War doesn't break out for five-six years. Who's in the best shape?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: War doesn't break out for five-six years. Who's in the best shape?

#106

Post by Gooner1 » 11 Jan 2021, 13:48

T. A. Gardner wrote:
08 Jan 2021, 20:03
In the Royal Navy, there is no big push to produce lots of ASW ships and convoy escorts. Instead, the RN plods forward building a traditional navy while the FAA remains small, underfunded, and equipped with mediocre, obsolescent aircraft.
It makes sense to start building the long lead items like battleships and carriers before the war begins, otherwise they might not be finished by the time the war ends. ASW ships and convoy escorts can be knocked out from the yards far more rapidly.
As for small and underfunded, the Spring 1939 plan was for the Fleet Air Arm to treble in size by the end of 1942 to some 1,945 first line aircraft. Admittedly these are mostly obsolescent types with more modern types only just entering service. The Admiralty had expressed a desire for navalised Spitfires as far back as 1938 so by 1944 expect Carrier strike forces to consist of Barracudas, Fireflys and Seafires. Perhaps not up to the quality of the USN aircraft that might (or might not) be in large scale production but certainly up to that of the IJN, I think.
With Fighter Command and Bomber Command already on a firm wicket by 1941, it's possible that the FAA get rather more love, earlier.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: War doesn't break out for five-six years. Who's in the best shape?

#107

Post by T. A. Gardner » 11 Jan 2021, 17:47

Gooner1 wrote:
11 Jan 2021, 13:48
It makes sense to start building the long lead items like battleships and carriers before the war begins, otherwise they might not be finished by the time the war ends. ASW ships and convoy escorts can be knocked out from the yards far more rapidly.
As for small and underfunded, the Spring 1939 plan was for the Fleet Air Arm to treble in size by the end of 1942 to some 1,945 first line aircraft. Admittedly these are mostly obsolescent types with more modern types only just entering service. The Admiralty had expressed a desire for navalised Spitfires as far back as 1938 so by 1944 expect Carrier strike forces to consist of Barracudas, Fireflys and Seafires. Perhaps not up to the quality of the USN aircraft that might (or might not) be in large scale production but certainly up to that of the IJN, I think.
With Fighter Command and Bomber Command already on a firm wicket by 1941, it's possible that the FAA get rather more love, earlier.
It's likely that the FAA would still be saddled with obsolescent and iffy designs regardless. The Firefly or Blackburn Firebrand might be typical. That is, a two seat fighter because the requirement for a navigator aboard never gets rescinded. Or, in the Firebrand's case, the plane gets redesigned half-a-dozen times with different engines, different requirements, and still ends up plagued with stability and flight issues.
There would be no Seafire or Sea Hurricane as those were wartime expedients rather than planned developments. It's more likely the Admiralty goes with a plane 'their people' designed rather than one borrowed from the RAF.

As for the RAF, fighter command is likely to get a backseat to bomber command. The RAF would be more about having an offensive. The RAF would, like the USAF in the 50's and 60's, want to maximize their autonomy as a separate service and justify that by finding an independent role they can fulfill--eg., strategic bombing.


User avatar
nuyt
Member
Posts: 1667
Joined: 29 Dec 2004, 14:39
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: War doesn't break out for five-six years. Who's in the best shape?

#108

Post by nuyt » 11 Jan 2021, 18:01

Someone mentioned artillery and yes, the US would slowly but surely get its 105s and 155s in the early 40s.
What about the other nations?

Germany: would still go on manufacturing their field artillery as per the (mainly horse drawn) designs of the late 1920s, so a further growth of LFH18, sFH18 the 105 mm Kanones and some heavier stuff, but a bit less in numbers that IRL. The Germans did not get in to much innovation during WW2 due to high demand for production, so in peacetime there maybe just more opportunity to update its designs, especially since Krupp was still able to export. Expect new versions of all of the above arriving by 1943ish.

Soviet Union: the SU however modernized its artillery designs with German and Swedish help as recently as the 1930s and its further developments were more modern than Germany's, so the excellent ZIS3 76mm, the 122 and 152 mm howitzers as well as the 122 long guns are all in service by 1945, although of course in smaller numbers than IRL.

France: not aware of new designs of French artillery prior to 1940 and I would expect ongoing reliance on the 75 and Schneider 105mm/155mm howitzers mainly. But privately owned Schneider would no doubt continue designing for export, including for Japan. And since there is no war, Schneider as major shareholder of Skoda ends up in a fascinating relationship with Nazi Germany.

UK: the process of replacing the 18pdrs by 25pds continues, though at a much lower pace and scale. Slower introduction of 4.5 and 5.5 inch guns, perhaps? Vickers continues to build weaponry in Franco Spain (105mm field guns and naval arty) and in Romania.

Italy: keen on exports so the local industries would be developing the fancy new 105mm and 150mm howitzers and guns and small batches enter service by 1943.

Japan: the ongoing war in China requires more or less the same kind of weapons as IRL and they continue to grow their inventory.

Netherlands: after finishing the orders of Bofors 105mm guns and receiving their own model of lFH18 (and for KNIL the Bofors 105mm lfh), they have the need for new 15cm howitzers and a replacement for their venerable Krupp/Hembrug 75mm field gun. The Dutch/NEI will probably end up buying the reliable Bofors 15cm howitzers (100-150 pieces) as well as the fantastic Bofors 75mm M40 field gun (400-500 pieces) from their longtime and proven Swedish friends in 1941 and start license production themselves by 1943. By 1945 their artillery is topnotch.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6349
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: War doesn't break out for five-six years. Who's in the best shape?

#109

Post by Richard Anderson » 11 Jan 2021, 18:42

T. A. Gardner wrote:
11 Jan 2021, 08:31
Antiaircraft artillery, weirdly, prewar was part of the Coast Defense branch of the US Army. This branch was relatively well funded and it is clear that the Army was developing new guns to replace the 3" in service even before WW 2 really started. So, those guns would get developed and it is likely that they would start to replace the 3" in service. How many get made is nothing but a guess, but it isn't unreasonable to argue that by 1945 the 3" is no longer in frontline service and has been relegated to reserve status replaced by the 90mm M1 gun and that there are at least a few 120mm AA guns in service as well.
The 37mm M1A2 would also be in service in at least small numbers as well.
I am not sure that it was weird prewar, but "relatively well funded" probably overstates the case. The Coast Artillery was at least better funded than it was at the outbreak of the Civil War, but that isn't saying much. Most of the Harbor Defenses were in Class II (Limited Training) or Class III (Maintenance) status from 1935 until the declaration of the limited emergency in September 1939. Some others, such as Baltimore, had been inactivated. The Defenses of the Chesapeake was one of the few in the Z/I designated Class I (Full Training). Otherwise, only the overseas Coast Defenses were anywhere close to fully manned and organized.

Meanwhile, it was 1941 before the new 90mm and 37mm went into production. Again, the problem remains if the Congress decides the 3" and .50 caliber were good enough to defend the Continental U.S.
That only argues that the Tank Destroyer branch and the mania of putting huge numbers of antitank guns in field units wouldn't occur. It doesn't mean the Army wouldn't develop a 75mm antitank gun. It's pretty obvious they would and it would replace the 37mm in service by 1945.
Indeed, the prewar organizational changes in the Field Artillery included the addition of 75mm AT batteries to the divisional and non-divisional artillery, along with 37mm AT platoons to the battalion HQ batteries.
The USAAC has a deep interest in a long-range bomber. While the B-24 might not get accepted into service, Consolidated, Boeing, Douglas, etc., would still be competing for a contract to build something that is bigger, faster, and longer ranged than a B-17 or 24. Bombing Europe from the US or bombing Japan from some island in the Pacific would still figure into the USAAC's planning. It might not go beyond some prototypes, but the impetus was there to continue development of such aircraft.
Indeed, virtually all of the development contracts for aircraft seen in the war were prewar. All bombers through B-26 and the B-29 and all fighters through the XP-43 were prewar.
That's all the US would really need, a solid design with a 75mm gun in the turret. They could turn that design over to industry to make thousands PDQ and they wouldn't be starting from scratch.
Again, Congress.
More like 8 to 10 new ones and 10 old ones with 8 to 10 carriers, with nearly half being essentially Essex class. The US was laying down two battleships per year and a carrier per year until the WNT and LNT ran out. Once those treaties are gone, the US would continue to build 2 battleships and 2 carriers per year against an expanding German and Japanese fleet.
That's against a Japanese fleet of 10 old, and less capable battleships, and 3 or 4 new ones like the Yamato class. The old US ones would all be modernized to one degree or another far better than anything the Japanese did as well. Or, do you think the Japanese won't continue to build as much as they can?
Again, the Naval authorizations followed four-year intervals prewar. No war in 1939 and no French collapse in 1940 do not bode well for accelerating that pace. I think you are overestimating the ability of the American Congress to put off things.
Show a source where that was ever discussed.
I suspect you will never get a legitimate one.
The 105mm and 155mm howitzer would still go into production to replace the 75mm and older 155's in service. That won't change. Sure, the rate of production will be much lower but it will happen.
They might, or they could end up like the original 75mm M1 Gun, which was intended to replace the M1897...in 1929, but was never funded for full production.
No, the military won't spend cubic dollars on a nuclear weapon but the research on things nuclear will continue regardless. The same is true of rocket research. Groups like the "Suicide Squad" at Cal Tech will continue because they aren't funded by the military or government. Goddard's rocketry will continue for the same reason. The USN has a small program going on this technology and even invited Goddard to join their program before the war. I could see something like Project Gorgon still occurring on a limited basis within the Navy simply because there were people high enough in rank in the service with enough pull to get some limited funding for it. It doesn't mean they have an operational missile, but rather are conducting research on a limited scale that will provide the means to rapidly expand such a program in wartime.
Quite true. Meanwhile, I wonder how anyone imagines the Germans would continue their peacetime military expansion giving the financial straits the Reich was in, without going to war or crashing the economy?
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

paulrward
Member
Posts: 665
Joined: 10 Dec 2008, 21:14

Re: War doesn't break out for five-six years. Who's in the best shape?

#110

Post by paulrward » 11 Jan 2021, 18:51

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
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: War doesn't break out for five-six years. Who's in the best shape?

#111

Post by Gooner1 » 11 Jan 2021, 18:53

T. A. Gardner wrote:
11 Jan 2021, 17:47
There would be no Seafire or Sea Hurricane as those were wartime expedients rather than planned developments. It's more likely the Admiralty goes with a plane 'their people' designed rather than one borrowed from the RAF.
The Spitfire wasn't an RAF design, it was a private, Supermarine (Vickers), design to an Air Ministry specification. Supermarine had shown a design of a folding-winged and arrestor hooked Spitfire to the FAA in late 1939 already and the Admiralty soon requested 50 of them. Though clearly that wasn't going to happen with the situation as was in 1940, it does reflect that the Admiralty wasn't quite as hidebound as supposed.
As for the RAF, fighter command is likely to get a backseat to bomber command. The RAF would be more about having an offensive. The RAF would, like the USAF in the 50's and 60's, want to maximize their autonomy as a separate service and justify that by finding an independent role they can fulfill--eg., strategic bombing.
Yes and all the pre-war expansion programmes reflected that, the last, Scheme M, envisaged the metropolitan air force of 85 bomber squadrons to 50 fighter squadrons by March 1942. Programmed fighter production before the war had even started was such that they could replace total squadron strength three times over per annum without even trying too hard. With peace the RAF is going to end up with more aircraft than they know what to do with.

John T
Member
Posts: 1206
Joined: 31 Jan 2003, 23:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Re: War doesn't break out for five-six years. Who's in the best shape?

#112

Post by John T » 11 Jan 2021, 19:49

The saying is you wouldn't get a baby in one month by making nine women pregnant.
What kind of developments could just slow-cook or be part of pure commercial competition?

Like US Air engines developed quickly before the war.
Huge production numbers are another thing but small-scale production and exports would keep the evolution going.
That holds true for US, UK, and German aircraft production.
For example, Polish Hurricanes swapped for Bofors 40mm guns or USD, so UK could buy more machine toolings in the USA.

I think a lot of electronics would have a similar evolution, possibly without exports.

A lot of technologies developed during the interwar, just because someone thought it was a good idea to pursue.


My take is that the western powers would gain more than the dictators

Cheers
/John

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10055
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: War doesn't break out for five-six years. Who's in the best shape?

#113

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 11 Jan 2021, 20:18

John T wrote:
11 Jan 2021, 19:49
...
My take is that the western powers would gain more than the dictators

Cheers
/John
It would be easy to say nazi industrial policy 1934-1939 would guarantee that if continued. But, we have to consider the effects of budget reductions after a War Scare of 39. Nations reducing military budgets are less likely to to have clever new weapons tested 1942-44. There is also the wild card of bad decisions for policy and details of weapons selection.

paulrward
Member
Posts: 665
Joined: 10 Dec 2008, 21:14

Re: War doesn't break out for five-six years. Who's in the best shape?

#114

Post by paulrward » 12 Jan 2021, 05:44

Hello All:

In response to a statement that I made regarding the possible mothballing of the Saratoga, Lexington,
Ranger,and Wasp :
Show a source where that was ever discussed.

I suspect you will never get a legitimate one.
The above members of this Forum should try to keep in mind that we are discussing an ATL, that is,
where Germany does NOT invade Poland in 1939, and War does NOT erupt in Europe. Thus, while
there was no discussion of mothballing any of the seven USN aircraft carriers in OTL, if there was
NO WAR, such discussions might take place.

The Washington Naval Treaty set an age limit of 20 years on Capital Ships, allowing their replacement after
20 years of commissioned service. The two Saratoga's hit the water in 1925, and entered service in 1927.
Neither was a completely satisfactory aircraft carrier, as they had limitations on their hanger accomodations,
and their aircraft handling systems were somewhat limited.

As for the Ranger, she was small, slow, cramped, wet, unstable in heavy seas, and it was feared by at least
one of her Captains that a single bomb or torpedo hit might send her to the bottom.

Finally, the Wasp had many of the faults of the Ranger, despite being of a different design. She was also
small, and slow, and had some of the same aircraft limitations as the Saratogas.

Now, under the Washington Treaty, the two Saratogas could be replaced in 1947 by later construction, such
as two Essex Class carriers, and, if The Navy ! wished to stretch a point, they could scrap the Ranger and the Wasp
and replace them with one Essex, which would be about the same tonnage.

If there is NO WAR, Congress and The Navy ! might, in the early 40s, come to an agreement to replace
all four carriers with three Essex Class, which, with their larger hangers, larger elevators, and improved systems,
had more ' future ' than the aging experimental carriers of the 1920s and 1930s.

So, while there were no such discussions in OTL, in the ATL we are discussing, such talks might occur.

And, in an ATL discussion, such concepts was totally legitimate.



Oh, and to clarify a glaring mistake in a posting above, the Boeing B-29 was NOT a pre-war aircraft. The Contract for the prototypes was issued in September, 1940, and the first prototype flew in September, 1942.
While the contract was issued before the U.S. entered in the war in OTL, it was NOT before the war began in September, 1939.

Had there been NO WAR, it is quite possible that the Congress would have balked at producing ever larger and
larger bombers to fight a war against non-existent enemies.

Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: War doesn't break out for five-six years. Who's in the best shape?

#115

Post by T. A. Gardner » 12 Jan 2021, 06:12

paulrward wrote:
11 Jan 2021, 18:51

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.
I played those back in the day. Might have a copy or two stashed somewhere as well.

I will say my view of SPI is somewhat different. They were about cranking out new titles as fast as possible. They had to have a new game every month for their magazine, and were publishing separate titles as well. I know War in the East was exceptionally unrealistic in design almost to the point it was a variant of Avalon Hill's classic
Afrika Korps.
That is, it was easy to game the system because of the huge flaws in it.
That said, GDW's second version of the Russian Front Fire in the East (and the second part Scorched Earth were much more accurate in both the OOB and how the game played out. You could replicate the opening offensive of that war if you knew what you were doing. Of course, I watched it played at numerous wargame conventions in the day and few actually did that right usually leading to a German loss.

Anyway, they'd be wrong on the time tables you give. Most new fighter planes went one of three ways:

The first is that it entered protracted development taking years, and usually ended up cancelled. This covers the bulk of new types in every nation. A great example of this is the German Bomber B program.

The second is where an existing type is heavily modified into an essentially new aircraft. Examples might be the Fw 190A into the Fw 190D or Ta 152, The P-51A into the B then the H, or the P-47N. The Spitfire Mk 22 is the same way. Completely new wing applied to a modified fuselage all of which bears little resemblance to the original. These usually run about a year in development.

The third is a totally new design. These take anywhere from 2 to 4 years to get to production. The Me 262 began development in 1939 and didn't reach service until 1944. Design of the Fw 190 started in 1937 and didn't reach production until the end of 1940. That's about 3 years. The Grumman F6F started design in June 1941 and first flew a year later. Almost six months later production started and it was another three months before an operational squadron (VF 9) was available. That's roughly 18 months.
The F4U prototype was ordered in May 1938 and the first plane didn't fly until May 1940. The first operational squadron (VMF 124) was ready in September 1942. That's two-and-a-half years from the first prototype flying.

I think they made the same mistake with tank production. The Nibelungenwerk took nearly four years to officially open. The Detroit Tank Arsenal was dubbed the fastest built tank factory in the world at the time and it ran over a year getting into service. That can hardly be called the average. Tank plants built from scratch took anywhere from two to four years to get into production. In Australia, converting a locomotive plant to tank production for the Sentinel took over two years. Even then, many of the major components were imported like using US made engines.
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.
In this scenario that is unlikely to happen. Neither Britain nor France would be a pressed to modernize their military as rapidly. Even so, the Curtiss expansion is in part rushed because of the proximity of war, something not present in this scenario. I'd suggest they are building small numbers of P-40 aircraft to replace the existing P-36 that is then refurbished and offered for export to wherever.
CAMCO in China might be a recipient here. (quick reference)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_A ... ng_Company

Curtiss would still likely produce to a new contract various prototypes of the P-60 since that started development as a P-40 replacement in October 1940. The first model, the XP-60 is really just a cleaned up variant of a P-40E. Historically, Curtiss made a number of prototype variants of the P-60. Some were plagued by technical problems, but for the most part the plane failed to gain production status because by the time it was sorted out it offered nothing over existing production models in terms of performance.
Brewster on the other hand, is likely to go under as the company is badly mismanaged and has a really crappy factory location.
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.
This is correct. For the most part, the US made production miracles happen first because they spent the late 30's building infrastructure rather than finished products. That is, naval shipyards expanded capacity massively. New factories and facilities were built. So, when war finally came all the manufacturers had to do in many cases is hire additional shifts of workers, train them, and turn on the lights.
The US also had the massive advantage of easily being the world's leading country when it came to construction and civil engineering. The US was easily a decade or two ahead of the rest of the world here. They mechanized and powered construction like nobody else did at the time. Nobody was even close.
The US was definitely streets ahead streamlining production methods too. No other nation at the time could have built and gotten to work smoothly plants like Ford's Willow Run or Boeing Wichita.



While obviously to a degree propaganda, this video on Chrysler producing the 40mm Bofors shows how the US retooled a design for mass production.
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........ )
Battleships going back to 1915 were in service in 1941. Many of those would still be in use in 1945 in this scenario (at least back to the New Mexico class I'd postulate). The oldest going back to about 1912 or so like Arkansas would definitely have been retired, probably to mothballs since there'd be no treaty requiring their scrapping.
I could still see two N Carolina class, followed by two S. Dakota class, then two Iowa class being in the pipeline here. All the older battleships would get rebuilt just as the Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico class were. They might even look like the late war Tennessee or West Virginia did by 1945.
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 ).
Lexington and Saratoga would have gotten major rebuilds. The Ranger probably would end up being a training carrier rather than one in the active fleet. The Essex class is still going to come into service. As to retiring any of these, that I would think depends on what naval developments take place in Japan and Germany. If the Japanese continue to build larger carriers like a follow-on class to the Zuikaku type, then the US is likely to keep pace, or outpace them. Germany with one or two carriers in service would warrant similar retention for the Atlantic fleet.
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.
That's not likely on its own to set back production. Besides, the norm, even in peacetime for the USAAF is to have at least two competing designs so maybe the B-32 Dominator wins this time.
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.
Absolutely not true. The article Rocket Development by Capt. R C Truax, USN in USNI Proceedings Sept 1964 clearly shows that Goddard alongside Navy officers and personnel was contracted in late 1941 (pre-Pearl Harbor) to assist in developing JATO rocket units to launch heavily loaded aircraft. While the project in this timeline would remain small, it would still exist and it is likely Goddard might still be involved.
Truax didn't "bypass Goddard." Goddard by 1943 was suffering from terminal tuberculosis and was hospitalized developing cancer on top of that.
The Navy rocket program, like the US Army one grew rapidly because of the war. Here, it would remain a small program with limited funding intended mostly for experimental purposes.
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.
I think the US would do otherwise. As the depression ended, and it would, the country would begin to spend a bit more on defense, but not so much on end products as on infrastructure and R&D. The US Navy would be an exception in that the fleet would expand to counter those of other nations deemed a threat to the US. Even Congress recognized you can't build a fleet in a year, it takes long-term commitment.
Funding 6 to 8 new battleships and 3 to 6 carriers over 6 or 7 years, along with modernization of existing ships seems very reasonable as targets to me. Congress wasn't going to let Japan have naval superiority, that's abundantly clear. Germany would be considered a lessor threat but one nonetheless that couldn't be totally ignored.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6349
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: War doesn't break out for five-six years. Who's in the best shape?

#116

Post by Richard Anderson » 12 Jan 2021, 07:30

T. A. Gardner wrote:
12 Jan 2021, 06:12
paulrward wrote:
11 Jan 2021, 18:51
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.
I played those back in the day. Might have a copy or two stashed somewhere as well.
You might want to explore whether or not the history is being recounted correctly before you start accepting nonsense about all the research SPI did. SPI's "research staff" essentially consisted of Jim Dunnigan. Fun games, but if the above paragraph was a product of "SPI research", then bad history.

The "United States" did not decide to build a new Medium Tank in May 1940. The manufacture of the Medium Tank M2A1 was approved 26 May 1939, not 1940. In May 1940, "events in Europe spurred Congress into approving various measures to begin mobilization of the moribund U.S. military. Congress enacted two supplemental national defense appropriations on 26 June and 9 September, placing almost $1.25 billion at the disposal of the War Department, more than a hundred-fold increase over the average appropriation of the 1930s and a ten-fold increase over the previous year. On 30 June, Congress enacted the National Munitions Program. Among other authorizations, it approved the manufacture of 1,741 M2A1 Medium Tanks, with a scheduled project completion by 31 December 1941. The War Department let the initial contracts to American Locomotive Company (ALCO) of Schenectady, New York, and Baldwin Locomotive Works of Eddystone, Pennsylvania in July. Congress also authorized $12,045,628 for Ordnance Department research and development for fiscal 1941, more than six times the amount authorized the previous year and nearly half the total authorized from 1921 through 1938." The "new tank", the Medium Tank M3, was decided on 13 June 1940.

William Knudsen was past president of GM, but was no longer in May 1940. In early May 1940, FDR appointed him a member of the National Defense Advisory Commission. He had zero authority to "hand" anything to Chrysler. The actual history of the founding of the DTA is quite a bit more complex.

In June, Knudsen "began arguing that automobile manufacturers also had the capability of producing tanks (in Germany Daimler-Benz was already proving this was true). Knudsen was a new appointment to a new commission. The Council of National Defense was originally established in World War I to “coordinate industries and resources for the national security and welfare”, but had been effectively defunct due to lack of funding since 1921. President Roosevelt reestablished the Council in early May and a new Advisory Commission, including Knudsen as head of the Production Division, was named 29 May. The Council and its Commission had a very short bureaucratic life as President Roosevelt struggled to prepare the country for war. On 7 January 1941, they were subsumed into the Office of Emergency Management by an administrative order of the President.

Knudsen called Kaufman T. “K. T.” Keller, president of the Chrysler Corporation on 17 June and asked if Chrysler could build tanks. Keller, coincidentally, already had discussed the idea with Chrysler’s board of directors and they had concluded Chrysler should accept any defense work they could, so the answer was yes"

Ground for the DTA was broken 9 September 1940. The first Medium Tank M3 pilot was completed at Rock Island Arsenal, not DTA, on 13 March 1941. The first DTA M3 pilot was completed in late March, but then disassembled as a test of the assembly procedure. The first official DTA M3 was completed 11 April 1941. Serial production began in July 1941 with 7 completed and accepted. I'm not sure what "full swing" is, but peak production of the Medium Tank M3 at DTA was June 1942, when 424 were completed, along with 33 M3A4.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

EwenS
Member
Posts: 446
Joined: 04 May 2020, 12:37
Location: Scotland

Re: War doesn't break out for five-six years. Who's in the best shape?

#117

Post by EwenS » 12 Jan 2021, 14:34

Here are details of US shipbuilding programme as it stood historically in Feb 1941.
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16618978

Note the column for date of completion as per contract or order. This is when the USN could expect to get its ships before major speeding up with the approach of war. Most of the 1940 orders were not scheduled to complete until 1943 or later, stretching out to 1946 at peace time production rates. Compare those production rates with the eventual completion dates of those ships and you can begin to see how WW2 galvanised US industry.

In particular with regard to the carriers note that after Hornet due for completion in 1942, nothing else could be expected until April 1944 when Essex was due to be delivered followed by another 3 that year. Even by Dec 1941 a similar report only shows 3 months cut from the schedule. Also without WW2 and the experience of Britain, does the USN even plan for 11 Essex class in 1940 or does it restrict itself to the 3 ships ordered in Feb/May and defer the other 8 ordered in Sept?

So if there is no war in this ATL, there are surely far fewer orders in 1940 and a much smaller USN in the short term. So when does the USN place the orders for the ships it needs to fight delayed WW2. Is the effect simply to move orders, production etc to the right in the timeline?

Another thought. Without WW2, the limitations imposed by Second London Naval Treaty continue beyond Sept 1939 (but for how long?) even without Japan as a signatory. Yes the “escalator clause” will apply to the battleships allowing 16” guns, but carrier size is capped at 23,000 tons (no Essex class) but numbers unlimited, cruisers limited to 8,000 tons (no Baltimore and Cleveland classes). So the 1940 USN build programme looks entirely different with smaller carriers and cruisers and no large cruisers of the Alaska class even thought about.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech ... y_1936.php

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: War doesn't break out for five-six years. Who's in the best shape?

#118

Post by Gooner1 » 12 Jan 2021, 16:19

John T wrote:
11 Jan 2021, 19:49
The saying is you wouldn't get a baby in one month by making nine women pregnant.
What kind of developments could just slow-cook or be part of pure commercial competition?
Rolls Royce were developing the jet engine without financial assistance before the war began and had appointed one of the fathers of the jet engine, AA Griffiths, to a post with "wholly unrestricted commission and with wide facilties for his own line of development".
Not sure there were too many other firms with the finances and know-how to develop jet engines at this point. Power Jets ltd, Frank Whittle's concern, had started with just private backers but by the end of 1939 were relying on Air Ministry assistance.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: War doesn't break out for five-six years. Who's in the best shape?

#119

Post by T. A. Gardner » 12 Jan 2021, 19:21

Gooner1 wrote:
12 Jan 2021, 16:19
Rolls Royce were developing the jet engine without financial assistance before the war began and had appointed one of the fathers of the jet engine, AA Griffiths, to a post with "wholly unrestricted commission and with wide facilties for his own line of development".
Not sure there were too many other firms with the finances and know-how to develop jet engines at this point. Power Jets ltd, Frank Whittle's concern, had started with just private backers but by the end of 1939 were relying on Air Ministry assistance.
Actually, RR was a late comer to jet engines. Alan Arnold Griffith was a competitor of Whittle's in many ways. Griffith thought Whittle's centrifugal engine wouldn't work at all and focused his own work on an axial compressor-type engine. In 1937 he started discussions with Metropolitan-Vickers, Vickers' steam turbine division in Manchester on developing a counterrotating axial jet engine.
In 1939 he, his partner Hayne Constant and a team of engineers from Metrovick led by David Smith to develop the F1. This was to be an axial flow turboprop engine, not a pure jet engine.
When Whittle's competing WU engine and W1 flew in the Gloster E28/39, the Metrovick team dropped the F1 and concentrated on the F2 that became the Freda and was first test flown in 1943.
In 1939, none of this was really being supported by the Air Ministry. Instead, large steam turbine makers were generally backing the development as they were the ones that could best see the potential for a gas turbine.
Griffith's big contribution to early jet engine development was recognizing that compressor blade profiles had to be aerodynamic shapes, not flat blades as in many steam turbines in his published paper An Aerodynamic Theory of Turbine Design in 1929.
RR got involved in all of this when Rover failed to bring to production the Whittle engine after several years of dithering and diddling around with the design. RR got production going right away and has stayed in the jet engine business ever since. I think their management saw it was the next big thing in aircraft engines, a staple of their business.

paulrward
Member
Posts: 665
Joined: 10 Dec 2008, 21:14

Re: War doesn't break out for five-six years. Who's in the best shape?

#120

Post by paulrward » 12 Jan 2021, 22:44

Hello All :

Ah, the certainty of the misinformed......


Mr. Anderson wrote :

[quote]William Knudsen was past president of GM, but was no longer in May 1940. In early
May 1940,
FDR appointed him a member of the National Defense Advisory Commission. He
had zero authority to "hand" anything to Chrysler. The actual history of the founding of the
DTA is quite a bit more complex.[/quote]

In reality, on Sunday, May 26, 1940, Freewheelin' Franklin gave his famous ' FireSide Chat ' on the subject
of National Defense. The next Morning, Monday, May 27th, 1940, William ' Big Bill ' Knudsen was sitting at
his desk in the office of the President of GM, when his secretary informed him that President Roosevelt was
on the line. The two men spoke, and Roosevelt asked Knudsen to work with him on a War Production
Program. Over the next two weeks, the two men hammered out a plan, and Knudsen was appointed to
the the series of Boards and Commisions which eventually became the Office of Emergency Management,
where Knudsen worked through the war for the princely sum of........ ONE DOLLAR A YEAR. That's right-
Big Bill was a ' Dollar a Year Man ', and under his leadership, the United States overcame a late start and
became the manufacturing powerhouse that defeated the Axis.

So, to correct our house historian, Knudsen was president of GM until at least May 27th, 1940. Then,
he went to work for the Government. For One Dollar a Year.


You might want to explore whether or not the history is being recounted correctly
before you start accepting nonsense about all the research SPI did. SPI's "research staff"
essentially consisted of Jim Dunnigan.

At various times, researchers who contributed to SPI Games and their Publications, such at MOVES
and STRATEGY AND TACTICS , included ( and this in only a list of people who I met and whose
names I can recall after some 40 years ) were such individuals as Jim Dunnigan, Hank Zucker,
John Young, Joseph Balkowski, Angel Gomez , John Hill, Kip Allen , Richard Berg, Greg Costikyan,
Robert Felice, Hal Vaughn, Dave Isby, Al Nofi, Phil Orbanes, Ed Curran, Bill Sullivan,

Al Nofi is currently my mortal enemy, because he wrote an EXCELLENT work on the USN Fleet
Problems carried out during the interwar period, a subject that I was researching for my own
book ! And, the S.O.B. wrote a better book than I ever could have. I hate him !

The book is called, " To Train the Fleet for War"

Just out of idle curiosity, how many people are currently working for The Dupuy Institute ? Two ?
Or has it dropped to just one...... ?

The "United States" did not decide to build a new Medium Tank in May 1940.
The manufacture of the Medium Tank M2A1.....
While discussions were going on between Roosevelt and Knudsen, it was decided that the number
of medium tanks needed by the U.S.Army had to be increased from 400 over the following 18 months
to 2000 over the same period. Knudsen contacted Keller, and the plans for the Detroit Tank Arsenal
were hashed out over the next few weeks, with Chrysler receiving an order for 1000 tanks ( M2A1s )
on August 13, 1940. This order was cancelled less than two weeks later, and the new tank, the M3,
was substituted. Construction of the DTA commenced in September, 1940, the first prototype
M3 tanks were completed in April 1941, and the DTA plant, along with the two other plants contracted
to produce the M3, was in full production mode by the end of August, 1941. ( This DOES NOT MEAN
that PEAK PRODUCTION had been achieved in August, 1941, only that the production lines had begun
producing M3 Tanks for military use by that date. )

So, at the end of May, 1940, Roosevelt contacts Knudsen, and within 15 months, a new factory had
been built, two others converted, a new tank,( the M3 ) had been designed, and it had gone into
large scale production. Just like the Production Pinwheel in the old SPI Wargame would have
predicted. Hmmmmmmm......


One of the funniest moments that took place during a First Gulf War came when James Dunnigan and
several other former SPI employees were part of a panel on NBC - Dunnigan surprised and confused
the NBC host by proclaiming it as " The SPI Former Employees ReUnion Party " , and displayed a copy
of the Wargame SPI had developed in the early 70s called .... Oil War...


Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward


Oil War.jpg
oil war
Oil War.jpg (61.14 KiB) Viewed 413 times
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !

Post Reply

Return to “What if”