Hello All :
It is a pleasure to discuss ideas with intelligent people.
To Mr. T.A. Gardner :
the Army was developing new guns to replace the 3" ........... by the 90mm M1
gun and that there are at least a few 120mm AA guns in service as well.
You state that it wasn't unreasonable for the U.S. to replace the 3" AA with the 90mm AA - I think that,
in PEACETIME, it would be quite unreasonable. Remember, the M1917 tank was STILL in service until
1940. Soldiers were still carrying M1903 Springfields. And wearing Pie-Pan helmets. And Khaki Puttees...
The fact is, when you are in peacetime, replacement of equipment is slow, and often only occurs due to
force majeur. This is why the U.S. Military has been trying to keep us in a war since 1950 - it makes
procurement a lot easier. But things in 1939 were different - and with no Polish invasion or French Blitz-
krieg, 1940 to 1945 would be more of the same. You might get some prototypes, but nothing too
expensive.
And that is another point. Many years ago, Simulations Publications, Inc. ( SPI ) the legendary Wargame
Company, produced two ' Mega-Games ', called ' War in the West ' and ' War in the East ' . ( These could
be combined into what was laughingly called, ' War in the World '. )
SPI did a lot of research ( And they had some very GOOD researchers, many with military experience, lots
of college training in the sciences and analytics, and good sources of information ) and they came up with
a feature of the game they called ' The Production Spiral '. It was essentially a way to determine how fast
new weapons could be developed, or existing weapon production ramped up, in terms of time and money.
What their research discovered was, if there was a new weapon, or you needed to increase production, it
would take about one year to accomplish it. Thus, if you decided to build a new fighter plane, 13 months
later they would hit squadron service. If you wanted to double tank production, 13 months later you would
be getting twice as many tanks from your factories. It meant that the players had to be somewhat prescient,
as a decision to built lots of tanks might be useless if, one year later, your opponent was hammering you
with strategic bombers ! Alternatively, a new fighter is useless if your airfields are being over run by a horde
of enemy T-34s.
Now, historically, in May of 1940, the United States decided to build a new Medium Tank. After all, war had
broken out in Europe, and it was possible we might get involved - or maybe we would just be the new merchants
of death and supply Britain and France with tanks and aircraft. William Knudsen of GM handed to project to
Chrysler, who, set about constructing what became the Detroit Tank Arsenal. Pilot models of the M3 Medium
tank came out of the factory in April, 1941, ( 11 Months ) and the plant was in full swing in August, 1941
( 14 Months ) In other words, about a year.
In May 1938, France ordered 100 P-36s ( Hawk 75s ) from Curtiss. They were delivered in October. In
early 1939, France ordered another 100 Hawks. They ended up in England AFTER the Fall of France. And,
in September, 1939, France ordered over 400 Hawks. This overwhelmed the Curtiss facility, and meant
they could not built any P36s for the Air Corp, so Curtiss went about a program to increase their factory
square footage. The Factory was completed in early 1941, and Hawk 81s began rolling off the line at
a rate of over 200 a month, to the point where, by December 7th, 1941, there were over 1500 P-40s
in service with the USAAF, and a bunch more with the RAF. But it is easy to see, the ramp up in
production was ONLY because the French were at war, and made a sudden, increased order that made
it economically viable for Curtiss to expand production. If there had been no war, there would have
been no French Order of 400 Hawks, and no increase in the USAAF orders either, and the Curtiss plant
would have continued to rumble along producing about 30 to 40 fighters per month.
Mr Gardner, one of the myths here in the U.S. is that, five minutes after Pearl Harbor, Rosie the Riveteer
rolled up her sleeves and began turning out tanks and bombers. The fact is, she was only able to really
get going in late 1942, as a lot of the factories had to be built in late 1941 to handle the Lend Lease
business. And, the ones started earlier were just coming on line in early 1942 - like the Curtiss plant
that built P40s.
We started building Battleships in 1937 ( Authorized ) and 1938 ( Laid Down ) and 1940 ( Launched ) and
1941 ( commissioned ) and 1942 ( ready for service after a long spell of engine/propellor problems that
were never really solved ) The next four were authorized in 1938, and didn't come into service for
another four years. The 6 Iowas, the 5 Montanas, and the 6 Alaskas were authorized AFTER Poland.
If there was NO WAR, they might not have been authorized until 1942, and that means they don't get
finished until 1946. ( that's the first two Iowas. The rest come later........ )
By 1942, Saratoga and Lexington were 20 years old, and starting to show their age. The turboelectric
plants were an issue, as well as hanger stowage problems. The Ranger was a Mutt, and the Wasp was
on the slow side to launch heavy aircraft. With new Essexes coming into service and NO WAR, the
Congress might choose to put the four older carriers into reserve ( Mothballs ).
As for the heavy Bombers - Well, what if Boeing builds a couple of prototypes of the B-29, and they
both crash due to engine fires ? ( Not unlikely, one actually did, killing Eddie Allen, Boeings' chief test
pilot ) The USAAC and the Congress might decide that it was a bad investment, and stick with the
100 or so B-17s and another 100 B-24s that were coming into service.
As for Goddard's research, he was at a dead end, and his progress stopped. In fact, it was few
guys like Truax that bypassed Goddard, and got the navy rocket program back on track.
So, again I reiterate my thesis: Absent a War to get the U.S. off of it's collective tail, by 1945,
there would be a lot of prototypes, no production, and no new plants to do new production. In
other words, the U.S. would be little better off than it was in January, 1939.
Respectfully :
Paul R. Ward