PDA

View Full Version : American Industrial charity



Legal Texan
01-17-2011, 03:44 PM
It always amazes me that the US refuses to try to recover any of the money we unselfishly provided to the rest of the world in the way of material! The cold hard fact is that without American material, along with our entry into WW2, Germany would have defeated Britain and Russia and I believe we made a big mistake not taking advantage of the natural influence we could have wielded at the time and following the war!

pdf27
01-17-2011, 04:56 PM
Tell you what, we'll do a deal. The British and Russians will pay back all the lend-lease, and in return you will execute a million or so young men to make up for those from Allied countries who died on your behalf in WW2. Sounds fair?

Iron Yeoman
01-17-2011, 05:08 PM
It always amazes me that the US refuses to try to recover any of the money we unselfishly provided to the rest of the world in the way of material! The cold hard fact is that without American material, along with our entry into WW2, Germany would have defeated Britain and Russia and I believe we made a big mistake not taking advantage of the natural influence we could have wielded at the time and following the war!

Well thats a load of bo**ocks, it might have taken longer but eventually the Russians would have beaten the Germans, also the Germans would never had invaded the UK the Royal Navy would have ensured that.

Poor effort. Show again.

tankgeezer
01-17-2011, 05:47 PM
Stifled laughter...:mrgreen:

Nickdfresh
01-17-2011, 06:01 PM
It always amazes me that the US refuses to try to recover any of the money we unselfishly provided to the rest of the world in the way of material! The cold hard fact is that without American material, along with our entry into WW2, Germany would have defeated Britain and Russia and I believe we made a big mistake not taking advantage of the natural influence we could have wielded at the time and following the war!

Um, didn't their British just get done paying their Lend Lease a couple of years back?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loan#Repayment

Secondly, the markets created for U.S. goods and services after the War far exceeded whatever America provided for Lend Lease, or The Marshall Plan for that matter...

tankgeezer
01-17-2011, 06:16 PM
Mr. Texan, how do you know the U.S. hasn't done that very thing? Far as I know the Germans have been paying back their debts to the U.S. and as Nick pointed out, the U.K. paid their last bit in April of 2006. The Russians, although they had no obligation to perfect Soviet debts after the collapse, paid off their debt in March of 2009.
To say that we did not exercise influence in Europe after the war ended is incorrect. It was the opinion of those in government at the time to keep resources in western Europe (to include monies owed the U.S. ) in order to stabilize the region politically, and economically, and prevent as much as possible the expansion of the Soviet Union. Well used, and considered influence if you ask me...
You really need to bring your A-game Mr. Texan, if you want to play hop-scotch here.

Wizard
01-18-2011, 12:37 AM
It always amazes me that the US refuses to try to recover any of the money we unselfishly provided to the rest of the world in the way of material! The cold hard fact is that without American material, along with our entry into WW2, Germany would have defeated Britain and Russia and I believe we made a big mistake not taking advantage of the natural influence we could have wielded at the time and following the war!

The United States did an awful lot of stuff to help the UK and the Soviets win the war, but none of it was done "unselfishly". Every country in the world, throughout history, has always acted in it's own interests; neither the UK, the Soviet Union, nor the United States was any different in this respect during WW II.

Whether Germany could have defeated the UK and Soviet Union, absent our entry into the war, is arguable. But if it had, the US would have been in a very difficult situation and it would have required far more in the way of sacrifice for the US to stave off defeat at Germany's hands. Keeping the UK and the Soviet Union as viable combatants against Germany was in our vital interest.

Rising Sun*
01-18-2011, 08:36 AM
It always amazes me that the US refuses to try to recover any of the money we unselfishly provided to the rest of the world in the way of material!

Bit of a non sequitur there, old chap.

'Money' ... 'provided to the rest of the world in the way of material'?

Which was it? Money? Or material?

Anyway, when did the US 'refuse to recover' any of the money which it provided in the way of material?

Or perhaps materiel?

Anyway, old chap, and I know this will be profoundly disappointing to you, my country actually ended the war with a positive Lend-Lease balance for American money and or material or materiel sent down here. You had to pay us. That was very unselfish of you. We also made a profit out of Britain over the same period. I suppose that's all partly because we're a lot bigger than Texas, and able to produce a lot more materiel. Or material. And a bit of money, for us, as well.


The cold hard fact is that without American material, along with our entry into WW2, Germany would have defeated Britain

Really?

Maybe it's the shade from the wide-brimmed Stetsons, or the pressure on the brain from hat bands contracting in the heat, in Texas that obscures the fact that, long before America entered the war, Britain had defeated any German attempt to invade it and was, all by itself with its not inconsiderable Commonwealth countries, fighting the Nazis alone, and with some success, while the rest of the world stood by.


Russia

Umm, Germany started that enterprise long before America came into the war and didn't do all that well, largely due to the resilience of the Soviets.

Also, and I hope you won't mind me mentioning it, the Soviets belted the living bejasus out of the Germans in 1944-45 and also out of the Japanese in a couple of weeks at the end of that war.

While Allied, as distinct from exclusively American (the ships on the Murmansk run weren't exclusively, or even largely, American) efforts undoubtedly helped the Soviets repulse the Nazis, you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that the Nazis could have got all the way to Vladivostok if the other Allies hadn't provided any support.


and I believe we made a big mistake not taking advantage of the natural influence we could have wielded at the time and following the war!

Are you channelling Henry Ford?

fastmongrel
01-18-2011, 12:48 PM
It always amazes me that the US refuses to try to recover any of the money we unselfishly provided to the rest of the world in the way of material! The cold hard fact is that without American material, along with our entry into WW2, Germany would have defeated Britain and Russia and I believe we made a big mistake not taking advantage of the natural influence we could have wielded at the time and following the war!

Before the start of lend lease in 1941 British, French and other countries money had already paid for the expansion of US industry that was able to supply the lendlease materials you refer to. I am not totally sure of my figures but I believe before the start of hostilities US unemployment was still very high possibly up to 10 million unemployed if make work schemes werent included. The US ended the war with full employment and was the wealthiest county in the world by far whichever way you look at it total GDP or GDP per head.


Lend lease and Marshall aid werent charity it was hard headed pragmatism. Via lend lease the US was able to keep mainly Russia but also Britain fighting the axis without those two countries the US would have had to spill vast amounts of blood if they had tried to take on the Axis.

After the war the Marshall aid plan did its job of rebuilding shattered countries and almost certainly was the main reason that western europe did not fall under communist influence.

The US got great value for money from Lend Lease and Marshall Aid and the rest of the world can be truly thankful for it but it wasnt charity and the US at the time did not begrudge it.

Wizard
01-18-2011, 12:49 PM
While I certainly don't subscribe to, nor share, Legal Texan's ill-informed attitude, in the interest of fairness, I'm prompted to point out some relevant facts;


...Maybe it's the shade from the wide-brimmed Stetsons, or the pressure on the brain from hat bands contracting in the heat, in Texas that obscures the fact that, long before America entered the war, Britain had defeated any German attempt to invade it and was, all by itself with its not inconsiderable Commonwealth countries, fighting the Nazis alone, and with some success, while the rest of the world stood by.

Nevertheless, it would be accurate to say that the Brits and their Commonwealth were desperate to get the United States actively involved in the war on their side. And this was after France and Britain failed, through neglect and serious error, to stop the rise of another European tyrant who caused that war.


Umm, Germany started that enterprise long before America came into the war and didn't do all that well, largely due to the resilience of the Soviets...

Actually, the US entered the war against Germany, albeit in an undeclared manner, just three months after the commencement of Operation Barbarossa. On September 1, 1941, Admiral King, as Commander of the US Atlantic Fleet issued the following order;

"MY INTERPRETATION OF THREAT TO UNITED STATES OR ICELAND FLAG SHIPPING WHETHER ESCORTED OR NOT, IS THAT THREAT EXISTS WHEN:

1) POTENTIALLY HOSTILE VESSELS ARE ACTUALLY WITHIN SIGHT OR SOUND CONTACT OF SUCH SHIPPING OR ITS ESCORT.

2) POTENTIALLY HOSTILE SURFACE RAIDERS APPROACH WITHIN 100 MILES OF SUCH SHIPPING, ALONG THE SEA LANES BETWEEN NORTH AMERICA AND ICELAND.

3) POTENTIALLY HOSTILE SURFACE RAIDERS OR SUBMARINES EITHER APPROACH WITHIN 100 MILES OF SUCH SHIPPING TRAVERSING ROUTES DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH 3 (W) (5) BELOW, OR ENTER THE PROCLAIMED NEUTRALITY ZONE.

4) ANY POTENTIALLY HOSTILE FORCES APPROACH TO WITHIN FIFTY MILES OF ICELAND."

DESTROY HOSTILE FORCES THAT THREATEN SHIPPING NAMED IN (B) AND (C) ABOVE."

See;http://www.historyarticles.com/new_page_10.htm


...While Allied, as distinct from exclusively American (the ships on the Murmansk run weren't exclusively, or even largely, American) efforts undoubtedly helped the Soviets repulse the Nazis, you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that the Nazis could have got all the way to Vladivostok if the other Allies hadn't provided any support.

Getting "all the way to Vladivostok" is a largely meaningless issue in this context. Moreover, the example of the "Murmansk run" is misleading since only about 25% of Lend-lease supplies were delivered to the Soviets over that route. Fully 50% of Lend-lease supplies were delivered to the Soviets through Siberian ports, and the ships that carried these supplies were overwhelmingly American-built. In addition, another 25% of Lend-lease aid to the Soviets traveled through Mid-eastern ports and slightly more than half of the ships involved in that effort were American-built.

Churchill
01-18-2011, 02:46 PM
In all seriousness, this topic makes me laugh.

royal744
02-04-2011, 01:41 PM
Tell you what, we'll do a deal. The British and Russians will pay back all the lend-lease, and in return you will execute a million or so young men to make up for those from Allied countries who died on your behalf in WW2. Sounds fair?

More like 5-10 million.

royal744
02-04-2011, 01:49 PM
Mr. Texan, how do you know the U.S. hasn't done that very thing? Far as I know the Germans have been paying back their debts to the U.S. and as Nick pointed out, the U.K. paid their last bit in April of 2006. The Russians, although they had no obligation to perfect Soviet debts after the collapse, paid off their debt in March of 2009.
To say that we did not exercise influence in Europe after the war ended is incorrect. It was the opinion of those in government at the time to keep resources in western Europe (to include monies owed the U.S. ) in order to stabilize the region politically, and economically, and prevent as much as possible the expansion of the Soviet Union. Well used, and considered influence if you ask me...
You really need to bring your A-game Mr. Texan, if you want to play hop-scotch here.

Right. The second string isn't going to cut it here. I wonder what we owe the British for radar? Or what we owe the British for "Tubular Alloys", the English nuclear project before our own was off the ground? Oh yes, and for Fred Whittle's jet engines we used in our experimental trials. If you think this was one way, think again.

royal744
02-04-2011, 01:55 PM
On behalf of all Texans who didn't fall asleep in history class, I humbly apologize.

pdf27
02-04-2011, 02:17 PM
Chill out, it was a passing troll who we only didn't ban because we were having so much fun. Think of a cat playing with it's food ;)

Wizard
02-04-2011, 02:18 PM
Right. The second string isn't going to cut it here. I wonder what we owe the British for radar? Or what we owe the British for "Tubular Alloys", the English nuclear project before our own was off the ground? Oh yes, and for Fred Whittle's jet engines we used in our experimental trials. If you think this was one way, think again.

Good question. My answer would be "not much".

The British continually bring up these technological issues, but I wonder precisely just what they were worth? Every item was already under development in the US. Moreover, the US was able to throw much more financial , industrial, and human resources into their development, which meant that they were available to combat forces far sooner than would have been the case had Britain kept them to herself.

One example is the proximity fuse; several countries, including the United States had been working on it for years, but no one had ever been able to produce a workable fuse for gun-launched projectiles due to the engineering problems involved. British engineers were ready to give up and passed the problem to the US; within a year proximity fuses for gun-launched projectiles were being manufactured and within 18 months, they were in mass production.

tankgeezer
02-04-2011, 04:17 PM
Well, for one the British development of the cavity magnetron allowed for a very useful radar unit that the U.S. was some time away from duplicating. although the U.S, did, and does possess a huge ability to develop technology,, it was" 2 in the bush". The British had the "Bird in the hand" . Considering the importance of radar, there was no time to spend flushing those 2 from the bush.

Ronnyguitar
02-04-2011, 04:26 PM
It always amazes me that the US refuses to try to recover any of the money we unselfishly provided to the rest of the world in the way of material! The cold hard fact is that without American material, along with our entry into WW2, Germany would have defeated Britain and Russia and I believe we made a big mistake not taking advantage of the natural influence we could have wielded at the time and following the war!

sorry, but to my opinion you're writing bool shit......

Germany invades Britain ?? rofl......... Germany in Wladiswostok ? rofl.......

i don't have the writing talent others have on this forum, but i think you just wanna make us laugh ?? ok your turn ......

Wizard
02-04-2011, 04:39 PM
Well, for one the British development of the cavity magnetron allowed for a very useful radar unit that the U.S. was some time away from duplicating. although the U.S, did, and does possess a huge ability to develop technology,, it was" 2 in the bush". The British had the "Bird in the hand" . Considering the importance of radar, there was no time to spend flushing those 2 from the bush.

Actually, the US was only about 6 months from the development of workable centemetric radar. Where it was most important was in the battle of the Atlantic and in that the British needed large numbers of radar sets far worse than the US. And the British were not in a position to be able to mass produce those radar sets in anywhere near the numbers needed.

So, turn the question around; What was it worth to Britain to turn the technological data over to the US? What could Britain do with it otherwise?

Tube Alloys? Nada
Gun-launched proximity fuses? Nada
Jet Engines? A little, but not nearly enough manufacturing resources and the US was right behind them.
Radar? A little, but again no mass production of the sets needed

tankgeezer
02-04-2011, 05:06 PM
6 months is an eternity in war. Not having an available technology when needed is a disaster. Even a day, or a week can be the difference between success, and catastrophe. Though Britain had far less in production capacity, they had what was needed, and the U.S. had the ability to produce em like popcorn. sounds like it was teamwork, not a question economic advantages. Thats just the way I see it, and only on the subject of radar.

Wizard
02-04-2011, 06:22 PM
6 months is an eternity in war. Not having an available technology when needed is a disaster. Even a day, or a week can be the difference between success, and catastrophe. Though Britain had far less in production capacity, they had what was needed, and the U.S. had the ability to produce em like popcorn. sounds like it was teamwork, not a question economic advantages. Thats just the way I see it, and only on the subject of radar.

Six months wouldn't have hurt the US all that much in WW II; it didn't really get heavily involved in the European war until 1943 and in the Pacific War centemetric radar wasn't critical until 1944. It was Britain, in the battle of the Atlantic, which would have been hurt far more than the US

However, I agree that the way it worked out was advantageous to both parties, so the question of what British technology was worth to the US is, in my opinion, nugatory.

Rising Sun*
02-04-2011, 09:53 PM
The P-51 Mustang wasn't a great fighter with the original American Allison engine. It became a great fighter with the British Rolls Royce Merlin, which had a direct impact on its combat performance and success.

Wizard
02-04-2011, 11:39 PM
The P-51 Mustang wasn't a great fighter with the original American Allison engine. It became a great fighter with the British Rolls Royce Merlin, which had a direct impact on its combat performance and success.

So what?

The P-51 was designed for the British at their behest, so if they didn't like the performance with the original engine, it only makes sense they would try to salvage the design by replacing it with an engine of their own. There were plenty of very successful American-designed fighters with American engines in WW II. The P-38, P-40. F6F, P-47, and F4U come to mind.

Nickdfresh
02-05-2011, 07:32 AM
Six months wouldn't have hurt the US all that much in WW II; it didn't really get heavily involved in the European war until 1943...

The U.S. was in North Africa by Nov. 1942 (Operation Torch) and was heavily involved in various power struggles over the nature of the coming War not long after Pearl Harbor. And I am not sure that a relative late involvement in the War supports your argument entirely. The United States may well have had a lot of different cutting edge technical projects going on, but limited fruition came about without at least some exchange with Britain. In the period of 1940-1943, the United States had to swell it's military from and extremely outmoded 'constabulary force' of a few hundred thousand to a military juggernaut, though one that never quite reached its original envisioning. America simply had its hands full attempting to reach military parity, then eventual superiority, with the Axis. In short, the U.S. had a lot of choices to make, and did have some limitations...


...and in the Pacific War centemetric radar wasn't critical until 1944. It was Britain, in the battle of the Atlantic, which would have been hurt far more than the US

Define "hurt." If the U.S. cannot get sufficient forces to the"world's largest aircraft carrier" without suffering losses of attrition in men and material, then the U.S. cannot even effectively prosecute a War without suffering millions of casualties and possibly fighting for decades. Even with industrial superiority, which by no means is absolutely guaranteed in the long run if Britain collapses and the Soviet Union is conquered....


However, I agree that the way it worked out was advantageous to both parties, so the question of what British technology was worth to the US is, in my opinion, nugatory.

I don't agree it was nugatory. British sourced research and technology saved tens of thousands of American lives, from the Merlin engine to U.S. artillery...

Wizard
02-05-2011, 11:13 AM
The U.S. was in North Africa by Nov. 1942 (Operation Torch) and was heavily involved in various power struggles over the nature of the coming War not long after Pearl Harbor. And I am not sure that a relative late involvement in the War supports your argument entirely. The United States may well have had a lot of different cutting edge technical projects going on, but limited fruition came about without at least some exchange with Britain. In the period of 1940-1943, the United States had to swell it's military from and extremely outmoded 'constabulary force' of a few hundred thousand to a military juggernaut, though one that never quite reached its original envisioning. America simply had its hands full attempting to reach military parity, then eventual superiority, with the Axis. In short, the U.S. had a lot of choices to make, and did have some limitations...

Your argument is extremely nebulous and unfocused. How was US participation in the North African landings affected by centemetric radar, or rather the lack thereof? The U-boats which were the prime target of centemetric radar at that point inflicted minimal casualties on US Operation Torch forces; not a single US soldier slated for Ope3ration Torch was lost to U-boats. The "power struggles" in which the US was involved before and after Pearl Harbor had nothing to do with radar and are irrelevant to this debate. It's true in one case that US technological development was boosted by British discovery of the cavity magnetron, however, the British sharing it with the US benefited them far more than it did the US. The argument that the US was engaged in raising an army (and a Navy and an Air Force) early in the war is also irrelevant as the US was the one country in the world which managed to both mobilize it's manpower and simultaneously launch hundreds, if not thousands, of successful technological development projects. If you have any concrete evidence that the manpower mobilization requirements of the US prevented or slowed any of it's technological projects, please present it.


Define "hurt." If the U.S. cannot get sufficient forces to the"world's largest aircraft carrier" without suffering losses of attrition in men and material, then the U.S. cannot even effectively prosecute a War without suffering millions of casualties and possibly fighting for decades. Even with industrial superiority, which by no means is absolutely guaranteed in the long run if Britain collapses and the Soviet Union is conquered....

The term "hurt" in the context in which I used it means to be damaged significantly in the ability to wage defensive or offensive war or withstand the enemy's attacks.

The US manpower build-up in Britain was not instituted until later in the war when the US would have, in any case developed workable centemetric radar on it's own. There was simply no reason to ship huge numbers of men to England early in the war when the British were refusing to undertake effective offensive action against Germany on the European continent. They would simply have exacerbated the problem of supply enough food , fuel, and other supplies to Britain to maintain them.


I don't agree it was nugatory. British sourced research and technology saved tens of thousands of American lives, from the Merlin engine to U.S. artillery...

Again an extremely nebulous argument with no concrete evidence to support it. Perhaps you can supply some data or evidence to support your assertions? The British certainly didn't supply technological data to the US because it might save American lives; it supplied whatever data it thought appropriate out of an interest in preserving it's own hide. Just as the US took actions which were favorable to the British because it reasoned these actions to be in it's own interests.

The proposition that the US owes anything to British research before or during WW II has been pretty much debunked considering such research could or was being duplicated here or that the fruits of such research were unobtainable to the British without the means of mass producing the results.

royal744
02-05-2011, 03:09 PM
Good question. My answer would be "not much".

The British continually bring up these technological issues, but I wonder precisely just what they were worth? Every item was already under development in the US. Moreover, the US was able to throw much more financial , industrial, and human resources into their development, which meant that they were available to combat forces far sooner than would have been the case had Britain kept them to herself.

One example is the proximity fuse; several countries, including the United States had been working on it for years, but no one had ever been able to produce a workable fuse for gun-launched projectiles due to the engineering problems involved. British engineers were ready to give up and passed the problem to the US; within a year proximity fuses for gun-launched projectiles were being manufactured and within 18 months, they were in mass production.

LOL. I guess the fact that British radar was operational before the Battle of Britain doesn't figure into your calculations.

royal744
02-05-2011, 03:15 PM
The proposition that the US owes anything to British research before or during WW II has been pretty much debunked considering such research could or was being duplicated here or that the fruits of such research were unobtainable to the British without the means of mass producing the results.

OK, Wizard, have it your way, except that the British Tubular Alloys project - like radar - was way ahead of any American developments in nuclear research. You are right that the US had the financial and technical resources to bring atomic research to fruition, but this does not alter the fact that the British got there first. I don't recall hearing that the US had any operational jet combat aircraft before the end of the war, but the British did, although they never used them for anything other than reconnaissance on the continent. It's really not necessary to be chauvinistic about this.

royal744
02-05-2011, 03:17 PM
[QUOTE= nugatory.[/QUOTE]


Not familiar with the word "nugatory."

royal744
02-05-2011, 03:20 PM
"US was right behind them"

Nonsense. The ONLY jet engines the US had were gifts from the British.

Wizard
02-05-2011, 03:23 PM
LOL. I guess the fact that British radar was operational before the Battle of Britain doesn't figure into your calculations.

Hardly, because US radar was also operational before the Battle of Britain so that "fact" is of no consequence.

pdf27
02-05-2011, 04:45 PM
Hardly, because US radar was also operational before the Battle of Britain so that "fact" is of no consequence.
Operational? If you mean they had a working example, that's interesting but hardly unique (quite a few countries did). What the UK had, uniquely, was an operationally useful radar system - comprising both the radar itself and the associated Command & Control systems. Big difference.

royal744
02-05-2011, 04:50 PM
Operational? If you mean they had a working example, that's interesting but hardly unique (quite a few countries did). What the UK had, uniquely, was an operationally useful radar system - comprising both the radar itself and the associated Command & Control systems. Big difference.

Amen to that. And it worked and helped to defeat the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain.

Wizard
02-05-2011, 05:22 PM
OK, Wizard, have it your way, except that the British Tubular Alloys project - like radar - was way ahead of any American developments in nuclear research. You are right that the US had the financial and technical resources to bring atomic research to fruition, but this does not alter the fact that the British got there first. I don't recall hearing that the US had any operational jet combat aircraft before the end of the war, but the British did, although they never used them for anything other than reconnaissance on the continent. It's really not necessary to be chauvinistic about this.

Far from being chauvinistic, I'm trying to be accurate, something that you seem to disregard.

BTW, it's not "Tubular Alloys" but "Tube Alloys".

In actuality, the British Tube Alloys project was never "way ahead of any American developments". In fact, it was the Maud Committee (the forerunner of Tube Alloys) report that had the greatest impact on the American bomb development project and this was only to convince certain skeptical American leaders that isotope separation and ultimately a bomb, was a real possibility. Most American physicists were already convinced of that fact and were ahead of British researchers in both isotope separation and plutonium creation theory and research. By the time Tube Alloys was created(October, 1941), the Americans were markedly ahead of the British in these fields.

In "The Manhattan Project" edited by Cynthia Kelly, an exchange between Mark Oliphant, a British physicist working on the Tube Alloys project and who ad been to America to survey the American bomb project, and Sir James Chadwick, author of the Maud Report which preceded the Tube Alloys project, is reported. Oliphant says to Chadwick;

"The Americans will undoubtedly go right ahead with both projects [bomb and reactor]. and there is little doubt that they with their tremendous resources will achieve both before we have fairly begun. It seems far wiser to work in completely with them...."

Chadwick responds by saying that Britain is "some way ahead and will stay ahead". Oliphant who had just returned from America where he had been in contact with the American researchers replies;

"I still feel that you in common with many other people in this country underestimate seriously the extent of the American effort. I am extremely sorry that you have not gone to the States yourself for I am sure the picture which one gets in that way is rather different from that obtained from visiting Americans [Pegram and Urey]..."

The Tube Alloys research had very little impact on the Manhattan Project and I can find no specific information imparted from Tube Alloys to the American team that was of any real value in hastening the American project. If you have any information along these lines, please present it.

British researchers did make significant contributions to the Manhattan Project, but only after it was well along and only by working under the overall supervision of Groves and Oppenheimer in this country. In October, 1943, the British enlisted the service of Niels Bohr, flying him from Stockholm to Britain in a Mosquito bomber. Bohr had been in touch with Werner Heisenberg, the German physicist who had drawn a diagram for Bohr of the German reactor design. Bohr later showed the diagram to Oppenheimer who thought the Germans "were crazy". Bohr later told a friend, "They didn't need my help in making an atomic bomb."

In November, 1943, the British sent a delegation of several European and British physicists to the US to help with various aspects of the Manhattan project. This group included Otto Frisch, an Austrian, Wallace Akers, Rudolf Peierls, William G. Penney, George Placzek, P. B. Moon, James L. Tuck, Egon Bretscher, and Klaus Fuchs (the spy who betrayed the Manhattan Project to the Soviets).

In "The Making of The Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes, Oppenheimer reportedly welcomed this group to Los Alamos by saying; "Welcome to Los Alamos and who the devil are you?"

Rhodes says on page 523 of his book;

"They were Churchill's flying wedge. The bomb had been theirs as much as anybody's, but more immediate urgencies had demanded their attention and now they were couriers sent along to help build it and then bring it home. America was giving the bomb away to another sovereign state, proliferating."

Clearly, the British Tube Alloys Project was never significantly ahead of the US effort to produce a bomb and both projects were international in nature. It is inaccurate to claim that the Tube Alloys project hastened the advent of the atomic bomb or that war time Britain could have, on it's own, developed an atomic bomb in anywhere near the historic time frame.

As for the development of Jet engines, the British were not significantly ahead of US researchers and did not gift the US with jet engine technology; any such suggestion borders on the absurd. Britain did field jet planes first, but this was due to a deliberate US decision to con concentrate on the production of the pop fighters that actually won the war. Jet engine technology was not significant until post-war and at that time the US was in advance of almost all other nations in this field.

Wizard
02-05-2011, 05:24 PM
Not familiar with the word "nugatory."

Try looking it up in a dictionary, unless you are in the habit of having other people do your research.

Wizard
02-05-2011, 05:25 PM
"US was right behind them"

Nonsense. The ONLY jet engines the US had were gifts from the British.

I suppose you can support that rather ludicrous claim with some citations of authority?

Wizard
02-05-2011, 05:35 PM
Operational? If you mean they had a working example, that's interesting but hardly unique (quite a few countries did). What the UK had, uniquely, was an operationally useful radar system - comprising both the radar itself and the associated Command & Control systems. Big difference.

Not Really. The US Navy had operational radar systems aboard it's carriers with the associated command and control systems in place. While the operators were not as experienced in actual combat as the British were, the equipment was every bit as good according to a man who was familiar with both systems.

See the testimony of Commander William E. G. Taylor; http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/myths/radar/taylor_4.html

Nickdfresh
02-05-2011, 05:48 PM
Your argument is extremely nebulous and unfocused. How was US participation in the North African landings affected by centemetric radar, or rather the lack thereof?

I was specifically responding to your incorrect assertion that the U.S. wasn't involved in the ETO until 1943. But I will concede that my response could have been better organized as I was in a rush this morning. They were in fact already planning and allocating months after Pearl Harbor, including plans to launch an operation in France in spring or summer of 1942. To say the U.S. didn't engage Germany until 1943 is way off the mark, even if she hadn't literally plowed into Europe.


The U-boats which were the prime target of centemetric radar at that point inflicted minimal casualties on US Operation Torch forces; not a single US soldier slated for Ope3ration Torch was lost to U-boats. The "power struggles" in which the US was involved before and after Pearl Harbor had nothing to do with radar and are irrelevant to this debate.

It's true in one case that US technological development was boosted by British discovery of the cavity magnetron, however, the British sharing it with the US benefited them far more than it did the US...

Again, see above response. IIRC The Kreigsmarine, the entire Wehrmacht, was caught off guard by Operation Torch. I was speaking more in line with troop ships earmarked for Britain. Even a few troop ships going down into the Atlantic would have caused stateside consternation, as indeed the German E-boat raid that killed 750 U.S. soldiers prior to D-Day was kept secret for just that reason...


The argument that the US was engaged in raising an army (and a Navy and an Air Force) early in the war is also irrelevant as the US was the one country in the world which managed to both mobilize it's manpower and simultaneously launch hundreds, if not thousands, of successful technological development projects. If you have any concrete evidence that the manpower mobilization requirements of the US prevented or slowed any of it's technological projects, please present it.

I don't have evidence other than it was quite clearly the British who were light years ahead of the U.S. with certain projects that had a very tangible affect upon the war, especially in reducing casualties and shortening the conflict. But for you to make such a bold demand, you would first have to tell us when the American research projects were to bear fruition on such technologies as proximity fuses; or indeed developing a long range fighter that could escort bombers all the way to Berlin. Because prior to the P-51, every U.S. fighter seemed imbued with significant shortcomings. Personally, I think the bomber escorting was nice. But what this really allowed was the Merlin-equipped P-51D Mustang to directly challenge the Luftwaffe in a "kill them everywhere" campaign --no doubt shortening the War. The American development of the proximity fuse was a complete nonstarter and the British were way ahead thanks to some lucky breaks. I understand the "Tizard Mission" also contributed to resolving the troublesome supercharger problems earlier American fighters had and added several technologies freely shared, and so on.


The term "hurt" in the context in which I used it means to be damaged significantly in the ability to wage defensive or offensive war or withstand the enemy's attacks.

Fair enough, I see.


The US manpower build-up in Britain was not instituted until later in the war when the US would have, in any case developed workable centemetric radar on it's own.

I think some would argue that U.S. centemetric radar was at a bit of a dead end. Secondly, the U.S. was already planning for a preliminary invasion of Europe to buttress the Soviets, and to invade in force by 1943.


There was simply no reason to ship huge numbers of men to England early in the war when the British were refusing to undertake effective offensive action against Germany on the European continent. They would simply have exacerbated the problem of supply enough food , fuel, and other supplies to Britain to maintain them.

I agree. But you and I would have argued with the U.S. high command who were filled with 'piss-and-vinegar' to get at the Germans directly in Europe with a largely untrained, undersized, inexperienced, and ill-equipped army. I think the British had a point, as it would have been their divisions that would have had to bear the brunt of the initial fighting as the American Army simply didn't have the trained divisions yet. Not to mention the fact the British were a bit more cynical regarding the ability of greenhorn U.S. divisions to stand up against an experience Wehrmacht. Thusly, FDR was sold on the Torch expedition..


Again an extremely nebulous argument with no concrete evidence to support it. Perhaps you can supply some data or evidence to support your assertions?

No more nebulous or abstract than your beliefs that the U.S. would simply have developed said technologies without the sharing of the British.


The British certainly didn't supply technological data to the US because it might save American lives; it supplied whatever data it thought appropriate out of an interest in preserving it's own hide. Just as the US took actions which were favorable to the British because it reasoned these actions to be in it's own interests.

Of course! I couldn't agree more that, like the post-war Marshall Plan, it was 'benevolent self-interest'. But it should be said that the British could have economically benefited from said technologies after the war, and damaged its own economic interests by doing so. I think the direct sharing of Whittles jet technology also greatly enhanced U.S. jet fighter development extending benefits well into the Cold War...


The proposition that the US owes anything to British research before or during WW II has been pretty much debunked considering such research could or was being duplicated here or that the fruits of such research were unobtainable to the British without the means of mass producing the results.

A rather highly "nebulous" assertion lacking concrete examples...

Regards.

Nickdfresh
02-05-2011, 06:02 PM
I suppose you can support that rather ludicrous claim with some citations of authority?

Well, the U.S. did in fact have the P-80 (later F-80) Shooting Star online just prior to the end of the war. But it of course did use what was basically a copy of the Rolls Royce jet engine. That's off the top of my head, I'll look it up if you wish.

pdf27
02-05-2011, 07:07 PM
Not Really. The US Navy had operational radar systems aboard it's carriers with the associated command and control systems in place. While the operators were not as experienced in actual combat as the British were, the equipment was every bit as good according to a man who was familiar with both systems.

See the testimony of Commander William E. G. Taylor; http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/myths/radar/taylor_4.html
He's talking about the US Navy fitting radar to their carriers in late 1941. Last time I looked at a calendar, this is over a year after the end of the Battle of Britain. Furthermore, he described the operators as "green and inexperienced" and the communications systems "were totally inadequate to control fighters more than five miles off shore". During the raid on Pearl Harbour itself (much smaller than most Luftwaffe raids, and over 18 months after the start of the Battle of Britain) he states that "the plots that were coming in from the various radar stations were in such confusion it was impossible to determine what was going on.".

That isn't an operationally useful system. It's a wires and thermionic valves which one day with a lot of training and good leadership might (and did) morph into an operationally useful system. RAF Fighter Command had a much more useful system with Chain Home 2 1/2 years previously - the radars may have been downright primitive, but the system collated the information and got it to the people who needed it in time for it to be operationally useful. By the testimony you linked, the US armed forces were manifestly not capable of doing so at the end of 1941 - let alone at the time of the Battle of Britain as you claimed.

Wizard
02-05-2011, 07:26 PM
I was specifically responding to your incorrect assertion that the U.S. wasn't involved in the ETO until 1943. But I will concede that my response could have been better organized as I was in a rush this morning. They were in fact already planning and allocating months after Pearl Harbor, including plans to launch an operation in France in spring or summer of 1942. To say the U.S. didn't engage Germany until 1943 is way off the mark, even if she hadn't literally plowed into Europe.

Again, see above response. IIRC The Kreigsmarine, the entire Wehrmacht, was caught off guard by Operation Torch. I was speaking more in line with troop ships earmarked for Britain. Even a few troop ships going down into the Atlantic would have caused stateside consternation, as indeed the German E-boat raid that killed 750 U.S. soldiers prior to D-Day was kept secret for just that reason...

Regardless of what you have alleged, there was no significant US engagement of German forces in the ETO prior to 1943. Operation Torch took place in NORTH AFRICA in November, 1942. No US troopships carrying US troops were sunk by U-boats in the Atlantic at any time; thus the lack of centemetric radar cannot have been a factor in the US build-up of troops in Britain.

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. 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.


II don't have evidence other than it was quite clearly the British who were light years ahead of the U.S. with certain projects that had a very tangible affect upon the war, especially in reducing casualties and shortening the conflict.

Such as? And where is your evidence?


IBut for you to make such a bold demand, you would first have to tell us when the American research projects were to bear fruition on such technologies as proximity fuses; or indeed developing a long range fighter that could escort bombers all the way to Berlin. Because prior to the P-51, every U.S. fighter seemed imbued with significant shortcomings. Personally, I think the bomber escorting was nice. But what this really allowed was the Merlin-equipped P-51D Mustang to directly challenge the Luftwaffe in a "kill them everywhere" campaign --no doubt shortening the War. The American development of the proximity fuse was a complete nonstarter and the British were way ahead thanks to some lucky breaks. I understand the "Tizard Mission" also contributed to resolving the troublesome supercharger problems earlier American fighters had and added several technologies freely shared, and so on.

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.

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.

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.


II think some would argue that U.S. centemetric radar was at a bit of a dead end....

I have never heard that argument expressed by anyone. Who might those people be who would so argue?



II agree. But you and I would have argued with the U.S. high command who were filled with 'piss-and-vinegar' to get at the Germans directly in Europe with a largely untrained, undersized, inexperienced, and ill-equipped army. I think the British had a point, as it would have been their divisions that would have had to bear the brunt of the initial fighting as the American Army simply didn't have the trained divisions yet. Not to mention the fact the British were a bit more cynical regarding the ability of greenhorn U.S. divisions to stand up against an experience Wehrmacht. Thusly, FDR was sold on the Torch expedition..

Yes, but that has absolutely nothing to do with technology projects or already deployed military technology.


INo more nebulous or abstract than your beliefs that the U.S. would simply have developed said technologies without the sharing of the British.

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.


IOf course! I couldn't agree more that, like the post-war Marshall Plan, it was 'benevolent self-interest'. But it should be said that the British could have economically benefited from said technologies after the war, and damaged its own economic interests by doing so. I think the direct sharing of Whittles jet technology also greatly enhanced U.S. jet fighter development extending benefits well into the Cold War...

The Marshall Plan has nothing to do with this debate.

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.


IA rather highly "nebulous" assertion lacking concrete examples...

Regards.

No, I given examples, proximity fuses, and the atomic bomb project, you just refuse to acknowledge them.

Wizard
02-05-2011, 07:36 PM
He's talking about the US Navy fitting radar to their carriers in late 1941. Last time I looked at a calendar, this is over a year after the end of the Battle of Britain. Furthermore, he described the operators as "green and inexperienced" and the communications systems "were totally inadequate to control fighters more than five miles off shore". During the raid on Pearl Harbour itself (much smaller than most Luftwaffe raids, and over 18 months after the start of the Battle of Britain) he states that "the plots that were coming in from the various radar stations were in such confusion it was impossible to determine what was going on.".

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.


That isn't an operationally useful system. It's a wires and thermionic valves which one day with a lot of training and good leadership might (and did) morph into an operationally useful system. RAF Fighter Command had a much more useful system with Chain Home 2 1/2 years previously - the radars may have been downright primitive, but the system collated the information and got it to the people who needed it in time for it to be operationally useful. By the testimony you linked, the US armed forces were manifestly not capable of doing so at the end of 1941 - let alone at the time of the Battle of Britain as you claimed.

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.

Deaf Smith
02-05-2011, 09:26 PM
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 didnít 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 didnít 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.

Deaf

pdf27
02-06-2011, 03:53 AM
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.
Citation please. The only comment I can find in there about installing radars on US carriers is quoted below.


b. Q. Will you state to the court what you consider the materiel efficiency of the radar equipment was before December 7, 1941, that you have just stated you had familiarity with?

A. The radar equipment itself was excellent. It was almost as good as the equipment is today. In two carriers it had dust been installed and was not completely operative.

6. Q. After what date?

A. The date I was aboard. The date varied. One was on the east coast in September of 1941, and the other on the west coast in October of 1941, sir.

Nickdfresh
02-06-2011, 12:19 PM
Regardless of what you have alleged, there was no significant US engagement of German forces in the ETO prior to 1943. Operation Torch took place in NORTH AFRICA in November, 1942. No US troopships carrying US troops were sunk by U-boats in the Atlantic at any time; thus the lack of centemetric radar cannot have been a factor in the US build-up of troops in Britain.

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]

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavity_magnetron#History


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...

Wizard
02-06-2011, 06:10 PM
Citation please. The only comment I can find in there about installing radars on US carriers is quoted below.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CXAM_radar

http://www.radarworld.org/america.html

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."

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/radar/Tech39.htm

Wizard
02-06-2011, 06:52 PM
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'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.


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.

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 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...

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


"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]

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavity_magnetron#History

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.


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...

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.


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...

But other American fighters capable of excellent high-altitude performance, like the F6F, F4U, and P-47, would reinforce it.


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...

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.


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...

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.

tankgeezer
02-06-2011, 07:11 PM
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.

Deaf Smith
02-06-2011, 08:44 PM
Nick,

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.

Deaf

Wizard
02-06-2011, 09:58 PM
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.

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".

tankgeezer
02-06-2011, 10:41 PM
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..

Wizard
02-06-2011, 10:59 PM
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....

pdf27
02-07-2011, 01:27 AM
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.
So if he is a red herring, why did you cite him as supporting your argument when he does nothing of the sort?


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.
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.


"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."
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.

tankgeezer
02-07-2011, 01:46 AM
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.

Wizard
02-07-2011, 11:44 AM
I see it differently.As I stated, its attitude more than content. Discourse is more than just parsing jots, and titles. 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.

tankgeezer
02-07-2011, 03:46 PM
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.

Wizard
02-07-2011, 05:51 PM
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.

royal744
02-07-2011, 10:01 PM
I suppose you can support that rather ludicrous claim with some citations of authority?

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.

Nickdfresh
02-08-2011, 05:49 PM
I've never heard of "concentric" radar, do you mean "centemetric"?

A spellcheck error made in haste...


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...

Deaf Smith
02-09-2011, 09:17 PM
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.

Deaf

Nickdfresh
02-09-2011, 10:36 PM
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.

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"...

Rising Sun*
02-10-2011, 08:31 AM
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.

You have not been harassed. (If you want to be harassed, just let me know and I'll show you what harassment looks like although, unlike the temporary and disruptive members to whom I must occasionally apply it, you don't deserve it.)

TG merely expressed views, which other members of this board share, about the attitude implicit in many of your posts, which is a one-eyed American determination to win a point important to you rather than to engage in a balanced discussion where the primary purpose is to exchange knowledge.

You are welcome to stay on this board, and your deep knowledge is valued, but if you choose to persist with your combative approach to discussions as a contest you must win at all costs then you must accept the combative response you generate. That is not harassment. It is, at worst, reaping as ye sow.

Deaf Smith
02-10-2011, 08:33 PM
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...

Nick, we rolled them out of the factories in May, 43. P-51B's began rolling out of Inglewood in May, 1943. The first of 1,750 P-51C's produced at Dallas flew in August, '43.

But it takes time to get them to the 'end users'. This is true with any piece of combat material.



In this case, there was significant bias against the P-51 vastly compounding that "lag"...

Is there any documentation on this bias? I've never read of any such bias. Read about the guns jaming in the B and C series cause they laid the guns flat in the wings and any G forces would jam the guns (and alot of pilots were VERY unhappy they didn't even fire a shot when they got behind enemy fighters.) It was recetified by enlarging the wing enough to mount them upright, but that did't come into play until the D version.

Deaf

tankgeezer
02-24-2011, 11:45 PM
Thanks for sharing. It's great

You're very welcome, how nice of you to say so. Oh, by the way, you're banned Mr spammer.

Nickdfresh
03-09-2011, 05:32 PM
Nick, we rolled them out of the factories in May, 43. P-51B's began rolling out of Inglewood in May, 1943. The first of 1,750 P-51C's produced at Dallas flew in August, '43.

They could have been produced sooner had it not been for the typical foot-dragging by senior officers who had to be forced to accept projects they had nothing to do with initially...


But it takes time to get them to the 'end users'. This is true with any piece of combat material.

Three years?


Is there any documentation on this bias? I've never read of any such bias. Read about the guns jaming in the B and C series cause they laid the guns flat in the wings and any G forces would jam the guns (and alot of pilots were VERY unhappy they didn't even fire a shot when they got behind enemy fighters.) It was recetified by enlarging the wing enough to mount them upright, but that did't come into play until the D version.

Deaf

Yes, according to The Story of the Boeing Company, the P-51 was initially ignored and marginalized by senior officers as it was not developed through the official pipeline and was therefore 'suspect'. I think there are numerous sources stating that the Merlin P-51 could have been developed earlier:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Mi0K7kUyQFgC&pg=PA101&lpg=PA101&dq=p-51+initially+rejected&source=bl&ots=RVXUDFTO7D&sig=dCj2Z0o92p5cwKGN2ikXBd5H0-Q&hl=en&ei=4wV4TYeIHq6L0QHY-InGBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=p-51%20initially%20rejected&f=false

http://aviationworld.informe.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=40