Another interesting point (for the aircraft guys, at least) is that, in 1940, the USAAC was still planning to use water-based temporary camouflage. See pictures of P-35s and other aircraft during the 1940 wargames for interesting examples. Olive drab over neutral gray came along as standard camouflage in mid-1941. Until then, combat aircraft were bare metal with the expectation of being painted in water colors as needed. So, if America went to war in 1940, what would her fighters and bombers worn to the dance? Wide open to interpretation!
I wonder how quickly the force of war would force the evolution of the A-17 and/or BT-1 toward the SBD and beyond? The basics are all there, just need bringing out.
Odd thought: Depending on when the US joined the war, would Jack Northrop leave his company co-owned by Douglas, which became the El Segundo Division of Douglas, to start one that was all his, or would he stay with that company?
My be when the Brits went to the US with their list of equipment they wanted the US to manufacture, the desperation of equipping a rapidly expanding military could have seen them licence produce much more UK equipment as they no longer had the time to perfect their own solutions. On though that comes to mind is US mass produces the M-2 Medium but then replaces it with a licence built, evolved Matilda medium tank with a GM diesel and a 6pdr / 57mm in a Churchill like turret, instead of the M-3, eventually replacing it with something like the M-4, but different, based on the Matilda experience.
Yeah, "Hey guys instead of building your own crap why don't you build our crap". ;D ;D
The switch to permanent camouflage of Olive Drab over Neutral Gray happened in 1940,
the scheme had been decided on early in the year and as of March Hap Arnold had already
negotiated with Curtiss the delivery of P-40s in the new scheme, ditto Douglas A-20As.
The French took delivery of their first DB-7s in 1939.
Brian:
Would you accept an impressed Northrop Gamma 2A? The modified design would fall between the original Gamma 2A and YA-13.
([url]https://i2.wp.com/hangar47.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Gamma-1.jpg?ssl=1[/url])
([url]https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/5941491608_061fbc3999_o-jpg.492982/[/url])
Honestly, the whole thing is just an excuse to model really cool late-30s planes in combat.
Late-30s planes in combat basically describes the first three years of the war, hell the Germans
and Brits were still using primarily late '30s designs in 1945.
;D
So, how about a WWII version of the Zimmerman Telegram that entices Mexico into the Axis and therefore pulls the US into the war with a much closer to home threat to deal with?Reminds me an AU novel, Operation Shatterhand by Jake Page that ends with the indians in the American Southwest suddenly acquiring a lot of "slightly used" German hardware after the defeat of the German attack.
Large shipments of "agricultural machinery" from Germany puts Panzers on the Rio Grande? Desert warfare in the American southwest? Naval battles in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico?
| YEAR | ARMY | NAVY | MARINES | COAST GUARD | TOTAL | |
| 1940 | 269,023 | 160,997 | 28,345 | 458,365 | ||
| 1941 | 1,462,315 | 284,427 | 54,359 | 1,801,101 | ||
| 1942 | 3,075,608 | 640,570 | 142,613 | 56,716 | 3,915,507 | - included to give feel for expansion post war entry, though the US entering voluntarily rather than post attack might not witness this sort of rapid expansion |
The main tank was the M2 light tank (in the M2A2 or M2A3 versions with .50 machine gun, not the later M2A4 with 37mm gun) along with the similar sized M1 Combat Car:In OTL, M3 Lee went to production in July 1941 and M4 Sherman in February 1942 (prototypes were ready in March and September 1941 respectively), so considering that M3 and M4 programs would have been rushed in case of a 1940 war M2A4 would have been an extremely short-lived interim type even if it had been rushed in turn.
That said, one could possible see a rapid development of the M2A4 version though I doubt one would see a significant number in service until 1941 at the earliest.
B-17: In the real world the USAAC received 39 B-17Bs in 1939–40, 18 B-17Cs in 1940, and 42 B-17Ds in the first quarter of 1941. Even if one therefore pushed the 1941 delivered into 1940 (not a definite thing because there would be a need for factory capacity), one might see some 57 - 100 odd available in 1940;B-18, A-17 and P-35 would have been obsolete in the European front already.
B-18 Bolo: Some 350 in service;
A-17: Some 400 in service;
DC-2/3 (as C-32/C-39): Approx 24 in service;
P-35: Some 100 odd in service;
P-36: The main fighter in terms of numbers with some 200 in service;
P-38: Only just entering service;
P-39: An initial order for 80 aircraft had been placed in only August 1939 so would have just been entering service; and
P-40: Only just entering service.
The USN was probably the best equipped though as to what this may have offered in 1940 for a largely European continental war is debatable.As long as they stayed on the sea, they were pretty modern, but trying to eg. support battles over France from the sea or trying to fashion a troop landing would have been a recipe for disaster. Against land-based opponents, F2F and F3F would have been obsolete (cf. the horrific losses Gladiator units suffered over the continent), Vindicator and Devastator were almost there too (remembering how Battles fared). Then again, Swordfish (admittedly, it was not used ashore).
Grumman F2F: Would have been exiting service but still an option if needed;
Grumman F3F: The main fighter in service but only with about 140 odd in service at the time;
Brewster F2A Buffalo: Probably the best (potential) type available at the time with some 11 F2A-1s and 43 F2A-2s available to the USN/USMC;
Grumman F4F-3: Maybe available but only if rushed into service;
Vought SB2U Vindicator: maybe some 150 in service; and
Douglas TBD Devastator: some 130 in service.
Don’t forget about the M2 medium tank, produced from 1939-1940. Never used in World War 2, but with an early entry …..
If I can get the right models in time, I am going to scratch one together.
Two types I forgot to include though which would have been still available in 1940:
Boeing P-26
Martin B-10
I wonder how much influence the British Purchasing Commission had made during that two years. Quite a few of the 'old' war story books I have always have some mention about the BPC, in Fly For Your Life (which is about Bob Tuck's exploits) there's quite a bit about his time in the USA during that period.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/07/68/92/076892b136d08264c5abd1286e873f4d.jpg)
The state of the US military at that stage vs the size of it only a few years later is quite telling. By 1945 the numbers were:
ARMY USN USMC COAST GUARD TOTAL
8,267,958 3,380,817 474,680 85,783 12,209,238
That reflects a bit over a 3550% increase!!!
Evan, I see you read Operation Shatterhand also I think that makes you, me, and the author's mother. Now, what happens with an early entry into WWII? No Pearl Harbor, and no gotcha opportunity for the carrier admirals. The Iowa and Wisconsin are completed, but the New Jersey goes with 18 inch guns. The drydock spots for the Missouri, Illinois, and Kentucky are used to begin construction of the first three Montanas, also with18 inch guns. ( The US Navy had some knowledge of the Yamatos, and they were very concerned). Regarding armor, as of January 1940 the M2 light and medium tanks were not all that out of line with contemporary west European or Japanese armor.
An early entry would likely have had to opposite effect with either the North Carolinas or the South Dakotas being standardised, i.e. likely no Iowas and definitely no Montanas, likely also no Essex or Midways, just repeat Yorktowns. The Standardised destroyer likely would have been the Benson not the Fletcher and there likely would have been no Sumners or Gearings. Same with the Cruisers, forget the Baltimores and Cleavlands, think Wichitas etc.What gave the US an unique advantage is that it had vastly more production capacity than the UK, so it could add production for newer types without disturbing the production of existing types. Sure, in cases where something was perhaps not the best but adequate (as the 75mm gun on Shermans in OTL really was, considering the small numbers of Tigers actually encountered) production and logistics would not have been risked for minor improvements only, but if something were totally inadequate for its job (as the 2pdr was) it would be replaced at earliest opportunity. Even better if the new entry is produced by another company than the one making the existing product.
I strongly suspect the adoption M-1 Garand and M-1 Carbine may well have been delayed or even cancelled, while the Sherman would probably have been more like a Ram than it turned out in reality. The only positive is it is likely combat experience, as opposed to interpreting the experience of others, may have resulted in the Tank Destroyer Doctrine never being adopted and the number of organic AT within regiments and divisions being increased, also likely the number of independent tank battalions supporting the Infantry divisions.
Sadly, no Mustang, or B-29 for that matter, likely no B-26 or A-26. The war would have been fought with what was available and while new gear was developed it would have taken longer to get into service, because the existing designs would have filled the production capacity coming on line. Just look at the UK and the 2pdr for example, its replacement had been designed and accepted but desperation meant production couldn't be switched over as something was better than nothing.
An early entry would likely have had to opposite effect with either the North Carolinas or the South Dakotas being standardised, i.e. likely no Iowas and definitely no Montanas, likely also no Essex or Midways, just repeat Yorktowns. The Standardised destroyer likely would have been the Benson not the Fletcher and there likely would have been no Sumners or Gearings. Same with the Cruisers, forget the Baltimores and Cleavlands, think Wichitas etc.What gave the US an unique advantage is that it had vastly more production capacity than the UK, so it could add production for newer types without disturbing the production of existing types. Sure, in cases where something was perhaps not the best but adequate (as the 75mm gun on Shermans in OTL really was, considering the small numbers of Tigers actually encountered) production and logistics would not have been risked for minor improvements only, but if something were totally inadequate for its job (as the 2pdr was) it would be replaced at earliest opportunity. Even better if the new entry is produced by another company than the one making the existing product.
I strongly suspect the adoption M-1 Garand and M-1 Carbine may well have been delayed or even cancelled, while the Sherman would probably have been more like a Ram than it turned out in reality. The only positive is it is likely combat experience, as opposed to interpreting the experience of others, may have resulted in the Tank Destroyer Doctrine never being adopted and the number of organic AT within regiments and divisions being increased, also likely the number of independent tank battalions supporting the Infantry divisions.
Sadly, no Mustang, or B-29 for that matter, likely no B-26 or A-26. The war would have been fought with what was available and while new gear was developed it would have taken longer to get into service, because the existing designs would have filled the production capacity coming on line. Just look at the UK and the 2pdr for example, its replacement had been designed and accepted but desperation meant production couldn't be switched over as something was better than nothing.
M1 Carbine would probably be skipped, sure, but M1 Garand was already in mass production since 1937. Having those production lines back-converted to produce M1903 Springfields would have been more difficult than simply opening new 1903 production lines with old tooling to supplement the Garand (as was actually done in OTL), never mind that throwing away thousands of perfectly useful rifles would have been stupid. What this means is simply that second-line troops would use either Springfield or SMG's.
A-26 might be in peril, I'll give you that, but I disagree on B-26 and B-29. B-18 production line had been closed already and it was obsolete, so the US would have needed a medium bomber and B-25 and B-26 were already in development for that exact specification. True, Martin would have probably put out more of its Maryland & Baltimore lights before starting B-26 production, but they were not really going to cut it in the long run.
B-29 was also a necessity, as B-17 and B-24 simply did not have the range to bomb Japan (at least not with any sort of useful payload) from available bases. It was certainly not a finished article in OTL either but was pressed into service anyway, eating away production capacity from the true and tested B-17. The latter one was kept in production too, because it was adequate choice for ETO (and more cost effective at that).
War on Terror is an extremely poor comparison to just about any full-scale war. If the OPFOR is assumed to be a few thousand paramilitaries with AK's (who only during the last couple of years have gotten tech-savvy) then of course stealth helicopters and railgun-toting destroyers are not needed to defeat them, especially as the economy is still in peacetime footing and there is no massive mobilization of troops for large-scale war. Looking back into 2001, with Russia still in shambles and China only catching up the pace (and being still mostly a regional power in Asia and also challenged by Russia) there was no need for a Cold War style buildup either and the money saved from acquisitions could be used for increased operational costs.
US entering WW2 in 1939-40 means that its opponents - industrial nations instead of guerillas - are in many fields ahead of it in military technology and fielding massive conscription armies. What will follow is the mobilization of entire industry and full scale consription. The needs and resources (read: budget) available could not be more different.
If anything, WW2 meant that development of new equipment was accelerated and while in the short term production of existing equipment was prioritized, once the needs outweighed the benefits of undisturbed logistics, new equipment was pressed into service even though it was only half-ready in many cases.
Its a simple fact, when wars start you go with what you have, you produce what is ready and any new equipment is driven by operational need and how quickly it will be available.
War is just about the biggest disrupter you can get, it doesn't make things better easier or quicker, it actually derails lots of things and makes them harder, less efficient and often results in failure.
The state of the US military at that stage vs the size of it only a few years later is quite telling. By 1945 the numbers were:
ARMY USN USMC COAST GUARD TOTAL
8,267,958 3,380,817 474,680 85,783 12,209,238
That reflects a bit over a 3550% increase!!!
if they had joined two years earlier the Iowas would have gone the way of the Montanas and the RNs Lions.
The war on terror is the perfect example, true it wasn't a fight for survival, it was a counter insurgency writ large, but it still resulted in programs with billions of sunk investment being cancelled and huge sums of money being diverted to what was needed for the war at hand. This is exactly the point I have been making from the start, when the shooting starts, anything that will not be ready in time, or is seen as unnecessary for the current conflict, will be cancelled or put on the back burner. This is very different to accelerating stuff that is needed, or developing stuff resulting from lessons learned and responding to tactical / strategic needs, which is what you are talking about. Lots of out of the box stuff is considered, but except for real times of desperation, rarely results in anything, rather its evolution of existing, or occasionally, if their is spare capacity, something exceptional may get up, again very, very rare.
Reading all of the discussion here, I come back to this line of thinking: Without a direct threat to the US homeland, what does it matter if the US enters the war earlier? Manpower, industry, resources are the same as RW, right? US farming ramps up to feed armies. US industry ramps up to clothe and equip armies. US population mobilizes to expand the military while also manning the assembly lines. It's unlikely the US goes straight onto the offensive in either Europe or the Pacific, instead using whatever time it has to train, equip and plan, though maybe relying on Allied advisors for foundational doctrine?
One other thing an earlier US entry doesn't mean that Japan would have joined in,
they weren't ready in 1939-40 and they knew it.
Another point: The GB doesn't state WHEN the early entry is. Most people seem to be assuming 1 Sep 1939, or shortly thereafter, but it could be any time prior to 7 December 1941.
So, what if the US didn't enter the war until mid-1940, or even mid-1941? Many of the weapons used to win the war were under development in that era but hadn't had all the rough edges knocked of, yet. Entry into the war may have seen some expansion of manufacturing of older tech to boost initial numbers & for training purposes, military forces don't expand 3500% overnight, but, as in the RW, much would have been dedicated to developing & producing new equipment.
Britain's biggest issue post-Dunkerque (apart from the fact that most of the men it lost in France were professional soldiers, the ones needed to train new recruits) was the massive loss of materiel which needed to be replaced post-haste. This was why the British couldn't afford to change over to new equipment. Until then many of its factories had been tooling up to produce new & better weapons & equipment but had to delay that process to replace the stuff lost in France.
In what scenario could that have happened to the US military?
As I see it, an early US entry into WW2 means you'd see more older stuff involved in initial actions but be quickly replaced by newer, if somewhat different, equipment within the first 12 months, which would equip the newly trained armed forces. Also, with the US industrial base directly supporting it, I think you'd see the British introducing new & better weapons earlier. For example, if the US supplied the British with 37mm guns to replace the 2-pounders lost in France without having to even try to appear neutral, British gun manufacturers could have focused on introducing the 6-pounder earlier & developing tanks to use it.
At sea the Italians & Japanese had a decent number of new battleships but the biggest threat was still land-based air-power & the ol' battlewagon wasn't designed to cope with that. Aircraft carriers & AA cruisers were, so I think that would have been the biggest focus for naval development & production. The big boys would still have been built as the big-arsed floating artillery they became it the RW.
However, that is all moot because the GB is about the early entry of the US into WW2 & what equipment it would have started with, which is where I think our discussions should be focusing.
Well, it seems more reasonable than Brian da Basher having the Japanese Navy launching a sneak attack on Tuscon.
Making some progress Brian.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48894625942_03db9923a0_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2huDJQ7)
Gamma-01 (https://flic.kr/p/2huDJQ7) by Big Gimper (https://www.flickr.com/photos/21812089@N02/), on Flickr
How about the IJN slipping into the Gulf of California and launching raids on the southern portion of the Southwest United States? I'm not sure if US relations with Mexico would allow them to slip in and out undiscovered or not, but I suspect money into the right hands (with or without Germany's assistance) would definitely assist that.
Ironically, I'm in the midst of something non-spatted
RE: Robomog's P-26 to the RAF idea (see 3D Entries below) - no less likely (and perhaps more effective) what about a squadron of PB-2As to the RAF instead/also? There were about thirty fairly low-time aircraft available in the fall of 1939 that the USAAC was in the process of replacing as first-line fighters. And there are kits available. A PB-2A in the Middle East would be pretty interesting!As a twist on that, perhaps offered with a productionized version of the Allison V1710 installation fitted on the XA-11A trials aircraft for the USAAC by Bell?
RE: Robomog's P-26 to the RAF idea (see 3D Entries below) - no less likely (and perhaps more effective) what about a squadron of PB-2As to the RAF instead/also? There were about thirty fairly low-time aircraft available in the fall of 1939 that the USAAC was in the process of replacing as first-line fighters. And there are kits available. A PB-2A in the Middle East would be pretty interesting!As a twist on that, perhaps offered with a productionized version of the Allison V1710 installation fitted on the XA-11A trials aircraft for the USAAC by Bell?
Does anyone make a Northrop N9m or N1? Maybe you could scale-o-rama 48th to 72nd or 72-144th and have it be a medium/torpedo bomber?
Sword also makes one in 1/72.
In 1937 the Navy decided to standardize markings across the fleet. Each aircraft
carrier was assigned a color that their aircraft would paint on their horizontal and
vertical stabilizers.
These colors were:
CV-1 Langley - Converted to AV-3 before orders took effect
CV-2 Lexington - Lemon Yellow
CV-3 Saratoga - White
CV-4 Ranger - Willow Green
CV-5 Yorktown - Insignia Red
CV-6 Enterprise - True Blue
CV-7 Wasp - Black
The below image illustrates the appearance of a CV-3 Saratoga (White tail) squadron at this time
with the identifying tail, squadron, and section markings.
Would there be a chance of the USAAC using the Buffaloes in the same way they had the SBD??
... early Spitfires and Hurricanes built in US with the Packard Merlin coming on-line earlier.
... early Spitfires and Hurricanes built in US with the Packard Merlin coming on-line earlier.
Or US-produced Spitfires or Hurricanes with Allison engines?
[url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1112.msg13412#msg13412[/url] ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1112.msg13412#msg13412[/url])
The other side of the coin could be Secretary of Defence Lindberg arranges a deal for German designs to be built in USA? Probably the wrong thread sorry
Out of interest, who says that the USA has to enter on the side of Britain and France? Maybe they enter on the side of Germany... ;)
Out of interest, who says that the USA has to enter on the side of Britain and France? Maybe they enter on the side of Germany... ;)
Sometime ago I had read that when the USA gained it's independence, they had a vote to establish what language would be their national one. English was voted for, but it only won by one vote over ----- German. (how true that is I don't know)
But I wonder what might have happened if that vote had gone the other way ---- today's history could be vastly different.
Urban Legend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhlenberg_legend - note the key take away here too: The United States has no statutory official language, be that English, Spanish, Klingon or otherwise...something some people seem to forget at times.
The other side of the coin could be Secretary of Defence Lindberg arranges a deal for German designs to be built in USA? Probably the wrong thread sorry
The other side of the coin could be Secretary of Defence Lindberg arranges a deal for German designs to be built in USA? Probably the wrong thread sorry
Aside from the position of Secretary of Defense not existing, the position was created in 1947,
Lindbergh would be an unlikely choice for either the Secretary of War - head of the War Dept.,
or Secretary of the Navy in that period. In 1947 the War Dept. was split into Dept. of the Army
and Dept. of the Air Force joining the Dept. of the Navy in the new DoD under the new position
of Secretary of Defense.
As Lindbergh was opposed to US involvement arranging the construction of German designs
would be equally unlikely.IMO it is conceivable that an earlier involvement of USA in WWII justified a serious development of programs like P-66 Vanguard, that eventually will lead to a powerful Super Vanguard. What do you think? :D
[url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8181.msg146068#msg146068[/url] ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8181.msg146068#msg146068[/url])
That sounds reasonable - would the early P-40s come into service faster as IIRC it was a development of the P-36? Or would a need for aircraft mean a longer production run of the P-36, on the basis of go with what you got? I have to admit I am a fan of the P-39.
At some point I might master computers
That works as long as you justify its development. I’m dubious about that designation: A-23 to A-28 or so seems much more likely. But, it’s your whiff, name it what you like.
Grumman Design 50, one of the studies that eventually led to the Hellcat.
Grumman Design 50, one of the studies that eventually led to the Hellcat.
Cool :smiley: So, as depicted here, the Design 50 was a fairly direct growth-development of the F4F-3? I'm assuming that the large belly fairing is an intake (not just an extended 'keel' for the main undercarriage)?
The original stab at an R-2600 engined F4F goes back to 1938, it was dropped and then returned to in 1940 which was when Design 50 was being worked on, the drawing is from the early days when they considered keeping commonality with the F4F, they decide it was better to go to an all new design. The belly appendage is most likely both an intake and fairing for an enlarged landing gear.
([url]https://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/WildcatAllison.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/WildcatAllison.jpg.html[/url])
IMHO Wildcat could be the king of this GB. Anyway I am in love with my own design ;) :P kind of onanism :-\
well, other than offering alternate engines and sources of them, they would introduce the US industry to a different technology, sleeve-valves, that could alter future piston engine developments - and not just aeronautical engines.
well, other than offering alternate engines and sources of them, they would introduce the US industry to a different technology, sleeve-valves, that could alter future piston engine developments - and not just aeronautical engines.
The first sleeve-valve engine was a US automobile engine, Knight-type engines were produced for many
years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_engine
Continental's first aero-engine, built in 1927, was a 9-cylinder sleeve-valve radial (a modified Wright), using
the Burt-McCollum Single-Sleeve Valve design (the same type as used by Bristol). They had purchased rights
to the system from the owners, Argyll Motors, in 1925.
Scottish engineer Archie Niven worked for Continental and he had 70 patents, most assigned to Continental, like
this one from 1927 for a 9-cylinder sleeve-valve radial:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US1937123A/en?oq=1%2c937%2c123
Continental XR-1740 14-cylinder sleeve valve, 1939.
(https://airandspace.si.edu/sites/default/files/styles/slideshow_xlg/public/images/collection-objects/record-images/NASM-A19710891000-NASM2014-05112.jpg)
1939
Boeing's Model 322. Great find. :smiley: Inspirational - Yes. Challenging kit-bash.In 1/72, I could see Academy's early B-17 plus an Airmodel conversion for the Model 307 Stratoliner as a good starting place if you wanted to keep that vertical tail; otherwise 'most any late-model 1/72 B-17 kit and the Airmodel conversion would do.
Would there be a chance of the USAAC using the Buffaloes in the same way they had the SBD??
Inspiration perhaps:
([url]http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/122/pics/3_9.jpg[/url])
Would it be reasonable for "Eagle Squadron" to be wing sized and have a bomber sqd using British aircraft, but with USAAC stars? I have a Whitley needing a good idea