Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RAAF "Wounded Eagle" suggestions

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RAAF "Wounded Eagle" suggestions Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RAAF "Wounded Eagle" suggestions - 1/26/2011 10:13:27 AM   
takman

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 1/26/2011
Status: offline
Hello gents,
I have just finished reading "Wounded Eagle" The bombing of Darwin and Australia's air defence scandal by Dr Peter Ewer

The book is highly critical of decisions made by Air Vice Marshal Charles Burnett(who was in charge of the RAAF in the 1930's and the Menzies government.

I will provide some quotes from the book that might make for an interesting mod.

"On 27th October 1941, Canberra received an offer of new American fighters, the twin engined Lockeed Lightning II. With supercharged Allison engines, the Lightning II was capable of 410mph at 25,000ft, and with a long maximum range of 1240 miles, it was both well-suited to australian operating conditions and capable of maintaining a technical edge over the latest Japanese machines. And the response from Burnett? the Australian trade mission in New York was bluntly told on 31 October,'Lightning aircraft not repeat not required'. from page 187

"With the east coast of Australia now exposed to enemy attack, Burnett attempted to turn back time and basr RAAF planning on the principles enunciated by Williams four years before........The 'new' RAAF would be ready with 24 fighter squadrons (a capability Burnett first cancelled in April 1940), four heavy bomber squadrons (a role dismissed by Burnett in September 1940), and 12 dive bomber squadrons(for which no aircraft existed)." from pages 209 and 210

"In September 1940, the British air ministry had 20 4-engined B17 heavy bombers on order from America. this was the soon-to-be famous 'Flying Fortress, but the RAF was no great fan of daylight bombing, and thought so little of the role, that these machines were offered to Canberra.
Here was the opportunity to establish a long-range strike and reconnaissance capability to fear. However, Burnett's RAAF quickly rejected the British offer:'it is considered that Boeing Flying Fortresses would not only be unsuitable for RAAF operational requirements but capital cost, housing and maintenance would be very expensive'. In the RAAF's view, the B17 was too expensive, too vulnerable to ship-borne anti-aircraaft and designed in any case for log-range night bombing, a role, a role for which the RAAF had no local application.
Burnett was wrong. In fact, the B17 was designed as a long range precision day bomber, partly to fulfil an anti-shipping role, just the capability required by the RAAF. True, the Model C offered to the Australians did not boast the power operated gun turrets that later warranted the 'fortress' tag, but its range and bombload capability were exponentially greater than anything the RAAF(or the Japanese) could command.
........ It did not apparently dawn on Burnett, Bostock or the government, that the alleged expense of the boeings could be paid for by cutting back the monies allocated to squadrons that could never be formed for want of aircraft" from pages 175,176,177

"Alongside the Boeing debacle, Burnett tragically missed another opportunity to strengthen his command in September 1940. with the fate of the Western world hinging on Fighter Command's radar defence system during the Battle of Britain, the RAAF might have digested the lesson and looked again at ground-controlled interception. While the Radiophysics Board was preoccupied building gun-laying radars for thye army, 3 british air defence radars were delivered to Australia. The first of these arrived that crucial september, but amazingly, 'no special practical use' could be found for it, so it languished at the University of Sydney as an object of research curiosity" from page 177

"From the sidelines, Williams made one last effort to ensure his service selected the best equipment for the tasks confronting it. his 1938 preference for an amphibious type to fill the RAAF's requirement for a long-range flying boat evolved within months into a conviction that Australia would best be served by the Consolidated PBY, later known as the'Catalina" from pages 140,141

Imagine a RAAF in December 1941, with P-38 Lightning II fighters,radar and gound controlled-interception, 20 B-17Cs, Catalina flying boats!!!!!!!

There are other quotes about the location of airfields in Malaya and flaws in Australia air crew training that led there to be few aircrew with combat experience especially leaders in December 1940. But this should enogh to get the ball rolling.

I look forward to your comments.

Post #: 1
RE: RAAF "Wounded Eagle" suggestions - 1/26/2011 11:22:12 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
Sounds like a chief bureaucrat defending the interests of his bureaucracy rather than actually trying to do something about their mission--what Jerry Pournelle calls the Iron Law of Bureaucracy. Dunnegan interprets current USAF attitudes towards UAVs in similar terms.

< Message edited by herwin -- 1/26/2011 11:24:18 AM >


_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to takman)
Post #: 2
RE: RAAF "Wounded Eagle" suggestions - 1/26/2011 8:42:47 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
Until the 1960s it was almost impossible to wean Australian decision makers away from British military hardware. In part this was due to the personal military ties to Britain, and integration of any future Australian Expeditionary Force into British led operations. If foreign hardware was not good enough for the British, it was suspicious to the Australians.

The reference to capital outlays also directs attention to an aspect of procurement rarely taken on board by posters. In response to the Great Depression, Britain had turned the British Empire into a sterling block. To trade outside of the sterling block became very difficult and there would have been quite a strain on the Australian foreign trade account to find the $US to pay for the American hardware. The financial structure greatly assisted the sale of British goods to the Empire.

Alfred

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 3
RE: RAAF "Wounded Eagle" suggestions - 1/26/2011 9:37:32 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Until the 1960s it was almost impossible to wean Australian decision makers away from British military hardware. In part this was due to the personal military ties to Britain, and integration of any future Australian Expeditionary Force into British led operations. If foreign hardware was not good enough for the British, it was suspicious to the Australians.

The reference to capital outlays also directs attention to an aspect of procurement rarely taken on board by posters. In response to the Great Depression, Britain had turned the British Empire into a sterling block. To trade outside of the sterling block became very difficult and there would have been quite a strain on the Australian foreign trade account to find the $US to pay for the American hardware. The financial structure greatly assisted the sale of British goods to the Empire.

Alfred


Not only did they mismanage their own economy, they insisted on sharing it!? (See Keynes on the causes of the Great Depression.) I bet the current Government wishes they had that leverage. They've managed to mismanage themselves into what appears likely to become a double-dip recession. We're expecting 5% inflation and a contracting economy--I bet PIMCO will be reentering the bond market here!

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 4
RE: RAAF "Wounded Eagle" suggestions - 1/27/2011 3:30:18 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Just FYI, the F-35 is Lightning II. The name was not used before the P-38.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 5
RE: RAAF "Wounded Eagle" suggestions - 1/27/2011 4:11:32 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Just FYI, the F-35 is Lightning II. The name was not used before the P-38.



FYI...LightningII was not used by the USAF till the F-35. The term Lightning II WAS used by the RAF to designate an improved version, IE, Spitefire MK II, etc. Perhaps, since the book being quoted is Australian (and damned near unobtainable in the USA, I've tried! ) the author may be using the British name for the USAAF aircraft (Like Fortress III for the B-17G, etc).

_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 6
RE: RAAF "Wounded Eagle" suggestions - 1/27/2011 4:16:05 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Sounds very probable. But why does he call it the B-17C then?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 7
RE: RAAF "Wounded Eagle" suggestions - 1/27/2011 8:00:27 PM   
takman

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 1/26/2011
Status: offline
In reply to terminus,
First paragraph US offers Lightning II fighter to RAAF in OCT 1941
2nd paragraph Williams proposed structure of RAAF in 1936 (4 years earlier)
3rd paragraph 20 B17C Flying Fortress bombers offered to Australia by Britain in Sep 1940
4th paragraph Australia receives first air defence radar from Britain in sep 1940 and does nothing with it
5th paragraph Williams in 1938 prefers the Catalina over the Sunderland which we actually got, for RAAF flying boat requirement

Where do I call a Lightning II fighter, a B17C bomber?
Seperate paragraphs, seperate topics. I cherry picked some of the more intresting quotes from the book

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 8
RE: RAAF "Wounded Eagle" suggestions - 1/27/2011 9:28:02 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Sounds very probable. But why does he call it the B-17C then?



Good point. Mixing the nomeclature?

_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 9
RE: RAAF "Wounded Eagle" suggestions - 1/27/2011 9:36:14 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: takman

In reply to terminus,
First paragraph US offers Lightning II fighter to RAAF in OCT 1941
2nd paragraph Williams proposed structure of RAAF in 1936 (4 years earlier)
3rd paragraph 20 B17C Flying Fortress bombers offered to Australia by Britain in Sep 1940
4th paragraph Australia receives first air defence radar from Britain in sep 1940 and does nothing with it
5th paragraph Williams in 1938 prefers the Catalina over the Sunderland which we actually got, for RAAF flying boat requirement

Where do I call a Lightning II fighter, a B17C bomber?
Seperate paragraphs, seperate topics. I cherry picked some of the more intresting quotes from the book


The confusion here here is over the P-38. The P-38 was the Lightning, in USAAF service. The British used the P-38 as the Lightning, with each model variation being given a different Mark designation. For instance the the P-38F (in USAAF parlance) might be the Lightning I in RAF service. The P-38G would be the Lightning mark II or LightningII.

The RAAF might use either designation (though they generally use RAF). Hence the confusion. Terminus thought that you may have written LightningII by mistake. I thought you might have meant P-38G (Lightning II in RAF terms). Terminus then pointed out that you used B-17C , vice the RAF designation Fortress I.

In short , you are "mixing your nomenclature" and it's rather confusing. That's what we are talking about. In USAF service a Lightning II is the name for the F-35 , which is named to honor the P-38.


_____________________________


(in reply to takman)
Post #: 10
RE: RAAF "Wounded Eagle" suggestions - 1/28/2011 1:05:11 AM   
takman

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 1/26/2011
Status: offline
In reply to Aw1Steve,
Point taken, but the quotes from the book are accurate.
It is the author Dr Peter Ewer who is ' mixing the nonmenclature' in the book.
Sorry about the confusion.

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 11
RE: RAAF "Wounded Eagle" suggestions - 1/29/2011 11:29:58 AM   
Reg


Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline

I believe the RAAF were also shopping in Japan for aircraft about this time.

Now THAT would have been an interesting situation.....



_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to takman)
Post #: 12
RE: RAAF "Wounded Eagle" suggestions - 1/29/2011 4:32:29 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reg


I believe the RAAF were also shopping in Japan for aircraft about this time.

Now THAT would have been an interesting situation.....




Like the DC-3s Japan was building under licence?

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Reg)
Post #: 13
RE: RAAF "Wounded Eagle" suggestions - 1/30/2011 9:16:23 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
From the amazing pages of Joe Baugher

Only one Lightning II (AF221) was completed. It was taken over by the USAAF as P-38F-13-10, painted with US national markings, but retained its British serial number. It was used by Lockheed for the testing of smoke- laying canisters on racks between the booms and the nacelle, and for the air-dropping of two torpedoes from the same racks. Twenty-eight other British-ordered aircraft were completed as P-38F-13-LO for the USAAF, 121 as P-38F-15-LO, 174 as P-38G-13-LO, and 200 as P-38G-15-LO

The P38F was a late 1942 model.

I think you can always find these offers bandied around, promises to do this or that in return for you doing something else. the took place in to world of Diplomacy rather than the real world.


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 14
RE: RAAF "Wounded Eagle" suggestions - 1/30/2011 9:21:29 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
same place

The first B-17C flew on July 21, 1940. It was retained by the company for test purposes. First delivery of the B-17C to the USAAC was completed by November 29.

Under the terms of the Lend-Lease law, which was passed on March 11, 1941, the War Department was empowered to sell, lend or lease war material to "the government of any country whose defense the President deems vital for the defense of the United States".

Almost immediately, the Royal Air Force (RAF) requested the delivery of a number of B-17s. Although the USAAC was chronically short of B-17s itself, the service reluctantly agreed to divert twenty aircraft out of the order for 38 new B-17Cs and deliver them to England. The twenty B-17C Fortresses allocated to Britain under Lend-Lease were taken off the B-17C production line at Boeing. These aircraft were essentially similar to USAAC B-17Cs, but they had all but the single nose gun replaced by 0.5-inch Browning machine guns, and self-sealing fuel tanks were installed at Wright Field before the Fortress Is were flown to Britain. They were known as Model 299T by the manufacturer, and as Fortress I by the RAF. RAF serials AN-518 through AN-537 were assigned to these planes, although they were initially painted with the incorrect series letters AM rather than AN.

Although the Army did not consider the B-17C as being combat ready (the E-version was already under procurement as the result of combat reports from Europe), the RAF was sufficiently desperate that these planes were immediately pressed into front-line service.

The Fortress I was to be used by No. 90 Squadron, based at West Raynham. Things got off to a bad start right from the beginning. On its delivery flight to Britain, the first Fortress I ran off the runway when landing at West Raynham, wiping off its undercarriage. It was fated never to fly again, sitting forlornly by the side of the runway, slowly being scavenged for spare parts.

The RAF planned to use the Fortress I on unescorted daylight bombing raids against targets in Europe, relying on the vaunted defensive firepower of the Fortress to fend off fighter attacks. The first sortie with Fortress Is was flown from Polebrook on July 8, 1941 against Wilhelmshaven.


< Message edited by JeffK -- 1/30/2011 9:22:10 AM >


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to takman)
Post #: 15
RE: RAAF "Wounded Eagle" suggestions - 1/30/2011 9:36:05 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
For an interesting review (critic) of the book.

http://airminded.org/2010/11/11/a-dominion-of-the-air/


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 16
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RAAF "Wounded Eagle" suggestions Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.970