USAAC & Long Range Fighters

[KJ_Lesnick]

I was reading that the USAAC had generally chosen to avoid funding long-range fighters in the 1930's so as to avoid interfering with bomber-budgets: While this does not surprise me, considering the desire to build up a huge bomber force aimed at destroying the enemy from the inside out (never mind the fact that you have to fly over their territory, from the outside in), I'm curious about the Davis Manta.

I'd have almost swear that its development started in 1935, though the design did not mature until 1942 when it was rejected.

[wuzak]

Quite simply the USAAC of the mid 1930s was run by what has been called "the bomber mafia". The theories they had developed and were developing at the time was all about the self defending bomber always getting through.

Also, in that time frame it is unlikely that the long range fighter would have the necessary performance to cope with interceptors.

[dogsbody]

I was under the impression that American bomber policy in the 1930's was more about defending the US from an invading naval force than about attacking another country. The only two countries where a land invasion could come from were Canada and Mexico, neither of which had an army large enough to do much of anything.

[wuzak]

I was under the impression that American bomber policy in the 1930's was more about defending the US from an invading naval force than about attacking another country. The only two countries where a land invasion could come from were Canada and Mexico, neither of which had an army large enough to do much of anything.

That's how the USAAC justified its purchase of bombers.

[Librarian]

Cannot recommend this book highly enough:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/P-51-Mustang-Development-Escort-Fighter/dp/1903223148/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1426399477&sr=1-1&keywords=the+p-51+development

Beautifully illustrated, packed with facts.

[kerick]

Don't forget the U.S. military in the 30s was ridiculously under funded. Not much money left for fighters after fooling around with the bombers. Plus they did work on developing the P-38, P-39 and P-40. Not up to European standards but pretty good if the pilot was well trained.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Librarian

I'll put that on the list...


kerick

Don't forget the U.S. military in the 30s was ridiculously under funded. Not much money left for fighters after fooling around with the bombers.

Yeah, bombers took top priority in their scheme so they focused on that first

Plus they did work on developing the P-38, P-39 and P-40.

Those were not designed as escort fighters, of course.  Admittedly the P-38 and P-39 were designed beyond normal USAAC specifications by classifying the aircraft as an interceptor.  A rose by any other name may very well be a rose, but in politics, it becomes a carnation.

Not up to European standards but pretty good if the pilot was well trained.

I assume you mean the P-38, P-39, and P-40?  Or the P-51?