[NGTM-1R]

Yeah the Type 21 (like the ME-262, it's Luftwaffe counterpart) would have had a major influence on things if it was introduced earlier and in sufficient numbers.  Shame for them.

That's not even the tip of the iceburg. They never introduced a submarine-use radar during the war. It took them nearly eight months, after they realized about 10cm wavelength radar, to get a simple warning system for detecting it out to the fleet. When it became obvious submarines needed better antiaircraft armament because of Coastal Command's Bay Offensive, it took a similar amount of time to get the fleet fitted with the quad 20mm mount to replace their older twin 20s; by then it was much too late. Submarine sonar was never improved during the war; torpedo development was so poor that the Allies had an acoustic homing torpedo (an air-dropped homing torpedo, no less) nearly a year before the T-V antiescort homing torpedo entered service. The schnorkel did not enter service until mid-1944, when all the preliminary work had been accomplished before the war by the Dutch; the result was that by the time it did 3cm airborne radar neutralized its advantage by being able to detect the pipes.

[Thaeris]

Fine.

So what did these sources of you say, exactly? That P-47, the fighter that the AF originally proposed for bomber escort duty, was adequate from the beginning and that the decision to prioritize P-51 was useless - or the decision didn't exist? I didn't question the performance of P-47 in all the cases, I simply put forward the point that P-51 was selected for a reason for the VLR bomber escort duties to Germany!

That's besides the point, of course, which originally was that the tools military proposes for a mission are not always the best for that, but the tools military want to use. See the Crusader farce, for example.

Want to use? What do you mean? The military usually wants to use the best of what's available! Rather, politicans of often want what they want for whatever reason it suits them. Why do we have that foolish F-22 instead of the YF-23? A fully developed F-23 would have been far better for a good list of reasons I will be happy to heap upon your head should you be curious! High-end generals often are no better than politicians either; that's the only reasonable part fo the want to use argument you've got!  

The P-47 was good at a lot of things, including escort. The Merlin Mustang was better in the escort role. That in no sense makes the Thunderbolt a fluke. If you think it does, than you aren't too familiar with the exploits of the fighter in the field. And what do you mean by "Crusader"? Not the F-8 I hope, because that was an exceptional aeroplane by all accounts. Perhaps this only shows that history is as accurate as according to the writer's vendettas. If that's the case for everything we're probably about as brainwashed as the North Koreans...

-Thaeris

[General Battuta]

I think janos has a point. The military as riddled with lobbying and special interests as anyone else.

To say that the military is somehow better at selecting aircraft is to treat the military as a monolithic entity without its own internal politics.

[Thaeris]

Yes, this is true. But also recall that the military is responsible for carrying out the operation when the time comes. That being said, I feel I've made a point as well. Of course, this is a subject which can go round many times over and still yield no agreement.

If I will make a statement for the support of the opposing camp: note the earlier-mentioned "drop-tank absence" on fighters. In the early days of the USAAC, the "Mitchell bomber-cult" made every effort to supress the development of fighters. US fighters at the time were thus mostly contemporary of many European designs, thus being (a.) small, nimble planes with an emphasis on WWI-type aerial engagements and/or (b.) tactical in nature: small, short-range combat craft designed to support ground forces. Most 1920's-30's designs reflect this philosophy. Of course, the USAAC of the day had fairly little experience with actual combat (combat aircraft were still wearing "diapers," if you will...) and the doctrine of high-ranking officers was very backwards in light of today's standards. Any competant commander observes the full spectrum of the situation at hand while also precieving the situation to come. This means he/she also works with superiors/subordinates to determine the best possible solution.

This brings me to another statement, this time in support BUT ALSO in contrast to the one made above. One of my heroes, Claire Chennault (only a Captain at the time), was strongly against the "Mitchell doctrine." Chennault was able to effectively demonstrate that the strategic bombing doctrine of the time was terribly flawed. Due to the military politics of the time, his efforts were not well accepted. This illustrates Battuta's point (and Janos') well. However, his eventual exploits, due to his insight, have significantly shaped modern understanding of aerial combat.

This is where the contrast sets in: the warfighter (Chennault-at the time) is often better able to see the conditions and needs required to endure in combat than generals off the field. Modern doctrine (at least USAF doctrine) is shaped to deal with this effectively. The best leaders lead through cooperating with their respective subordinates. Communication is key: he who knows the most fights the best. I cannot think of any exceptions to this rule. This is how I can justly state that the military tends to want to use the best of what's available. However, you still are right: war and politics are no different in the end (when the bashing of tongues end the bashing of heads begins!).

I just hope the condition is that you're not completely right and I'm completely wrong. If that's true then the national defense is going to hell in a handbasket...

-Thaeris

[Janos]

Want to use? What do you mean? The military usually wants to use the best of what's available! Rather, politicans of often want what they want for whatever reason it suits them.

I don't see it as a bad thing, since army should be under the political command lest they've been give too much power. I don't see whats so controversial about it?

Why do we have that foolish F-22 instead of the YF-23? A fully developed F-23 would have been far better for a good list of reasons I will be happy to heap upon your head should you be curious! High-end generals often are no better than politicians either; that's the only reasonable part fo the want to use argument you've got!  

Armies are not independent entries? They often propose stuff that suits their needs quite well but don't actually suit the needs of the nation? You know, the meat of my argument?

The P-47 was good at a lot of things, including escort. The Merlin Mustang was better in the escort role. That in no sense makes the Thunderbolt a fluke. If you think it does, than you aren't too familiar with the exploits of the fighter in the field.

I have never argued that, if you think so please go ahead and point where I did. I dare you.

And what do you mean by "Crusader"? Not the F-8 I hope, because that was an exceptional aeroplane by all accounts.

...

No, I did not mean that. I was referring to SPA platform that was put forward during the later stages of Cold War, then cancelled. The platform the Army was so defiant to defend when there was absolutely no reason to replace perfectly working platform with much more expensive platform.

Perhaps this only shows that history is as accurate as according to the writer's vendettas. If that's the case for everything we're probably about as brainwashed as the North Koreans...

-Thaeris

edit2: removed some offensive language

edit: The technical expertise NGTM-1R shows in the thread is still sidestepping the issue: why was the Air Force so adversely reacting to P-51, which showed itself to be well suited for the task the politicans wanted, and instead proposed an airplane that, even according to sources at the time, was good for many tasks but not as well suited for the task proposed as an another, already existing, airplane?

The reason, of course, being armies trying to glorfy themselves and selecting tools that work for selected duties (duties that fit the ambitions of the army): an all-out air superiority platform is not what a nation needs, it's actually detrimental to the nation itself. It's not like this is an unique concept.

[NGTM-1R]

edit: The technical expertise NGTM-1R shows in the thread is still sidestepping the issue: why was the Air Force so adversely reacting to P-51, which showed itself to be well suited for the task the politicans wanted, and instead proposed an airplane that, even according to sources at the time, was good for many tasks but not as well suited for the task proposed as an another, already existing, airplane?

This. Did. Not. Happen.

The P-47 was ready a good year before the P-51A. When the P-51A rolled around, it was not suited to the  task and thus was naturally rejected for it. Despite its very advanced design (laminar-flow wings, jetted exhaust), the Allison engine simply could not deliever high-altitude performance and it was thus not a capable escort. The P-38 and P-47 were expected to carry the bomber escort role because they had the high-altitude performance.

Then the B model rolls out. Field-tests show it to be capable in the escort role and superior in many respects to the P-47. The AAF immediately comes on board with this new version because...well actually that's ugly and an argument for your point. It was an in-line engine, not a radial. Air Force fighter officers viewed the inline as the future of warfare because of its aerodynamics. They were behind the times. The radial's superior power/weight ratio and durablity meant it lasted longer on military aircraft.

So you actually got it reversed. They chose the weapon they chose because it fit their preconceptions. That weapon, as it happened, was the P-51, not the P-47.