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 » 18 Feb 2010 23:00

Here...http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1432286

My point is - even in a Japanese context it's overly difficult to create MORE than just a small, "normal" bombing raid, even with incendiaries. Even the wind factor is potentially against the chance of it happening due to its randomness...which even Robert agrees with! :lol: Tho' he MAY not have realised it! :D
Also, robdab, if you encounter headwinds one way, you encounter tailwinds the other.
Over a 10 hour+ mission duration, head/tail winds can strengthen, reverse direction and/or weaken. Winds can be blowing in different directions at different altitudes ...
One only has to look at Japanese history to see how...random....the winds between China and Japan were - they were even given a specific name because of it! :wink: :D

P.S. I'm not really answering YOUR post - I'm trying to teach Robert something brought up by your post :lol:

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

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

Post by RichTO90 » 19 Feb 2010 02:45

robdab wrote: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.
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... :roll: 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.

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.

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.

Back to the silliness.
Richard Anderson
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall: the 1st Assault Brigade Royal Engineers on D-Day
Stackpole Books, 2009.

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 03:21

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.
...and so would have equivalent specs/stats to the MkIII(LR) and A-29. I've emailed Hendon to see what reference material they have regarding the performance of the MkIII(LR) in RAF service.
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
Interestingly, Joe Baugher's excellent reference gives "range 1550 miles with 1400 pounds of bombs" I.E. 14 100lb GP bombs...but as noted before and Robert didn't pick up on - there is a SIZE issue about the Hudson carrying ordnance :wink: It may be rated to carry, say, 1400lbs in WEIGHT, but is not necessarily able to physically accomodate 14 GP bombs...Joe Baugher ALSO notes that only "four 250-pound bombs or ten 100-pound bombs could be carried in an internal bomb bay." :wink:

(Rich, you need to remember that Robert doesn't grasp the concept that air forces accepted reducing bombloads in favour of reaching maximum rated combat radii etc. Instead he seems to be believe that maximum rated ranges could indeed be reached with full rated capacity ordnance loads...
Therefore if specs he has says a MkIII/A-29 can carry an absolute maximum of 1600lbs of ordnance...then it can do that AND do it right out to its maximum tested range :wink: )

{Makes you wonder why they ever bothered inventing the B-29! :lol: }

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008 21:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

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

Post by bf109 emil » 19 Feb 2010 03:57

Had FDR asked politely for a steady supply of reversed lend/lease, I'm sure that Churchill would have agreed to sell some to a fledgling AVGII of the Chinese Air Force. Possibly even for free in exchange for a promise of AVGI flown future P-40 fighter protection for British Forces then holding Burma.
awesome and does Japan now politely ask Germany for 88's to combat this threat?

Does Japan sit idle and allow the continuation of missions to be flown from China, or do they simply just wipe out these airfields with either the "Nell" or maybe ask AH for a few bombers in exchange for working torpedoes and eliminate the based where US Bombers are based in China, hypothetically....

love the what if's, as anything is possible

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 04:20

Possibly even for free in exchange for a promise of AVGI flown future P-40 fighter protection for British Forces then holding Burma.
Awesome is....one way of describing it. The others are too scatalogical! :lol:

So let's get this straight, Robert - the converse of that is if Churchill DOESN'T agree, then FDR witholds fighter protection over Rangoon??? :lol: :P Silly me, I though after 7th December we were fighting the same enemy...

I wonder what - by Robert's twisted logic, Churchill DID promise FDR in return for the AVG fighting over Rangoon and South Burma historically?...

Or are the "merely historical" deeds of the AVG a figbox of my imagination? :D

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

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

Post by RichTO90 » 19 Feb 2010 04:59

phylo_roadking wrote:(Rich, you need to remember that Robert doesn't grasp the concept that air forces accepted reducing bombloads in favour of reaching maximum rated combat radii etc. Instead he seems to be believe that maximum rated ranges could indeed be reached with full rated capacity ordnance loads...
Therefore if specs he has says a MkIII/A-29 can carry an absolute maximum of 1600lbs of ordnance...then it can do that AND do it right out to its maximum tested range :wink: )

{Makes you wonder why they ever bothered inventing the B-29! :lol: }
Frankly, I don't give a good shite what he does or doesn't grasp. But he could do well to look more closely at the Doolittle B-25B and the modifications that were done to them to enable them to carry 2,000 pounds of ordnance vice their rated 3,000 pounds to the range they did on that raid.

BTW, 1,600 pounds is not the absolute maximum bombload...it is the rated load for the bomb bay, which is slightly different. The actual weight of bombs carried was notionally 1,000 pounds, but the 250-lb AN-57 GP weighed 256 pounds - when filled with TNT, but 252 pounds when filled with Amatol. The 100-lb ANM-30 weighed 111.3 pounds with TNT and 107.8 with Amatol. But I have found nothing that indicates that it ever carried more than about 1,200 pounds.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3659
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

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

Post by Takao » 19 Feb 2010 12:48

Robdab just can't stop making typos in,
robdab wrote:Yes indeed, well after April 18/42 when most of Japan's other overseas invasions were either long over or were winding down and the Japanese were no longer stretched so thin everywhere else.
Robdab, Robdab, Robdab Seriously "well after" April 18/42? How is an operational order handed down April 30/42, and an attack beginning mid-May/42, considered "well after April 18/42"? The order goes out 12 days after the raid and within a month the attack is begun.

Perhaps you are thinking of the Ichi-Go attacks of 1944, that tool place "well after" 1944...
robdab wrote:I long ago realized that your opposition to any of my ideas has become a personnal vendetta for you.
Sorry you feel that way, I guess you have forgotten the Alternative story for the battleship Yamato??? thread @ http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... it=Musashi . We went 2 pages back and fourth because you had not given a reason for completing the Yamato early. When you finally posted the fact for the Yamato's rush, and horror of horrors, I AGREED with you.
Takao wrote:Thank you for better fleshing out your ATL, this would have saved a lot of back and fourth between us had I known this in the beginning. Now, I can see your "pay off" for rushing the Yamato in construction.

Although, I did disagree with you on some of the more technical aspects of that thread.

So don't say that I have a personal vendetta against you, while they are few and far between, I have agreed with you.
If you were 100% right - I would agree with you, if you were 75% right - I would give you the benefit of the doubt, if you were 50% right - I would toss a coin; heads I give it to robdab & tails I go against him, below 50% and I am against. So, therefore, most of your posts have yet to reach the 50% mark.

Come up with a good idea and I will agree with you. So far, your track record has been 1 for 3.

robdab wrote:All that I want here is a polite discussion. With sources, so that further facts can be drawn out "into the light of day".
That's what we all want. But stop mis-quoting your own sources and please read the sources others have provided you.

robdab wrote:I believe that I typed "for the British" rather than "by the British" in order to indicate that the AVGII's A-29s had a much longer recon range and thus could keep all of the Allies of the ABCD alliance much better informed on the subject of Japan's future intentions.

Why mention the British at all? From Currie's list that you posted; Tactical Objective #4: Attack Japanese supply vessels, transports, tankers and small naval vessels in harbors of Indo-China and Hainan Island and at sea between those places. From your own source, your attacking Japanese shipping, not reporting it! Or is there another Indo-China and Hainan Island that Currie could be referring to?

robdab wrote:As I have typed several times already, A-29s in the hands of the Chinese Air Force could have provided a potent strike force that could also deliver a strong deterent message along with it's bombloads.

And as I have typed several times, with sources you didn't read, I highly doubt it.

robdab wrote:Perhaps, if my ATH British and ATH Americans did know, via better AVGII flown A-29 recon flights, then the Japanese might have seen different choises made by the Allies?
That is not a leap of faith I am willing to make. As we have seen, better air recon is not the issue. The American PBYs first noted 20 transports in Cam Ranh on Dec.2, 30 transports on Dec. 3, No transports on Dec. 4, the British reacquire the transports at sea on Dec. 6, and Dec. 7. Yet, they still do not know the convoy's intentions.

Now do you really, really think that spotting no transports in Cam Ranh on Nov. 30, and then 10 transports in Cam Ranh on Dec. 1, will change Allied thinking any? I don't.

robdab wrote:Certainly bombs dropped by the AVGII pilots could have clearly told the Japanese that their Pacific War invasion plans were no longer secret.
How and why would the Japanese know their Pacific invasion plans had been found out? Since Japan was at war with China and not(this is important) with Britain and the US. An attack by China against Cam Ranh Bay or Hainan Island would be seen as an escalation of the Sino-Japanese War, would it not. Now, given that these are aircraft sporting the insignia of the Nationalist Chinese Air Force(or the Japanese hinomaru, as you had speculated about earlier), what conclusion do you think they will logically reach.

Now, if the aircraft were still under the British or Americans, and using their respective insignia, then the Japanese would probably conclude that their invasion plans had been found out. But being attacked by Chinese aircraft, no, I don't see the Japanese drawing your conclusion.

robdab wrote:China had been at war with Japan for some years already and considering the amount of Chinese territory occupied by Japan at that point in time, no one was going to mistake China as the aggressor.

Chinese Air Force marked warplanes would make the strikes so how could America be seen as the aggressor ?
American planes, flown and serviced by American airmen & aircrews, dropping American bombs, on a nation with long-standing disagreements with the FDR administration? Hell, the Isolationists, the many anti-FDR newspapers, and the Republicans will have a field day with that.

robdab wrote:Neither did I reference a "Norwegian Blue" parrot. Get over it, please.
You forgot to mention Star Trek too.

Nor did I reference the Eagles or Track 1 off their "Hell Freezes Over" album. Nice touch with the Eagles reference, an "E" for effort, but no points this round.

robdab wrote:IIRC the earlier postings in this thread indicated that the Chinese were initially asking for some 350+ warplanes, so it was recognized that many more than 66 bombers would be required. You have to start somewhere ...
You really don't read my sources, do you? Page one, my first post, first link: 350 fighters and 150 bombers.

You are right, the Chinese recognized the fact that many more than 66 bombers would be required Read the second link of my first post and you will find out that [/quote] Despite this discouraging record the Chinese had not been deterred from requesting additional Lend-Lease aircraft. China Defense Supplies on behalf of the Chinese government made a series of both long and short-term requests for aircraft by the first half of 1942. Their requests totaled 2,586 aircraft including 1,489 pursuit planes, 462 bombers, 478 training planes and 157 transports.[/quote] Looks like the Chinese needed a lot more than 66 bombers.

Yet, here you are, up on your soap box, expecting us to believe that your 66 bombers will some how, reduce Japanese cities to rubble, defend the DEIs, sink ships, upset Japanese timetables, etc. And then have the gall to ask me why I doubt you and that my doubt is just a "personal vendetta" and not based on logic, logistics, and history.

You sir, and I use the term loosely, have no shame.

robdab wrote:Once again, I thought that we had agreed that until a Hudson pilot's manual of the A-29 variety is obtained, there is little point in discussing range, bombload, fuelload, altitude or airspeeds further since all are inter-related and variable ?
That is because, robdab, your faulty memory trips you up.....
You whined that
My Feb.3/10 posting here included: "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 ... " which indicates that I acknowledged the interrelationship between the range, speed, altitude and possible payloads of bomber aircraft. We have already agreed on the need for an A-29 Hudson pilot's manual to finally settle the question, so why do you continue to waste bandwidth on this issue ?
Note the question was on range, not speed, speed has never been an issue before. And yet, 5 responses later, in the same post you replied
Not at all. As best I can determine, considering the economical cruising speed of the Hudson bomber and at that time of year, there are NOT enough hours of darkness for a Hudson bombing raid on the Japanese Home Islands to be conducted ENTIRELY IN THE DARK, as you seem to be. Some portion of that trip, either coming or going, will have to be flown IN DAYLIGHT, with the consequent possible attentions of Japanese fighter aircraft based on captured Chinese mainland territory. This is why Chennault wanted BOTH night attacks by his bombers AND fighter cover for his bombers.
Yet, I am the one wasting bandwith, while you are just a fountain of knowledge, whose every whim must be attended to. So, there you are making and breaking your deal in the same post.

What part of this equation have you failed to grasp????????

robdab wrote:Over a 10 hour+ mission duration, head/tail winds can strengthen, reverse direction and/or weaken. Winds can be blowing in different directions at different altitudes ...
Spoken like a true meteorologist: 80% chance of rain, with a 90% chance of being wrong gives us a 72% chance of sunny skies. So, a strengthened/weakened headwind in one direction, is still a strengthen/weakened tailwind in the opposite direction....

robdab wrote:Uhm, maybe I just made a typo ?
NOW ROBDAB, EVEN I AM NOT THAT STUPID TO BELIEVE YOU MADE ANOTHER TYPO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's look at that paragraph in its entirety, shall we
robdab wrote:found that the detailed air combat reports to be found at http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/sino-japanese.htm were a most interesting read that indicate by late 1941, there were few Chinese pilots left in combat. Russian "volunteer" pilots were carrying much of the load by then, at least until Germany attacked Russia. Chang Kai-shek needed AVG pilots because he didn't have enough of his own trained to fly the last Russian planes that were still being supplied. Let alone more AVG warplanes.
if your TYPO was 1941 when you meant 1940, THEN HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN AWAY THE SENTENCE THAT FOLLOWED IT!
robdab wrote:Russian "volunteer" pilots were carrying much of the load by then, at least until Germany attacked Russia.
So, therefore, you think the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in June, 1940!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOUR SOURCE GOES ON TO ADD THAT
In December 1940 the 2nd BG was sent to Hami to re-equip with Tupolev SB-IIIs.

In the words of the historians of the People’s Republic of China after the appearance of the Japanese Zero with its excellent flying characteristics, the situation of Chinese aviation became worse. The shrinking air forces continually suffered losses and by the end of 1940 only 65 aircraft remained. Adding to this problem, the Soviet volunteers were recalled, and the Chinese Air Force was left isolated, with no resources remaining for combat flights.
THE SOVIET VOLUNTEERS WERE NOT CARRYING ANY LOAD WHEN GERMANY ATTACKED THE SOVIET UNION

THERE IS NO OOOOOOPS! ABOUT IT, YOU HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT THE SOURCE BECAUSE YOU NEVER READ IT!

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD READ YOUR OWN SOURCE MATERIAL!

robdab wrote:At least I provided the source so that you could check it !
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Big Deal, you provided a link to a website that did not support your statement!

On second thought, I don't want to see your sources anymore, I'll just take it for granted, that whatever you say is untrue and just leave it at that. That way, it saves you a few seconds on Google and me a few minutes of actually reading through your links.

What do you say, agreed?

robdab wrote:Historically all quite true but please remember that we are discussing my own "what IF" Alternative History scenario here, not the OTL history. Since I knew that I neeeded the longer range of the A-29 Hudson, why would I specify some of the much shorter ranged DB-7 for my scenario ?
How many things are you planning on changing and when are you changing them? Incendiary bombs that are not made yet, bombers not alloted to China, bombload that is questionable, Marshall says yes, logistics in place that aren't, 1941 not 1942, affecting Japanese whole Pacific invasion, etc. You do know that alternate history does have a basis in real history....This is the same way your ATL went, change upon change, upon change, never stopping......

If your not going to settle for the DB-7, then why settle for the piddly A-29, go all out with the B-29, B-36, or B-52!
Hey, B-52s in the WW2 Pacific, now we're talking ALTERNATE HISTORY!

robdab wrote:True enough but your plan negates any possibility of the Hudsons exerting any deterent effect on the Japanese while in Chinese hands.
That's the whole point, NOT putting the aircraft in Chinese hands. While, in China, the have no deterrent effect on the Japanese heading to the DEIs, as opposed to actually putting the aircraft IN the DEIs were the will be used to good effect. As you have said, the Japanese and Chinese were at a standstill in their war, alas not the air war in China though, so why not put the aircraft where they will do some good. In the DEIs.

robdab wrote:You are quite right, I don't have any idea what you are talking about with the above ramble. Never have I suggested that a Hudson of any type would be flying between Chuchow and Balikpapan.
I just want to make sure you don't. Given your track record lately, I've been waiting for you to make that claim....
Just don't forget it.

robdab wrote:So ?
So, it trains the civilians on how to react at the sound of a siren. Repetion breeds familiarization. Then again, living within 15 miles of Three Mile Island for several years probably has heightened my awareness of and my belief in the need for such emergency drills. I'll tell you this though, a chill went down my spine whenever I heard those warning sirens go off.

robdab wrote:I was refering to:
Please see http://ibiblio.net/hyperwar/////AAF/rep ... eport.html which details the events of the April 18/42 Doolittle bombing raid on the Japanese Home Islands. Various bombing altitudes between 75' and 1,500' were used for both 500lb demolition bombs and 500lb incendiary cluster bombs, beating LeMay to the punch by at least a couple of years.
What you said was
please take a good long look at the source that I have provided just above in this post.
Just above, in this post is http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/sino-japanese.htm
Just above this post is http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/view ... &id=600180
The link your were referring to was BELOW not ABOVE
Probably just another one of your (cough, cough) typos....

robdab wrote:Oh, so you did find it.
I never lost it(no pun intended). The link was BELOW YOUR POST, AND NOT ABOVE IT AS YOU DIRECTED ME Thank God I never have to ask you for directions :lol: :lol:

I was replying to both posts directed at me at the same time.

robdab wrote:So ? They were still ultra-low altitude incendiary bomb drops that were totally uninspired by LeMay.
The decision was made out of necessity, not by choice, and the did very little damage as opposed to your
mini-atom bomb like" firestorm demonstration


robdab wrote: So ? Low altitude bomb drops had been done since mankind started using airplanes for war.
hardly worth noting, because, back then aircraft could not fly much higher than low altitude.

robdab wrote:So why could not the AVGII's pilots have used the same pathfinder tactic ?
Well, let's see, because you never mentioned it until now. And if I had not mentioned this fact, the idea would not have occurred to you. That's why! Because you don't read your own source material, otherwise you would have known it before I did.

So, no you may not use it...

No and Hell No!

robdab wrote:Because the accounts of air warfare from that Sino-Japanese source that I posted mention that both Chinese and Japanese pilots fighting over China were known to intentionally ram enemy aircraft. Since Chennault was there for several years before 1940/1 he at least would have familiar with those accounts.
Source, what source? Thanks, but No Thanks. I'm done with your sources, thanks all the same.

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

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

Post by RichTO90 » 19 Feb 2010 13:24

Takao wrote:
robdab wrote:I was refering to:
Please see http://ibiblio.net/hyperwar/////AAF/rep ... eport.html which details the events of the April 18/42 Doolittle bombing raid on the Japanese Home Islands. Various bombing altitudes between 75' and 1,500' were used for both 500lb demolition bombs and 500lb incendiary cluster bombs, beating LeMay to the punch by at least a couple of years.
Yet another fiction from robdab. There was no bombing reported by Doolittle or his pilots at "75' ". Given the reported fusing doing so with 500-lb demolition (i.e., GP) bombs would have been suicidal. The planned bombing altitude was 1,500 feet, the average reported by the nine aircraft with detailed reports was 1,517 feet.

I've given up trying to figure out if this pattern from robdab is the result of simple stupidity, incomprehensibility, or just standard internet lying and now just assume that it is all three.

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 18:24

Er....

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! 8O :lol:

And of course, as they were attempting to atack industrial areas...at 75 feet chimneys etc. would have proved somewhat of a navigational hazard...! :P

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

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

Post by LWD » 19 Feb 2010 19:19

At that height they might actually be hit by their own bombs.

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 22:26

.
RichTO90 writes,

Yet another fiction from robdab. There was no bombing reported by Doolittle or his pilots at "75' ". Given the reported fusing doing so with 500-lb demolition (i.e., GP) bombs would have been suicidal. The planned bombing altitude was 1,500 feet, the average reported by the nine aircraft with detailed reports was 1,517 feet.

I've given up trying to figure out if this pattern from robdab is the result of simple stupidity, incomprehensibility, or just standard internet lying and now just assume that it is all three.


Sir,

I merely repeat the report from http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/rep ... ry_20.html which says, in part:

"Plane No. 2282 (Lt. Holstrom). Pilot decided to approach Tokyo from the south on the theory that the three preceding planes had stirred up enemy interceptors further north. As a result, pursuit planes were encountered heading in his direction. Two of these attacked while still off the coast and tracer bullets were seen going over the pilot's compartment. Later, two more cut across the bow and appeared ready to peel off for an attack. At this point the bombs were salvoed from 75 feet and the plane turned down the coast. The guns were not operating." [My underlining added]

I'm sorry that you don't like it but there is no reason to accuse me of lying about 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 » 19 Feb 2010 22:33

.
phylo asks,

So let's get this straight, Robert - the converse of that is if Churchill DOESN'T agree, then FDR witholds fighter protection over Rangoon??? Silly me, I though after 7th December we were fighting the same enemy...

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.

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 22:38

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

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

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

Post by RichTO90 » 19 Feb 2010 22:53

robdab wrote:I merely repeat the report from http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/rep ... ry_20.html which says, in part:

"Plane No. 2282 (Lt. Holstrom). Pilot decided to approach Tokyo from the south on the theory that the three preceding planes had stirred up enemy interceptors further north. As a result, pursuit planes were encountered heading in his direction. Two of these attacked while still off the coast and tracer bullets were seen going over the pilot's compartment. Later, two more cut across the bow and appeared ready to peel off for an attack. At this point the bombs were salvoed from 75 feet and the plane turned down the coast. The guns were not operating." [My underlining added]

I'm sorry that you don't like it but there is no reason to accuse me of lying about it.
No, it was not that particular problem of yours operating this time; it was a different one that has been identified, and not just by me. You selectively read your own source material and also selectively read into that material things that aren't there. If you had bothered to actually read Doolittle's AAR, http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/rep ... eport.html , which you originally posted, you would have found:

"Airplane No. AC 40-2282 -- Took off at 8:33 a.m. ship time
Pilot Lt. Everett W. Holstrom 0-397395
Co-pilot Lt. Lucian N. Youngblood 0-421153
Navigator-Gunner Lt. Harry C. McCool o-419329
Bombardier Sgt. Robert J. Stephens 6936650
Engineer-Gunner Cpl. Bert M. Jordan 6952993
Proceeded in the direction of Tokyo but encountered severe fighter opposition. Endeavored to get around the fighters and passed beyond Tokyo. They then decided to bomb a secondary target but were again attacked and driven off. Eventually dropped their bombs in the water and proceeded to a point near and Southeast of Shangjac where all crew members bailed out safely."

And:

"Special 500 lb. demolition bombs were provided, through the cooperation of Colonel Max F. Schneider of A-4, by the Ordnance Department. These bombs were loaded with an explosive mixture containing 50% T.N.T. and 50% Amatol. They were all armed with a 1/10 of a second nose fuse and a 1/40 of a second specially prepared tail fuse. The 1/10 of a second nose fuse was provided in case the tail fuse failed. 11 second delay tail fuses were available to replace the 1/40 f a second tail fuse in case weather conditions made extremely low bombing necessary. In this case the tail fuse was to be changed just before take-off and the nose fuse in that case would not be armed. "

If you had bothered to read the reports of those aircraft that bombed targets instead of dropping their bombs their bombs into the sea (the implication is that the arming wires were probably not removed), you might have discovered that the drop altitudes reported were:
1,450
2,500
2,400
600
1,100
1,300
1,500
1,500
1,300
for an average of 1,517 feet.

And, if you had the slightest intellectual curiosity, you might have wondered how probably three 500-lb demolition bombs filled with a 50:50 mixture of Amatol and TNT could be "salvoed" at 75 feet with 1/10 or 1/40 second delay fuze and yet manage neither to damage the aircraft or even cause any comment from the crew.

As I said, it's pretty obvious that a problem other than dishonesty was in play on your part in this case. :roll:

Oh, look, Peter noticed it as well... :roll:
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 » 19 Feb 2010 22:54

.
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'.
Last edited by robdab on 19 Feb 2010 23:09, edited 1 time in total.

Return to “What if”