Why did the USAAF not stick to one model?

[DeZanic]

Hey

I have allready played a few month into the game and I am starting too realize that it is not an advantage to have so many different airplanes.

There is a torpedo bomber type. There is a fighter type. There is a dive bomber type. There is a recon type. There is a patrol type.

Why did the allies not just choose one multi-purpose design and make it usefull for all types of missions.

I would have chosen the P-51 and ordered all companies to manufacture it. This plane can easily be used as a fighter, dive-bomber, torpedo-bomber, and as a two seater maybe as a recon and patrol aircraft and made it with an arrester hooks so it could be used on carriers.

I know this has been implemented after the war to have one aircraft practically do any type of task. But why did the USAAF decide to go with so many different types and models of airplanes during WWII? Wouldnt have it been more convinient to have a single model, making it easy for spare parts, ammunition, fuel and pilot training?

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: DeZanic
I would have chosen the P-51 and ordered all companies to manufacture it. This plane can easily be used as a fighter, dive-bomber, torpedo-bomber, and as a two seater maybe as a recon and patrol aircraft and made it with an arrester hooks so it could be used on carriers.

By all means, no. You can´t. As soon as you go multi-role you need to make tradoffs, which essentially means the design gets worse with every additonal role it needs to fulfill. And this applies to WWII as well as nowerdays (just check on the issues the F-35 has, and how complicated it is to integrate all roles into its´ design).

There are some exceptional exceptions to that rule but they are rare, and even those come with a cost. Most airframes can, slightly modified, at least fulfull two roles without too many drawbacks, but even under the best circumstances there are drawbacks mission performance wise compared to a dedicated design.

[dr.hal]

At some point in time this has been tried with various weapons systems and as the old phrase goes "Jack of all trades, master at none". Given the fact that your opponent (for example the Japanese) created weapons systems designed to do really only ONE thing, such as air to air combat (Zero for example, although it did have a limited role as a fighter bomber) and you tried to put your "Jack of everything" aircraft up against it (such as the P-39) you would see your loss rate climb out of sight. McNamara was an excellent one for this type of thinking which lead to the Knox Class "FFs" or Fluf Flufs and the F-111.... All were a failure (we couldn't get rid of the FFs fast enough, the last one, the USS Moinester FF 1097, named after my neighbor, Robert, didn't serve very long before it was sold to Egypt).

[Big B]

While I absolutely agree to the two previous posts about multi-mission trade-offs degrading the best points of the aircraft, I also can't help but to believe that just plain old money & fat contracts (sharing the wealth) had a large part to do with it as well...

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Big B

While I absolutely agree to the two previous posts about multi-mission trade-offs degrading the best points of the aircraft, I also can't help but to believe that just plain old money & fat contracts (sharing the wealth) had a large part to do with it as well...

There is a great book on the development of war industry and economy that puts things in a slightly better light; Freedom's Forge by Arthur Herman. A great read. Sure, there was money involved, but companies often did switch their assembly lines as ordered and made what would most benefit the war effort. Designs weren't completely proprietary and lots of parts were farmed out to smaller firms to manufacture or develop.

ORIGINAL: DeZanic

Hey

I have allready played a few month into the game and I am starting too realize that it is not an advantage to have so many different airplanes.

There is a torpedo bomber type. There is a fighter type. There is a dive bomber type. There is a recon type. There is a patrol type.

Why did the allies not just choose one multi-purpose design and make it usefull for all types of missions.

One of the main issues to standardizing production was not only the airframes but engines. Certain airframes were designed around engines and those engines were held for those airframes.

Consider also the length of time it took to develop planes. You don't just draw one up then change all production to that airframe and hope it'll actually work. It has to be tested in combat and often modified in the field, or tactics have to be developed to use it effectively against certain opposition, like the very successful use of the Wildcat and P-40 against the A6M after it became clear a turning fight was not going to work.

I also disagree with the premise that one airframe would be best even in game. As you play longer, in different situations, you realize each does have it's use, or a use can be found for it.

I would have chosen the P-51 and ordered all companies to manufacture it. This plane can easily be used as a fighter, dive-bomber, torpedo-bomber, and as a two seater maybe as a recon and patrol aircraft and made it with an arrester hooks so it could be used on carriers.

I know this has been implemented after the war to have one aircraft practically do any type of task. But why did the USAAF decide to go with so many different types and models of airplanes during WWII? Wouldnt have it been more convinient to have a single model, making it easy for spare parts, ammunition, fuel and pilot training?

When would you have chosen the P-51? At first with the Alison engine when it went about 360mph and was destined for use as a ground support plane? (A-36)

If a torpedo bomber would work better designed as a sleek 435mph racehorse, they would have made one like that. I have a feeling a P-51 would not be a suitably stable platform for torpedo runs and that it wouldn't do so well if attacked from behind by a diving CAP fighter without a rear gunner. It'd be tough to fit the bombadier into the forward fuselage next to the Merlin for a level bombing run too. [:D]

The P-51 was used in a lot of different roles. It did well in those roles, but so did the P-47. Whereas the P-38 proved really useful and well-suited to the Pacific.

Diversity is an advantage in a complex environment with many unpredicted challenges.

[pmelheck1]

I think one must also take into account that different aircraft companies had different strengths and weaknesses. One company can make outstanding bombers while it's fighters are horrid and the reverse is true with another company. Boeing seemed to make good bombers while Lockheed made good fighters as an example. Also at that time I think all those airframes taught us something that paid off later as flight was all things considered a new field. All the above comments are true as a old Air Force Type. I had some contact with the vark as a support type so I learned first hand how some aircrew and maintainers felt about the vark but I have to admit my personal favorite frame was the spark vark. I had a very good friend who was a F-15 crew chief and he told me of some of the problems of the E model vs the c/d models. He loved the C/d but hated the mudhen.

edit: Also one doesn't design an aircraft and then start tacking missions on it but rather design the aircraft to the mission. A passenger car, Buss, Semi-truck, forklift and skip loader are all vehicles but they all have very different missions. Imagine a vehicle that would try to cover all of those missions.

[bomccarthy]

ORIGINAL: DeZanic

I would have chosen the P-51 and ordered all companies to manufacture it. This plane can easily be used as a fighter, dive-bomber, torpedo-bomber, and as a two seater maybe as a recon and patrol aircraft and made it with an arrester hooks so it could be used on carriers.

I know this has been implemented after the war to have one aircraft practically do any type of task. But why did the USAAF decide to go with so many different types and models of airplanes during WWII? Wouldnt have it been more convinient to have a single model, making it easy for spare parts, ammunition, fuel and pilot training?

No plane designed to operate from land can be turned into a carrier aircraft without some thorough redesign of its structure – it simply can’t take the repeated impact of carrier landings. Reinforcing the structure for carrier ops adds weight and reduces performance (compare the Supermarine Seafire with its RAF equivalent Spitfire models). Aircraft which have been successfully used by both the USAF and USN (as carrier-based) were designed from the outset for carrier operations (FJ Fury/F-86 Sabre, F-4 Phantom, A-7 Corsair II). The P-51 was tested by the USN for carrier ops and quickly rejected – the pilots’ first complaint was that it had poorer visibility on final approach than the F4U.

As it turned out, the US produced a very small minority of the different prototypes it tested. If you look at fighters, all of those produced (P-38, P-39, P-40, P-47, P-51, P-61, P-63) were responses to different specs at different times. And one, the P-51, was a response to an RAF spec – the USAAF bought it because it was that good. Aircraft design was evolving at breakneck speed: the first delivery of production P-40s took place only 11 months before the first flight of the P-47, a much faster plane with a much higher operating ceiling. When the first production P-47Bs were delivered to the 56th Fighter Group (June 1942), the P-40 had been operational for only 2 years.

Range and payload were huge issues in aircraft design because they added weight, and more weight required more horsepower, leading to multiple engines. Multiple engines required a larger airframe, which reduced agility in aerial combat. The only “successful” multi-engine air-to-air fighter was the P-38, and it was not considered very competitive against the FW-190 or Bf-109 in 1944.

Drop tanks could only extend range so far – you still needed enough internal fuel to make it back home after you discarded the tanks and engaged enemy aircraft. Even the P-47N, which was practically a flying gas tank, had nowhere near the range of the B-29 it was intended to escort.

The USN fighters which took on the fighter bombing role in 1944 couldn’t do what the SBD and SB2C dive bombers could do – dive at a near 90-degree angle for 10,000 + feet and pull out safely – while the SBD and SB2C couldn’t attain an airspeed of 380 +mph at 25,000 feet or maintain a rate of climb of almost 2,500 ft. per min at 15,000 feet.

Neither the USAAF nor the USN ordered an aircraft designed solely for recon; all were derived from existing fighters or bombers, often being modified for the recon role after delivery. Plus, the F-6 recon planes (modified P-51s) retained at least some of their guns and were sometimes used in traditional combat roles.

[BBfanboy]

The whole original post is the equivalent of saying one vehicle could be designed to fill every type of transportation requirement - racing, cross-country, heavy hauling, moving large and small numbers of people, and looking good cruising down the Vegas Strip. There is no possibility of doing it - period.

The real secret to the aircraft needs is very good planning. In the game the Japanese player needs to have a very clear vision of what type of battles he intends to fight and allocate his resources among the various aircraft types accordingly.

The Allies already have the advantage that their planners saw the need for long range heavy bombers well before the war and started building the bombers just in time.

[Yaab]

B-17 is a great all-around aircraft. It can shoot down enemy fighters, strat bomb, skip bomb, perform naval attack, fly recon, transport supplies. It just cannot carry torpedoes.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: DeZanic

Hey

I have allready played a few month into the game and I am starting too realize that it is not an advantage to have so many different airplanes.

There is a torpedo bomber type. There is a fighter type. There is a dive bomber type. There is a recon type. There is a patrol type.

Why did the allies not just choose one multi-purpose design and make it usefull for all types of missions.

I would have chosen the P-51 and ordered all companies to manufacture it. This plane can easily be used as a fighter, dive-bomber, torpedo-bomber, and as a two seater maybe as a recon and patrol aircraft and made it with an arrester hooks so it could be used on carriers.

I know this has been implemented after the war to have one aircraft practically do any type of task. But why did the USAAF decide to go with so many different types and models of airplanes during WWII? Wouldnt have it been more convinient to have a single model, making it easy for spare parts, ammunition, fuel and pilot training?

warspite1

Well the Germans would have liked your idea [:)] Imagine if, instead of facing the Hurricane and Spitfire in the Battle of Britain, they faced a sort of Hurricane/Swordfish/Skua/Defiant/Spitfire/Albacore/Battle/Blenheim/Lysander all-in-one variant?

I don't know about you but my money's on the Luftwaffe [:D]

[wdolson]

The P-51 was a great long range fighter, but it wasn't suited to all roles. The hardpoints could only carry about 500 pounds each, and torpedoes usually weighed over 1000 pounds. The P-51 was incapable of carrying a center line weapon.

The USN did test the P-51 for carrier use in 1944 aboard the Shangrila along with a B-25 equipped with a carrier hook. Both proved capable for the job, but the Navy found the B-25 too large for the current carriers, and the P-51 had a inline engine which did require more maintenance than a radial and the USN already had a spare supply chain for the P&W 2800s and the F4U and F6F that were better duited for the job.

It was used for ground attack but radial engines proved more reliable for ground attack missions. The P-47 was probably the best fighter-bomber the USAAF had. Much better suited for the role than a liquid cooled engined fighter.

For the patrol role, the P-51 would have been awful. The ideal patrol plane has a long range, multiple crew members with a good view to look all around the aircraft, and a trained navigator to navigate over the vast oceans. Attack bombers were used for the role from carriers, but they were marginal for the role compared to a multi-engine plane like a B-24 or a PBY.

Bill

[Pilsator]

everyone wants to make a good profit with the war. So everybody had to sell his planes.

[Leandros]

There are also the examples where different editions of the same airframe could suit different roles. I'm thinking of the P-36/P-40. The P-36 could turn and climb with the Zero - it was a terrific diver, too - actually set a world dive speed record during its trial for the French Air force. The P-40 could do other things, like escape from the Zero....[;)]...Imagine a fighter group with squadrons consisting of those two types. I know which one I would have flown. With inexperienced pilots on rough fighter strips the nose-heavy P-40's created a lot of accidents, too.

One thing that isn't mentioned here are the politics of defense production. In my example the AAC wanted a fighter with an inline engine, the Allison V-12, they had been involved in its development (and inline was sexy), while radials where in short supply for the bomber production. Flown economically, the P-36 had a better range than the P-40. Alas, it was never flown with drop tanks, like the Zero and P-40's. Please correct me if I am wrong. For some reason, the Navy didn't seem to have trouble getting enough Twin Wasps (the Wildcat).

I have tried to find out whether the AAC P-36's were ever upgraded with the latest, very reliable, 1200 hp. P&W Twin Wasp engine for the USAAC. This was the final version ordered by most foreign countries as the war started. Instead, most, also the French ones used as the Mohawk by the British (and the Dutch), were delivered with the Wright Cyclone, which was giving much trouble.

Even the initial versions, with the lower-powered Twin Wasps, did good service for the French in 1939 and 1940. That said, the French fighter pilot corps in that period had, in average, good training background.

An example of the problems with using planes originally built for land use on carriers was the Buffalo. Its landing gear couldn't take it.

Fred

[pws1225]

AAC = Allied Air Command?

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Leandros

There are also the examples where different editions of the same airframe could suit different roles. I'm thinking of the P-36/P-40. The P-36 could turn and climb with the Zero - it was a terrific diver, too - actually set a world dive speed record during its trial for the French Air force. The P-40 could do other things, like escape from the Zero....[;)]...Imagine a fighter group with squadrons consisting of those two types. I know which one I would have flown. With inexperienced pilots on rough fighter strips the nose-heavy P-40's created a lot of accidents, too.

One thing that isn't mentioned here are the politics of defense production. In my example the AAC wanted a fighter with an inline engine, the Allison V-12, they had been involved in its development (and inline was sexy), while radials where in short supply for the bomber production. Flown economically, the P-36 had a better range than the P-40. Alas, it was never flown with drop tanks, like the Zero and P-40's. Please correct me if I am wrong. For some reason, the Navy didn't seem to have trouble getting enough Twin Wasps (the Wildcat).

The P-36A as used by the USAAC had no armor or self sealing tanks, it also only had a range of 825 miles. The P-40B which also had no armor had a range of 730 miles, but with minimum cruise settings, the plane was capable of 1230 miles. The range of the P-40E with armor and was the first version considered war ready had a range without a drop tank of 650 miles, 850 miles with one. War experience showed that while dog fighting ability fit the romantic notions of knights of the sky, the faster fighter could usually dictate the conditions of the fight and usually won. Good, but not spectacular maneuverability with the capability of high speed was the combination that made for the best fighter.

If given a choice I'd take a P-40E over a P-36A. It is more heavily armed, faster, same range with a drop tank, has armor and self sealing tanks. Overall the P-40E was prepared for combat in the 1940s and the P-36A wasn't. I know you like the P-36, and it was a good plane for its time, but it was obsolete by the US entry into the war.

I have tried to find out whether the AAC P-36's were ever upgraded with the latest, very reliable, 1200 hp. P&W Twin Wasp engine for the USAAC. This was the final version ordered by most foreign countries as the war started. Instead, most, also the French ones used as the Mohawk by the British (and the Dutch), were delivered with the Wright Cyclone, which was giving much trouble.

Even the initial versions, with the lower-powered Twin Wasps, did good service for the French in 1939 and 1940. That said, the French fighter pilot corps in that period had, in average, good training background.

While the US aircraft manufacturers were making a lot of planes for export, domestic military use got first dibs on the engines, so the Wildcat had priority for the twin wasp engines. The problems with the export aircraft engines was not so much that a lot of exported aircraft had refurbished engines that were a bit knackered. This is especially true of the export Buffaloes sent to the DEI and I believe in RAF service too.

An example of the problems with using planes originally built for land use on carriers was the Buffalo. Its landing gear couldn't take it.

Fred

I don't know where you got that information. As far as I know the USN has never adopted a land based aircraft for carrier use. The Buffalo was the winner of a competition between Grumman and Brewster for the next gen carrier fighter in 1935. Grumman entered the XF4F-1 which was a biplane and Brewster had a cutting edge monoplane. After losing the competition Grumman redesigned their entry as a monoplane and got a contingency contract for a few aircraft for evaluation. Brewster was a horribly run company and even before the war was the subject of some corruption scandals. My parents remembered the stories. The Buffalo program ran into a lot of troubles and the landing gear did turn out to be too weak for carrier use. The USN decided to drop the Buffalo after buying 162 of them and in 1941 placed an order for Wildcats with Grumman.

To try and get their money out of the airframe Brewster sold Buffalos overseas.

Brewster was such a bad company they actually went out of business in the middle of the war. The US government took over their factory and ran it until the end of the war. They also competed in the big 1938 carrier plane competition which produced the Corsair, the TBF, and the SB2C Helldiver. Brewster's entry was the SB2A Buccaneer. The Navy had the 2nd place entry in the dive bomber and torpedo bomber category built as a back up in case the primary aircraft ran into trouble. When the Helldiver had horrible teething problems they went to the back up from Brewster and found it to be dramatically worse. They tried to fob some off on the British, but while they took delivery of a few hundred, none saw combat.

After failing to build their own designs, they got a contract to build Corsairs under contract along with Goodyear. Goodyear's Corsairs were just as good at the Vought versions and many survivors around today are actually Goodyear FG-1s. The Brewster versions were so terrible none were considered combat ready and all were retained for training duty. As soon as they could the USN/ISMC scrapped every one of them. One exists after being pulled out of a lake a couple of years ago.

Bill

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: pws1225

AAC = Allied Air Command?

USAAC = United States Army Air Corps

Technically that still existed through WW II, but it's usually referred to as the US Army Air Forces (USAAF) which is a designation that came in use just before US entry into the war. The US had several air forces that were responsible for different regions of the world. The entire force (all the air forces collectively) was the Army Air Corps.

Bill

[crsutton]

And, sometimes it just pays to continue producing something rather than stop production to convert. It was a global war after all and the demand for aircraft never let up. There are good answers here. The real answer to your questions is that the issue is too complex to address the simplicity of the idea. There are so many reasons (all stated above). Politics, funding, service rivalries, design, need, function, dispersion, raw materials, National interests, changing strategic needs, and so on. The Army's weapon were much more uniform and standardized but the weapons were much more simple than aircraft and aircraft design was still in a very early stage.

[LeeChard]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

B-17 is a great all-around aircraft. It can shoot down enemy fighters, strat bomb, skip bomb, perform naval attack, fly recon, transport supplies. It just cannot carry torpedoes.

Modifying it to land on carriers would be a challenge [:D]

[Pilsator]

one point is also that the "centralized" powers like Japan and germany controlled economy, even before the beginning of the war (Bf 109 which was chosen over the He112 and other fighter aircraft production and development was almost stopped), while in the US the development was in private hands, with the army, air force etc. selecting the models from the private ventures.

[Korvar]

ORIGINAL: Ranger5355

ORIGINAL: Yaab

B-17 is a great all-around aircraft. It can shoot down enemy fighters, strat bomb, skip bomb, perform naval attack, fly recon, transport supplies. It just cannot carry torpedoes.

Modifying it to land on carriers would be a challenge [:D]

The trick is to modify the carrier to the bomber...