WI: US Bofors 40mm AAA two years early

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/US-NAVY-GUNS/40_mm_Bofors_History.pdf

Lack of punctuation in the cablegram •• failure to mention the word "dollars" except toward the end of message, and the belief of the
recipient that the sender's method of writing 10,000 was 10 1000
caused the error in reading the cablegram which was as follows:

"referring conference 26/4 Ordnance Department Commander Bostroem
Stop 40 mm pilot gun and ammunition can be sent about 15/6 costs
of freight to be paid by Bofors stop FOB price New York City 500
rounds of high explosive tracer shells 10 1000 tracer drill shells
8 1000 drill shells 6 100 armour piercing tracer shells 12 100
ditto uncharged 12 dollars a piece stop please cable confirmation."


Consequently, the quantities of shell were read, respectively, as
500, 10,000, 8,000, 600, and 1,200, or a total of 20,300 shell at
a common cost of twelve dollars each,
This miscommunication held back procurement of the bofors 40mm by the US for two years. Two years spent developing and manufacturing the order for 3,195 inferior 37mm domestic AA guns for the US Army at 40 guns a month (480 guns and counting).

What if the telegram had been clearer?

referring conference 26/4 Ordnance Department Commander Bostroem Stop 40 mm pilot gun and ammunition can be sent about 15/6 costs of freight to be paid by Bofors stop FOB price New York City 500
rounds of high explosive tracer shells 10 dollars stop 1000 tracer drill shells 8 dollars stop 1000 drill shells 6 dollars stop 100 armour piercing tracer shells 12 dollars stop 100 ditto uncharged 12 dollars a piece stop please cable confirmation
1700 rounds for a total cost of $21,400. Rather than the perceived cost of $243, 600. The test goes ahead, the license to manufacture guns and ammo for both services is bought for $600,000 and production starts two years earlier.

What impact does this have on USN and US Army equipment?
What impact does this have on US exports and lend-lease to the allies?

Any likely changes to the course of the war?

It amazes me that Chrysler were told that only 1,000 of these guns would be needed. They eventually ran out 60,000 guns and 120,000 barrels. Let us suppose that the initial orders are for 3,195 for the army and 1,000 to export to the British. Plant initially for 60 guns a month might be realistic. In two years 1440 guns would have been made. All the British order (wartime priority) and a 440 gun start on the army order. IOTL only about 150 guns were issued as Lend-Lease to Britain.
 
Last edited:
You mean the 40mm was delayed for two years due to a badly worded cablegram?

Seriously? :confused:

This is the stuff which makes me lobby for the relaxation of implausibility challenges.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
And people say that punctuation isn't important!

352 is enough guns to equip the ten Town class cruisers (four quads) and the sixteen dido class cruisers (three quads). The eight Fiji class (two quads) and the four Ceylon class (three quads) Crown Colony cruisers would use a further 100 guns. The 31 Tribal class destroyers ordered would have required 124 guns. The 24 J,K&N class destroyers a further 72 guns. The 16 L&M class a further 64 guns, another 64 for the O&P emergency class. Still only 776 guns in all.

As you can see, 1000 extra bofors AAA make a big difference. All the supplanted 2-pdr AAA could have been used on destroyer escorts (Hunt class: 86 x 2 or more guns), frigates (River class: 151 x 3 guns, Captain class: 78 x 1 or more guns, Colony class: 21 x 4 guns, Loch class 30 x 4 guns, Bay class: 26 x 4 guns) and corvettes (Flower class: 225+69 modified - all could have had a gun, not just the modifieds, Castle class: 44 - all could have had a gun). 1080 guns in all. Since many of these were already supplied with 2-pdrs (or indeed Bofors 40mm) heavy cruisers and capital ships could have had more intermediate AAA fitted.

This is aside from the em-placed and mobile use of the gun on land.
 
Last edited:

Hoist40

Banned
The problem is money, even if they had the money to test and buy the design they still would not have money to redesign it for US manufacturing and start putting it into mass production it until at least 1940. They did not have money to mass produce their own 37mm gun before then. The 37 was a good gun, not quite as good as the 40 but it had the same problem, the military was short of funds until at least 1940 and trying to mass produce anything once it got money took time.

This was especially true because there was many other weapons being put into production at the same time and there was a lack of experienced designers and of civilian companies who had experience with weapon manufacturing. The military in the 1930’s had so little money that they did most of their weapon manufacturing in small batches in their own arsenals. Except for aircraft most weapons were made in house so that civilians companies had no experience in weapons production since WW1.
 

Hoist40

Banned
I didn't exceed the orders placed at the time.

So you then have the Army with a AA gun a bit better then the 37mm. The 37mm was not a bad gun, the 40mm was just a little more powerful.

You might have fewer guns since the 37mm was ready for US production while the 40mm would have to be modified for US manufacture. There would be none available for export unless you strip the US Army of what they had ordered. And the Naval version would take longer, first the Navy has to accept the gun and then the more complex powered and water cooled Naval twin and quad gun mounts would have to be developed.
 
Top