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.
Locked
User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

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

#16

Post by phylo_roadking » 23 Jan 2010, 20:24

So giving 20 B-17C's to China, instead of to the British, to be combat-tested by ex-USAAF personnel in China, is a realistic scenario.
The only problem is - that's not what the Americans wanted to know I.E. whether or not it would useful in China...for the Chinese operation would of course not be substantially different from Army Air Corps ops in the Philippines, same heat/latitude etc.

The British "deal" was concluded in March 1940 (the aircraft arrived in early 1941 - AGAIN, long before the AVG became operational :wink: ) witht he british getting the 20 "Fortress Is" in return for detailed performance data on their operation in combat in a European context.

So that's a deal - the 20 British going to the Chinese INSTEAD of the British - that's not going to happen. It benefits NEITHER party, and the Americans are actually DOWN on the deal - they don;tg et the eprformance information.

ATL - they're probably going to be even MORE disappointing than in British use - for operating at lower levels, with a defensive armament weaker than necessary for a full box formation defence, they're going to suffer far worse.

As for the AVG's fighters providing escort - I'm not sure this is going to protect them; it was Chennault's tactic of gaining height BEFORE attacking an approaching Japanese formation - relying on ground-observed early warning :wink: - and carrying out a diving "boom & zoom" attack gave the heavy P40s an advantage over nimbler Japanese fighters...as long as they avoided dogfighting. BUT flying escort pins them closer to the bombers, a bit like the LW being ever more closely pinned to their bombers during the BoB - and thus unable to use their ONE real advantage against the Japanese coming at them :wink: It's thus begging a much higher loss rate on the AVG's fighters too...

The Americans ONE chance with four-engined bombers is a LATER mark of B-17 with uprated armament properly able to self-defend...against the Japanese, who in late 1941 with relatively weak rifle-calibre armament were EXACTLY the sort of foe the box formation was supposed to work against :wink: Remember - the REAL foe of the box formation was either cannon-armed fighters or multibank-MG fighters :wink: Before that - "thinly" rifle-calibre armed fighters were fully expected to be unable to dent bombers in formation, this was the lesson of WWI...that fighters armed only with a couple of MGs could be held off by mutually-covering bombers able to fire a couple of MGs AT them :D

(Historically - even multi-bank fighters could be caught out! There are actually at least three examples during the BoB of unescorted Dorniers catching Hurricanes inside their close box formation and shooting them down.)

The only problem is, however...that is of course a totally anachronistic solution to the AVG issue, for later marks of B-17 are NOT going to be available in early or mid-1941 :wink:

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 13:15
Location: UK

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

#17

Post by Tim Smith » 23 Jan 2010, 20:44

OK then, the British can still have their 20 B-17Cs, and the Chinese will get 20 of the newer B-17D's.

B-17's were originally supposed to defend themselves, without fighter escort. The AVG P-40s were in China to defend against Japanese bombers, not escort their own bombers. Escort duties came later.

I still think a small 12-plane formation of B-17D's can quite happily hold their own against 18 or even 36 Ki-27b's. Even if you exchange the Ki-27b's for Ki-43-I's, the B-17's should still give a good account of themselves in defence.

Here's a true story of ONE modified B-17E fighting off 17 A6M3 Zeros!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4cksG7JoE8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ope0tn3R ... re=related

If one modified B-17E can do that, 12 B-17Ds should be able to do the same.


User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

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

#18

Post by phylo_roadking » 23 Jan 2010, 21:08

If one modified B-17E can do that, 12 B-17Ds should be able to do the same
and the Chinese will get 20 of the newer B-17D's
...except there's no real difference between the C and D except engine cowling flaps, armoured tanks, a revised electrical system, and an extra crew member

Image

...all 42 of them 8O

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 13:15
Location: UK

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

#19

Post by Tim Smith » 23 Jan 2010, 21:13

Armoured tanks is a VERY big deal! As many dead Japanese pilots would tell you....if they were still alive!

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

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

#20

Post by phylo_roadking » 23 Jan 2010, 21:16

Armoured tanks is a VERY big deal!
Yes, for the crew of an aircraft...it doesn't add to an aircraft's offensive capacity or range - and if you think about it only saves his/their lives IF their defences have otherwise failed! 8O :D

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

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

#21

Post by Takao » 24 Jan 2010, 05:45

Thanks Tim Smith, that was good show on "Old 666", here is a nice website on the plane and crew
http://www.homeofheroes.com/wings/part2 ... noski.html

Also, you got the 350 bombers from robdab, not me. The largest number of bombers I have seen for the Chinese, pre-ww2, was 150, and not all those bombers were to be B-17s. That number of bombers was first put forward by T. V. Soong, Chiang Kai Shek's brother in law, sometime during late 1940 - early 1941.

phylo_roadking, it would be 60 B-17Ds. The 18 Cs remaining in the US were later brought up to D standards.

Now, the question is. Who is going to give up 20 B-17Ds to China, Pearl Harbor or the Philippines? Like I said, the Chinese will not be getting B-17s. Even if the transfer had been approved, it would be way way down on the priority list.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

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

#22

Post by phylo_roadking » 24 Jan 2010, 14:38

phylo_roadking, it would be 60 B-17Ds. The 18 Cs remaining in the US were later brought up to D standards.
Yes, but my point above was that the "D"-spec doesn't really boost the offensive capability of the B-17 apart from an increased range. And only "passively" improves is resistance to damage.

Actually purchasing, deploying and supporting a number of B-17s in an existing "hot war" situation as opposed to peacetime garrisoning and maritime patrolling - where you're deploying the potential capability :wink: - that aren't really fit for that environment is a bit of a dead end;

1/ there's the losses that you WILL suffer in men and materiel...and then there's

2/ the cost of subsequently REplacing them with something battleworthy :(

If China has problems purchasing a number of not-really-suitable B-17s in the first place....how on earth is it ever going to buy a SECOND order of "E's" when they become available???

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 13:15
Location: UK

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

#23

Post by Tim Smith » 24 Jan 2010, 16:33

phylo_roadking wrote: If China has problems purchasing a number of not-really-suitable B-17s in the first place....how on earth is it ever going to buy a SECOND order of "E's" when they become available???
It won't need to. After Dec 7th, 1941, the US is in the war up to the hilt and will happily supply anything China needs via Lend Lease, as well as establish a USAAF presence in China.

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 13:15
Location: UK

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

#24

Post by Tim Smith » 24 Jan 2010, 16:47

Takao wrote: Now, the question is. Who is going to give up 20 B-17Ds to China, Pearl Harbor or the Philippines?
Neither - they'll come from the West Coast of the States. The B-17 unit in the Philippines passes 20 of its B-17D's to the Chinese, and gets replacements from Pearl Harbor. The B-17 unit at Pearl Harbor sends its remaining B-17Ds to the Philippines, and gets some B-17E's from the training units on the West Coast. The training units on the West Coast sit twiddling their thumbs and playing poker while waiting for new B-17Es fresh from the factory. Their training is interrupted, but this is before Dec 7th 1941, the top brass in Washington aren't expecting to be a shooting war just yet, so are prepared to accept a temporary delay in the B-17 crew training program.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

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

#25

Post by phylo_roadking » 24 Jan 2010, 16:53

It won't need to.
WE know that. But going by the original timescale or earlier...
Meanwhile, in the fall of 1941, the 2nd American Volunteer Group was equipped with 33 Lockheed Hudson (A-28) and 33 Douglas DB-7 (A-20) bombers originally built for Britain but acquired by the U.S. Army as part of the Lend-Lease program passed earlier in the year. The Central Aircraft Manufacturing Company, fronting for the Chinese and American governments, recruited 82 pilots and 359 ground crewmen from the U.S. Army in the fall of 1941, and an undetermined number (including one pilot) actually sailed for Asia aboard Noordam and Bloemfontein of the Java-Pacific line. Other pilots reported to San Francisco, and were scheduled to depart aboard the Lockheed Hudsons on Dec. 10. The Douglas DB-7s, meanwhile, were to have gone by freighter to Africa, where they would be assembled and ferried to China. However, the attack on Pearl Harbor caused the program to be aborted. The vessels at sea were diverted to Australia, the aircraft were taken back into U.S. service and most or all of the personnel likewise rejoined the military, either in Australia or in the U.S.
...remember, this was after the long delays in discussion etc...

...what if the longer-ranged B-17s were simply STAGED to China and had thus gone into action earlier :wink: Don't forget that without a bombload it had a one-way ferry range of well over 2000 miles...! It's theoretically possible that ferried by their fighting crews, B-17Ds could have been in action and been embarassed sooner than aircraft having to be freighted to China :wink:

...which is the whole point - even if the political and military will had been there to ship B-17s to China - and it could have theoretically been done sooner...in hard, technical terms - all THAT would have done is show up major issues with the B-17D in a combat environment and unique set of circumstances* quicker...

* worthwhile targets for heavy bombing far away, but a countertriking enemy fighter and medium bomber capability MUCH closer!

This is a "lose-lose" WI scenario.

Interestingly - the medium bombers planned for the AVG2 AGAIN didn't impinge on the production of American types for "domestic" use :wink:

Question - just as an aside, does anyone know if Boeing ever brochured an official "export" variant of the B-17. like so many American manufacturers did with their combat types? :o

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 13:15
Location: UK

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

#26

Post by Tim Smith » 24 Jan 2010, 17:18

AVG B-17's will not go into action, or even fly to China, until AVG fighters are operational to protect the B-17 base from Japanese bombers.

So to put AVG B-17s in combat before 20 Dec 1941, you have to put AVG P-40's in combat before then too. Chinese Air Force fighters flown by Chinese pilots can't be trusted to defend AVG bases.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

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

#27

Post by phylo_roadking » 24 Jan 2010, 17:27

Chinese Air Force fighters flown by Chinese pilots can't be trusted to defend AVG bases.
By 1941 this was the one thing that the Chinese nationalist Air Force COULD probably still do - point defence! It had taken major losses in the first two years of the Sino-Japanese War, but had reorganised, requiped with a lot of Russian materiel. In all, by the beginning of 1941 the Chinese had received 885 fighters and bombers from the Soviet Union; 272 I-15bis, 75 I-153s, 142 I-16s, 73 I-16UTIs, 292 SBs, 24 DB-3s and 6 TB-3s.

Prior to its earlier major losses it HAD been quite offensive in outlook, before falling back into defensive flying.

Point defence is actually far better for a smaller air force to do....for the enemy comes TO you, you don't have waste flying hours and resources going to find him :lol: ....and risk being in the wrong place when you're doing it!

And don't forget - after all, the AVG was a "Chinese" formation... :wink:

robdab
Member
Posts: 814
Joined: 30 Mar 2007, 16:45
Location: Canada

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

#28

Post by robdab » 03 Feb 2010, 19:38

Gents,

What if an AVGII were equipped with the 66 Lockheed Hudsons (ex-British) that were historically proposed ?

http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/hudson/tech.html lists a top speed of 246 mph, a range of 1960 miles and a 1,600 lb bombload. Obviously those figures will change depending on the details of the bombing mission profile but without a radar net the Japanese would have been hard presed to properly intercept surprise air raids on their home islands when flown from eastern China airfields.

Could 66x1,600lbs of American made incendiaries have made a dent in a Japanese city built largely of wood ?

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 13:15
Location: UK

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

#29

Post by Tim Smith » 03 Feb 2010, 20:16

From where, exactly, would the Hudsons launch? And on what date?

robdab
Member
Posts: 814
Joined: 30 Mar 2007, 16:45
Location: Canada

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

#30

Post by robdab » 04 Feb 2010, 21:39

.
Tim Smith wrote:From where, exactly, would the Hudsons launch? And on what date?
Hard to answer but page 137 of Armstrong's book provides some detail of a July 2/41 interview by a reporter from the American Aviation Daily of a British aircraft agent, Sir Vivian, for the July 15/41 issue:

"If Britain was in such dire need of Lockheed Hudson bombers, the reporter asked, why were there 155 of them sitting idly at the Lockheed Air terminal in Burbank, California ?"

Also reported is that, "Within a few days of the interview, the Hudson Bombers had been spirited away to Canada."

Along with any chance of providing some of them to the Chinese.

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.

Granted, some time would have been needed to fit twin bomb bay fuel tanks in each Hudson (as was done historically for the San Francisco to Hawaii bound B-17s) so that the necessary trans-Pacific legs could be managed. Stateside recruiting and training of AVGII aircrews would also have taken some time but I would guess that offensive AVGII missions in China might have begun as early as October 31/1941, had FDR so agreed with Chennault and Chaing Kai-shek.

Launched from where is also not an easy question to answer but pages 74/109 support an air operations start date of Oct.31'41 as co-inciding with the end of the monsoon season and give:
Chuchow (aka Zhuzhou) to Nagasaki - 730 miles
Chuchow to Yawata Steel Works - 800 miles
Chuchow to Tokyo - 1,355 miles
Chuchow to Kobe - 1,060 miles
Chuchow to Osaka - 1,085 miles
Kunming to Hanoi - 355 miles
Kweilin (aka Guilin)to Hainan - 380 miles

A half incendiary bomb load with just one bomb bay fuel tank should give the Hudson the needed range to firebomb even Tokyo and return.

Page #38/39 provides details of a November 1940 memo from Chaing Kai-shek to FDR:

"There are 136 airfields available in China, more than half of which are in excellent condition, and all serviceable for both bombers and pursuits. Several of these airfields are within 650 miles from Japan and they are so located that they are not easily vulnerable to army attacks. Japanese garrisons are nowhere in proximity and land attacks would require, in most cases, the concentration of several divisions over extremely difficult terrain without communications, thus leaving adequite time for defense or for the transfer of menaced airbases."

and continues with:

"This Special Air Unit could operate in conjunction with the Chinese Army which, so supported, could effectively take offensive action against Canton, to relieve Hong Kong; against Hankow, to clear the Yangtze Valley; or again the Unit could operate independently in attacking Japan proper, Formosa and Hainan."

Chennault's views on using incendiaries against Japanese cities is explained by the entries on pages 61/62 which are taken from Report Number 161-40 of the American Naval Attache in Tokyo, dated September 30, 1940:

"Fire-fighting facilities are woefully inadequite. Hoses are old, worn and leaky. Water mains are shut off at night. Little pressure is available. Fire hydrants are few and far between.
Sluggish canals and drainage pools are used for suction of hand pumped and hand carried fire apparatus ...
Nine tenths of Japanese houses are roofed with brittle [easily shattered by a falling 4lb incendiary bomb] tiles. Ninety-nine out of a hundred are constructed of flimsy wooden materials which catch fire with alarming rapidity. Incendiary bombs sowed widely over an area of most Japanese cities would result in the destruction of the major portions of these cities ...
Bomb shelters are few in number and totally inadequite to accomodate even a minimum percentage of the population.
Transportation facilities are already overcrowded and the evacuation of civilian population would be attended by tremendous difficulties. Since every home in Japan is already crowded, few accomodations for refugees are available.
A complete list of important bombing objectives, including aircraft factories, steel and gas works, main transportation systems and government buildings will be prepared and forwarded.


I cannot help but think that just 66 AVGII Hudson bombers making a first time surprise night time air raid on say, downtown Nagasaki, with 1,600/4 = 400 incendiary bombs each (for a total of 66x400 = 26,400 firebombs) would have caught the attention of even General Tojo's bound for war government ? Certainly the Emperor and the Japanese people as a whole would have been much better acquainted with the probable eventual results of going to war with the Americans, the British Commonwealth and the Dutch, as well as the Chinese. Their new peace treaty with the Russians not withstanding.

Would such a "mini-atom bomb like" firestorm demonstration have convinced them to NOT go to war against the Allies ? Sadly, probably not IMO but then there were still a lot more nights available for more firebomb raids between October 31/41 and December 7/41 weren't there ?

Granted though that supplying that many 4lb incendiaries, the bomber's fuel & spares and properly trained effective fighter escorts would have made the task much more difficult than I have made it seem to be here. To say nothing of two way night navigation, over water, sans GPS.

Still though, a huge but wasted opportunity, especially considering that FDR did say as early as December 1940 that:
"It would be a nice thing if China bombed Japan."

Locked

Return to “What if”