AVG II - What IF US Bombers were based in China ?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17489
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: AVG II - What IF US Bombers were based in China ?

Post by phylo_roadking » 19 Feb 2010 23:04

You'll no doubt remember once prompted that my AVGII scenario proposes that those Hudsons might have been bombing th Japanese Home Islands from Oct.31'41, well before Chennault's "Flying Tiger" P-40s historically took to the air to defend Rangoon. From that date it would still be another month + before Japan and Britain were at war, hence my suggestion that FDR (and Chang Kai-shek) might make a promise to Churchill that Burma would be defended by AVGI fighters, in the future.
And YOU'LL no doubt remember that they did this ANYWAY historically - with no horsetrading required. I wonder what the British government are to make of an "ally" in the ABCD Pact offering to provide military cooperation...AT A PRICE?

SO, once the hair and fur have stopped flying over the international crisis caused by that...

Good to see you're intending to stick to the October 1941 window. That means it's time to address the ordnance difficulties... :wink: Simply having FDR order them into production earlier doesn't work, as indicated before.

robdab
Member
Posts: 778
Joined: 30 Mar 2007 15:45
Location: Canada

Re: AVG II - What IF US Bombers were based in China ?

Post by robdab » 19 Feb 2010 23:20

.
RichTO90 provided,
Armstrong's book also reports that Lockheed was producing only 12 Hudsons per month for the British so for 155 to build up there in Burbank, many months must have passed during which 66 could have been diverted by FDR instead to an AVGII for use in China, without doing any obvious harm to the British who hadn't the necessary numbers of pilots to use them at the time anyway.
It might help if you, or Armstrong, had a clue as to what Lockheed was actually producing. July 1941 acceptances of the Hudson at Lockheed Plant B, Burbank, were 121, not 12...

Please note in that quote above that I actually typed, " ... reports that Lockheed was producing only 12 Hudsons per month "for the British" so ... I did NOT type "per month in total".

In June they were 111, May 128, April 109, March 85, February 52, and January 29. For July to December they totaled another 465.

It might also help if the types available were known. Initial production of the Hudson were the Mk I, Mk II, and Mk IV, the last 19 of which were completed July 1940. They were followed by 177 Mk III (SR), which concluded the 1940 production. 1941 began with the completion of the remaining 10 Mk III (SR), then 241 Mk III (LR), then 440 Mk IIIA, then 52 Mk IVA, and finished with 357 Mk V, 202 (SR) followed by 105 (LR).

The Chinese Hudsons were 23 A-29, Mk IIIA, which were similar to the MK III (LR) and three A-29A, Mk IIIA, which was the same aircraft, but with an interior convertible to carry troops. Any additional would have to be taken from Commonwealth committed contracts.

The Mk III (LR) and Mk IIIA carried a fuel load of 1,028 US gallons as opposed to the standard 644 gallon tank. The 40% additional capacity conferred greater range for the maritime reconnaissance and ASW role and could be expected to give a maximum loaded range of as much as 2,100 miles and a maximum range of possibly as much as 2,900 miles, but added about 2,200 pounds of weight, which would have eliminated the 1,400 nominal pounds of ordnance, plus a couple crewmen, machineguns, and sundry other odds and ends. A reasonable compromise would probably be six or eight 100-lb GP or two 250-lb GP, with the remainder of the 600 to 800 pounds used for additional fuel. That would give about a 1,800 mile range so could work for a few Japanese targets, including a minor reserve.


Many thanks for these informations which, it seems, could not be found by myself, by phylo nor by takeo. You must have an impressive library ?

Might we know the source(s) of all that information ?

But there would be no incendiaries since none were completed until December 1941 when 1,000 100-lb (nominal weight, they were actually 34 4-lb AN-M54's) were delivered. As far as incendiary smoke a 30-lb WP was available in small quantaties, but it was intended as a marker bomb for external mounting; it would have been problematic fitting it into an internal bomb bay. So maybe 52 250-lb GP or 208 100-lb GP for the raid.

In any case, more than enough to cause at least sleep disruption for the population of one of the major Japanese Home Island cities within air range of Chang Kai-Shek's SE China airfields. I've never claimed that a single AVGII raid might create a firestorm of 1945 proportions and thus destroy the Japanese target city. My scenario's air raiders just need to get the attention of Japan's population and leadership in order to deliver FDR's deterence message. And a big morale boost for China's long battered defenders.

Unless of course, other incendiaries might have been procurred by the Chinese from the Russians, the British or from elsewhere on the international weapons markets.

BTW, except for Doolittle's plane the loadout there was three 500-lb GP and one 500-lb incendiary cluster...and the average bombing height for nine aircraft reported was 1,517 feet as opposed to the planned 1,500 feet, which was a fuel conservation measure as has been pointed out.

Page #33 of http://books.google.ca/books?id=plW3HHK ... de&f=false provides a quote:

"Low-altitude flying would help the crews avoid detection, increase bomb accuracy and reduce their vulnerabliity to AAA fire."

which seems to disagree with your unsourced opinion on the real reasons for Doolittle mission's low altitudes.

Btw, your listing below:

1,450
2,500
2,400
600
1,100
1,300
1,500
1,500
1,300
for an average of 1,517 feet.


is missing at least a 900' according to http://ibiblio.net/hyperwar/////AAF/rep ... eport.html which provides:

"Airplane No. AC 40-2292 -- Took off at 8:25 a.m. ship time
Pilot Lt. T. Hoover 0-393133
Co-pilot Lt. Wm. N. Fitzhugh 0-421067
Navigator Lt. Carl N. Wildner 0-352857
Bombardier Lt. Richard E. Miller 0-432337
Engineer-Gunner S/Sgt. Douglas V. Radney 6266909
This is the only airplane that experienced any difficulty in taking off. The sea was so rough that water was being taken on over the bow of the carrier, and the take-off was made on the upbeat. The airplane was thrown into the air and the pilot pulled back on the stick too abruptly. For a moment it looked as though the plane might fall off on a wing but through good piloting Lt. Hoover was able to correct the condition and proceed without further difficulty. This together with the Navy crew member who was struck in the arm by a propeller while assisting in maneuvering an airplane on the deck, was the only eventuality during take-off. Both were due to the rough sea. (After this take-off Lt. Miller recommended a more normal take off to the other pilots.) Proceeded to Tokyo and bombed powder factories and magazines near the river north of the main railroad station and Imperial Palace with 3 demolition bombs and one incendiary cluster. This bombing was done from 900 feet, and the debris flew to a height higher than that of the airplane. Proceeded to a point on the China coast near Ninypo."



It seems that you can make errors too.

You must be a liar.

Imagine that.
Last edited by robdab on 19 Feb 2010 23:41, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002 13:18
Location: Australia

Re: AVG II - What IF US Bombers were based in China ?

Post by Peter H » 19 Feb 2010 23:37

robdab wrote:.
Peter H provided,

Salvoed means dropping unarmed bombs so they won't explode.

Thanks for that information.

I thought that the term refered to an attempt to "lob" bombs onto a target by releasing them while sharply climbing.

Technically though, armed or not, those bombs were still dropped from 75'.
Good attempt at a comeback but jettisoning bombs by hitting the salvo switch is not bombs away but more like dumping unarmed ammunition.

B-29 FIckle Finger on Tinian in November 1944 might hold the record for salvoing---doing it on takeoff as a malfunction occurred.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17489
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: AVG II - What IF US Bombers were based in China ?

Post by phylo_roadking » 19 Feb 2010 23:41

Many thanks for these informations which, it seems, could not be found by myself, by phylo nor by takeo.
Don't bet on it :wink: I was busy turning up the same level of data on the Hudson and researching bombloads when I discovered the c0ck-up you'd made over the non-existent incendiairies! :lol: That's why I emailed the RAF Museum at Hendon for their material on the MkIII(LR). For instance, you'll find I've referenced Joe Baugher's site a number of times now :wink:

But discovering the many and successive mistakes you made over the Americans' development and deployment of incendiaries was just so much more fun!
Last edited by phylo_roadking on 20 Feb 2010 01:59, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17489
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: AVG II - What IF US Bombers were based in China ?

Post by phylo_roadking » 19 Feb 2010 23:48

Unless of course, other incendiaries might have been procurred by the Chinese from the Russians, the British ...
Some day, Robert, you're going to realise that we don't post up stuff for the sheer pleasure of it.

You've ALREADY been told the British wouldn't have any to spare....http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.php? ... &Itemid=60
In March 1940 requirements were set for up to 500,000 per month up to April 1941 and 760,000 per month in May 1942, although at the time capacity did not exceed 200,000 per month. Efforts were made to find increase capacity. Production for the first half of 1941 was low, this was due to shortages of magnesium. Lessons were learnt and requirements increased to 12 million to be produced between April 1941 and December 1941, planned capacity however could only produce 814,000 per month - there was enough magnesium for 1 million bombs a month and possibly 1.5 million if supplies from the USA could be secured. By August 1941 a new plan for increased production had been made, enquiries in the USA had resulted in the possibility of up to 3 million per month being produced by the USA, this however would mean no magnesium would be exported to the UK. Efforts were therefore made to increase output of magnesium in Britain so that 3 million per month could be created without the USA's help.

Increasing the magnesium capacity from 1 million bombs to 3 million per month required 20,000 tons of magnesium per year and Magnesium Elecktron Ltd were willing to operate four new 5,000 ton factories. Production in 1941 was far below requirements with only 2.25 million being produced.
They were falling WAY short of needs on what they could produce for their OWN use! 8O

P.S. WHAT international arms market??? :lol: :lol: :lol: In October 1941??? What major manufacturer of arms was NOT busy manufacturing munitions to capacity for themselves or for belligerents??? You MAY not have noticed, but there was a war on...

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17489
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: AVG II - What IF US Bombers were based in China ?

Post by phylo_roadking » 19 Feb 2010 23:57

Just as a P.S.....

Earlier I posted -
At 75 feet off the deck, bombers would be peppered by the debris thrown up by their own bombs! They wouldn't have time yet to actually fly out of the hemisphere of shrapnel and assorted guck thown up into the air at speeds faster than they were flying at!
Just recently you posted...
Proceeded to Tokyo and bombed powder factories and magazines near the river north of the main railroad station and Imperial Palace with 3 demolition bombs and one incendiary cluster. This bombing was done from 900 feet, and the debris flew to a height higher than that of the airplane. Proceeded to a point on the China coast near Ninypo
Thanks for confirming my point...AND with a bonus of 825 feet! 8O

Robert - can I give you ANOTHER piece of advice that you'll no doubt ignore like you've done all the others?

You've reached the point in THIS WI that you did in the Panama Canal WI - in trying to disprove what ONE poster says, you run your argument slap-bang into someone else's 8O You've run out of wiggle-room on all this.

And after only eight pages.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3748
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: AVG II - What IF US Bombers were based in China ?

Post by Takao » 20 Feb 2010 00:53

Some how robdab, in his "horse trading" with the British fails to grasp some concepts:
1.) The British are engaged in their own war with Germany and have nothing to spare. That is why they are buying, and later lend-leasing, weapons and weapons systems from the Americans.

2.) That the British controlled "Burma Road" is the only Chinese connection to the outside world for moving imported armaments from the United States. If Churchill is pressed on the issue of supplying the Chinese, he simply closes the Burma Road and the port of Rangoon, and the supply of China's imported weapons drys up and disappears.

3.)All of his purchased or leased aircraft move through British ports and airports at one time or another, that would now be gone, stranding the aircraft far from China.

In short, any bullying of the British could have vastly detrimental effects on China's ability to fight the Japanese.


I have also noticed that the book supplied by robdab here http://books.google.ca/books?id=plW3HHK ... de&f=false for his [/quote]Low-altitude flying would help the crews avoid detection, increase bomb accuracy and reduce their vulnerabliity to AAA fire.[/quote]
The author cites no source for this factoid. So I would hazard a guess that this is also an unsourced opinion, at least according to robdab's criteria...



Phylo,

@ 75 feet, I would be more concerned that the concussion of the bomb blast would knock the plane out of the air, than debris peppering the plane. Or, as happened on occasion, the bomb "bouncing" back up and crashing into the aircraft.

Hence the invention of parafrags to let the airplane escape before the bomb burst. Next thing, you know robdab will be including these in his ever growing arsenal.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17489
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: AVG II - What IF US Bombers were based in China ?

Post by phylo_roadking » 20 Feb 2010 01:31

Phylo,

@ 75 feet, I would be more concerned that the concussion of the bomb blast would knock the plane out of the air, than debris peppering the plane. Or, as happened on occasion, the bomb "bouncing" back up and crashing into the aircraft.

Hence the invention of parafrags to let the airplane escape before the bomb burst. Next thing, you know robdab will be including these in his ever growing arsenal.
All quite true - but I was thinking myself more of all that hot shrapnel and Hudson wingtanks halffull of aviation spirit and thus halffull of petrol fumes....and if they didn't simply go "boom"....then it's a long trip home with tanks full of holes...

Bombing at 75 feet - how to make your bomber force vanish in one easy lesson.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003 18:03

Re: AVG II - What IF US Bombers were based in China ?

Post by RichTO90 » 20 Feb 2010 01:34

robdab wrote:Please note in that quote above that I actually typed, " ... reports that Lockheed was producing only 12 Hudsons per month "for the British" so ... I did NOT type "per month in total".
Oh dear God. :roll: Who do you think they were otherwise being produced for? ALL Hudsons were produced to British or Commonwealth orders. The USN expropriated the first 20 MkIIIA, another 26 were expropriated to fill the Chinese order, and 153 of the last MkIIIA produced in July-August, were taken over by the USAAF. Who were able to organize just four squadrons, partially equipped with them by 7 December. So not just the Brits were short of pilots to make them operational and get them to units, so was the USAAF.
Many thanks for these informations which, it seems, could not be found by myself, by phylo nor by takeo. You must have an impressive library ?

Might we know the source(s) of all that information ?
U.S. War Production Board. Official Munitions Production of the United States. Civilian Production Administration, NP: 1947.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/
Unless of course, other incendiaries might have been procurred by the Chinese from the Russians, the British or from elsewhere on the international weapons markets.
:roll:
"Low-altitude flying would help the crews avoid detection, increase bomb accuracy and reduce their vulnerabliity to AAA fire."

which seems to disagree with your unsourced opinion on the real reasons for Doolittle mission's low altitudes.
You might want to take a second look at the operational plan rather than a secondary source.

"Eighteen B25B (North American Medium Bomber) airplanes will be employed in this raid. Each will carry about 1100 gallons of gasoline which assures a range of 2400 miles at 5000 feet altitude in still air."

It was never intended to fly higher than 5,000 feet and in fact many of the raiders stayed below the 1,500 foot bombing altitude until quite near the target. I wonder why? To avoid detection? They were already detected, prior to launch and on the way. Because they were intending to bomb under 1,500 feet? No. So why? Reduce vulnerability to AAA fire? Really. So fly at the perfect altitude for light AAA. :roll:

Gee, I wonder why they planned on flying low from the beginning, offloading the Norden bombsight, removing the radio, stacking 40 gallons of gas in tins in the aircraft for refueling in progress...gee their PRIMARY concern just MUST have been avoiding detection, increasing bomb accuracy and reducing their vulnerabliity to AAA fire... :roll:
Btw, your listing below:
is missing at least a 900' according to (snip)
It seems that you can make errors too.
Yep, and it makes such a huge difference. You were right; an average bombing altitude of 1,455 feet is really just about the same as 75 feet and nowhere close to 1,517 feet. :roll:
You must be a liar.
I thought I was the guy with the "impressive library"? :roll:
Naw, I was just lying to you, you're right, I just make it all up as i go along...
Imagine that.
Yeah, imagine that... :lol:
Richard Anderson
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall: the 1st Assault Brigade Royal Engineers on D-Day
Stackpole Books, 2009.

robdab
Member
Posts: 778
Joined: 30 Mar 2007 15:45
Location: Canada

Re: AVG II - What IF US Bombers were based in China ?

Post by robdab » 20 Feb 2010 19:42

.
Peter H returned with,

Salvoed means dropping unarmed bombs so they won't explode.

I note that no source was provided.
Technically though, armed or not, those bombs were still dropped from 75'.
Good attempt at a comeback but jettisoning bombs by hitting the salvo switch is not bombs away but more like dumping unarmed ammunition.

Except that when I quote a part of page #131 of the B-25 pilot's flight operating manual to be found at http://books.google.ca/books?id=jDYNpgT ... vo&f=false which reports with:

"All bombs are dropped safe when salvoed, unless you have an arming control in use on your plane. In that case you can salvo them either armed or safe."

that PoV doesn't seem to have always been the case.

Granted, page #19 seems to indicate that the manual is for the C & D models of the B-25 while Doolittle's 18 bombers were B-25Bs but I don't care to waste the time needed for further research since the entire sub-topic is an OT "red herring" anyway.

Never have I advocated that the AVGII's Hudsons would be bombing from 75'.

Takeo first suggested a high altitude bomb run in the dark over a Japanese city and I asked why that would be the case ? Why could not a lower altitude be used ? His response indicated that LeMay first came up with the idea of low altiude drops in Europe in 1944. I then provided the historical Doolittle example from only 6 months after the ATL time that my scenario uses. I see no reason for "my" AVGII Hudsons to not to try to use bombing altitudes between 2,500' and 1,500', just as Doolittle did a few short months later against similar Japanese city targets

robdab
Member
Posts: 778
Joined: 30 Mar 2007 15:45
Location: Canada

Re: AVG II - What IF US Bombers were based in China ?

Post by robdab » 20 Feb 2010 19:45

.
phylo provided:

Some day, Robert, you're going to realise that we don't post up stuff for the sheer pleasure of it.

Last I checked we both live in "free countries" so you can post for whatever reasons you wish to. As can I.

You've ALREADY been told the British wouldn't have any to spare....http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.php? ... &Itemid=60

Production in 1941 was far below requirements with only 2.25 million being produced.

If some 2,250,000 4lb incendiaries were produced in 1941 it seems that only Churchill's order would have been required so send multiples of 26,400 to China for use by an AVGII bombing force. Just a political decision. If such were committed by FDR to indirectly aid in the defense of British possessions in the Far East like Hong Kong, Malaya and Singapore, by bombing Japanese Home Island cities, why would Churchill object to that ?

Why wouldn't Churchill want to keep his Lend/Lease credit, weapons and supplies provider happy by transfering a few incendiary bombs that the Americans could immediately replace with HE ?

Ten AVGII firebomb raids on ten Japanese Home Island cities would still leave almost 2,000,000 4lb incendiaries to be used to BBQ the Huns. by the British. Lots of ways for Hitler to still "feel the love".

Other HE type bombs could be dropped on the Germans as well, instead of those 4lb incendiaries that were transfered to China via the Burma Road.

WHAT international arms market???

Just to start with, and as already mentioned:
The Russians were selling to China, on credit.
The Yanks were selling to China, on credit.
Perhaps others were also ? I don't want to waste the time on further research since it seems that the British, already grouped with the Chinese in the ABCD alliance, could easily have supplied 4lb incendiaries to the Chinese in 1941, as per your own source above.

robdab
Member
Posts: 778
Joined: 30 Mar 2007 15:45
Location: Canada

Re: AVG II - What IF US Bombers were based in China ?

Post by robdab » 20 Feb 2010 19:49

.
Takao comes up with:

1.) The British are engaged in their own war with Germany and have nothing to spare. That is why they are buying, and later lend-leasing, weapons and weapons systems from the Americans.

And if Churchill doesn't take some small steps to keep his Lend/Lease supplier happy then than supplier might just "loose interest" in the concept of timely deliveries.

2.) That the British controlled "Burma Road" is the only Chinese connection to the outside world for moving imported armaments from the United States. If Churchill is pressed on the issue of supplying the Chinese, he simply closes the Burma Road and the port of Rangoon, and the supply of China's imported weapons drys up and disappears.

Save for those still coming in from Russia and any American supplied longer ranged warplanes (like the Hudson A-29s) that could be flown in direct from the Philippines, you mean ?

But why would Churchill even consider closing the Burma Road for the long term ? Without war supplies China collapses and Hong Kong, Malaya, Singapore, Burma and even India would be at even greater risk of Japanese aggression. Such would not be a wise move for the British.

3.)All of his purchased or leased aircraft move through British ports and airports at one time or another, that would now be gone, stranding the aircraft far from China.

Not if, as I just mentioned, the Russians continue supplying warplanes and the American Hudsons fly in direct from the Philippines.

In short, any bullying of the British could have vastly detrimental effects on China's ability to fight the Japanese.

And as soon as the Chinese go down, about 30 additional Japanese divisions are then freed up to conduct warfare on the British and their Commonwealth, the Russians, the Dutch and the Americans.

Since the British wanted to keep India and their other Far Eastern possessions out of Japanese hands, why would they do anything at all to REDUCE China's ability to defend itself ?

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17489
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: AVG II - What IF US Bombers were based in China ?

Post by phylo_roadking » 20 Feb 2010 20:12

Robert, I've come to the conclusion you ARE nothing but a troll.
You've ALREADY been told the British wouldn't have any to spare....http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.php? ... &Itemid=60

Production in 1941 was far below requirements with only 2.25 million being produced.
If some 2,250,000 4lb incendiaries were produced in 1941 it seems that only Churchill's order would have been required so send multiples of 26,400 to China for use by an AVGII bombing force. Just a political decision. If such were committed by FDR to indirectly aid in the defense of British possessions in the Far East like Hong Kong, Malaya and Singapore, by bombing Japanese Home Island cities, why would Churchill object to that ?

Why wouldn't Churchill want to keep his Lend/Lease credit, weapons and supplies provider happy by transfering a few incendiary bombs that the Americans could immediately replace with HE ?

Ten AVGII firebomb raids on ten Japanese Home Island cities would still leave almost 2,000,000 4lb incendiaries to be used to BBQ the Huns. by the British. Lots of ways for Hitler to still "feel the love".

Other HE type bombs could be dropped on the Germans as well, instead of those 4lb incendiaries that were transfered to China via the Burma Road.
Quite seriously, what part of
March 1940 requirements were set for up to 500,000 per month up to April 1941 and 760,000 per month in May 1942, although at the time capacity did not exceed 200,000 per month.
Production for the first half of 1941 was low, this was due to shortages of magnesium.
requirements increased to 12 million to be produced between April 1941 and December 1941, planned capacity however could only produce 814,000 per month
Production in 1941 was far below requirements with only 2.25 million being produced
The British Government was SHORT on its own needs by several hundred thousand EVERY MONTH through 1941. Between April and December 1941 they were short by OVER FOUR AND A HALF MILLION on what they had planned to produce.

No, they will NOT be transferring ANY to a third party fighting someone they're not even at war with yet!

No, they will NOT accept American HE instead, because they NEED incendiaries, it's what they're SHORT of!
Other HE type bombs could be dropped on the Germans as well, instead of those 4lb incendiaries that were transfered to China via the Burma Road.
They WERE, in spades - Bomber Command was running an offensive that consumed tens of thousands of tons of ordnance monthly as it was.
The Russians were selling to China, on credit.
The Yanks were selling to China, on credit.
Perhaps others were also ?
I don't want to waste the time on further research
THAT is THE most fatuous comment I've ever seen on a thread. You spout absolute nonsenese about a nation at war doing something it physically COULDN'T do...it couldn't produce enough for its OWN use....then say you refuse to do any more research to prove your point??? 8O

No, you'll do the research, matey -
If a poster stops asking questions and begins to express a point of view, he then becomes an advocate for that viewpoint. When a person becomes an advocate, he has the burden of providing evidence for his point of view. If he has no evidence, or doesn't provide it when asked, it is reasonable for the reader to conclude that his opinion or viewpoint is uninformed and may fairly be discounted or rejected.
You DO realise what sort of state the British were in in 1941??? They were busy LOOSING - pushed back AGAIN in the Western Desert, they lost Crete and nearly all direct access to the Middle East via the Med, in the first half of the year the KM's uboats took the British right to the edge of loosing the Battle of the Atlantic...the ONLY place they were consistently on the offensive against Germany was in the air - and were panicking because they were well short of the specific ordnance they required for that - and you honestly think they'll transfer any of what little they have to the Far East? Why on earth do you think British defences in the Far East WERE so bad??? 8O

Because they couldn't afford to send ANYTHING better in the way of men, arms or materiel to the Far East!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: In fact, they were STILL trying to strip out what they could to send to North Africa right up to December 7th!
since it seems that the British, already grouped with the Chinese in the ABCD alliance, could easily have supplied 4lb incendiaries to the Chinese in 1941, as per your own source above.
My source says the ABSOLUTE AND COMPLETE OPPOSITE as repeated again and illustrated again in this post.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17489
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: AVG II - What IF US Bombers were based in China ?

Post by phylo_roadking » 20 Feb 2010 20:37

On a purely technical note...
WHAT international arms market???
Just to start with, and as already mentioned:
The Russians were selling to China, on credit.
The Yanks were selling to China, on credit.
THIS wasn't an "international arms market" - these were government-to-government-level credit agreements, not simple purchases from arms/munitions companies. Under the Neutrality Acts Amercian manufacturers were for instance LEGALLY FORBIDDEN to trade arms to belligerents - the exact and complete antithesis of an "international arms market". American companies could ONLY sell via the American government and BY the President's permission to belligerents HE approved of.

That's WHY Chennault and Soong were having discussions with Marshall, the State Department etc....because they COULDN'T simply walk into Lockheed or Douglas and order what they wanted 8O Getting credit was just one part of the equation - getting U.S. govt. PERMISSION was the other!

robdab
Member
Posts: 778
Joined: 30 Mar 2007 15:45
Location: Canada

Re: AVG II - What IF US Bombers were based in China ?

Post by robdab » 20 Feb 2010 20:49

.
RichTO90 replied with,

Who do you think they were otherwise being produced for? ALL Hudsons were produced to British or Commonwealth orders.

Exactly. Other Commonwealth nations that would not object too strongly if some of the Hudsons slated for delivery to them were diverted to a Chinese AVGII. Or, some of those 155 that were sitting at Burbank could have been sent by FDR to China.

U.S. War Production Board. Official Munitions Production of the United States. Civilian Production Administration, NP: 1947. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/

Many thanks. Better late than never.
"Low-altitude flying would help the crews avoid detection, increase bomb accuracy and reduce their vulnerabliity to AAA fire."

which seems to disagree with your unsourced opinion on the real reasons for Doolittle mission's low altitudes.
You might want to take a second look at the operational plan rather than a secondary source.

"Eighteen B25B (North American Medium Bomber) airplanes will be employed in this raid. Each will carry about 1100 gallons of gasoline which assures a range of 2400 miles at 5000 feet altitude in still air."


So do you seriously believe that if a 300 mph headwind had been detected between 1,500' and 5,000', that they wouldn't have changed altitude in order to avoid it ? Operational plans must allow some flexibility if any successes at all are to be expected.

As well, AFAIK the thinner air to be found at higher altitudes results in BETTER fuel economy, not worse. Hence the example of modern passenger jets usually flying at 36,000'+, not at 6,000'-

It was never intended to fly higher than 5,000 feet and in fact many of the raiders stayed below the 1,500 foot bombing altitude until quite near the target. I wonder why? To avoid detection? They were already detected, prior to launch and on the way.

When approaching Japan and overflying the coastline at night, why make it easier for searchlights to pick them up ? Lower altitude means that they more quickly exit the arc of sky visible to any given (hopefully surprised) searchlight.

Because they were intending to bomb under 1,500 feet? No. So why? Reduce vulnerability to AAA fire? Really. So fly at the perfect altitude for light AAA.

Not at night it isn't.

Again, much less chance of a Japanese searchlight being able to lock on and track a lower flying fast bomber across it's own field of vision. With no radar guided AAA, the Japanese gunners needed a locked on searchlight to have any chance at all of hitting their target. That is of course, if they ever realized that "my" AVGII Hudsons, with painted on "red meatball" insignia on their undersides, were really not[/] Japanese built Electra type aircraft.

Yep, and it makes such a huge difference. You were right; an average bombing altitude of 1,455 feet is really just about the same as 75 feet and nowhere close to 1,517 feet.

Please, quote the posting date when I stated that "my" AVGII flown Hudsons would try to bomb from 75' ? AFAIK, I never have.

Naw, I was just lying to you, you're right, I just make it all up as i go along...

Since you post so few sources, I have often thought so.

Return to “What if”