.
 
So I have a question for all the alternate Hap Arnolds in this thread:

How would you handle the B-29 program and it's deployment against Japan?
Would you maintain control of the Twentieth Air Force like Arnold or would you task the bombers out to General Kenney?
Would you go along with Operation Matterhorn or try to convince the President and General Marshall not to send the Superforts to China?
 
So I have a question for all the alternate Hap Arnolds in this thread:

How would you handle the B-29 program and it's deployment against Japan?
Would you maintain control of the Twentieth Air Force like Arnold or would you task the bombers out to General Kenney?
Would you go along with Operation Matterhorn or try to convince the President and General Marshall not to send the Superforts to China?

The B29 was the goal of the bomber generals for 2 decades, so of course I build it and as many as possible. To hit either Japan or in the worst case Germany.

Definitely an independent Air Force under direct control of Washington once in the Pacific but instead of Matterhorn, and the massive logistical challenges there, I would go along with Kenney and give him a couple of groups to use out of Darwin for their combat debut. The whole Matterhorn project was not worth the lives, particularly the Chinese lives, lost. Not to mention the massive expense involved.
 
I'd try to have B-29s (while in the same time having the 'B-33' in pipeline, powered by R-2800s) in service. Used a bit diferently - to hit Indonesian oil fields, taking over from B-24s doing that in this TL. Having B-29s in China was vasteful effort indeed. Early implementation of in-flight refueling would've further improved usefulness of heavy bomber force, as well as maritime patrol aircraft.
 
The B29 was the goal of the bomber generals for 2 decades, so of course I build it and as many as possible. To hit either Japan or in the worst case Germany.
Given how the B-29 was deployed in the end, a lower level, night firebomber, you can get the B-29 in combat sooner by holding off the computing gunsights and pressurization gear, and use it as a faster, longer ranged B-24 at first.
Have the B-29B have all that extra stuff.

Extra points for making the Wright R-3350 team realize that magnesium castings aren't worth the weight savings.
 
A bit about what does not get produced. P-63, for example - Bell should be producing P-51s by mid-1943. No Vultee production of A-31 Vengeance, better tool up for P-38s. No Martin 'Baltimore', do the B-25s or A-20s.
 
So I have a question for all the alternate Hap Arnolds in this thread:

How would you handle the B-29 program and it's deployment against Japan?
Would you maintain control of the Twentieth Air Force like Arnold or would you task the bombers out to General Kenney?
Would you go along with Operation Matterhorn or try to convince the President and General Marshall not to send the Superforts to China?
I don't have much of a problem with the B-29 except for the fuel filler neck which was copied later for the Ford Pinto. Wright Aeronautical, comes under closer scrutiny however. The XR-2160 engine is history, and the R-4090 doesn't exist. While the R-3350 team doesn't favor magnesium castings, forged aluminum, with a hint of magnesium and other spices, makes a darn fine cylinder head, while forged steel is the bee's knees for the crankcases. I believe I have to advise someone to increase the forging capacity, but that's nothing. I'll do it after a nap. Modified induction elbows and revised pressurized direct fuel injection would be nice, and variable ignition timing could be developed. In fact, nothing that Rare Bear's R-3350 has is too impossible.

I have no problem with the command situation. Even the President wants a little input into the 393 squadron's activities. Knowing about the jetstream and high altitude CEP will just make for earlier adjustments.

Arnold was 100% behind bombing from China. He didn't have an ounce of hindsight. Just thinking about the wasted effort makes me tired. I'm off for a nap.
 
Given how the B-29 was deployed in the end, a lower level, night firebomber, you can get the B-29 in combat sooner by holding off the computing gunsights and pressurization gear, and use it as a faster, longer ranged B-24 at first.
Have the B-29B have all that extra stuff.

Extra points for making the Wright R-3350 team realize that magnesium castings aren't worth the weight savings.
Stripped down B-29s is exactly what LeMay did in 1945 OTL. So I don't see a problem with combat testing the early B-29s minus all the bells and whistles. The base model Superfort could be flown from Australia to bomb targets in the Philippines for example. The more advanced Superforts could be saved for the flying out of the Marianas.
I would also suggest more research in night bombing.
 
A bit about what does not get produced. P-63, for example - Bell should be producing P-51s by mid-1943. No Vultee production of A-31 Vengeance, better tool up for P-38s. No Martin 'Baltimore', do the B-25s or A-20s.

Al Pokryshkin wouldn't appreciate not having a King Cobra to try, and I would be in favor of installing the King's engine into a Cobra just for him, but aircraft production for lend-lease isn't within my field.

Most everything about the Vengeance was flawed, and I am bewildered by the RAF's change of mind about dive-bombing doctrine, but unhappy about Vultee's efforts overall. Considering my attack doctrine, I don't know why any would carry a star.

The Baltimore did fit into RAF doctrine, and despite my lack of acceptance, mine too. In light of the fact that I'm cancelling Marauder production, and because the Martin Company did go through some trouble to establish production facilities for the Baltimore, the new version powered by R-2800 should fit right in. It will be called either West Baltimore, or Belvedere.
 
Hero of the Soviet Union will get P-39N and -Q (that will be even better than in OTL) plus P-51 to try out - more than aplenty to his plate, and his country will get them for free once LL is in effect for the SU. The long, 2-stage V-1710, would've been quite a feat to install instead of the much shorter 1-stage V-1710.
I'm not sure Vengeance was that flawed (though I'm sticking it too), seems it got it's job done providing that Allied air forces and Japanese apaling logistics rendered IJA fighters a non-factor. The fast fighter bomber would not need escort that much, and could hit aircraft themselves once bombs are gone.

Will the Martin Baltimore provide anything above A-20 or B-25 for any air force?
 
How about an earlier Douglas A-26 Invader? Improve the A-20 and make the A-26 the next generation light bomber. Cancel the P-61 Black Widow and have give it's Radar and mission to the Invader.
 
How about an earlier Douglas A-26 Invader? Improve the A-20 and make the A-26 the next generation light bomber. Cancel the P-61 Black Widow and have give it's Radar and mission to the Invader.

I don't know about that.. the Black Widow was a pretty bad ass aircraft and just as easily could have been converted into an attack aircraft. It had 4x 50 caliber, 4 x 20 mm, and could carry up 1,500 pounds of bombs and could also conduct night attacks on enemy transportation (some were used for train busting missions over Japan) and was a bit faster. Just a lot fewer were built because the dedicated night fighter mission was not that much in demand for the USAAF in OTL.

I would rather have both
 
Hero of the Soviet Union will get P-39N and -Q (that will be even better than in OTL) plus P-51 to try out - more than aplenty to his plate, and his country will get them for free once LL is in effect for the SU. The long, 2-stage V-1710, would've been quite a feat to install instead of the much shorter 1-stage V-1710.
Will the Martin Baltimore provide anything above A-20 or B-25 for any air force?
The King's engine fit into the 1947 Thompson Trophy winner Tex Johnston's Cobra II.

The Baltimore was ordered by the French and used by the British. It's none of my business what they order or what they use. If it comes to that, what could be done to curtail the Hudson-Ventura production for the purpose of increasing P-38 numbers? It isn't my job to make that determination. It isn't that great a hardship to have more than one aircraft for a role, and the chance of finding a diamond in the rough is not to be missed, unless I don't like the aircraft.

My uncle Ed flew B-25 (Sweet Adeline) and A-26 in the Med, so I like B-25 and A-26. I don't know if it would have been a great night fighter, but it was a little late. The P-61 encountered great problems with turbulence from the turret. Did it need the turret? Lockheed made a developmental aircraft called the Swordfish, a Lightning with elongated fuselage and a nice observer seat, that could easily have been a better basis for a night fighter than the OTL aircraft. 00Lightningswordfish.png
 
Something like the Budd Conestoga would have been very useful for air freighting in the various theatres of operation.
Quick loading and unloading of vehicles and heavy equipment without having to dismantle and then rebuild them.
The Conestoga design modified for aluminum construction and with 4 R-1830s or larger and you have a very useful air freighter. A little smaller and a little slower than a C-130 but more than ten years earlier.
 
How about an earlier Douglas A-26 Invader? Improve the A-20 and make the A-26 the next generation light bomber. Cancel the P-61 Black Widow and have give it's Radar and mission to the Invader.

There was a lot of room for improvement for the A-20. Install bigger fuel tanks earlier, install the 1750 HP version of the R-2600. The wing was strong enough for turbocharged R-2600, so either 2-stage supercharged R-2600 or 1-stage supercharged R-2800 are not out of question. Recalling that early A-20C was clocked for 349 mph, a bit better engines should've pushed that to 360 mph+ easily.
Bigger & heavier engines and extra fuel load will make low-speed handling problematic, and won't gain a co-pilot, however. We can recall that A-26 carried both 4000+ lbs of bombs and 900 gals of fuel in the same time, while the late A-20G/H it will be 2000 lbs + 725 gals of fuel. So I'd still 'buy' A-26, but hopefully a year earlier; the work on the A-26 looks too strectched, IMO, in OTL.

The King's engine fit into the 1947 Thompson Trophy winner Tex Johnston's Cobra II.

Nope, it was 1-stage V-1710-135, the E-31 - per 'Vee's for victory', pg. 421-422. compression ratio was lowered via installation of new pistons (= greater boost allowed = more power); extra boost was also allowed via use of water-methanol injection, and engine was allowed for 3400 rpm.

The Baltimore was ordered by the French and used by the British. It's none of my business what they order or what they use. If it comes to that, what could be done to curtail the Hudson-Ventura production for the purpose of increasing P-38 numbers? It isn't my job to make that determination. It isn't that great a hardship to have more than one aircraft for a role, and the chance of finding a diamond in the rough is not to be missed, unless I don't like the aircraft.

Hudson served the purpose searching the Atlantic for Nazi ships. But, yes, not axing too many projects would've probably been a good idea.

The P-61 encountered great problems with turbulence from the turret. Did it need the turret? Lockheed made a developmental aircraft called the Swordfish, a Lightning with elongated fuselage and a nice observer seat, that could easily have been a better basis for a night fighter than the OTL aircraft.

Great idea for the Swordfish pod to be used for the P-38 night-fighter version. The turret on the P-61 brought far more problems than usability/usefulness, resulting P-61 being far bigger than it would be the case if it was designed without the turret itself.
 
DC5.png

I have nothing against the Budd aircraft, other than the fact it was a terrible aircraft, with a really nice feature. The Douglas DC-5/R3D was a really nice airplane, built at the wrong time, and I personally ( as Hap) told Douglas to stop it, and build thousands of C-47s instead. Shoulder-winged with tricycle undercart, it was a shoe-in for a rear ramp, Provider-style, with a suggestion from the head of the Air Corps. William Boeing chose one as his personal airplane. His airplane had six seats. The Marine version had seats for 22 paratroops. Bill's seats were nicer.
 
Hudson served the purpose searching the Atlantic for Nazi ships. But, yes, not axing too many projects would've probably been a good idea.

The Baltimore searched the Med for nazi u-boats, and sank some. There are still many projects to axe. The McDonnell XP-67 is an aircraft that should have been cancelled by a lean, mean air force, but it sure was purdy.
 
Top