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 » 05 Feb 2010 18:41

Robert - congratulations on your latest flight (sic) of fantasy - but read this post VERY carefully.

In VERY particular order...

FIRST...
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 ?
I cannot help but point out that the Hudson's bombload was ONLY 750 LBs - that means even if it carried SEPARATE, individual incendiaries - it CAN'T carry 400 4lb incendiaries....it only carrys 187 at most!

EXCEPT...WHEN IT COMES TO RAIDING TOKYO -
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.
...that becomes only 93! 8O

SECOND...
I cannot help but think that just 66 AVGII Hudson bombers making a first time surprise night time air raid....
Robert, I know you're not stupid. I'm QUITE sure you DO realise that a national air force with x-number aircraft TOTAL does not fly them off as one amorphous blob - last time I looked, aircraft are organised into squadrons, with X-number of spare aircraft per unit. That 66 would have equated in service to maybe only 4 squadrons of 12 plus 4 or so aircraft in reserve to allow for maintenance rotation, combat attrition, mechanical loss etc. It's how it was done the world over, and STILL is today; to roster a "full" squadron each day for operations means possessing/retaining a number of reserve/spare aircraft.

THIRD...
"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 ...
Would such a "mini-atom bomb like" firestorm demonstration have convinced them to NOT go to war against the Allies ?
It might - except it wasn't going to happen, not if THAT was Chennault's beliefs! :lol: Robert - incendiaries are actually very easy to combat against by people on the ground; even just dumping a bucket of sand or a shovelful of soil works against them! "Hand pumped and hand carried fire apparatus" WAS very effective against them! That's WHY air forces around the world still dropped HE mixed with the incendiaries to prevent firefighting of any sort; lack of ready water, mains shut off etc.....is important - but not as important as supressing human firefighting activities.

FOURTH...
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.
WHAT fighter escort??? 8O Even a P-40E only had a TOTAL range of 650 miles! Remember THIS???
"Several of these airfields are within 650 miles from Japan...."
What are they going to do, land somewhere with a credit card and gas up???

P.S. Remember that long-distance night formation flying by single engined fighters is VERY problematical - the ONLY indicator you have of another aircraft in the dark is it's flaring exhaust stubs..... in the 1940 Blitz on London, more RAF nightfighters - at that time as much single-engined Hurricane and Spitfire-equiped squadrons as Defiant/Blenheim "nightfighters" - suffered a very high attrition rate from accidents; far more than the casualties they caused to the enemy! (John Ray, The Battle Of Britain)

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 » 05 Feb 2010 22:01

.
phylo_roadking replied with,

I cannot help but point out that the Hudson's bombload was ONLY 750 LBs - that means even if it carried SEPARATE, individual incendiaries - it CAN'T carry 400 4lb incendiaries....it only carrys 187 at most!

I've already posted my range and bombload source. What is yours ?

When I check page #172 of the Profile Publications booklet on the Hudson (#283) I read:

"... with the passing of the Lend - Lease Bill by the US Congress in March 1941, outstanding orders for 52 Hudson Mk IVs and 200 Mk IIIs were taken over for delivery under these funds - these aircraft receiving USAAF Attack category designations of A-28 and A-29 respectively."

Page #173 there goes on to say:

"Meanwhile, other A29s were taken over by the USAAF for similar duties, though they were not fitted with turrets, carrying instead a single hand operated 0.50-in. Browning in an open mount in the dorsal position; 1,600 lb of bombs were also carried."

Which agrees with my first source.

Without the weight of a turret it seems that a heavier bomb and/or fuel load could be carried.

I'd think that it was these Burbank A-28s and A-29s that were likely those questioned by the American Aviation Daily reporter on July 2/41.

Page #174 goes on to list the ranges of the MkIII as 2,160 miles and the range of the A-29 as being 2,800 miles so I think that Nagasaki at 730 miles was well within reach without the need for even one bomb bay fuel tank. So we're back to 1,600 lb bombloads of some 400 incendiaries per Hudson. I'm sure that the AVGII pilots flying them to attack Japan would have been up-to-date on the best mix of incendiary and anti-personnel munitions to use, based on the 1940 "Blitz" experience of the British.

Robert, I know you're not stupid. I'm QUITE sure you DO realise that a national air force with x-number aircraft TOTAL does not fly them off as one amorphous blob - last time I looked, aircraft are organised into squadrons, with X-number of spare aircraft per unit. That 66 would have equated in service to maybe only 4 squadrons of 12 plus 4 or so aircraft in reserve to allow for maintenance rotation, combat attrition, mechanical loss etc. It's how it was done the world over, and STILL is today; to roster a "full" squadron each day for operations means possessing/retaining a number of reserve/spare aircraft.

When undertaking their first special surprise strategic bombing mission on the Japanese Home Islands, I'd think it possible that normal everyday procedures might be waved, don't you ?

I'd expect 5 squadrons, not 4, of 12 Hudsons each, with 6 as spares from a total of 66. But for such a historic first mission, why couldn't a 1/2 squadron fly along as well ? Certainly the 6 spares could be used to replace any Hudsons that had to abort for technical reasons. Would all 66 actually get to Nagasaki ? Probably not but the AVGII would do their best to make it happen.
"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 ...
It might - except it wasn't going to happen, not if THAT was Chennault's beliefs! Robert - incendiaries are actually very easy to combat against by people on the ground; even just dumping a bucket of sand or a shovelful of soil works against them! "Hand pumped and hand carried fire apparatus" WAS very effective against them! That's WHY air forces around the world still dropped HE mixed with the incendiaries to prevent firefighting of any sort; lack of ready water, mains shut off etc.....is important - but not as important as supressing human firefighting activities.

Let me point out to you that the incendiary bomb would be burning either ON a wooden roof OR would be burning INSIDE the wooden/paper house if it had crashed through a fragile clay roofing tile. Buckets of sand /soil wouldn't be quickly at hand in either case.

I was under the impression that the hand pump spraying of water on white phosphorous incendiary bombs was totally ineffective. WP will continue to burn even underwater IIRC.

Also, since that American had gone to the trouble of examining even the fire hoses for age and wear as he evaluated Tokyo's fire fighting abilities, do you not think it likely that he would have mentioned large stockpiles of firefighting sand, shovels and buckets IF any such were present ? I don't think that any such firefighting stockpiles were in place at that time, nor that the Japanese urban populace at large was trained to deal with over 25,000 firebombs falling on their wooden city, at once.

WHAT fighter escort???[/i] Even a P-40E only had a TOTAL range of 650 miles!
"Several of these airfields are within 650 miles from Japan...."
What are they going to do, land somewhere with a credit card and gas up???


Hardly.

I wasn't suggesting that the P-40s (which IIRC weren't yet even flying in Chinese skys by Oct. 31'41) would be doing any escort work at all but rather that Chinese pilots in the historically supplied Russian warplanes might have provided some escort between the Hudson's base(s) and the coast, just in case some Japanese fighters did manage interceptions as those bombers overflew captured Chinese territory. At the limit of their range, the Chinese flown fighters would have to turn back as the Hudsons flew on alone over the ocean. With a large enough fuel margin, some deceptive flight paths might also have been used to flow off any Japanese fighters from the Home Islands that might try (without benefit of radar, in the dark) to intercept.

P.S. Remember that long-distance night formation flying by single engined fighters is VERY problematical - the ONLY indicator you have of another aircraft in the dark is it's flaring exhaust stubs..... in the 1940 Blitz on London, more RAF nightfighters - at that time as much single-engined Hurricane and Spitfire-equiped squadrons as Defiant/Blenheim "nightfighters" - suffered a very high attrition rate from accidents; far more than the casualties they caused to the enemy! (John Ray, The Battle Of Britain)

Indeed. You make my point for me. The 1941 Japanese, without any effective radar air warning network would have had great difficulty in intercepting my twin engined Hudson bombers with single seat nightfighters.

Did the Japanese even have a nightfighter force in place in November of 1941 to defend their Home Islands ? IIRC the twin engined "Nick" nightfighter didn't show up until 1944 ?

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 » 05 Feb 2010 23:08

I cannot help but point out that the Hudson's bombload was ONLY 750 LBs - that means even if it carried SEPARATE, individual incendiaries - it CAN'T carry 400 4lb incendiaries....it only carrys 187 at most!

Except that when I check page #172 of the Profile Publications booklet on the Hudson (#283) I read:

"... with the passing of the Lend - Lease Bill by the US Congress in March 1941, outstanding orders for 52 Hudson Mk IVs and 200 Mk IIIs were taken over for delivery under these funds - these aircraft receiving USAAF Attack category designations of A-28 and A-29 respectively."....
I'd think that it was these Burbank A-28s and A-29s that were likely those questioned by the American Aviation Daily reporter on July 2/41.
Your logic is faulty.

1/ You've ALREADY said...
"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."
So they were NOT the "American" Hudsons, but aircraft destined for the UK I.E. the Dorsal turret version.

2. The Chinese would hardly be ordering an already-compromised "medium bomber" with even LESS defensive armament than it needed for the bomber role! :lol:

3. Remember what has ALREADY been said in this thread to you - that the AVG would NOT be equiped from aircraft or types out of the U.S. inventory - but "export" types - so again, like the P40 version they got from a BRITISH order, they would get the dorsal turret type from the British specifications.

To return to THIS -
Page #173 there goes on to say:

"Meanwhile, other A29s were taken over by the USAAF for similar duties, though they were not fitted with turrets, carrying instead a single hand operated 0.50-in. Browning in an open mount in the dorsal position; 1,600 lb of bombs were also carried."

Without the weight of a turret it seems that a heavier bomb and/or fuel load could be carried
This does not apply ANYWAY - for the version in question HERE - the U.S. "AT-18A" without a turret... was the LAST variant made, used as an air gunner trainer and target tug. The AT-18 was produced in 1942, with Lockheed serial numbers running from 42-55568 to 42-55784. The Americans ONLY started "repossessing" Hudsons from the British orders AFTER December 7th - so the American version YOU are trying to claim would NOT be the one available EARLIER to the AVGII.

Incidently - the AT-18 didn't carry a 1600lb bombload - it could carry "1600" lbs :wink: It had greater internal space than earlier Hudsons because it profited from some design tweaks made for a projected but not produced cargo version, the C-63...
Page #174 goes on to list the ranges of the MkIII as 2,160 miles and the range of the A-29 as being 2,800 miles so I think that Nagasaki at 730 miles was well within reach without the need for even one bomb bay fuel tank. So we're back to 1,600 lb bombloads of some 400 incendiaries per Hudson.
And finally - no we're not...for yet ANOTHER reason you've overlooked...WHY was the MkIII Hudson's obmbload so small at 750lbs? :wink:

Simple - the MkIII got IT'S range - only by the introduction of additional wing tanks.

You want THAT range...you make do with the 750lb bombload. I've already had to tell you this before, in the Panama Canal thread - ALL bomber aircraft designed and delivered to a set specification can only vary ONE factor at the cost of another SOMEWHERE in the parameters.

In the case of the Hudson you have to look at WHY the 1,100lb bombload of the Hudson MkI shrank SO much to that 750lbs of the MkIII....and the answer is the extra tankage to GET you your long range. The MkI Hudson could pack a bigger punch....but only a 570-mile operational radius!!!

You MAY be interested to know that the maximum bombload for a Hudson of 1941 was actually an overload of 1344lbs - 12x112lb British MkVIIC AS bombs....but carrying THAT much you couldn't fully close the bombdoors! :lol: :lol: :lol:

So if you want the range to get to Japan and back - your plan is stuck with the small bombload. And THAT I'm afraid is the history.
I'm sure that the AVGII pilots flying them to attack Japan would have been up-to-date on the best mix of incendiary and anti-personnel munitions to use.
NOW that I've reminded "them".... :lol:
When undertaking their first special surprise strategic bombing mission on the Japanese Home Islands, I'd think it possible that normal everyday procedures might be waved, don't you ?
Why??? I'd have thought they would have planned on more than ONE operation...and you've got the WOLE force flying on the first mission risking combat attrition, mechanical loss etc.

There's a example for this; Bomber Command was only able to fly a couple of "1,000 bomber raids" in 1942 because they had to scrape up aircraft from everywhere, including aircraft they'd leant out to Coastal Command when they were "obsolete" for night raids. The mechanical attrition from this intensive level of operations meant that they then had to halt these massed operations until a full force of four-engined "heavies" became available
I'd expect 5 squadrons, not 4, of 12 Hudsons each, with 6 as spares from a total of 66. But for such a historic first mission, why couldn't a 1/2 squadron fly along as well ?
Because it immediately throws any maintenance schedule completely out of kilter! 8O Everyone forgets the VERY high level of maintenance WWII-era aircraft required for combat operations, and don't forget these aircraft will be expected to fly a high rate of tactical day-bombing TOO...
Let me point out to you that the incendiary bomb would be burning either ON a wooden roof OR would be burning INSIDE the wooden/paper house if it had crashed through a fragile clay roofing tile. Buckets of sand /soil wouldn't be quickly at hand in either case.
Pot plants, bonsai trees,....um - night soil pots...those dinky little split-bamboo pitchers...in London even mops and brushes were used to put out incendiaries. It's about cutting the supply of oxygen to the fire; even a blanket thrown over one has a change of stifling it, like a burning deep fat fryer! :lol:
I was under the impression that the hand pump spraying of water on white phosphorous incendiary bombs was totally ineffective. WP will continue to burn even underwater IIRC
Yes....but you wet down the wood around it :wink:
Also, since that American had gone to the trouble of examining even the fire hoses for age and wear as he evaluated Tokyo's fire fighting abilities, do you not think it likely that he would have mentioned large stockpiles of firefighting sand, shovels and buckets IF any such were present ? I don't think that any such firefighting stockpiles were in place at that time,...
Robert - take a look at period photos of WWII-era Japanese urban residential areas...metalled roads are not common. Sand and soil....and mud...is available - underfoot.
nor that the Japanese urban populace at large was trained to deal with over 25,000 firebombs falling on their wooden city, at once
You ALSO forget that part of the problem with incendiaries is that you have to drop ENOUGH of them that somewhere ENOUGH catch hold in flammable material before they are put out. You forget this is 1941...the incendiaies will indeed be coming down all over the city, scattered by the wind - incendiaries are quite "light" in wind terms from altitude, and if HE can be displaced by anything up to a half a mile on Dresden with the entire war's development of heavy strategic bombing targeting techniques - 4lb incendiaries are very much a "random" weapon. They will NOT all be falling on suitable roofs - a percentage will be falling on open ground, streets, squares...tin roofs not thin clay tile or wood.....
With a large enough fuel margin, some deceptive flight paths might also have been used to flow off any Japanese fighters from the Home Islands that might try (without benefit of radar, in the dark) to intercept
You think single-engined fighter pilots, flying at NIGHT, with a complete absence of ground vectoring, would be able to FLY those deceptive flight paths??? 8O The British were only able to do that sort of corrected-course flying over Europe before OBOE and H2S by equiping every bomber with an astrodome, a full set of navigational instruments - and a navigator! That idea is a complete non-starter....and would in the end would only take a few miles' margin of error to have them paddling home in their dingies.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3366
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

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

Post by Takao » 06 Feb 2010 07:44

Robdab,

Please use a source a little more current than than 1973. :roll:

Your source "Profile Aircraft # 253: Lockheed Hudson Mks I - IV", presents incomplete & conflicting information.

I "love" how they give the range as 2,800 miles, and then footnote the PBO-1 as being "basically similar" and giving it a 1,750 mile range. What the FAIL to state is that the 2,800 mile range is the maximum range for the aircraft, while the PBO-1's range of 1,750 miles is its range loaded with 4 depth charges. Why they are comparing an unloaded range to a loaded range is beyond me....

Your going to have to produce a source that gives a loaded range for the Hudson MkIIIA if you want to prove your point.

For instance, look here http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/aircraf ... hudson.asp

Looks like the only thing your Hudsons will be dropping on Japan using a 2,800 mile range is paper leaflets. Maybe, if you light the paper on fire first, and then drop them, you can call them incendiaries! :lol:

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3366
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

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

Post by Takao » 06 Feb 2010 21:25

Some more observations I have made.
robdab wrote:I'd expect 5 squadrons, not 4, of 12 Hudsons each, with 6 as spares from a total of 66. But for such a historic first mission, why couldn't a 1/2 squadron fly along as well ? Certainly the 6 spares could be used to replace any Hudsons that had to abort for technical reasons. Would all 66 actually get to Nagasaki ? Probably not but the AVGII would do their best to make it happen.
How long do you think the AVG2 can keep flying like that. For a one-off mission, it is possible. But, for continuous operations, your going to have a lot of crews standing around doing nothing because they don't have an aircraft to fly. Given the mostly poor conditions in China, your suggestion of only having 6 spares is going to lead to fewer aircraft going out on sorties very quickly.

robdab wrote:I wasn't suggesting that the P-40s (which IIRC weren't yet even flying in Chinese skys by Oct. 31'41) would be doing any escort work at all but rather that Chinese pilots in the historically supplied Russian warplanes might have provided some escort between the Hudson's base(s) and the coast, just in case some Japanese fighters did manage interceptions as those bombers overflew captured Chinese territory. At the limit of their range, the Chinese flown fighters would have to turn back as the Hudsons flew on alone over the ocean. With a large enough fuel margin, some deceptive flight paths might also have been used to flow off any Japanese fighters from the Home Islands that might try (without benefit of radar, in the dark) to intercept.
Is this the old it's day, no it's night, no it's day argument from the Pearl Harbor What If?
If your flying at night how do you expect the mostly inexperienced Chinese pilots to even find the bombers at night? With the poor showing of the CAF against the Japanese, do you really expect them to make a difference escorting the bombers during the day?

robdab wrote:The 1941 Japanese, without any effective radar air warning network would have had great difficulty in intercepting my twin engined Hudson bombers with single seat nightfighters.

That is correct, at night, flak would be the deadliest enemy of the Hudsons. Now, I ask you how the Hudsons will bomb accurately without the benefit of "Gee", "Oboe", H2S, the AN/APN-4 & -9, or the AN/APQ-7 & -13?

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002 12:15
Location: UK

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

Post by Tim Smith » 06 Feb 2010 22:21

This is 1941.

This bombing raid by B-17s / Hudsons flying from China against Japan is not about doing serious damage to a Japanese city.

It's about propaganda. Like the Doolittle Raid. However little damage is done, however many losses are suffered, American journalists will 'spin' it into a historic victory! The damage will be multiplied by 20 (or more), and the losses will be simply denied and denounced as Japanese lies, apart from the planes that actually crash on Japanese soil and thus can't be denied.

The shame the Japanese will suffer by their homeland being bombed will feel worse than any amount of actual damage done or lives lost.

I wouldn't say that the propaganda victory is worth losing the entire bomber force, but if only 'half' of it is lost that's a 'great' victory!

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 » 06 Feb 2010 22:24

I wouldn't say that the propaganda victory is worth losing the entire bomber force, but if only 'half' of it is lost that's a 'great' victory!
...except in Nanking, where the Chinese would be a bit pissed at losing half their tactical air bombardment capacity in one fell swoop! :lol:

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002 12:15
Location: UK

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

Post by Tim Smith » 06 Feb 2010 22:48

phylo_roadking wrote:
I wouldn't say that the propaganda victory is worth losing the entire bomber force, but if only 'half' of it is lost that's a 'great' victory!
...except in Nanking, where the Chinese would be a bit pissed at losing half their tactical air bombardment capacity in one fell swoop! :lol:
American journalists don't care what Chinese think - America knows best! The AVG wasn't there for China's benefit, was it?

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 » 06 Feb 2010 22:54

.
Takao replies with,

Please use a source a little more current than than 1973.

Why ? Posters here regularly quote from the PHA transcripts which go back to 1942.

Your source "Profile Aircraft # 253: Lockheed Hudson Mks I - IV", presents incomplete & conflicting information.

As do many sources. Part of my interest in posting "What IFs" here is to sort out those conflicts via the postings/sources of other readers.

Your going to have to produce a source that gives a loaded range for the Hudson MkIIIA if you want to prove your point.

Actually, I think that range charts from a Hudson pilot's manual will be required to see the charted relationships between range, bombloads, airspeeds and altitudes. And whether or not the Hudson family ever had wing/belly/bomb bay fuel tanks fitted to extend their ranges.

I've found such on the www for the B-17C/D/E types but so far Hudson charts have eluded me except on sites which advertise entire pilot manuals for sale (at rather high prices).

For instance, look here http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/aircraf ... hudson.asp

I did and there I found that the MkIII Hudson is credited with a 780 mile range with full load and a maximum bombload of 1,600 lbs. Since Nagasaki is only 730 miles from the Chinese airbase at Chuchow in eastern China, thanks for providing a source which supports my scenario.

How long do you think the AVG2 can keep flying like that. For a one-off mission, it is possible. But, for continuous operations, your going to have a lot of crews standing around doing nothing because they don't have an aircraft to fly. Given the mostly poor conditions in China, your suggestion of only having 6 spares is going to lead to fewer aircraft going out on sorties very quickly.

I'm not sure that I quite understand your question ? If any Hudson is fit to fly, has a fit crew to fly it, and bombs & mg ammunition aboard, it could go out on a mission. Just because a squadron is nominally organized with 12 aircraft doesn't mean that all are grounded if there are only 11 flyable (for whatever reason). Certainly a lack of spares and eventually of trained AVGII aircrew would become an ongoing problem, as they were historically for Chennault's AVG P-40 fighter groups but one would hope that FDR would have rewarded AVGII successes in bombing the Japanese Home Islands with further deliveries of warplanes, spares and "volunteer" mercenary aircrews.

Is this the old it's day, no it's night, no it's day argument from the Pearl Harbor What If?

I still don't understand what the confusion was wrt day/night timing on that now locked thread. RICHTO90 sure seemed to object but never explained what it was that he was objecting to.

If your flying at night how do you expect the mostly inexperienced Chinese pilots to even find the bombers at night?

Both the Chinese flown Russian supplied fighters and the AVGII flown Hudson bombers would take off in daylight, so I see little difficulty in them finding each other for the daylight flight to the China coast. The mission timing/planning would have to be such that the Chinese fighters could still return to Chuchow for late daylight landings and such that the Hudsons would be approaching the Japanese Home Islands well after sunset. I assume that the well (ex-American) trained AVGII navigators on the Hudsons could find their home airfield(s) in the dark and land there successfully with the aid of runway lighting.

With the poor showing of the CAF against the Japanese, do you really expect them to make a difference escorting the bombers during the day ?

With nearly 70 years of hindsight we now know that the Chinese pilots didn't do so well in the long run but there were successful days and at the time, the Chinese pilots would be doing their best. I would suspect that had FDR supplied an AVGII with bombers earlier than he sent the P-40s, then Chennault and a few of his American compatriots might have been there to teach (and possibly lead) those Chinese fighter pilots in the protection of the AVGII aircrews.

The 1941 Japanese, without any effective radar air warning network would have had great difficulty in intercepting my twin engined Hudson bombers with single seat nightfighters.

That is correct, at night, flak would be the deadliest enemy of the Hudsons. Now, I ask you how the Hudsons will bomb accurately without the benefit of "Gee", "Oboe", H2S, the AN/APN-4 & -9, or the AN/APQ-7 & -13?

There would be little need to bomb that accurately with incendiaries. Certainly not on the first clear sky night raid anyway. All the Hudsons had to do was to hit a lit up wooden city. AFAIK there were no Chinese air raids on the Home Islands in 1941 so I think it unlikely that Japanese cities practised effective night time blackouts. There was no radar network to trigger same, either.

Yet another twist is provided by http://www.allbusiness.com/professional ... 962-1.html where it is pointed out that:

"Some 30 Model 14s were shipped to Japan before the war and another 119 were manufactured under license by Kawasaki and Tachikawa. These aircraft undoubtedly caused recognition problems for U.S. troops during war when they were flown by the Japanese."

Perhaps with some red paint, the turretless AVGII flown Hudsons could have masqueraded as Japanese owned aircraft ?

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a28_1.html provides:

"Japan turned out to be the largest user of the Super Electra. Thirty Super Electras were sold to the Tachikawa Hikoki KK (Tachikawa Aeroplane Co Ltd of Japan, which acted as an agent for Nihon Koku KK (Japan Air Transport Co. Ltd.). This airline was later renamed Dai Nippon Koku KK (Greater Japan Air Lines), and became the largest commercial user of the Super Electra. This version of the Super Electra was known as Model 14-WG3B, and was powered by two Wright Cyclone GR-1820-G3B radials, rated at 900 hp for takeoff and 840 hp at 8000 feet. The Tachikawa company also obtained a license to build a version of the Super Electra in Japan. Production for the Imperial Japanese Army was undertaken both by Tachikawa and by Kawasaki Kokuki Kogyo KK (Kawasaki Aircraft Engineering Co. Ltd. These companies respectively built 64 and 55 aircraft between 1940 and 1942. They were powered by Mitsubishi Ha-26-I (900 hp Army Type 99 Radial Model 1) engines. In Japanese army service, they were designated Army Type LO Transports, and were operated as military transports during the Pacific War. The Allies assigned the code name Thelma to the Japanese-built version and the name Toby to the civilian versions purchased from Lockheed."

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 » 07 Feb 2010 00:20

For instance, look here http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/aircraf ... hudson.asp
I did and there I found that the MkIII Hudson is credited with a 780 mile range with full load and a maximum bombload of 1,600 lbs. Since Nagasaki is only 730 miles from the Chinese airbase at Chuchow in eastern China, thanks for providing a source which supports my scenario.
Robert, I could almost wish you really hadn't said that. ALMOST...

On your source it DOES say indeed that a MkIII with maximum bombload had a range of 780 miles....but that's RANGE not radius...wwiivehicles deals with total ranges NOT radii - as proved by the entry IMMEDIATELY above....where it gives the range without bombload as 1,355 miles!

So - once they begin to run out of fuel a couple of dozen miles on their way back from Nagasaki - how exactly do you intend your MkIIIs to fly the remaining 700 miles or so BACK to China with dry tanks???
There would be little need to bomb that accurately with incendiaries. Certainly not on the first clear sky night raid


Robert - how do they KNOW it's clear??? :lol: It's 700 miles away! Even the Luftwaffe had to fly morning and pre-raid very-high altitude weather recce flights over targets in Kent and Sussex in the Battle of Britain to check the weather over targets....and they were only a couple of dozen miles from the coast of France!
Some 30 Model 14s were shipped to Japan before the war and another 119 were manufactured under license by Kawasaki and Tachikawa. These aircraft undoubtedly caused recognition problems for U.S. troops during war when they were flown by the Japanese."

Perhaps with some red paint, the turretless AVGII flown Hudsons could have masqueraded as Japanese owned aircraft ?

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a28_1.html provides:

"Japan turned out to be the largest user of the Super Electra. Thirty Super Electras were sold to the Tachikawa Hikoki KK (Tachikawa Aeroplane Co Ltd of Japan, which acted as an agent for Nihon Koku KK (Japan Air Transport Co. Ltd.). This airline was later renamed Dai Nippon Koku KK (Greater Japan Air Lines), and became the largest commercial user of the Super Electra. This version of the Super Electra was known as Model 14-WG3B, and was powered by two Wright Cyclone GR-1820-G3B radials, rated at 900 hp for takeoff and 840 hp at 8000 feet. The Tachikawa company also obtained a license to build a version of the Super Electra in Japan. Production for the Imperial Japanese Army was undertaken both by Tachikawa and by Kawasaki Kokuki Kogyo KK (Kawasaki Aircraft Engineering Co. Ltd. These companies respectively built 64 and 55 aircraft between 1940 and 1942. They were powered by Mitsubishi Ha-26-I (900 hp Army Type 99 Radial Model 1) engines. In Japanese army service, they were designated Army Type LO Transports, and were operated as military transports during the Pacific War. The Allies assigned the code name Thelma to the Japanese-built version and the name Toby to the civilian versions purchased from Lockheed."
Robert - once again you're making EXACTLY the same sort of misjudgement you made in another thread.

Who is responsible for the aerial defences of the Home Islands by day or by night? The IJA...

So of ALL people in Japan who would know where it's aircraft were SUPPOSED to be - or more importantly NOT be - at any given time??? :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3366
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

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

Post by Takao » 07 Feb 2010 15:15

Tim Smith wrote:This bombing raid by B-17s / Hudsons flying from China against Japan is not about doing serious damage to a Japanese city.
I think that is apparent to everyone but robdab.
Tim Smith wrote:It's about propaganda. Like the Doolittle Raid. However little damage is done, however many losses are suffered, American journalists will 'spin' it into a historic victory! The damage will be multiplied by 20 (or more), and the losses will be simply denied and denounced as Japanese lies, apart from the planes that actually crash on Japanese soil and thus can't be denied.
I thought the bombing of Japan was supposed to take place before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? If that is true, the average American could care less what happens over in Asia. So, I don't see this "propaganda victory" as having any effect on the American public.

It may have some effect on Chiang's forces, but that is doubtful. If such a bombing could have been used to great effect, then the Chinese would have dropped real bombs on Japan instead of leaflets during their air raid on Japan. IMHO, the Chinese never bombed Japan, because Chiang knew that it would infuriate the Japanese enough to really put the hurt on China with massive attacks. Chiang further knew that his forces were to weak to stop any major Japanese offensives. So your "propaganda victory" would be a Pyrrhic one.
Tim Smith wrote:The shame the Japanese will suffer by their homeland being bombed will feel worse than any amount of actual damage done or lives lost.
Most true, and the Japanese will more than likely seek to regain their lost honor with massive offensives aimed at China. These would be greater than the Chinese defenders could handle and the Chinese would lose vast amounts of territory to the enraged Japanese forces.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3366
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

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

Post by Takao » 07 Feb 2010 17:25

robdab wrote:Actually, I think that range charts from a Hudson pilot's manual will be required to see the charted relationships between range, bombloads, airspeeds and altitudes. And whether or not the Hudson family ever had wing/belly/bomb bay fuel tanks fitted to extend their ranges.
If this debate lasts till early June, I'll look at the vendors' sites during the Mid Atlantic Air Museum's WW2 Weekend. They always have loads of pilot manuals.

robdab wrote:I did and there I found that the MkIII Hudson is credited with a 780 mile range with full load and a maximum bombload of 1,600 lbs. Since Nagasaki is only 730 miles from the Chinese airbase at Chuchow in eastern China, thanks for providing a source which supports my scenario.
Your lack of knowledge is showing again robdab. Range is the distance an airplane can fly from takeoff to landing. To reach Nagasaki you will need a plane with a "fully loaded" range of 1460 miles(730*2). Although, you would probably need greater range to pad for combat and emergencies.

I do believe that it proves you wrong, not right.

robdab wrote:I'm not sure that I quite understand your question ?
By flying all your planes, all the time, they will wear out, rather quickly, I would suppose. By keeping spares allows aircraft to undergo proper long term maintenance, while still keeping your bombing force at effective levels. You, on the other hand, will fly the planes till the fall apart or crash. To keep your bombing force combat effective, you will have to find a middle ground between sorties flown and maintenance performed. This will be especially true, since spares and replacements will be hard to come by.

As for FDR "rewarding" the AVG2, you are such a kidder. First, the AVG2 has to be successful, which is far from guaranteed. Second, the AVG was not "officially" there in the first place. Everyone that went had to RESIGN their military commission, or did you forget that. So now, "FDR" will suddenly "officially reward" the AVG2, keep dreaming. The only rewards forthcoming will be what China can afford.

robdab wrote:Both the Chinese flown Russian supplied fighters and the AVGII flown Hudson bombers would take off in daylight, so I see little difficulty in them finding each other for the daylight flight to the China coast. The mission timing/planning would have to be such that the Chinese fighters could still return to Chuchow for late daylight landings and such that the Hudsons would be approaching the Japanese Home Islands well after sunset. I assume that the well (ex-American) trained AVGII navigators on the Hudsons could find their home airfield(s) in the dark and land there successfully with the aid of runway lighting.
Or, you could just fly entirely at night and avoid the useless fighters.


robdab wrote:With nearly 70 years of hindsight we now know that the Chinese pilots didn't do so well in the long run but there were successful days and at the time, the Chinese pilots would be doing their best. I would suspect that had FDR supplied an AVGII with bombers earlier than he sent the P-40s, then Chennault and a few of his American compatriots might have been there to teach (and possibly lead) those Chinese fighter pilots in the protection of the AVGII aircrews.
Robdab, you really do not "have a clue" do you, and why do you always revert to the "hindsight" excuse, when you know full well the exact opposite is true. The Americans knew full well, in 1940-41, that the CAF was mostly useless, well, except for target practice for Japanese pilots.

Chiang's asking for American planes flown by American pilots, is a tacit admission that his air force is useless. If the Caf wasn't, then there is no reason to ask for pilots. Stillwell and Chennault both knew this to be true, although Chennault hoped the CAF could be reformed into an effective fighting force.

You may wish to peruse this http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA ... html#index

robdab wrote:There would be little need to bomb that accurately with incendiaries. Certainly not on the first clear sky night raid anyway. All the Hudsons had to do was to hit a lit up wooden city. AFAIK there were no Chinese air raids on the Home Islands in 1941 so I think it unlikely that Japanese cities practised effective night time blackouts. There was no radar network to trigger same, either.
Really, you don't need to be accurate with incendiaries. So, in your opinion, dropping incendiaries all over the countryside is effective, missing your target by 10 or 20 miles is not considered to be effective. Further, for the incendiaries to create your hoped for destruction, they have to be concentrated in a given area. Scattering them all over will prevent the small fires from growing into one big one. The Americans found this out, to their detriment, when they tried to achieve greater dispersal and therefore greater destruction. However, the expected "firestorm" never materialized, because the fires were to spread out to combine into one giant fire.

You are incorrect about Japanese air raid preparations, no surprise there.
http://jpimg.digital.archives.go.jp/kou ... uku_e.html
http://jpimg.digital.archives.go.jp/kou ... sei_e.html
http://jpimg.digital.archives.go.jp/kou ... uka_e.html
http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/virtua ... 071_e.html

robdab wrote:Yet another twist is provided by http://www.allbusiness.com/professional ... 962-1.html where it is pointed out that:

"Some 30 Model 14s were shipped to Japan before the war and another 119 were manufactured under license by Kawasaki and Tachikawa. These aircraft undoubtedly caused recognition problems for U.S. troops during war when they were flown by the Japanese."

Perhaps with some red paint, the turretless AVGII flown Hudsons could have masqueraded as Japanese owned aircraft ?
[/quote]
A little pointless if your attacking at night, don't you think...

Might give some positive reinforcement to the American pilots, but other than that, I don't see it as being effective.

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 » 09 Feb 2010 00:50

.
Takao then provides,

I thought the bombing of Japan was supposed to take place before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? If that is true, the average American could care less what happens over in Asia. So, I don't see this "propaganda victory" as having any effect on the American public.

It wasn't intended to. Any such raids would be aimed at shaking the confidence of the Japanese public in their own military defences. Any threat to the Emperor being, of course, totally unacceptable ...

Much as the Doolittle Raid eventually led to the Midway disaster for Japan, I would suggest that apparently Chinese bombing raids with Hudsons on Japan's Home Islands beginning in November of 1941 might have derailed some of her historical invasion plans elsewhere as Japanese fighter aircraft, AA defenses and troops were re-positioned to deal with those bombing raids.

To say nothing of the possibilities of much better air recon for the British and the possible bombing of Japanese troop convoys while they were still gathering at Hainan and in Cam Rhan Bay.

It may have some effect on Chiang's forces, but that is doubtful. If such a bombing could have been used to great effect, then the Chinese would have dropped real bombs on Japan instead of leaflets during their air raid on Japan. IMHO, the Chinese never bombed Japan, because Chiang knew that it would infuriate the Japanese enough to really put the hurt on China with massive attacks. Chiang further knew that his forces were to weak to stop any major Japanese offensives.

More likely just due to a lack of sufficient numbers of medium ranged aircraft at that time. IIRC that symbolic May 1938 leaflet raid was made by just a few Chinese bombers similar to the Martin B-10B.

"The shame the Japanese will suffer by their homeland being bombed will feel worse than any amount of actual damage done or lives lost."

Most true, and the Japanese will more than likely seek to regain their lost honor with massive offensives aimed at China. These would be greater than the Chinese defenders could handle and the Chinese would lose vast amounts of territory to the enraged Japanese forces.

From an American/British/Dutch PoV that was exactly the desired pre-Dec.7'41 result. The more Japanese military forces tied up in China meant that less would have been available for their expected thrusts against the Philippines, Hong Kong, Malaya/Singapore and the Dutch East Indie's oil resources. By that point China had fought Japan more or less to a standstill and Chaing Kai-Shek was prepared to trade some more territory as the price for gaining the Americans as a weapons (and big US$ loans) supplier since Russia was then very busy trying to hold off the Germans instead.

If this debate lasts till early June, I'll look at the vendors' sites during the Mid Atlantic Air Museum's WW2 Weekend. They always have loads of pilot manuals.

Thanks for the offer but, I sure hope not that long.

Your lack of knowledge is showing again robdab. Range is the distance an airplane can fly from takeoff to landing. To reach Nagasaki you will need a plane with a "fully loaded" range of 1460 miles(730*2). Although, you would probably need greater range to pad for combat and emergencies. I do believe that it proves you wrong, not right.

Different authors regularly use the term in different ways.

For instance, let me try and settle the question in a non-microdetail way. Armstrong's book, "Preemptive Strike" which originally kindled my interest in this "what-if", presents on it's page #60, the following portion of a Dec.21'40 Washington meeting:

"Chennault said that: "the Lockheed Hudson had a radius [of action] of 1,000 miles with a good bombload but that it was 1,200 miles to Tokyo, so that the Lockheed [Hudson] would not be able to reach that city. However Nagasaki, Kobe, and Osaka were within the range of the Hudson bomber. When Morgaenthau asked Chennault if the bombing could be conducted at night, Chennault said that would have to be the case, because "pursuit ships did not have sufficient range to defend the bombers in daytime on such a long tour."

I think Chennault in a better position to know the truth of the matter at the time, than you are now.

By flying all your planes, all the time, they will wear out, rather quickly, I would suppose. By keeping spares allows aircraft to undergo proper long term maintenance, while still keeping your bombing force at effective levels. You, on the other hand, will fly the planes till the fall apart or crash. To keep your bombing force combat effective, you will have to find a middle ground between sorties flown and maintenance performed. This will be especially true, since spares and replacements will be hard to come by.

Sure but so far in this discussion I have just been trying to figure out if even my first ATL Hudson mission was possible. AFAIK we haven't even gotten to the point of beginning to discuss the ongoing operations of any Hudsons sent to be flown in China by an AVGII ?

As for FDR "rewarding" the AVG2, you are such a kidder. First, the AVG2 has to be successful, which is far from guaranteed. Second, the AVG was not "officially" there in the first place. Everyone that went had to RESIGN their military commission, or did you forget that. So now, "FDR" will suddenly "officially reward" the AVG2, keep dreaming. The only rewards forthcoming will be what China can afford.

You seem to forget that the stream of Lend-Lease historically sent to China was the result of the onging series of "loans" made by the US to China. Starting with that first US$100million "loan" that I have previously mentioned here. After years of war with Japan, China had little money left for weaponry. Sounds like a good ongoing "reward" system to me.

Or, you could just fly entirely at night and avoid the useless fighters.

Chennault seemed to feel that doing so would be a bad idea, as per his quote that I presented earlier in this posting.

Robdab, you really do not "have a clue" do you, and why do you always revert to the "hindsight" excuse, when you know full well the exact opposite is true. The Americans knew full well, in 1940-41, that the CAF was mostly useless, well, except for target practice for Japanese pilots.
Chiang's asking for American planes flown by American pilots, is a tacit admission that his air force is useless. If the Caf wasn't, then there is no reason to ask for pilots. Stillwell and Chennault both knew this to be true, although Chennault hoped the CAF could be reformed into an effective fighting force.


Hope springs eternal. Perhaps Chaing Kai-shek, without the benefit of your now perfect hindsight, simply thought that his pilots were doing so poorly against the Japanese because they had to fly second and third string European "cast-off" warplane designs against much more modern Japanese designs ?

You may wish to peruse this http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA ... html#index

Thanks for the source but I thought it too general to shed much light on the discussion topic of this thread. I prefered the August 1941 entry at http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/sino-japanese-1941.htm which confirms my earlier A-29 points of view with:

"On 1 August the 1st American Volunteer Group (AVG) was activated with Claire Chennault as commander. Under his command were three fighter squadrons.
The AVG began training at Kyedaw airfield, near Toungoo.
The main force of personel arrived to Rangoon, Burma, aboard the Jaegersfontein on 15 Aug.
The 1st AVG was to have been joined by the 2nd AVG in the winter of 1941-42. This was to be a bomber group equipped with A-29s, but the group and its equipment had barely begun the journey across the Pacific when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
In August the 9th and 30th BS re-equipped with the Lockheed A-29 attack bomber."


robdab wrote:
"There would be little need to bomb that accurately with incendiaries. Certainly not on the first clear sky night raid anyway. All the Hudsons had to do was to hit a lit up wooden city. AFAIK there were no Chinese air raids on the Home Islands in 1941 so I think it unlikely that Japanese cities practised effective night time blackouts. There was no radar network to trigger same, either.'

Really, you don't need to be accurate with incendiaries. So, in your opinion, dropping incendiaries all over the countryside is effective, missing your target by 10 or 20 miles is not considered to be effective. Further, for the incendiaries to create your hoped for destruction, they have to be concentrated in a given area. Scattering them all over will prevent the small fires from growing into one big one. The Americans found this out, to their detriment, when they tried to achieve greater dispersal and therefore greater destruction. However, the expected "firestorm" never materialized, because the fires were to spread out to combine into one giant fire.

I don't require a "firestorm" effect to entirely destroy a Japanese city, say the already mentioned Nagasaki, in November of 1941. All that is needed is significant enough damage to prove to Japan's leadership and people that "the new Chinese Air Force" presented a threat to Japan serious enough that major military resources had to be shifted from the upcoming effort against the DEIs in order to defend against it. That is all.

Also, I'd expect that the AVGII's American navigators would have easily been up to the task of finding even a darkened Japanese city only 500-730 miles away after they had demonstrated much greater skills in getting to China in the first place. In order to get to China more quickly that the historical first AVG did, I'd expect Chennault to have them fly a 2,000+ mile leg from San Francisco to Hawaii and then lesser legs from Hawaii to Wake, Wake to Guam and Guam to the Philippines before the final jaunt to China. Any navigators not up to those long over-water flights and missing a tiny island in mid-Pacific by ten or twenty miles simply wouldn't live to fly AVGII combat missions over China or Japan anyway ...

You are incorrect about Japanese air raid preparations, no surprise there.
http://jpimg.digital.archives.go.jp/kou ... uku_e.html
http://jpimg.digital.archives.go.jp/kou ... sei_e.html
http://jpimg.digital.archives.go.jp/kou ... uka_e.html
http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/virtua ... 071_e.html


So, some posters were drawn up for an Exhibition in 1938. Wow !
I thought that
http://jpimg.digital.archives.go.jp/jpg ... /002_e.env was particularly prophetic ...

Another quote to be read at the historical section #13 of your http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/virtua ... 071_e.html source ...

"At first, the targets were military factories and military facilities, but gradually, attacks began indiscriminately targeting civilian populations. With hundreds of bombs raining on cities, their carefully planned air-defense plans became virtually useless. "

... seems to me to tell the true story, since my 66 Hudsons will be dropping some 28,000+ incendiaries per raid, not just the hundreds mentioned.

Printing some posters for an Exposition several years before hardly guarantees an effective anti-air raid performance from an entire nation. Armstrong's book sheds light on the matter with the following taken from page #64:

"... Report Number 18-41 from the American naval attache' in Tokyo dated February 5, 1941 strongly suggests that he Japanese government, military, and civilin population were experiencing anxiety about the potential of an American bombing initiative. Accoring to the Report, the Japanese Cabinet met on January 10, 1941 to discuss "the imminent danger of air raids, and the total lack of a proper air defense ..." According to the report, the Japanese authorities had investigated the ability of Japanese cities to withstand aerial bombardment. "The authorities, from the Prime Minister down to the common people are scared to death of air raids and know Japan is totally unprepared with AA defenses. The Japanese War Minister, General Hideki Tojo, commented at the Cabinet meeting: "We must take urgent measures to defend our airspace against enemy planes."

and page #65 which provides:

"An investigation by the Japanese Home Office concluded:
The majority of Japanese houses are made of wood and paper ... If a 5 lb bomb is dropped, it is absolutely impossible to extinguish the fire unless five or more people begin pouring on water constantly within the first fire minute. If the fire is not got under control within the minute, then it will spread to the entire structure within the next five minutes, a fact which is proved beyond doubt by recent tests. In large cities in Japan, there is practicaly no space between the houses, with the result that a blaze will quickly spread from house to house and eventually will cause a huge conflaguration.

The naval attache' report concluded with this telling language:

Despite the grandiose plans of Japanese authorities for air defense, their inflammable cities, poor fire-fighting equipment, and lack of both money and materials to alter the case will continue to be the gravest dangers to Japanese life and security. Deep within their hearts the people believe it impossible for "enemy" aircraft to reach the Japanese Islands proper, propaganda and the ever-victoriuos "Wild Eagles" of their armed services having reaped excellent and significant fruit."


But HEY ! You have shown beyond any doubt that the Japanese printed up some air raid posters in 1938.

No wonder Dolittle achieved such a notable result.

"Perhaps with some red paint, the turretless AVGII flown Hudsons could have masqueraded as Japanese owned aircraft ?"

A little pointless if your attacking at night, don't you think ...

For the minor amount of effort required to paint red "meatball" insignia on the AVGII's
A-29 Hudsons, I don't think so at all. If even one Japanese fighter pilot or AA gunner held his fire when a searchlight beam revealed those apparently Japanese markings, the painting time would have been well worth that effort. Even if that Japanese pilot "went around for another look" just to make sure that he wasn't firing on a Japaense aircraft, then the Hudson's gunners would have another "free" shot at him.

Might give some positive reinforcement to the American pilots, but other than that, I don't see it as being effective.

I didn't expect that you would.

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 » 09 Feb 2010 01:58

To say nothing of the possibilities of much better air recon for the British...
That's a complete non sequitor. "Better" air recon would require better aircraft for doing it! And as it was the British simply didn't spot the Japanese fighter fields put into French Indo-China due to the precautions against observation the Japanese took.

They saw them....they just didn't "see" them! :lol:
...and the possible bombing of Japanese troop convoys while they were still gathering at Hainan and in Cam Rhan Bay.
Check the dates those were spotted AT SEA. In effect you're saying the British should declare war on the Japanese FIRST by bombing them BEFORE Pearl Harbour? 8O

Your lack of knowledge is showing again robdab. Range is the distance an airplane can fly from takeoff to landing. To reach Nagasaki you will need a plane with a "fully loaded" range of 1460 miles(730*2). Although, you would probably need greater range to pad for combat and emergencies. I do believe that it proves you wrong, not right.
Different authors regularly use the term in different ways.

For instance, let me try and settle the question in a non-microdetail way. Armstrong's book, "Preemptive Strike" which originally kindled my interest in this "what-if", presents on it's page #60, the following portion of a Dec.21'40 Washington meeting:

"Chennault said that: "the Lockheed Hudson had a radius [of action] of 1,000 miles with a good bombload but that it was 1,200 miles to Tokyo, so that the Lockheed [Hudson] would not be able to reach that city. However Nagasaki, Kobe, and Osaka were within the range of the Hudson bomber. When Morgaenthau asked Chennault if the bombing could be conducted at night, Chennault said that would have to be the case, because "pursuit ships did not have sufficient range to defend the bombers in daytime on such a long tour."

I think Chennault in a better position to know the truth of the matter at the time, than you are now.
Robert - that's a plainly ridiculous statement - for we know in detail the specifications and statistics NOW for every mark of Hudson/A28-29.

But on a technical point - read carefully again what you've quoted from Chennault...
Chennault said that: "the Lockheed Hudson had a radius [of action] of 1,000 miles with a good bombload but that it was 1,200 miles to Tokyo, so that the Lockheed [Hudson] would not be able to reach that city.
HE doesn't say it's MAXIMUM or even its FULL bombload....just a "good" bombload. Looks as if HE is ALSO aware that to get that range he would have to reduce his Hudsons' load :wink:
By flying all your planes, all the time, they will wear out, rather quickly, I would suppose. By keeping spares allows aircraft to undergo proper long term maintenance, while still keeping your bombing force at effective levels. You, on the other hand, will fly the planes till the fall apart or crash. To keep your bombing force combat effective, you will have to find a middle ground between sorties flown and maintenance performed. This will be especially true, since spares and replacements will be hard to come by.
Sure but so far in this discussion I have just been trying to figure out if even my first ATL Hudson mission was possible. AFAIK we haven't even gotten to the point of beginning to discuss the ongoing operations of any Hudsons sent to be flown in China by an AVGII ?
Actually - you're wrong. Why?...

First of all - the Hudsons would have to be shipped to and assembled in China. On completion they'd have to be flight tested. Then their new American crews would have to spend many hours converting to type - for as the Hudson wasn't YET a USAAF type :wink: they wouldn't have any flying time on the type in their log books.

If they aren't crated and assembled at the far end....THEN the conversion to type and formation training etc. would have to be carried out in the U.S....

...by the end of all THAT - and the aircraft are ferried to the AVGII's forward operating fields and the time the force is operational...each aircraft will have many hours' flying time on its engines, and already have slotted into their regular maintenance rotation long since.
Or, you could just fly entirely at night and avoid the useless fighters.
Chennault seemed to feel that doing so would be a bad idea, as per his quote that I presented earlier in this posting
Eh??? That's EXACTLY what he says!
When Morgaenthau asked Chennault if the bombing could be conducted at night, Chennault said that would have to be the case...
I don't require a "firestorm" effect to entirely destroy a Japanese city, say the already mentioned Nagasaki, in November of 1941. All that is needed is significant enough damage to prove to Japan's leadership and people that "the new Chinese Air Force" presented a threat to Japan serious enough that major military resources had to be shifted from the upcoming effort against the DEIs in order to defend against it. That is all.
Again that's a non sequitor. Their reaction is far more likely to attack the AVG's fileds IN CHINA offensively...given that they are within reach of IJA aircraft on the Chinese mainland. That's FAR more in keeping with the Japanese mindset.

Their historical reaction the Doolittle Raid was because it came out of the blue and they never knew when it would be repeated. This would not the case with Chinese-based bombers after the first raid.

By the way - it's not going to be much of a suprise either. The move of the AVG to China and its preparations were STEEPED in newspaper publicity! 8O These guys were media personalities, splashed all over Time Life for ages before they began operations. And the Japanese can read a contemporary spec sheet for the Hudson was well as we can...
Also, I'd expect that the AVGII's American navigators would have easily been up to the task of finding even a darkened Japanese city only 500-730 miles away after they had demonstrated much greater skills in getting to China in the first place. In order to get to China more quickly that the historical first AVG did, I'd expect Chennault to have them fly a 2,000+ mile leg from San Francisco to Hawaii and then lesser legs from Hawaii to Wake, Wake to Guam and Guam to the Philippines before the final jaunt to China. Any navigators not up to those long over-water flights and missing a tiny island in mid-Pacific by ten or twenty miles simply wouldn't live to fly AVGII combat missions over China or Japan anyway ...
Why fly them??? When you can guarantee 100% delivery by crating them for sea...and have the CAC assemble them at the far end? :D

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 » 09 Feb 2010 02:26

To return to this for a moment...
Your lack of knowledge is showing again robdab. Range is the distance an airplane can fly from takeoff to landing. To reach Nagasaki you will need a plane with a "fully loaded" range of 1460 miles(730*2). Although, you would probably need greater range to pad for combat and emergencies. I do believe that it proves you wrong, not right.
Different authors regularly use the term in different ways
As I noted before -
For instance, look here http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/aircraf ... hudson.asp
I did and there I found that the MkIII Hudson is credited with a 780 mile range with full load and a maximum bombload of 1,600 lbs. Since Nagasaki is only 730 miles from the Chinese airbase at Chuchow in eastern China, thanks for providing a source which supports my scenario.
...even taking figures from ONE author - "Aircraft of WWII, Stewart Wilson, 1998" - on that reference site proves you wrong.

You say that "there I found that the MkIII Hudson is credited with a 780 mile range with full load and a maximum bombload of 1,600 lbs." and I reminded you to LOOK ABOVE that entry, where you'd find a range WITHOUT bombload of 1,355 miles...

Now, if this was indeed a RADIUS - then the Hudson would have a TOTAL range of something approaching 3,000 miles :lol: :lol: :lol: Which is patently ridiculous. So Wilson - one author - is UNIFORMLY using total ranges across his stats - NOT "operational radius" or any measurement like that for range.

THIS means that quite clearly the Hudson MkIII has indeed a TOTAL range WITH FULL BOMBLOAD of 780 miles.

Return to “What if”