The Great P-47 Range Debate on you tube now.

[SaparotRob]

More guns on the B-17s and B-24 was the wrong solution.

You were obviously never 8 years old.

 

[pbehn]

You were obviously never 8 years old.

When I was eight I couldn't understand why they called guns "pitot tubes", I thought it was some fancy name for a cannon.

 

[SaparotRob]

YOU TOO?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

We are not really talking spending large amounts of money or getting into the war before being attacked or declared war on. Just a bit of strategic thinking and having things like drop tanks worked out or 20mm cannons for fighters etc.

Some thinking along those lines in 1939 could have saved the 8th Airforce from the bloodbath of 1943 rather than learning on the job.

More guns on the B-17s and B-24 was the wrong solution.

33k was addressing Ed's comment about American isolationism in general, not USAAC/USAAF attitudes about drop tanks. Of course giving DTs higher priority in 1939 would have paid dividends in 1943.

 

[special ed]

That may have been the case in 1939, but by mid-1941 public opinion had changed considerably. By that time, the majority of Americans were in favor of increased defense spending, aiding Britain more directly even if such efforts risked war with Germany, and fully expected that the U.S. would at some point enter the war. By November 1941, with the heightened tensions with Japan, a majority of the American public felt that war with Japan was likely in the near future.

By 1940-41 the military and civilians thought any war with Japan would be a naval war. Remember, it was still a "Battleship" navy. As far as money, factories had just begun to build for France, then Britain. Drop tanks were not a consideration for escort fighters as the fighters for escort duty did not exist. The U.S. Navy used small aux external belly tanks on their biplanes for patrol.

 

[33k in the air]

By 1940-41 the military and civilians thought any war with Japan would be a naval war. Remember, it was still a "Battleship" navy. As far as money, factories had just begun to build for France, then Britain. Drop tanks were not a consideration for escort fighters as the fighters for escort duty did not exist. The U.S. Navy used small aux external belly tanks on their biplanes for patrol.

My point was that while the U.S. was isolationist in 1939, by mid-1941 it was not. The American public did not want to go to war, but most recognized war was coming and the country would have to enter the fight. The commonly held belief that the U.S. was isolationist right up to Pearl Harbor is not correct.

 

[GregP]

My point was that while the U.S. was isolationist in 1939, by mid-1941 it was not. The American public did not want to go to war, but most recognized war was coming and the country would have to enter the fight. The commonly held belief that the U.S. was isolationist right up to Pearl Harbor is not correct.

It was, according to my grandparents who were there.

But, being isolationist did not include turning the other cheek when we were attacked. The attack on Pearl Harbor generated instant zeal and a desire to strike back.

It's sort of like being a contentious objector in a foxhole and then getting shot at. It tends to make the person react in order to survive.

 

[33k in the air]

It was, according to my grandparents who were there.

Gallup polling data from the period indicates otherwise. Consider the following poll results published April 28, 1941:

If you were asked to vote today on the question of the United States entering the war against Germany and Italy, how would you vote — to go into the war, or to stay out of the war?

Go in.............................. 19%
Stay out........................ 81%

A strong majority against going to war. But look at the next question.

If it appeared certain that there was no other way to defeat Germany and Italy except for the United States to go to war against them, would you be in favor of the United States going to war?

Yes................................ 68%
No................................ 24%
No opinion................. 8%

A solid majority willing to go to war to ensure defeat of Germany and Italy. That does not strike me as isolationist, at least as how I would interpret the term.

Consider this result published May 31, 1941:

Do you think the United States will go into the war in Europe sometime before it is over, or do you think we will stay out of the war?

We are already in.............. 13%
We will go in....................... 64%
We will stay out................. 14%
No opinion............................ 9%

That first response, 'We are already in', is quite interesting.

Look at this result published Sept. 26, 1941:

Do you approve or disapprove of having the United States shoot at German submarines or warships on sight?

Approve............................ 56%
Disapprove........................34%
No opinion....................... 10%

A shoot on sight policy would almost certainly result in war with Germany quickly.

 

[pbehn]

Things change quickly, from the German invasion of Poland in Sept 1939 to Sept 1941 most of Europe had fallen to the Axis, Hitler was heading to Moscow and the USA was providing help to UK and Russia. Pearl Harbor just put the tin hat on things, on the 11th of December 1941, Adolf decided not to bother about public opinion and declared war on USA if they wanted one or not.

 

[special ed]

Gallup polling data from the period indicates otherwise. Consider the following poll results published April 28, 1941:

If you were asked to vote today on the question of the United States entering the war against Germany and Italy, how would you vote — to go into the war, or to stay out of the war?

Go in.............................. 19%
Stay out........................ 81%

A strong majority against going to war. But look at the next question.

If it appeared certain that there was no other way to defeat Germany and Italy except for the United States to go to war against them, would you be in favor of the United States going to war?

Yes................................ 68%
No................................ 24%
No opinion................. 8%

A solid majority willing to go to war to ensure defeat of Germany and Italy. That does not strike me as isolationist, at least as how I would interpret the term.

Consider this result published May 31, 1941:

Do you think the United States will go into the war in Europe sometime before it is over, or do you think we will stay out of the war?

We are already in.............. 13%
We will go in....................... 64%
We will stay out................. 14%
No opinion............................ 9%

That first response, 'We are already in', is quite interesting.

Look at this result published Sept. 26, 1941:

Do you approve or disapprove of having the United States shoot at German submarines or warships on sight?

Approve............................ 56%
Disapprove........................34%
No opinion....................... 10%

A shoot on sight policy would almost certainly result in war with Germany quickly.

Shoot subs on sight - They were sinking U.S. freighters and tankers just off our ports.

We are already in - The aircraft and truck plants were making product to be exported - Because the Brits got rid of guns post WWI, There was a drive to donate pistols & revolvers for the intended German invasion - Post WWII, The Brits did it again.

If there was no other way to defeat Germany, then go to war - but not my boy.

The first question of the poll - That's what I remember, but of course, I was a rug rat and only have general impressions

 

[EwenS]

There is a list of US merchant vessels captured, detained, damaged or sunk between 3 Sept 1939 and the end of 1941 here. Very few if any were sunk "just off our ports".

Chronological List of U.S. Ships Sunk or Damaged 1939 to 1941

Chronological List of U.S. Ships Sunk or Damaged 1939 to 1941 due to war causes

www.usmm.org

Note in 1940 only 2 US vessels were sunk, both in waters far removed from the US coast. The story of the tanker SS Charles Pratt is interesting in the the U-boat captain took the view that it was supplying war materials to a belligerent in breach of the rules of neutrality, and was therefore a legitimate target.

Charles Pratt (Panamanian Steam tanker) - Ships hit by German U-boats during WWII - uboat.net

The U-boat War in World War Two (Kriegsmarine, 1939-1945) and World War One (Kaiserliche Marine, 1914-1918) and the Allied efforts to counter the threat. This section includes over 21.000 Allied Warships and over 11.000 Allied Commanders of WWII, from the US Navy, Royal Navy, Royal Canadian...

uboat.net

The other 1940 sinking was off the Australian coast in a German minefield.

In 1941 only 1 of the 16 US merchantmen lost pre PH happened in the first half of the year. It is from Aug onward that things ramped up as the USN increased it escorting of convoys further east to the Mid-Ocean Meeting Point south of Iceland. July had seen USMC troops replace the British garrison on Iceland and then in Sept an invitation by the US for foreign ships to join its resupply convoys and avail themselves of USN protection.

Mid-Ocean Meeting Point - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

It was Jan 1942 before the U-boats that were dispatched to the US coast as part of Operation Drumbeat arrived in US waters to begin taking a serious toll on US merchant shipping "just off our ports".

As for USN warships sunk and damaged pre PH there are details here. Again, only 1 incident in the first half of the year.

Pre-U.S. Entry Into WWII

Pre-U.S. Entry Into WWII The first action between the U.S. and German navies occured on April 10, 1941, when USS Niblack (DD-424) neared the Icelandic coast to pick-up three boatloads of survivors from the Dutch freighter Saleier, which was sunk the previous day. When a submarine was detected...

www.history.navy.mil

The introduction of Lend Lease in March 1941 upped the ante considerably. Until then Cash & Carry applied. All war materials had to be paid for and transported out of the USA on British ships. US ships carrying war materials to Britain were a legitimate target as that was a breach of the internationally recognised neutrality laws.

 

[GregP]

Gallup polling data from the period indicates otherwise. Consider the following poll results published April 28, 1941:

If you were asked to vote today on the question of the United States entering the war against Germany and Italy, how would you vote — to go into the war, or to stay out of the war?

Go in.............................. 19%
Stay out........................ 81%

A strong majority against going to war. But look at the next question.

If it appeared certain that there was no other way to defeat Germany and Italy except for the United States to go to war against them, would you be in favor of the United States going to war?

Yes................................ 68%
No................................ 24%
No opinion................. 8%

A solid majority willing to go to war to ensure defeat of Germany and Italy. That does not strike me as isolationist, at least as how I would interpret the term.

Consider this result published May 31, 1941:

Do you think the United States will go into the war in Europe sometime before it is over, or do you think we will stay out of the war?

We are already in.............. 13%
We will go in....................... 64%
We will stay out................. 14%
No opinion............................ 9%

That first response, 'We are already in', is quite interesting.

Look at this result published Sept. 26, 1941:

Do you approve or disapprove of having the United States shoot at German submarines or warships on sight?

Approve............................ 56%
Disapprove........................34%
No opinion....................... 10%

A shoot on sight policy would almost certainly result in war with Germany quickly.

These polls are irrelevant since all are BEFORE 7 Dec 1941.

Where is your poll for Dec 8, 1941? AFTER Pearl Harbor?

I already said above that, while we were isolationist in opinions, that did NOT include turning the other cheek once we were attacked.

Ya' gotta' read all three sentences above for a good response, not just the first one.

 

[pbehn]

These polls are irrelevant since all are BEFORE 7 Dec 1941.

Where is your poll for Dec 8, 1941? AFTER Pearl Harbor?

I already said above that, while we were isolationist in opinions, that did NOT include turning the other cheek once we were attacked.

Ya' gotta' read all three sentences above for a good response, not just the first one.

Any poll on Dec 8th 1941 is also irrelevant because Adolf declared war on USA on 11 December.

 

[33k in the air]

These polls are irrelevant since all are BEFORE 7 Dec 1941.

They are entirely relevant for determining American attitudes PRIOR to Dec. 7, which was the point.

I already said above that, while we were isolationist in opinions, that did NOT include turning the other cheek once we were attacked.

And the poll examples I provided expressly contradict your statement. NONE of them make any reference to the U.S. being attacked first. Supporting a shoot on sight policy is not a response to being attacked first, it is an aggressive stance highly likely to result in war.

There are many other polls from 1941 which support my point.

The American public in 1941 would be more accurately described as war reluctant, not isolationist. It did not want to fight, but recognized it would probably have to, especially to help its friends and allies.

 

[Shortround6]

Getting a little more back in track, although still a siding and not the mainline, What kind of escort fighter could have been built in 1939-42 by the Americans to accompany their bombers even using the "standards of the day" like accompanying the bombers all the way and flying a low speeds and low/medium altitudes?

Ranges for the B-18, B18A, B-23 and B-25 bombers from Joe Baugher's website.
B-18 Range was 1082 miles with 2200 pounds of bombs and 412 gallons of fuel, or 1200 miles with 4400 pounds of bombs and 802 gallons of fuel. Cruise 167mph.
B-18A Range was 1150 miles with 2496 pounds of bombs, cruise 167mph.
B-23 Normal range 1400 miles with 4000 pounds of bombs. Cruise was 210mph.
Early B-25, range 2000 miles with 3000 pounds of bombs. Not sure it they could actually do this, early version had a single .50 out the tail and three .30 cal machine guns, no turret of any sort.
B-17C, first one delivered to the USAAC in Nov, 1940. Supposed to fly 2400 miles with 4000lbs of bombs. Nominal cruise was 250mph, height not given. They were working on the B-17E at this time while the factory was making the C&D models.

In Nov 1940 they were converting from P-40Bs to P-40Cs and working on the future P-40E, First P-39C was delivered in Jan 1941. And here is the first crisis in escort capability.
Not that the P-40 and P-39 could actually make 2/3rds of the distance of even the B-18s but when you fitted self sealing fuel tanks the fuel capacity dropped that much further.
They both got drop tanks in early/mid 1941 just to try to restore original range.

Now try to imagine a single engine US fighter using an Allison engine in 1941-early 42 with enough fuel to even fight for 15 minutes, have 20-30 minutes of reserve and fly, even at 210-220mph over water for 600 miles. That would be minimum escort distance, even using drop tanks (gone when combat starts) and escorting even B-25Cs (1500 miles with 3000lb load, call it 600 mile radius?)
Lets also remember that the P-40B was also a pretty good airplane at the time and was supposed to hit 350mph at 15,000ft. So it was pretty streamline. You need to figure out how to put another 40-50 gallons of fuel inside the plane and still have it be able to fight (climb/turn) as well as the opposition. Keep two .50s and two .30s for guns.
And fully realize that won't come close to escorting B-17s or B-24s.
You want to do that you need a new engine or a turbo charger stuffed into the single engine plane.
Please note that even a P-51 with a Merlin XX engine ( or Allison with a fictitious two speed supercharger) won't do what you want it to do.

To get the escort fighter to work you needed the very low drag P-51 airframe, The two stage Merlin, 100/130 fuel ( 100/100 probably would not have worked) and you needed the behind the seat tank. You also needed the power from the Merlin and 100/130 fuel to keep the plane alive while toting that 225-235 gallon fuel load in combat.
Or you needed the 370 gal P-47 from the start with multiple drop tanks using the tooth pick prop and no water injection and trying to fly off shorter runways.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

[GregP]

Any poll on Dec 8th 1941 is also irrelevant because Adolf declared war on USA on 11 December.

Yeah, but we were attacked on 7 Dec 1941, at least according to the history I read.

By 8 December, we weren't quite so isolationist as we were a day before ... according to people who were there at the time.

I have asked over 100 of them personally, from civilians, including relatives, to former military. They were ALL wanting to get some revenge within minutes of hearing about the attack.

People back then were raised in a very competitive environment. 2nd place didn't get a participation trophy in most of life's endeavors at the time. Isolation was one thing. Not responding to a threat from military attack was quite another, rather unpalatable thing to contemplate.

 

[GregP]

They are entirely relevant for determining American attitudes PRIOR to Dec. 7, which was the point.



And the poll examples I provided expressly contradict your statement. NONE of them make any reference to the U.S. being attacked first. Supporting a shoot on sight policy is not a response to being attacked first, it is an aggressive stance highly likely to result in war.

There are many other polls from 1941 which support my point.

The American public in 1941 would be more accurately described as war reluctant, not isolationist. It did not want to fight, but recognized it would probably have to, especially to help its friends and allies.

Nobody cared what we thought before Dec 7, we weren't in the war or likely to be.

We also weren't in the war on Dec 8, either, but the world took some notice of our reaction when they heard about Pearl Harbor. You can believe it or not, but by a month later, we had already started down the path that led to Tokyo. We knew we'd get there; we just weren't very sure yet by what route it would happen. As it transpired, the route went through Europe and took 4 years ... well, 3 1/2 years anyway.

I say that meaning a mental state. By mid-January 1942, there were few isolationists left. Almost NOBODY was neutral about it or they were in actual physical danger from neighbors, as more than a few found out.

 

[Timppa]

This discussion would have been great without Marshalls' connection issues, which is understandable because he is an old geezer like me.
After 1'st page the discussion went south (Is that the proper term ?)
What I gather these posts:

With 200 gal belly tank early P-47 (pre-D25) would have had combat range of about 400 miles, not enough to reach Berlin

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Shoot subs on sight - They were sinking U.S. freighters and tankers just off our ports.

Not in Apr 41.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

These polls are irrelevant since all are BEFORE 7 Dec 1941.

No, that's exactly why they are relevant -- they measure the fading of isolationism before we had any skin in the game. Of course isolationism was going to die a quick death after the surprise attack. Those polls, however, measure its decline even before the attack. I'm surprised this has to be spelled out.