Why did the USAAF not stick to one model?

[BBfanboy]

Is that a battleship steaming alongside the carrier for scale??? [X(]

[Mobeer]

One of the problems is to know which plane to pick.

At the start of 1942 the P-51 was mostly for export, and had yet to be equipped with a Merlin engine. The RAF had concerns that the lack of performance at high altitude would prevent the P-51 being used effectively as a fighter. At this point in the war, the decision might have been to go with the P-40.

[Yaab]

ORIGINAL: 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...

Damn, this USN Hababuk makes the northern approach to the Home Islands a non-brainer.Plus, it cuts the time to finish the war by at least 2.5 years

[Korvar]

Yup, that is a battleship for scale...

For those who didn't know, the 'iceberg carrier' was seriously considered by the UK during the war but was scrubbed due to the better alternatives that had developed for hunting U-boats, and the sheer amount of resources that would be needed...

Project Habakkuk

[JeffroK]

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?

You'd be in deep cow cack if you chose the P39 though!!

[AW1Steve]

Anyone who's every spent much time in Aviation can tell you one very big problem with a "one type fleet". Things are great when things go right. But when they go wrong, you are absolutely totally screwed. If all you fighters (for example) are the same type, what happens when a flaw is discovered grounding the whole fleet? This does, and has happened many times. In Naval aviation (in fact MOST aviation)the is a saying "Redundancy IS life". There's a reason why planes have 3 back up systems (or in many planes 4) for hydraulics, or 4 or 5 ways to drop the landing gear. Plan "A" is your work plan. Plan "B" is your back up plan. I've never met a safe "stick" who didn't also have Plan"C", PLAN D and maybe E,F, and G. "Murphy"has a large family!

[geofflambert]

A P-51 could carry torpedoes?  How many?  I think Santa, Rudolf and the others could probably deliver three.  Also, Santa could carry out airborne missions to infiltrate through chimneys.  Could a P-51 airdrop the 101st Airborne?
 
By the way, does everyone know that Where Eagles Dare was a true story?  I'm pretty sure Santa delivered all those explosives.

[bomccarthy]

ORIGINAL: Mobeer

One of the problems is to know which plane to pick.

At the start of 1942 the P-51 was mostly for export, and had yet to be equipped with a Merlin engine. The RAF had concerns that the lack of performance at high altitude would prevent the P-51 being used effectively as a fighter. At this point in the war, the decision might have been to go with the P-40.

Both the P-38 and P-47 were already in production at this stage, so the USAAF had already decided on replacing the P-40. However, shortages of the P-38, P-47, and P-51 kept the P-40 in production through much of 1944, with a few combat units still using it in 1945. Curtiss designed and built a P-40Q prototype with an auxiliary stage supercharger (similar to that used in the P-63), but its performance (including a 422 mph top speed) was lower than that of the later model P-47 and P-51, so the Army passed on it.

[Reg]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Anyone who's every spent much time in Aviation can tell you one very big problem with a "one type fleet". Things are great when things go right. But when they go wrong, you are absolutely totally screwed. If all you fighters (for example) are the same type, what happens when a flaw is discovered grounding the whole fleet? This does, and has happened many times. In Naval aviation (in fact MOST aviation)the is a saying "Redundancy IS life". There's a reason why planes have 3 back up systems (or in many planes 4) for hydraulics, or 4 or 5 ways to drop the landing gear. Plan "A" is your work plan. Plan "B" is your back up plan. I've never met a safe "stick" who didn't also have Plan"C", PLAN D and maybe E,F, and G. "Murphy"has a large family!

I don't think the major risk in wartime is grounding but what do you do when your primary front line type is suddenly outclassed?? (An example of this was the Spitfire V vs FW-190A match up in mid 1942).

Upgrade your entire fleet overnight?? Hardly practical. [:(]

At least with a mix of types you have options.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Korvar

Yup, that is a battleship for scale...

For those who didn't know, the 'iceberg carrier' was seriously considered by the UK during the war but was scrubbed due to the better alternatives that had developed for hunting U-boats, and the sheer amount of resources that would be needed...

Project Habakkuk

For those of you who don't know, stop. Gorns live extraordinary long lives. While those geniuses were planning a carrier made of ice, I was planning a carrier made of pumice. I think my plan rules! In fact, Iceland would likely take over the world if they had just listened to me.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: Korvar

Yup, that is a battleship for scale...

For those who didn't know, the 'iceberg carrier' was seriously considered by the UK during the war but was scrubbed due to the better alternatives that had developed for hunting U-boats, and the sheer amount of resources that would be needed...

Project Habakkuk

For those of you who don't know, stop. Gorns live extraordinary long lives. While those geniuses were planning a carrier made of ice, I was planning a carrier made of pumice. I think my plan rules! In fact, Iceland would likely take over the world if they had just listened to me.

Pumice may be really light, but isn't it a little .... holier than thou?

[geofflambert]

[:D] That may be, but no one's arguments have more holes in them than mine. [8D]