U.S. Enters WWII Early (1940) GB Inspiration

[taiidantomcat]

Forgot all about the bright USN Yellow Wingers

[taiidantomcat]

Updated to show image

[Brian da Basher]

Those yellow wings are sweet, Mr GTX!

Cool find!
 
Brian da Basher

[jcf]

The order for the overall Non-Specular light gray scheme for USN aircraft was made
on 30 December, 1940, however if things had been hotting up earlier then the
date could slide back to earlier in the year. The instructions were evidently not very
clear so variations occurred, so it wouldn't be much of a stretch in this scenario to
have an overall NS light gray aircraft, instead of silver fuselage/underside of wings
and yellow upper surface of wing, but retaining the pre-war markings, squadron and
section colours etc.

http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Aircraft/YellowWings/index.html

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.

[Geoff]

Just a thought as the European countries were trying to buy US warplanes in 1940 and the Finns had to go for buffaloes as the Wildcats were not available in enough numbers due to orders from UK France Greece etc. Would there be a chance of the USAAC using the Buffaloes in the same way they had the SBD??

My other thought was early Spitfires and Hurricanes built in US with the Packard Merlin coming on-line earlier.

[GTX_Admin]

Would there be a chance of the USAAC using the Buffaloes in the same way they had the SBD??

Inspiration perhaps:

[Geoff]

Just what I had in mind. Also have one in the stash

My idea was the Belgian order was never fulfilled and all those a/c as few as there were went to the USAAC

[apophenia]

... early Spitfires and Hurricanes built in US with the Packard Merlin coming on-line earlier.

Or US-produced Spitfires or Hurricanes with Allison engines?
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1112.msg13412#msg13412

[Geoff]

... early Spitfires and Hurricanes built in US with the Packard Merlin coming on-line earlier.

Or US-produced Spitfires or Hurricanes with Allison engines?
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1112.msg13412#msg13412

Ooooohhh, yes!

[jcf]

Being a structural step-backward the Hurricane wouldn't make much sense for US production,
as the primary US airframe manufacturers had moved into semi-monocoque construction well
before the war.

[apophenia]

Too true. And 'Dutch' Kindelberger, at least, wasn't too impressed by Spitfire construction techniques, either.

So, maybe the US exports V-1710s to the UK for use in less critical airframe types to free up Merlins for fighters?

[Geoff]

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

[jcf]

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.

[ysi_maniac]

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?

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8181.msg146068#msg146068

[GTX_Admin]

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...

[kitnut617]

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.

[GTX_Admin]

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.

[Brian da Basher]

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.

Was sagst Dü?

Brian der Bäsher

[Geoff]

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

Yes I did know Lindberg was against involvement. I had not realised the position of Sec Def had not existed at that time. I think I based it on the novel "Fatherland" which was based in the 1960's, and an alt history by Harry turtledove where the USA sides with the Nazis because of the American civil war. The basis of what - if. As I said wrong thread  -  I'll get me coat.

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?

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8181.msg146068#msg146068

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

[Geoff]

Would an OA-39 ground attack/tank buster aircraft be ok in this GB? Thinking of a P-400 type but the 37mm would wreak a Panzer I or II, assuming the right ammo was available for it.

[Acree]

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.

[Geoff]

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.

Thanks. I suspect the justification might be a bit hard. But They have just seen AFVs role over eastern and western Europe; thats assuming a 1940 scenario. Perhaps a visionary sees the need to support ground forces against fast moving combined arms forces similar to what the Nazis were using, in the way bombers demonstrated their ability to sink unescorted ships just before WW2 (Doolittle?). The mid engine layout gives the room for the cannon without the trim problems. RAF used Hurricanes in this role a few years later. Like the idea of the A-23/8 designator

Dam just realised this has just been done by Brian de Basher - - - apologies all round - I"ll get me coat

[Crbad]

In the Harry Turtledove series, the US sides with Germany in WW1 & WW2. The Confederacy sides with fascist Britain and France. The Confederacy becomes the defacto Nazis.

[GTX_Admin]

Inspiration originally posted in ysi_maniac'd Curtiss P-60Y build for this GB (can't wait to see his build finished:

Another option to consider might be that an earlier entry into the war (including the presumed lead up) triggers an earlier deal to produce the Packard V-1650 Merlin.  In the real world an agreement was reached between Rolls-Royce and the Packard Motor Car Company in September 1940 to manufacture the Merlin under license, with the first Packard-built engine, designated V-1650-1, run in August 1941.  If the USA were to enter the war in Sep 1939, alongside the UK and France and others, perhaps a deal could have been done in late 1939, thus bringing the Packard Merlin forward by close to a year thus seeing the first engines run in late 1940.  This then could have the flow on effect of bringing something such as the P-40F (Kittyhawk Mk II) into service in late 1940 and maybe, just maybe, see them participate in the Battle of Britain.

[jcf]

Grumman Design 50, one of the studies that eventually led to the Hellcat.