From: Mordor Illlinois
And how many months do you think it would take of INTENSIVE training and delopement to make this work? It only took about 2 years for the Manhatten project. You already have the APS-7. Do you honestly think it would take 2 years to tweak the system to do what you want? I feel it could be done in 2 months just using local resources (as was done with Pappy Gunn's gunships).
All you needed was a man in charge who wanted it.
All the desire in the world would be misplaced until the capability existed though. If Lemay really, really, really wanted the A-bomb in February 1945, it wouldn't have mattered. It just plain wasn't ready, in spite of the mountain of money and resources directed towards it. It wasn't ready until it was ready.
However, something with less resource-consumptive than the Manhattan project could have been expedited if championed by someone that could 'get things done'. Lemay was such a man and could have expedited the novel technologies that he saw most befitting his style of warfare. To a point. Could this have been moved up several months? Yes. I think so. Would this have been available in 1942. No. It wasn't ready yet-not on anyone's drawing board even.
As an aside-I think of Christie's adamant opposition to the mark XIV magnetic exploder deactivation. Without him standing in the way of progress, the silent service would have had a much better 1942, sinking dozens (hundreds?) more vessels.
Where's that gray line then? Dunno. What do you think? Based upon your reading, when would an expedited (functional) version of Eagle been available in PTO? What's realistic?
Andre I'm not a science minded guy like you. My math ability is so poor why do you think I became a history major? But I did spend an entire Navy career as an OPERATOR. And if I learned nothing else , is the usefulness of a system , or weapon, is discovered AFTER development. The use of the APS-7 as a night attack RADAR seems to have occurred AFTER it got to the Pacific, not in states side development. The developers sent over a "so-so" BTO RADAR , and some local squadron guys said, "Hey, has anyone tried this at nightbombing?".
I keep pointing to Pappy Gunn for a reason. His gunship versions don't appear anywhere but the Pacific. Why? B-25's were used all over the world. But gunships were NOT used in Africa,Italy or northen Europe. Why do you suppose that is? One clue might be the designations. When an airframe has a major change , you change the letter AFTER the Designation. P-51a,P-51b< etc. When you make a minor major change , you add a number AFTER the letter. So let's say your gunships is a B-25D1. Hm....they don't appear anywhere else, and putting 8-50 cals., plus God knows what else , and eliminating 1-2 crew positions is a MAJOR airframe. But the USAAF considerd this a LOCAL mod, and as soon as said B-25D's went elsewhere , they ripped out the guns, put in the bombsight and bombardier and returned it to factory stock.
Tactic and local mods are entirely up to the local commander (or at least use to be). BUT the B-29 didn't belong to the local commander. It belonged to the Joint chiefs of staff.
Think of it in two simplified civil war analogies. The USA entered the war with new Springfield RIFLES. Yet used Musket tactics. Local commanders figured out that this was not necessarily a good thing , and some of them modified their tactics. Others did the same old crap till may of 1865.
Calvalry troops considered the sabre the prime weapon. Jeb Stuart kept them , but employed pistols as the primary weapon. Buford, got rid of the sabres , gave his men carbines, and fought them as Dismounted dragoons (at Gettysburg) in the same battle that Custer used them traditionally. My Point? Custer , strangely enough was the only one who followed official doctrine. And had the greatest losses. The Army didn't chage it manual till well after the war.
What I'm saying is that the military is a doctrine central beast. Changes occur because some local commader decides "this isn't working". On his own hook he goes off and tries something else. And tries it again. Then he goes to his boss and tells him , and prays that he backs him up. Then MAYBE the local commader will report up the chain of commad "hey this crap works"! Military thinking , unlike what (Rumsfeld and McNarra wanted) is generally evolutionary , seldom Revolutionary. And the troops figure out how best to use the new toys.
In my own community there used to be a trusium on finding subs. "Use whatever tactics you want (and everybody thinks that they are a tactical genius and has his own ideas....even E-1's) but the minute you screw up and lose contact, you damned well better have book in your hand and be seen using it"! (Because you don't want to face "the green table" (official inquiry) and say "I ignored the book and used my own tactics). In short, you can do whatever you want if it succeeds , but if you fail...... And lets be honest, almost all of the commanders were career professionals. That doesn't usually lead to risky career endangering experiments.
VP-92 sig banner