1936 US land based torpedp/dive bombers

What available technology for land based torpedo and dive bomber if both US government allows the purchase/development and US companies paid to develop technology as early as 1936?

Will they be able to create a land based SBd dauntless? or land based tbf avenger within 1937? or would that be too early?

Or will PBy catalina be sufficient for that task?
 
We were already using the SBC3 Helldiver, the Bi-Plane in the USN, in that time, along with the Devastator entering service in 1937. Also the Vindicator was in service by 1938. Or are you looking for something twin engine?
 
What available technology for land based torpedo and dive bomber if both US government allows the purchase/development and US companies paid to develop technology as early as 1936?
from an older post of mine
John Northrop and Donald Douglas had been trying to sell a military version of their Gamma thru the mid '30s. To a variety of nations, unarmed, to get around the Neutrality Laws. Japan's IJN even bought a pair for evaluation in 1933

One, the Gamma 2C of 1933 was tested by the USAAC as the YA-13. Still looked a lot like the Classic Gammas with spats, but a two seater with four foward 30s, and a 30 in the rear, with being able to fire thru a ventral hatch if needed.1000 pound bombload. 207mph top speed, almost 3000 pound payload total, 1100 mile range.

Army said the Wright Cyclone was under powered at 750hp during tests in 1934(but still well outperforming the Curtiss A-12 Shrike), so was updated with a P&W Twin Wasp of 950hp, and called it the XA-16, for the next round of Army tests.
That was a lot of HP for 1935, and now the Army called it overpowered. Some days you just can't win.

Army did accept the similar, but lower powered A-17, and then decided that Attack aircraft should really all have two engines, and used the A-17s as Hacks and Target Tugs.
th


By this time Northrop and Douglas has split into separate companies, with Douglas offering updated divebomber based on the A-17 with the larger engine, and that's how you get to a SBD.
 
Thank you both for your answers. I was looking for possibilities of an aircraft for an alternate independent Philippines with funds in my timeline for defense of Luzon knowing by 1936 Japan was potential aggressor to compliment with P36 Hawk as the fighter role from a purchase program starting 1936(request proposal to US companies that can be licensed/manufactured locally).

We were already using the SBC3 Helldiver, the Bi-Plane in the USN, in that time, along with the Devastator entering service in 1937. Also the Vindicator was in service by 1938. Or are you looking for something twin engine?

I did have Devastator at my timeline but I was thinking if need to change it for better land based options. The Vindicator looks good also.

Might be more expensive if I went for twin engine though. Since the goal was to be cost effective, cheaper to produce but effective for defending Luzon and Batanes Islands.

I can probably go with high-low with few twin engines, lots of single engine torpedo bombers.

from an older post of mine
John Northrop and Donald Douglas had been trying to sell a military version of their Gamma thru the mid '30s. To a variety of nations, unarmed, to get around the Neutrality Laws. Japan's IJN even bought a pair for evaluation in 1933

One, the Gamma 2C of 1933 was tested by the USAAC as the YA-13. Still looked a lot like the Classic Gammas with spats, but a two seater with four foward 30s, and a 30 in the rear, with being able to fire thru a ventral hatch if needed.1000 pound bombload. 207mph top speed, almost 3000 pound payload total, 1100 mile range.

Army said the Wright Cyclone was under powered at 750hp during tests in 1934(but still well outperforming the Curtiss A-12 Shrike), so was updated with a P&W Twin Wasp of 950hp, and called it the XA-16, for the next round of Army tests.
That was a lot of HP for 1935, and now the Army called it overpowered. Some days you just can't win.

Army did accept the similar, but lower powered A-17, and then decided that Attack aircraft should really all have two engines, and used the A-17s as Hacks and Target Tugs.
th


By this time Northrop and Douglas has split into separate companies, with Douglas offering updated divebomber based on the A-17 with the larger engine, and that's how you get to a SBD.

I really like the A-17. Looks better performance than the Helldiver in my timeline. Maybe I might shift for that for an initial 1936 purchase program defending Luzon island.

Would an armored naval bomber be possible like a earlier P-47? Or 1936 technology wont permit that? At least armored for pre 1936 known anti air weapons of the Japanese?
 
I really like the A-17. Looks better performance than the Helldiver in my timeline. Maybe I might shift for that for an initial 1936 purchase program defending Luzon island.

Would an armored naval bomber be possible like a earlier P-47? Or 1936 technology wont permit that? At least armored for pre 1936 known anti air weapons of the Japanese?
Armor was not unknown for ground attack, was even one of Boeings first, the 1920 GA
Ground Attack, had 1600 pounds of 1/4" armor to protect the crew, that had an armored turret in the rear with two Lewis guns, and a 37mm and two .30 in an aimable mount in the lower wing, and the pilot had a fixed .50
GA-2n%20.jpg
7992.jpg

Performance was terrible, all that on an 400hp Liberty. also was before vibrations was fully understood and compensated properly, and this one shook unmercifully. A total failure, that had been a decade later with balanced Curtiss Conqueror, would have been usable. Recall that a Sturmovik
had around 1500 pounds, and didn't protect the rear gunner

It comes down on what you want to use your payload for, fuel for range, bombs and guns to damage your enemies, or armor to protect?

Don't forget that the XA-16 was higher performance from the P&W radial over the P&W R-1535 in the A-17, or the earlier A-13 with the Wright radial
and that was with semi-retractable landing gear
640px-Northrop_XA-16_on_ramp.jpg
 
Last edited:
Armor was not unknown for ground attack, was even one of Boeings first, the 1920 GA
Ground Attack, had 1600 pounds of 1/4" armor to protect the crew, that had an armored turret in the rear with two Lewis guns, and a 37mm and two .30 in an aimable mount in the lower wing, and the pilot had a fixed .50
GA-2n%20.jpg
7992.jpg

Performance was terrible, all that on an 400hp Liberty. also was before vibrations was fully understood and compensated properly, and this one shook unmercifully. A total failure, that had been a decade later with balanced Curtiss Conqueror, would have been usable. Recall that a Sturmovik
had around 1500 pounds, and didn't protect the rear gunner

It comes down on what you want to use your payload for, fuel for range, bombs and guns to damage your enemies, or armor to protect?

Don't forget that the XA-16 was higher performance from the P&W radial over the P&W R-1535 in the A-17, or the earlier A-13 with the Wright radial
and that was with semi-retractable landing gear
640px-Northrop_XA-16_on_ramp.jpg

Thanks for the reply.

Would you say both TDB Devastator, P-36 Hawk, PBY Catalina and A-17 cheap and easy to maintain relative to the era?
 
Thanks for the reply.

Would you say both TDB Devastator, P-36 Hawk, PBY Catalina and A-17 cheap and easy to maintain relative to the era?

Well none are cheap or easy to maintain unless you are the US or the UK, the Germans had, by US/UK standards appalling serviceability rates even for Germany based units.

These are all leading edge technology for the era and dependent on factory delivered parts or high end local machining using, for the era, exotic materials. They cost around $20k each ( much more for the Cat) which is as much as torpedo. So how many do you want and what's the size of your defence budget? And how long will the air force last. Unless you have a radar system or at worst a very extensive observer network with spotting gear and a means of communicating the first you will know of any attack on your airfields is the bombs falling. Disperse the aircraft how do you maintain them when scattered across the country and how do you coordinate them to attack or intercept?

A dilemma for any second tier air force of the era is how much do you invest in something that may not last the first hour of the war and even if it does is still outnumbered several x by a first tier air force. As a guide all the major WW2 air forces were spending 40-60% of their defence budgets in wartime on aircraft and their weapons (the 60% is those with naval air forces) its an expensive business.

The A17 is in no sense a dive bomber, its bomb load is small bombs on wing racks and even smaller bombs internally. The TBD and P36 are for their date of introduction top of line ( except the whole US torpedo issue which makes the TBD fundamentally useless) but that also means you get them after the US military has finished its orders or if the US government prioritises you over the US military. The US navy only gets the devastator dauntless in 41.

There is an argument that if the torps work up to the late 30s a PBY with torpedo racks is a good move especially for PI with lots of coastline to scatter in, again really hard to intercept and if the target is transports they are slow and hard to turn.

The best bet for a dive bomber is probably the SBC pre war if more are available or the USN moves to the SBD earlier. Which if they survive the initial attacks would be handy. After that if the PI remain unoccupied they get whatever can be delivered and probably the same as US forces.
 
The A17 is in no sense a dive bomber, its bomb load is small bombs on wing racks and even smaller bombs internally.
Someone thought it was a Divebomber, since had the perforated dive flaps, something the dive bombing Vindicator didn't have. While normally set for four 100 pound bombs and twenty 30 pound fragmentation bombs, have an overall load of 1100-1200 pounds, depending on the Model, with the last Norwegian model, the 1200hp Douglas 8A-5, 1800 pound bombload, plus four .30s and two .50s, with twin .30 for the rear gunner.
 
You know, in reality all carrier based planes are land planes. They can operate out of a land base just as easily as a carrier. In fact, it is actually much easier on the planes as landing on a carrier is quite hard on the airframes. They get slammed hard on the deck where they can be gently put down on a land strip.

Accelerating development is only a matter of how big a POD you want to play with. With a moderate POD it is realistic that you could get a TBF Avenger as early as late 1939 or 1940, but getting it much earlier than that is iffy due to the state of the art in aircraft development at the time. Engines were not yet powerful enough and the learning curve on all metal monocoque fuselage construction was still quite steep before 1939. Again, it just depends on how big of a POD you have. In theory, if you throw enough money and resources at a project you can work wonders in a short period of time.

Virtually any suitably sized aircraft can be converted to carry torpedoes. The Army's B-26 Marauder carried them at Midway, and while I do not know of any instances in which the famed B-25 Mitchell carried torpedoes it should not prove to be a problem in fitting them. For the time frame you are referring to the Army operated the B-6 and B-10 bombers and again you should be able to fit them to launch torpedoes. The major holdup would be in getting the stodgy Army Air Corps leadership to agree to take on this mission. In addition, remember that the larger the aircraft the better the target it is for AA guns. Launching a torpedo during this period required a very low and very slow approach along a steady course and it made the planes easy targets for trained AA gunners and fighter pilots.

Also consider the state of torpedo development in the mid 1930's. Prior to the introduction of the Mk 13 in 1936 the USN relied on variants of the ancient Mk 7 for air launch. Neither the Mk 7 or the Mk 13 proved to be very reliable when dropped in heavy seas, from even moderate altitudes, or at high speeds. This necessitated the flight profile I mentioned above and it made the launching aircraft very vulnerable. Please see the threadmarked entries in this thread for my take on the torpedo situation: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...torpedo-scandal-avoided.434935/#post-16361685

Good luck with your scenario. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the answers/comments everyone.

Well none are cheap or easy to maintain unless you are the US or the UK, the Germans had, by US/UK standards appalling serviceability rates even for Germany based units.

These are all leading edge technology for the era and dependent on factory delivered parts or high end local machining using, for the era, exotic materials. They cost around $20k each ( much more for the Cat) which is as much as torpedo.

I find the $20k cheaper though since same time period of destroyers cost as much as 100x.

So how many do you want and what's the size of your defence budget? And how long will the air force last.

The budget is larger than OTL. OTL commonwealth Philippines had a disadvantage of both having a smaller economy, and a tax to gdp ratio of 2% vs US state tax to gdp ratio i believe during this time period were around 7%. The GDP im aiming for would be larger than the OTL Dutch, Australia or Canada within the same time period with a tax to GDP ratio of 20% during peace time.

Besides defending from a potential from Japan, securing independence would be a priority thru arms. Im targeting around 800-1000 p36, 100 torpedo bombers, 100 dive bombers, 100 PBYs. But that amount is based on the thinking that they are cheaper to procure than the destroyer and influenced by mix blend Jeune Ecole/Mitchell in the 1920s. A cheaper smaller stuff will be able to sink a more expensive stuff. The procurement will be ongoing from 1936 until out break of war but limited to the 1936 procurement tech given.

I was going to pair this with 400 or 600 hours of training before earning wings.

These numbers are on top of what US assets in the remaining bases and US Asiatic Fleet.

Then, again if Philippines got so much aircraft, I dont know if Japan was still going to attack.

Unless you have a radar system or at worst a very extensive observer network with spotting gear and a means of communicating the first you will know of any attack on your airfields is the bombs falling.

Philippine even ATL is really dependent to US technology until Philippines can tap and optimize the ATL European migrants.

I cannot in anyway butterfly US radar and radar technology being based to the Philippines in the defense of the islands nor the US bases upon independence. US bases were always a condition by the US even post WW2. I could probably make them deploy faster than OTL or make use more effectively than OTL.

In OTL, US sent and installed radar to PI upon being briefed by the British. In ATL, Im thinking both will purchase. US for her bases in the PI while Philippines for herself.

Disperse the aircraft how do you maintain them when scattered across the country and how do you coordinate them to attack or intercept?

OTL US and Philippines expected an attack from the North. They even expected an attack landings in Lingayen Gulf. But didnt do anything about it in the air or sea. The US even knew the Japanese aircraft were coming to Clark air field.

My thoughts on local defense planners were for aircraft concentrations and radar in Luzon facing Taiwan and Japan but depleting Mindanao and Visayas with token aircraft.

A dilemma for any second tier air force of the era is how much do you invest in something that may not last the first hour of the war and even if it does is still outnumbered several x by a first tier air force. As a guide all the major WW2 air forces were spending 40-60% of their defence budgets in wartime on aircraft and their weapons (the 60% is those with naval air forces) its an expensive business.

The only potential opponent by the planners would be Japan both influenced by the US advisers and reality of the situation. I am expect Japan incapable on focusing all her air forces in the Philippines alone much like the Luftwaffe on Britain. Otherwise Japan wouldn't have any aircraft left in China, vs British colonies and vs US islands in the pacific.

The way im thinking about the military setup is with small surface fleet, small number of fleet submarines supported by coastal batteries and a lot of patrol boats, motor torpedo boats and coastal submarines. While the air force would be defensive, patrol focus, capable of sinking any navy close to Luzon but no air assets like a strategic bomber, B17. The army would be well trained and equipped but with WW1 tech level weapons and artillery manufactured and supplied with local arsenal. No tanks unless imported from US or Europe. Mobility is train bound, by foot, animal in Luzon. Ship or air if going to hop islands.

The best bet for a dive bomber is probably the SBC pre war if more are available or the USN moves to the SBD earlier. Which if they survive the initial attacks would be handy. After that if the PI remain unoccupied they get whatever can be delivered and probably
the same as US forces.

I plan ATL Philippine economy that can support license since the local aircraft factories would be American owned but laborers would be locals and any ATL European/asian migrants. Peace time however, those factories are for transports. So a 1936 onwards peace time purchase would be mostly imported from US and some local license until a German Jew/Russian migrant engineer or Filipino engineer figures out how to improve P-36 Hawk or make a better fighter alternative.

You know, in reality all carrier based planes are land planes. They can operate out of a land base just as easily as a carrier. In fact, it is actually much easier on the planes as landing on a carrier is quite hard on the airframes. They get slammed hard on the deck where they can be gently put down on a land strip.

Accelerating development is only a matter of how big a POD you want to play with. With a moderate POD it is realistic that you could get a TBF Avenger as early as late 1939 or 1940, but getting it much earlier than that is iffy due to the state of the art in aircraft development at the time. Engines were not yet powerful enough and the learning curve on all metal monocoque fuselage construction was still quite steep before 1939. Again, it just depends on how big of a POD you have. In theory, if you throw enough money and resources at a project you can work wonders in a short period of time.
Yes, I was thinking about this. By 1935, ATL Philippines would have the funds to do this kind of project although not as gigantic as what US will have by OTL WW2. Let say the Philippine government request proposals by 1935 or 1936 from US aircraft companies for Dive and torpedo bombers.

Im really looking for something to defend Batanes Islands, Lingayen Gulf protecting Manila Bay on tropical climate that can sink anything that Japanese got in 1936.

I was also thinking of adjusting or creating a new armored airframe or at least air launch less vulnerable if possible during the said time period.

Would a Philippine version of Ilyushin Il-2 be enough? Highly armored vs Japanese naval AA guns but vulnerable vs Zero fighters?

Also consider the state of torpedo development in the mid 1930's. Prior to the introduction of the Mk 13 in 1936 the USN relied on variants of the ancient Mk 7 for air launch. Neither the Mk 7 or the Mk 13 proved to be very reliable when dropped in heavy seas, from even moderate altitudes, or at high speeds. This necessitated the flight profile I mentioned above and it made the launching aircraft very vulnerable. Please see the threadmarked entries in this thread for my take on the torpedo situation: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...torpedo-scandal-avoided.434935/#post-16361685

Good luck with your scenario. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.
Thanks for the comment. I will try reading this!
 
Someone thought it was a Divebomber, since had the perforated dive flaps, something the dive bombing Vindicator didn't have

The Swedish B5 variant was specifically adapted to be a dive bomber, and apparently there is a very good swedish movie about them.

The budget is larger than OTL. OTL commonwealth Philippines had a disadvantage of both having a smaller economy, and a tax to gdp ratio of 2% vs US state tax to gdp ratio i believe during this time period were around 7%. The GDP im aiming for would be larger than the OTL Dutch, Australia or Canada within the same time period with a tax to GDP ratio of 20% during peace time.

Besides defending from a potential from Japan, securing independence would be a priority thru arms. Im targeting around 800-1000 p36, 100 torpedo bombers, 100 dive bombers, 100 PBYs. But that amount is based on the thinking that they are cheaper to procure than the destroyer and influenced by mix blend Jeune Ecole/Mitchell in the 1920s. A cheaper smaller stuff will be able to sink a more expensive stuff. The procurement will be ongoing from 1936 until out break of war but limited to the 1936 procurement tech given.

I was going to pair this with 400 or 600 hours of training before earning wings.

These numbers are on top of what US assets in the remaining bases and US Asiatic Fleet.

Then, again if Philippines got so much aircraft, I dont know if Japan was still going to attack.

Unless there is a typo there I think HoI has a lot to answer for. 1000 a/c in 39 ( i.e. pre wartime spending kicks in) if the first line fighter strength of the Luftwaffe ( and 5x the numbers of P36 produced, roughly equal to the total run of Hawk 75 all time ) and the PBY and TBD numbers are around 2/3 of the USN inventory of the type.


Your timeline but the PI ( technically US colonies on the list I have), is 0.7% of world GDP in 39, and has a population of 16m. Assuming the PI is 0.7% of world economy and as you say a more military focus, I would suggest having a look at the Swedish armed forces which is about the same level of GDP but a popn of only 6m so much more cash on hand. http://www.niehorster.org/081_sweden/__sweden.htm is a link but that would give using the 41 air force 36x B3 ( Junkers 86k or another twin engined bomber of the era) 45 float plane recon/bombers, 36 recon aircraft, about 70 B5 ( A 17 rebuilt as a dive bomber) about 130 fighters mostly P35 at the start of 41. ( the wiki entry gives 290 fighters, 350 bombers in 41 and 500 each in 42)

Plus 14-20 DD a couple of coast defence ships and a sizeable Sub, PT and minelaying force.

And 5 infantry divisions and maybe 20 ( probably more, swedes chime in on the MILO forces) independent regiments. Its actually the prospect of being stuck in a war vs a million well armed and angry Phillipinos with an indigenous armament industry that would deter Japan so working through the pre war mobilisation to train draftees is key.

If you are looking at a PI GDP around double of OTL ( or a proportion of military spend equal to) then its something like Poland, with 500 Fighters 350 ish bombers. Most which gets destroyed on the ground in any Japanese surprise attack. And 15 odd divisions which means they don't attack in the first place.

Both the Swedes and PI have good links with US aircraft manufacturers and the Swedes adapted second line US designs into something more useful and built on them for the SAAB designs of the 40s. Also they are developing an aircraft industry at the time so a handy model as to what can be done to produce aircraft and develop an indigenous armaments industry. Screw Avengers, lets have Vultee Sea Wolfs done right.
 

Driftless

Donor
Another option - a versatile 2-engined US-made plane designed in 1938, accepted for service in early 1940 - the Martin Maryland bomber. The French were the first to use the plane, but the balance of the production went to Britain after the Battle of France. Very good speed, manuverability, and range for its type and era. The British used it frequently for reconnaissance and even in a pinch as a fighter.
 
Another option - a versatile 2-engined US-made plane designed in 1938, accepted for service in early 1940 - the Martin Maryland bomber. The French were the first to use the plane, but the balance of the production went to Britain after the Battle of France. Very good speed, manuverability, and range for its type and era. The British used it frequently for reconnaissance and even in a pinch as a fighter.

A guy flying them even made ace - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Warburton
 
Unless there is a typo there I think HoI has a lot to answer for. 1000 a/c in 39 ( i.e. pre wartime spending kicks in) if the first line fighter strength of the Luftwaffe ( and 5x the numbers of P36 produced, roughly equal to the total run of Hawk 75 all time ) and the PBY and TBD numbers are around 2/3 of the USN inventory of the type.

The numbers of aircraft based on number crunching ATL spending since 1936 to 1941 with $5M from 1936-39(higher after) spending yearly on combat aircraft. However I equally spend that amount on Navy combat purchases that is why my navy is smaller than your estimates. The total military spending of around $80M annually from 1936-39.

However, if I compute only to produce/purchase aircraft only 1939, the number of P-36 would go down to 360 fighters, 60 TB, 60 DB(120 bombers total), 60 PBYs(60 patrol aircraft). 1939-41 got a lot of time to ram production and increase spending especially if Japan starts going down to IndoChina.

The 800-1000 P36 is for 1941 computation estimates. i Could bring the fighter numbers down by purchasing P40s or P38s. Or shift the spending to PBYs or B17s. But P36 was cheap that having 1000 was doable by end 1941.

Your timeline but the PI ( technically US colonies on the list I have), is 0.7% of world GDP in 39, and has a population of 16m. Assuming the PI is 0.7% of world economy and as you say a more military focus, I would suggest having a look at the Swedish armed forces which is about the same level of GDP but a popn of only 6m so much more cash on hand. http://www.niehorster.org/081_sweden/__sweden.htm is a link but that would give using the 41 air force 36x B3 ( Junkers 86k or another twin engined bomber of the era) 45 float plane recon/bombers, 36 recon aircraft, about 70 B5 ( A 17 rebuilt as a dive bomber) about 130 fighters mostly P35 at the start of 41. ( the wiki entry gives 290 fighters, 350 bombers in 41 and 500 each in 42)

Plus 14-20 DD a couple of coast defence ships and a sizeable Sub, PT and minelaying force.

Just do note that PI in OTL does not have a good tax to GDP ratio. Philippines was taxing 2% of the GDP far below US state Tax to gdp ratio of 7% or US as a whole at 10%/Europeans tax greater than 10% of their GDP. Out of the $35M collected annually, only $8M went to the military which were mostly for salaries. If you made this at parity with US states tax to gdp ratio of 7% putting total collections at $100M+, you can have around $20-30M for the military instead of just $8M with OTL PI economy.

Population in this timeline would be around 17-18M including migrants/refugees.

14-20 DDS is a bit expensive side from 1936 purchase of a budget of $5M for the new navy ships. But its doable if start financing in 1918.

And 5 infantry divisions and maybe 20 ( probably more, swedes chime in on the MILO forces) independent regiments. Its actually the prospect of being stuck in a war vs a million well armed and angry Phillipinos with an indigenous armament industry that would deter Japan so working through the pre war mobilisation to train draftees is key.
My computation is around 5% of total population so around 600k/30-60 divisions for reserve. The reserve training would been ongoing since WW1.

Standing army is going to be around maybe you right 5 divisions since Im going to peg max peace time army,navy, air force to 1% of population.

If you are looking at a PI GDP around double of OTL ( or a proportion of military spend equal to) then its something like Poland, with 500 Fighters 350 ish bombers. Most which gets destroyed on the ground in any Japanese surprise attack. And 15 odd divisions which means they don't attack in the first place.

My GDP growth computation starting 1902 did put it at Poland size. Although my computation would be lower for fighters and bombers by 1939.

Being destroyed on the ground would depend if both the US, Philippines will optimize the radars and the numbers Japan will send. The Japanese did outnumber both the US and Philippines aircraft in OTL. The US/Philippines knew they were going for Clark air field before the Japanese aircraft got to the airfield yet the US aircraft were caught on the ground. While Philippines in OTL had only 12 Peashooters that did get off the ground, shot down some Japanese fighters and bombers. Then got destroyed on the ground later on with the exception of 1 which was shot down by the Japanese zeros.

Both the Swedes and PI have good links with US aircraft manufacturers and the Swedes adapted second line US designs into something more useful and built on them for the SAAB designs of the 40s. Also they are developing an aircraft industry at the time so a handy model as to what can be done to produce aircraft and develop an indigenous armaments industry. Screw Avengers, lets have Vultee Sea Wolfs done right.

Yes, Im thinking of this model to pattern for production.

Ok, I have to ask. What is the POD to make these changes happen?

More US capital as far as 1902 starting with increasing Tafts influence in the Philippines and increasing the power of the Federalist party in the Philippines initially. The goal of the Federalist Party of the Philippines was to transition the Philippines into a US State. They gain more traction until the Nationalista party overcomes them.

The next one is Increased taxation. OTL Philippine taxation under the Philippine assembly was stuck of around 1-2% of the GDP while US states were around 7%. More money for development for around 30 years from 1939. This will grow upto 20% upon independence 1936 in line with the welfare state attitude of Quezon and colleagues.

For the military, Philippine national Guard(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_National_Guard) was disbanded after WW1. Philippine assembly financed a naval ship circa WW1(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Rizal_(DD-174)), this will continue. The Philippines did train air units as early as this:
Military aviation took wings when then Senate President Manuel L. Quezon’s bill for the creation of the Philippine Militia, otherwise known as the Philippine National Guard (PNG) was approved on March 17, 1917. The bill mandates the complement of an aviation unit composed of 15 officers and 135 enlisted men. The Militia Act 2715, the name it was given after its passage, was enacted in anticipation of the outbreak of hostilities between the United States and Germany.

https://www.paf.mil.ph/history/early-philippine-military-aviation-1917-1945

edited: tax to gdp ratio, and larger/smaller fighter contigent.
 
Last edited:
For my positive forecast on Philippine air corps difference, I am using the template of OTL trained Philippine pilots.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesús_A._Villamor and
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/César_Basa

The kill rate is 4:1 in favor of Philippine pilots on the air. 12 Peashooters Vs 27 bombers and 17 fighter escorts. That is the basis why i am more positive with more air advance air assets, more trained pilots what Philippines can do with more than just 12 P26A peashooters. Although the remaining air assets will be bombed in the ground, my thinking is more assets, more depleted Japanese figther/bomber strength, less downtime for fighters on the ground due to having more than 12 fighters.

It is a small sample size but it is the only sample size in otl ww2 for philippine trained pilots.


Another option - a versatile 2-engined US-made plane designed in 1938, accepted for service in early 1940 - the Martin Maryland bomber. The French were the first to use the plane, but the balance of the production went to Britain after the Battle of France. Very good speed, manuverability, and range for its type and era. The British used it frequently for reconnaissance and even in a pinch as a fighter.

Wow i will look into this.
 
http://www.analysis.williamdoneil.com/CIM_D0007249.A1.pdf

I think you are being very optimistic. Above is a study of US and Japanese defence expenditure in the 30s. A $20-30 m pa defence expenditure is giving a defence budget at least equal to the Japanese in the early 30s and around 30% in the later years from a population less than half that of Poland maybe 20% of Japans. and no meaningful natural resources. This makes the PI the most industrialised state in the world in 20 years, but dependent on importing most of the raw materials ( as far as I know) Japan and Poland both are sitting on lots of coal for power plants to run other things and their ability to import is dependent on the Peso rate and the goodwill of the US. The growth of a PI industrial base without statehood is a direct competitor to US industry at a time of protectionism.
 
What available technology for land based torpedo and dive bomber if both US government allows the purchase/development and US companies paid to develop technology as early as 1936?

Will they be able to create a land based SBd dauntless? or land based tbf avenger within 1937? or would that be too early?

Or will PBy catalina be sufficient for that task?

The USAAC didn't need no stinking torpedo planes, they had B17's who were more than capable of sinking any ship on the planet in a single strike, from 30,000 ft.
 
http://www.analysis.williamdoneil.com/CIM_D0007249.A1.pdf

I think you are being very optimistic. Above is a study of US and Japanese defence expenditure in the 30s. A $20-30 m pa defence expenditure is giving a defence budget at least equal to the Japanese in the early 30s and around 30% in the later years from a population less than half that of Poland maybe 20% of Japans. and no meaningful natural resources. This makes the PI the most industrialised state in the world in 20 years, but dependent on importing most of the raw materials ( as far as I know) Japan and Poland both are sitting on lots of coal for power plants to run other things and their ability to import is dependent on the Peso rate and the goodwill of the US. The growth of a PI industrial base without statehood is a direct competitor to US industry at a time of protectionism.

The ATL Philippine economy or at least per capita will be around Argentina's, which isnt as industrialized as Europe or Japan. Argentina got equal per capita as Germany. You can technically get to Western European levels of per capita just not rapid industrialization.

There is Coal mine particularly in Cebu since 1820s. When the US surveyed it around OTL 1906 they found around 6 million tons of Coal. For Power plants, its hydro for the Philippines though. Lots and lots of places here that convert into hydro power. That was the aim of both the US and Philippines for power plants in OTL.

There was even one point in 1914 that Philippines had a higher GDP per capita than Japan according to Richard Hooley, 2005, American economic Policy in the Philippines 1902-1940. No rapid industrialization here just sending US capital, Farm mechanization that resulted for 1914 Philippines to surpass Japans GDP per capita in OTL.

Well, for statehood, that was the aim of the ATL story to transition it to a state starting from 1902. Setup the industries until stuff changes for US(End of Taft presidency/Wilson winning) and the Philippines(Nationalista party wins). The industries are also all owned by Americans convinced by Taft to invest more in ATL starting 1902.

I also got no issue having ATL total Philippine economy being 1/3 or Japans or equal to per capita of Argentina. Using Table 1 of your link page 7, 1937 GDP using 1990 prices, Japan got $165B. My computation at best $70B at worst $50B. Argetina according to Maddisson is around $58B. Its not unreasonable since not I am not aiming for equal to Japan nor even half of it.

I dont know how you got $30M defense budget on Japan. The Link you gave Japan at $562M in 1930 current prices Table 6, page 23. That is $1,582M during 1937 current prices same time Philippines will have $80 milliion. $30M is unrealistic for Japans whole defense expenditure when it will already cost 1 Battleship or 1 heavy cruiser.

If you meant purchase of aircraft, my budget is $5M for combat aircraft not $30M. $5M out of $80M total budget.

If you meant by this:
Out of the $35M collected annually, only $8M went to the military which were mostly for salaries. If you made this at parity with US states tax to gdp ratio of 7% putting total collections at $100M+, you can have around $20-30M for the military instead of just $8M with OTL PI economy.

In OTL, Philippine total revenues in 1936 were around $30 million. It really happened. That is only 2% tax to gdp ratio. Any increase in tax to gdp ratio to accommodate 2% military spending of theGDP would mean $30M total military budget. Not total budget for combat aircraft.

Thanks for the link by the way, it gave me an idea on how to allocate items by %.
 
Last edited:
Top