(Smacks forehead) Why didn't I think of that?
Mission profile, ATL Doolittle raid.
Base: Midway Island.
Assets: one squadron (12 A/C) PBB Flying Fortress
One squadron (12 A/C) GRY Pelican (variant of PBY Catalina)
One seaplane tender, destroyers for escort.
The seaplane tender and escort sail to a point ~1,000 miles west of Midway (roughly half way to Tokyo). USS Curtis AV4 could do this in about two days and would be a good choice for this mission.
The Pelicans fly from Midway and land near the USS Curtis to refuel. While they're refueling the PBBs lift off from Midway. They fly to the tender's position (arrive around dawn) and they're refueled by the Pelicans. They fly to Tokyo, bomb it, and fly back to the tender. The Pelicans have landed and refueled again; they meet the PBBs and refuel them again shortly before dusk. The PBBs and Pelicans fly back to Midway; night landing, but the airfield can be lit up for them.
There's no margin for battle damage, though the Pelicans could recover a bailed-out or ditched crew along most of the mission path. Each mission could drop 24 tons of bombs on Tokyo - half again what the Doolittle raid did. USS Curtiss could support about four raids of this type before needed to replenish her stores herself.
At the cost of 250,000 gallons of AvGas and a week's use of a tender, a few destroyers, and a few dozen aircraft, the US could drop nearly a hundred tons of bombs on Tokyo. Certainly not economical, but I bet it would be great for morale!
Love it!
Something like that ought to give the USNAF quite a lot of political capital.
Given the incredible overreaction OTL, the Japanese in a TL like that might well panic.
No crap...this is going to be the OTL Doolittle Raid cubed in terms of audacity and effect. This alone will justify placing strategic bombing in Navy hands and elicit panic in Tokyo...not only can US bombers raid Tokyo, they can do it more than once...and repeatably! When the Alt-Midway Battle comes the US probably can't count on the Luck of the SBD's ittl, but the added skip-bombers could make a difference and the level bombers may at least draw off fighters or force a constant CAP.
I've been fascinated with this idea for the past two days. Here's a few ideas I've jotted down. Feel free to use them at your discretion.
1. Now OTL's fleets of strategic bombers were immensely expensive and will undoubtedly be so in TTL. I see this as being a bone of contention in the Navy during the naval buildup of the 1930's under FDR. The more aerially inclined members of the Navy are going to push for more high level strategic bombers and comparatively fewer ships, while the more traditional members of the USN are not going to trust these new inventions and advocate for more battleships and other proven methods.
Now does FDR side with the nascent USNAS and decide that fleets of four-engined bombers, not battleships are the future of continental defense? Or does he side with the traditional USN? Or perhaps a series of trials are arranged much like those that took place in 1921? (only this time with wartime conditions!) If such trials do take place they could have major ramifications. Not only would the traditional navy be vindicated through the inability of high level bombers to hit their ships, but the deficiencies with US torpedoes would also be revealed perhaps leading to change there as well.
Thoughts?
At the moment I'm assuming the US will have fewer heavy bombers than OTL due to this compromise; somewhere around half a dozen wings of 48 aircraft each either active or forming. Remember the USN gets the funding (or most of it) that the Army got for heavy bombers IOTL.
...
A little too rosy for the US for my tastes; also the budget battles IOTL resulted in a lot of construction but very few live-fire exercises. I don't see any direct link between switching the heavies to the Navy and changing that policy.
Not sure about the "showdown"...possible, but unlikely. Instead it'll be one ugly funding debate. Plus as Gridley mentioned, the Navy is getting more funding ITTL...the stuff that went to the USAAF bomber program OTL. Of course this'll get diluted by flying boat and inflight refueling programs ITTL, but there'll still be cash to spare, particularly as the official mission of the bombers will be "Coastal Defense" rather than fleet warfare...the latter of which will remain clearly in the hands of the surface fleet...who will claim the same massive funding it got ITTL. I think there's a possibility for some butterflies there, and certainly Fleet Admirals will be making allusions to diverting funding over from bombers as part of the political byplay, but the same congressmen with the same affinities for air will still be there in the budgetary debate so I doubt it'll seriously come down to "battleships vs. bombers".
Fearless Leader said:
2. Aerial Refueling and Alaska: Now in OTL US bases in Alaska were too far from the Japanese mainland to be the staging areas for any strategic bombing campaign. However with aerial refueling being part of this TL (even if the traditional navy wins out in the 1930's aerial refueling could still be developed as a means to extend the range of the navy's existing craft) the range is no longer an issue. The same people who advocate for TTL's *Doolittle raid, are going to point out that a sustained bomber offensive could be launched from Alaskan bases/bases in the Aleutian islands.
This alone would drastically alter the nature of the war in the Pacific as the Alaska highway would be completed to facilitate such a campaign. Also, it might make the North Pacific the center of the war as Japan vainly tries to protect itself from American bombers.
Gridley said:
The weather in the Aleutians is just awful for flying, and the good spells don't tend to last long. Still, it is something to consider. Attu isn't that much closer to Tokyo than Midway, but when you're running a razor-thin margin every little bit helps.
Kinky!
Yea, agree w/ Gridley that this may be very limited by climate and supplies (you'll need to all but keep engines going 24/7 to prevent oil freeze even in late spring and early fall). Adak also isn't too much bigger than Midway in terms of usable land, so either way you have a limited wing size and limited hitting power.
Of course the THREAT from Adak - and Midway - particularly after that alt-Doolittle, will be a powerful strategic dagger pointed at Japan's heart.
A wing-a-pop with tender/fueler support to keep that threat open would be a worthwhile investment just to force Japan to divert the forces. Keep in mind that tender/fueler, once the Japanese figure it out, is the obvious Achilles Heel in this plan and definate sub bait, so add a destroyer escort too.
Fearless Leader said:
3. RE TTL's Doolittle Raid: Though I like the idea of using a seaplane tender as a base of operations, I'm not so sure such an operation would be universally accepted. But given the right circumstances, the US might just go for it. My one question would be regarding the engines of the *B-17's. Would they be able to withstand the constant flight requirements, how long could they go without some form of maintenance?
I agree that the Japanese reaction to TTL's raid would be even larger than OTL due to their problems (which would probably occur in TTL as well) with taking down the B-17. Not to mention the effect of multiple raids.
Gridley said:
Simply put: I don't know. A Midway-Tokyo-Midway mission would be about double the loaded range a B-17 could normally handle. I'm counting on Boeing (well, Wright) engineering to have designed the engines to run longer and harder than that, but I don't have any solid evidence. If anyone has detailed info on how much gas the early B-17 models burned at cruising speed loaded and unloaded, and how the engines held up to sustained use, I'd greatly appreciate it. I'm also counting on the fact that the B-17 had four engines and could cruise and land with less; even if one engine goes, the plane can still get home.
A damned good question. My gut says with careful tending by skilled Flight Engineers they should be able to last the extended journey, definitely enough for the raids. Probably wear out the planes more quickly if they do multiple missions. Well worth the tactical difficulty considering the strategic gain, IMO.
Check out the OTL Berlin missions, as those were at the hairy edge of B-17 operational reach and could give you an idea on what a hypothetical Tokyo Bomber would have to face.
I know that long of a mission in an uninsulated Fort is going to be a bitch and three quarters.
Whanztastic said:
My question is if air power remains under the wing of the Navy Department, do we see a separate Secretary of the Navy remaining at the Cabinet level or is the amalgamation of the War and Navy Departments inevitable?
Inevitable? No. Probable? Probably, but as I'm a strict constitutionalist and fan of the USN it won't happen ITTL. ;-)
Heck, I'm wondering if I can keep the Navy using enlisted pilots. There is no end to my heresy!
Seems plausible. Check out some of the ugliness of the Truman-era political realignment to see what a hornet's nest awaits there. General Krulak's
First to Fight has a very good look into that debate from the USMC perspective/bias.
And all for the Enlisted Pilots heresy!
Speaking of awesome enlisted pilots, I wonder what happened to Chuck Yeager ITTL...certainly the Navy will be wanting the sound barrier flights. Yeager's definately remaining Army Air.
Gridley said:
...this TL is really starting to look doable and interesting.
Hells yea!
By God, man, DO IT!!