Originally posted by TheCanadian
March 1943
In aviation news, the USAAF orders 750 Boeing B-29's, and 750 Consolidated B-32 Dominators in addition to the previous orders placed last year.
I find this an interesting news piece as it raises some questions you may want to answer.
Can you please explain why the USAAF orders 1765 heavy bombers (265 ordered in 1942 according to your encyclopaedia and 1500 as above) over the course of two years?
According to your encyclopaedia the USAAF fields a total of 19 Heavy Bomber Groups while each Group usually 3 squadrons in strength, with 12 planes per squadron. That is 684 heavy bombers in permanent service, assuming all squadrons are up to 100% even in times of peace. In fact, I think the number is a tad bid higher as I would expect squadron staff or replacements to raise number of a/c per squadron to 40. So actually that is 760 heavy bombers in active service to fill the ranks.
If we assume peace continues replacement rates will be low as damaged planes will be repaired and only those that crashed or burned will be total losses. So over the course of 5 years you may need another 40 to 80 of those planes (5 to 10% loss rate).
Some more may be used for training but anyways...
These latest USAAF orders, although no date is given for delivery, indicate a massive ram-up of your strategic bomber fleet and I wonder why? Why does the USAAF feel the need for twice as many heavy bomber squadrons than maintained yet?
Why does the USAAF feel the need to build two types of new heavy bombers? I understand two different designs were developed for competition - nothing special here - but putting two new designs designed to the same spec in production at the same time seems odd to me. Can you please provide some insight?
The build-up identified above only accounts for the two latest bomber types, the B-29 and the B-32. However, although information is limited, your encyclopaedia indicates there are still two more types in commission, the B-17 and the B-24. Of those two the B-17 is the older design and the latest F model already is a few years old. It entered service in 1937, so after 5 years it does make sense to replace them given the pace of a/c development in WesWorld. (Note: 5 years seems realistic in WW environment for a large, expensive and complex aircraft like a heavy bomber where realistically, by OTL standards, lifetime of such aircraft might be higher). Not all B-17F in service will be of 1937 origin and thus several years younger, but not all B-28/B-32 will enter service immediately too, so no issue here. B-17s will be replaced step by step.
However, the B-24 is a much newer aircraft. The D model entered service in 1940 so assuming realistic production planning; the last of these must be relatively new, raising the question of why politicians would fund the costs of the B-29 and B-32 orders? Even more so as neither B-17 nor B-24 ever had a chance to proof their value, or reveal inherent design issues forcing replacements, in a large scale bombing campaign. Both designs are still very large, impressive and powerful bombers by all means - why rate them obsolescent or insufficient? I think this is unrealistic and thus I assume the USAAF is only replacing the B-17, not the B-24. Which also means the increase in total number of heavy bombers is even higher than assumed above as the future strategic bomber wings will field B-24 along with B-29 and B-32 for a total of 2,000+ a/c.
Please note I worked with information from your encyclopaedia only. Given development steps in the B-17 and B-24 programs one must assume there actually are newer models available than those listed at least for the B-24. Otherwise the USAAF must have stopped all development of current types while the B-29 and B-32 were under development - which is highly unlikely given the risks that always come with new development programs. So I assume the latest B-17/B-24 are even newer than what your encyclopaedia indicates - which aggravates the issue of too many too early regarding those heavy bomber orders above.
It shall also be noted that any of these heavy bombers comes with a crew of 10-12 airmen average. 1,000 additional heavy bombers require 10,000 to 12,000 more crews (flying personal); plus ground crews, infrastructure, spare parts etc. While I have no doubt the USA can handle such ramp-up I still wonder why it should be required, funded and what likely opponent such bomber force would aim at? Given the alliance structure in WesWorld there really is no threat to the USA to warrant such build-up from my point of view.
So I am curious to learn more... :o)