I’m afraid you’ve misread the citation. The American radar systems were installed on carriers in 1940 and by 1941 were every bit as good as what the British had. The system to defend Pearl Harbor was admittedly incomplete, but had the urgency been understood clearly could have been completed and operational much earlier. The technology was not lacking, only the organization.
Wrong. I am referring to the radars installed on the carriers in 1940 along with the system of communications and control to direct a fighter defense, not the failed and incomplete system defending Hawaii. This naval technology was every bit as good as what the British had operational in 1940, and while the operators understandably lacked actual combat experience, the technology was in every way the equal of what the British had deployed.
Now about this main topic, “American Industrial charity”.
Lest we forget, if we had FAILED to help our allies with material then WE, the United States, would have be forced to fight the Germans and Japanese on our own once Germany had crushed Britain and the USSR.
Yes by not giving all the material we did to our allies all we would have done it get our own people killed having to fight over the same ground that was lost cause we didn’t help them!
War is not a I.O.U. game. If it was then Germany, Italy, and Japan owe us BIG TIME, far more than the material we gave to our allies.
We are blessed we did not lose millions of our men like other countries, blessed we didn’t have to fight the war in our own cities, and blessed we were able to produce such prodigious amounts of material we could give away so much.
As for influence, we did have a lot, but that was not from what we gave, but from what we produced. That is the Atomic Bomb and an unmatched military machine after the war, and that was more influence than a bunch of paper I.O.U.s.
Thanks for summarizing what I’ve previously stated. But irregardless of ETO or MTO, the U.S. was still engaged with the German Wehrmacht. I’ve also never stated that troop ships were sunk, I’ve only stated that concentric radar was very much in the interest of the United States, as if U-boats were to score lucky hits on troop ships, they could have wrought havoc and inflicted casualties on servicemen that would have rivaled, if not, surpassed losses suffered in ground battles.
I am mystified by your assertion that the lack of centemetric radar was somehow a factor in the high-level planning of operations in 1942-43.
You truly are mystified, because I stated no direct connection. Only that the U-boat threat as well as fears of the Luftwaffe certainly did.
True, such planning included tentative plans for operations in Europe in 1942-43, but British reluctance to come to direct grips with German forces on the continent certainly scotched those plans. I don’t see any connection between such planning and the l;ack of any kind of radar or other technology.
I wouldn’t blame the British for being reluctant to shed their blood over some of the highly unrealistic, ineffective plans that would have at best bottled up Allied forces in France, and done almost nothing to aid the U.S.S.R. as intended…
Such as? And where is your evidence?
“Because France had just fallen to the Nazis and Britain had no money to develop the magnetron on a massive scale, Churchill agreed that Sir Henry Tizard should offer the magnetron to the Americans in exchange for their financial and industrial help (the Tizard Mission). An early 6 kW version, built in England by the General Electric Company Research Laboratories, Wembley, London (not to be confused with the similarly named American company General Electric), was given to the US government in September 1940. At the time the most powerful equivalent microwave producer available in the US (a klystron) had a power of only ten watts. The cavity magnetron was widely used during World War II in microwave radar equipment and is often credited with giving Allied radar a considerable performance advantage over German and Japanese radars, thus directly influencing the outcome of the war. It was later described as ‘the most valuable cargo ever brought to our shores’”.[16]
Not at all. The American proximity fuse project would have borne fruit within no more than six months of the actual historic date of the first production of a workable fuse; the British project, on it’s own never would have.
Your source for this? And proximity fuse development was conducted in the U.S., Britain, and Canada.
I have never denied that the P-51 enjoyed superlative engine technology courtesy of the British, but it was not originally an American project. There were plenty of American designs which could have taken the place of the P-51 as a long-range fighter escort had the British not developed it first. The P-51 was, after all, a long range fighter, not primarily because of the engine, but because it was a flying gas tank.
Where were they? The P-38 had difficulty keeping its pilots warm at altitude and was expensive. The P-47 was initially a fuel hog and lacked agility. And the P-51 was designed at the behest of the British, in record time. But it was very much an American development after that…
As for the Tizard mission solving supercharger problems for the American aviation industry, citations please. It’s my understanding that the American aviation industry had no peer in supercharger technology in the early 1940’s.
Well, the evidence of the fighters using a single-stage one being ineffective at altitude such as the P-39 and P-40 might mitigate that belief somewhat…
I have never heard that argument expressed by anyone. Who might those people be who would so argue?..Not at all. The US had projects already under way and making serious progress in practically every field, and in some cases were significantly ahead of the British. There is no reason to believe that American scientists were not the equal or the British, Germans, or anyone else, and America’s industrial resources were certainly far superior.
Just as I’ve never heard the argument that the U.S. did not greatly benefits from the infusion of Tizard’s Mission. American scientists were indeed equal to the task, but that doesn’t mean certain niche areas such as radar the British weren’t more experienced and advanced…
The Marshall Plan has nothing to do with this debate.
It’s called an analogy…
Perhaps the British could have benefited from postwar commercial exploitation of military research, but they made the calculation that it was more important to survive as a nation. And of course, that assumes that such military research wouldn’t have already been rendered obsolete by American technological advances, which by the end of the war were far beyond British capabilities.
No, I given examples, proximity fuses, and the atomic bomb project, you just refuse to acknowledge them.
I agree the British didn’t have the means of production, but they did have some better research. And actually, you’ve provided little more than your own unsupported speculations…
Taylor was referring to the latest radar sets installed in the Enterprise and Lexington, the two carriers that were near Pearl Harbor when it was attacked. These were not the first radar sets installed in US Carriers.
An experimental air/surface detection radar was first installed in the destroyer Semmes in 1937. Shortly after, another set was installed in the destroyer Leary. Experience with these sets led to operational radar sets called CXAM and CXAM-1 being installed in the carriers Yorktown, Lexington, Saratoga, Enterprise, Ranger, in 1940, and later, Wasp. So by the period of the Battle of Britain, the US Navy had numerous operational air and surface search radar sets.
In fact, the Chain Home system actually benefited from US radar research long before the Tizard mission returned some radar technology to the US.
“The first radar in extensive operational use was the British Home Chain radar (often referred to as the CH radar), which entered service in 1937. The CH and other early radars operated in the “high frequency,” or HF portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. But early radar developers recognized that radars that could operate at frequencies higher than HF could perform better. In 1936-37, military radar researchers in the United States developed several devices such as the resonant cavity circuit, the klystron electron tube, and the coaxial and waveguide transmission lines and components that allowed the generation of signals in the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum. (Microwaves operate at a higher frequency than “high frequency.”) This dramatically improved radar performance and was a major military development. The Americans secretly shared this information with their counterparts in the United Kingdom and this enabled the British to build better radars for detecting planes approaching the British Isles. Radar gave the British warning of approaching German planes during the Battle of Britain in 1940 and was instrumental in the outcome of the battle. Britain also developed airborne radar that helped pilots flying at night to detect aircraft in the darkness and bomber crews to locate targets at night.”
I’ve never heard of “concentric” radar, do you mean “centemetric”?
Which fact is irrelevant to the value of centemetric radar to the US. The U-boats did not score any “lucky” (or otherwise) hits on US troops ships because the US escort system denied them the chance. The British who did have centemetric radar systems in operation during this period cannot claim the same achievementr; they lost several troopships loaded with troops to U-boats. Centemetric radar was not nearly as important in this period as well executed escorting.
Thank you for establishing that radar had noting to do with high level planning. Centemetric radar could not be a factor in planning at a time when it was not widely operational and it’s effects on U-boat or air attacks could not be evaluated. So the fact that high-level plans were being made among the Allies in 19490-41 is completely irrelevant.
Nobody is blaming the British for anything. I was merely pointing out it was British reluctance to participate that kept the US from seriously contemplating an invasion of the European continent in 1942-43
None of this is in dispute. I merely stated that the cavity magnetron development would have done the British little good because they did not have the resources to mass produce the radar sets in the numbers they needed. Sharing the technology with the US meant that Britain benefited as much, if not more, than the US. The US therefore does not owe the British for something that was of at least equal mutuial benefit.
Both the P-47 and F4U were capable of longer ranges; The P-47N had a range of 800 miles and this could have been extended to over 1,000 miles, enough to escort bombers to Berlin and back, with larger fuel tanks or extended drop tanks. The F4U-1d had a range in excess of 1,500 miles, which again could have easily been extended. Both of these aircraft were fast, heavily armed, and extremely rugged, much more so than the P-51 with its delicate liquid-cooled engine, and both aircraft were more than capable of engaging Axis fighters successfully.
But other American fighters capable of excellent high-altitude performance, like the F6F, F4U, and P-47, would reinforce it.
You’ve heard it now. But exactly what makes you think the British were more advanced in radar? British historians beating the drum trhat that was so? See my post on early radar research and the Chain Home radar system improvements.
Actually I’ve provided far more than that by citing authorities relating to the question of where was the Tube Alloys project in relation to US atomic research, how much did British radar research really help the US, and the US development of the gun-launched proximity fuse when the British researchers had all but given up. Your assertion that the British had "better research is nothing more than your personal opinion, an opinion that does not stand up to close scrutiny.
Mr Wizard, you often require source authority from those you post to, but have not yourself provided the volume, or depth of such authorities to anchor your own viewpoint. Is it your intent to conduct a proper dialogue, or to stir the pot by saying “prove it” to anyone who disagrees with you or distracting to some minor point ? You don’t have to answer, just think about it.
The P-38s problem with the cockpit heater was easily solvable by simply getting electric suits the bomber crews had. Just 10 B-17s worth of suits would have furnished enough for almost two Groups of '38s (and in the ETO that was about all they had in England in ‘43.)
And as for expense, Lockheed was the ONLY source of P-38s for all but the last months of the war. Other fighters were second sourced but not the P-38. Higher production rates lower the expense per unit. Keep in mind the 38 was produced long before the 51 was yet production barely hit 10k units.
As for range, the problem was not the fighters themselves but the strategy of close protection of the bombers instead of free chase (as the Germans found out in the Battle of Britain.) Close bomber support forces the fighters to fly at speeds lower than their optimal cruising speed and that burns up much more gas.
It also forces them to be going slower than the attacking enemy fighters and that puts them at a disadvantage not to mention they cannot break up formations of fighters before they reach the bombers (again, the Germans found that out also in the BOB.)
Do note Nick, the FIRST U.S. fighters to fly over Berlin were P-38s. They did that two days in a row before the weather alleviated enough for the main bomber force AND P-51s to show up (this was March 3ed, 1944, Group 55 that flew over Berlin.) The P-38s always could have made it if they were not forced to fly slowly along with the bombers.
Say, does anyone here have the timeline for the introduction of the various U.S. fighters and their variants over the course of the war? I believe ‘America’s Hundred Thousand’, by Francis H. Dean has such a timeline and I’ll get that book soon. But it will show you when each type and mark was introduced and hopfull which theaters they were sent.
You are incorrect Mr. Tankgeezer; I have provided numerous citations of authoritative sources. Perhaps you have simply not bothered to read them?
Among others, I have cited Richard Rhodes in his book “The Making of The Atomic Bomb”, and Cynthia Kelly’s “The Manhattan Project” to support my assertion that the Tube Alloy’s Project did not make any significant contributions which hastened the development of the atomic bomb.
In the debate about whether the US had an operational radar system during 1940, I cited four websites with pertinent information and documentation about US radar systems circa 1940.
I have not cited any authorities relating to the development of the gun-launched proximity fuse development issue, because I thought it common knowledge, but I am prepared to do so if anyone presents a serious challenge to my assertions in that area.
So I suggest you think about reading my posts more closely before making unfounded accusations of “pot-stirring”.
Hardly unfounded, your posts issued challenges for source authority long before you had posted any of your own. If challenged, your angst increases, followed by distractions to other minor points. My point goes to attitude, more than content. Its one thing to have a spirited discourse for the purpose of edification, and discovery, its very much another to forward an argument for it’s own sake. I suggest you slow your roll a bit, no need to take it so seriously. I trust that my point is understood. This is supposed to be fun y’know…
There’s nothing wrong with challenging someone’s unsupported assertions by asking for citations of authoritative sources. When I am challenged I produce those citations or admit that I was wrong.
I do still believe your criticism unfounded. I am pursuing the discussion in a civil and polite way and expect the same of the other participants; everyone should be held to the same rules, yet I seem to be singled out for lack of citations when I have presented as many as any other poster on this thread
As far as having fun, I was enjoying the discussion…
So if he is a red herring, why did you cite him as supporting your argument when he does nothing of the sort?
Only Leary, New York and Texas unambiguously had operational radars at the time of the Battle of Britain. The link you cite says that Yorktown had hers installed in September 1940 - so it would probably not have been operational until after the end of the Battle of Britain - and doesn’t give any dates for other installations of CXAM.
Chain Home certainly didn’t use any of these during the Battle of Britain (I’m not sure about later in the war). Chain Home Low used Resonant Cavity Magnetrons to generate the Microwaves (which were known at the time as Centimetric), which were developed in the UK. I’m not a sparky so can’t say for sure, but I was under the impression that waveguides, etc. were a well known technology from existing radio technology.
I see it differently.As I stated, its attitude more than content. Discourse is more than just parsing jots, and tittles. I have no interest in making this a contest, or debate, so I will say only this. I have noted a number of your responses to be overly intense. You may call it a challenge, I might call it aggressive. Its not a race, there is nothing to win, or lose. Mind the attitude, it shows through in your writing.
Look Mr. Tankgeezer, you have no idea what my “attitude” is and it’s impossible to accurately discern a person’s “attitude” through the medium of the written word, so pretending you have discovered something objectionable in my posts seems a bit far-fetched.
As for being “intense”, whatever that may be, is that a crime, or even against the rules of the forum? Have I been uncivil or impolite in this thread? Have I attacked anyone personally? What, specifically, is it that I have done to excite your enmity?
This forum is not my life, nor even particularly important to me, but I do resent being criticized for some vague and undefined quality in my style of writing. If you, or any of the other moderators, feel I have somehow transgressed against the rules of the forum, or even that I have failed to make positive contributions to this forum, tell me and I will withdraw.
Mr. wizard, it is your choice to accept, or reject what I have said. I will not repeat myself. But if one does not play nice, one may find himself playing alone.
Well, Mr. Tankgeezer, seeing as how I have been civil and polite, and have broken no forum rules that I am aware of, in other words have been “playing nice” all along on this forum, I don’t believe that I run that risk.
However, I will say that being harassed for imaginary transgressions and misdemeanors does not sit well with me. Therefore, I believe I will take leave of this forum for an indefinite period. There are always several other forums which will welcome my presence and my posts.
Well, Wizard, I can’t cite any learned papers on the subject but know from past readings that the American test bed jet aircraft was a Bell jet called the Comet and it used a British jet engine. I’m sure you can confirm that independently, given the depth of your knowledge.
Which fact is irrelevant to the value of centemetric radar to the US. The U-boats did not score any “lucky” (or otherwise) hits on US troops ships because the US escort system denied them the chance. The British who did have centemetric radar systems in operation during this period cannot claim the same achievementr; they lost several troopships loaded with troops to U-boats. Centemetric radar was not nearly as important in this period as well executed escorting.
The who lost what troopships when is a difficult topic to address since the U.S. began the build up in earnest after the U-boat threat had been largely defeated mid-1943. Defeated in no small part due to centemetric radar allowing units to become airborne–in addition to the perfect storm of the emergence of anti-submarine warfare technologies–and the personnel of Bletchley Park, which may be the single greatest (mostly, though with assistance of the Poles, French, and the U.S.) contribution of the British. “Well executed escorting” or not, the tide turned against das boats mid-1943 not because of “escorting,” but because of a number of advancements concurring at once…
Thank you for establishing that radar had noting to do with high level planning. Centemetric radar could not be a factor in planning at a time when it was not widely operational and it’s effects on U-boat or air attacks could not be evaluated. So the fact that high-level plans were being made among the Allies in 19490-41 is completely irrelevant.
I would never be so presumptuous nor arrogant to state what was involved in high level planning as none of us were in the room for discussions, as much as we would like to have been. I would assume the U-boat threat and discussions regarding radar must have loomed large.
Nobody is blaming the British for anything. I was merely pointing out it was British reluctance to participate that kept the US from seriously contemplating an invasion of the European continent in 1942-43
There were numerous reasons why it would have been completely foolish to contemplate an invasion, perhaps another contribution of the British…
None of this is in dispute. I merely stated that the cavity magnetron development would have done the British little good because they did not have the resources to mass produce the radar sets in the numbers they needed. Sharing the technology with the US meant that Britain benefited as much, if not more, than the US. The US therefore does not owe the British for something that was of at least equal mutuial benefit.
I’m not disputing this, and I’ve never said the U.S. owes Britain anything other some acknowledgment of some technical acumen which assisted the U.S. War effort and did indeed benefit Britain as well…
Both the P-47 and F4U were capable of longer ranges; The P-47N had a range of 800 miles and this could have been extended to over 1,000 miles, enough to escort bombers to Berlin and back, with larger fuel tanks or extended drop tanks. The F4U-1d had a range in excess of 1,500 miles, which again could have easily been extended. Both of these aircraft were fast, heavily armed, and extremely rugged, much more so than the P-51 with its delicate liquid-cooled engine, and both aircraft were more than capable of engaging Axis fighters successfully.
But other American fighters capable of excellent high-altitude performance, like the F6F, F4U, and P-47, would reinforce it.
The P-47N wasn’t available until late in the War and was designed to escort bombers over Tokyo for Downfall, not Berlin. And the Corsair and Hellcat were both naval aviation pieces the USAAF may never even have evaluated AFAIK. The Merlin-derived engined Mustangs gave the USAAF a fighter ready to go by the end of 1942…
You’ve heard it now. But exactly what makes you think the British were more advanced in radar? British historians beating the drum trhat that was so? See my post on early radar research and the Chain Home radar system improvements.
They were far more along in using radar to create integrated air defense network, as pdf27 pointed out.
Actually I’ve provided far more than that by citing authorities relating to the question of where was the Tube Alloys project in relation to US atomic research, how much did British radar research really help the US, and the US development of the gun-launched proximity fuse when the British researchers had all but given up. Your assertion that the British had "better research is nothing more than your personal opinion, an opinion that does not stand up to close scrutiny.
Most of that has little to do with my posts. You’ve still never answered on how you’ve concluded the U.S. could have produced a working proximity fuse only six months later than it did without at least some assistance of the British and Canadian scientists as all three nations were working concurrently and sharing their research…
The P-47N wasn’t available until late in the War and was designed to escort bombers over Tokyo for Downfall, not Berlin. And the Corsair and Hellcat were both naval aviation pieces the USAAF may never even have evaluated AFAIK. The Merlin-derived engined Mustangs gave the USAAF a fighter ready to go by the end of 1942…
Nick,
The Merlin 51 didn’t get to the ETO till end of 43, not 42 (P-51Bs). Go look up the history of the 4th FG.
You will find out virtually all aircraft used by any service had a lag between being accepted for service and having enough production as well is distribution to get to the front.
The Merlin powered P-51 could have been ready by the first half of 1943, easily. It was successfully tested and vetted by the end of 1942, and it took a virtual riot act to get the USAAF to accept the plane into service as a frontline fighter…
You will find out virtually all aircraft used by any service had a lag between being accepted for service and having enough production as well is distribution to get to the front.
Deaf
In this case, there was significant bias against the P-51 vastly compounding that “lag”…
