Why did the US have so many different types of airplanes in WW2? >P-36. >P-39. >P-38. >P-51. >P-63

Why did the US have so many different types of airplanes in WW2?
>P-36
>P-39
>P-38
>P-51
>P-63
>P-80
>B-17
>B-18
>B-26
>B-29
>B-24
>B-30
>B-32
>A-12
>A-20
>A-25
>A-26
>A-29
>A-30
This is just listing the Army Air Force planes. The autism was out of control.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >B for bomber
    >A for assaulter
    What does P stand for? Propeller?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      lots of companies
      most planes had different roles
      some were fallback designs in case others failed
      some were for export but were given type numbers

      pursuit

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        as was said, lots of competing companies. sorta unprepared and indecisive branches of the military, often competing with eachother in ways. lol this doesnt even get into the different types within these planes like torpedo bomber versions. also multiple theatres. dont have an answer besides this without research, but:
        does anyone have any excellent stories on US military economy from 1930s through to end of ww2? its one of the greatest untold stories as im learning more of it. the sherman was the best tank of ww2. https://ww2talk.com/index.php?threads/exercise-dracula-tank-showdown-aug-sept-43.72168/

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Phighter

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Don't forget F for Foto

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      plane

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Pursuit.

      https://i.imgur.com/VjFw27Q.jpg

      Why did the US have so many different types of airplanes in WW2?
      >P-36
      >P-39
      >P-38
      >P-51
      >P-63
      >P-80
      >B-17
      >B-18
      >B-26
      >B-29
      >B-24
      >B-30
      >B-32
      >A-12
      >A-20
      >A-25
      >A-26
      >A-29
      >A-30
      This is just listing the Army Air Force planes. The autism was out of control.

      That's not even counting some designs that we ourselves never used, like the Maryland and Baltimore bombers that we sold to the Bongs and Frogs.
      Simple answer: Muthafrickin. American. Industry. We could affor not only to build all of those planes, but also dump tens of thousands on our allies and co-belligerants, and all these planes were premium quality, too.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >peanus weenus

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Penis

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Phuc Hitler

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Pursuit, as several other anons pointed out. Basically interceptors intended to be purely air superiority fighters. The F designation was more reserved for the Navy's multirole fighters (Corsair, Hellcat, Buffalo, Bearcat, etc), since a carrier's compliment had to make up for the lack of available space with planes that could do any job good enough. The F designation pretty quickly supplanted the P since we started building fighters that were capable of taking both AA and DA munitions as the default.

      As for OP's question, the 30s and 40s saw so much innovation in war machines that a brand new plane could literally be obsolete by the time it was designed, tested, approved and cranked out of the factory. I'm pretty sure every major nation had a ton of designs in most fields, the US just had the resources and operational safety to do it the most

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      A is for Attack you fricking imbecile.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Pronouns (she/they)

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Pursuit, changed to F for Fighter after WWII when the USAF separated and became its own branch from the USAAF.

      https://i.imgur.com/VjFw27Q.jpg

      Why did the US have so many different types of airplanes in WW2?
      >P-36
      >P-39
      >P-38
      >P-51
      >P-63
      >P-80
      >B-17
      >B-18
      >B-26
      >B-29
      >B-24
      >B-30
      >B-32
      >A-12
      >A-20
      >A-25
      >A-26
      >A-29
      >A-30
      This is just listing the Army Air Force planes. The autism was out of control.

      Other nations had a similar number of aircraft. The US had a higher production capacity by a factor of a hundred, they had no battles on there territory and none of their factories were bombed. Germany had a similar amount of plane designs but many were cancelled due to unsustainability.
      Also a lot of these aircraft were prewar so don't really count. The only fighters produced en masse during WW2 were the P-38, P-47, and P-51 by the USAAF, P-63 was basically post-war, it saw no service, same with P-80. Most P-39s were produced pre-war and given to the Soviets. Almost all US uses of P-39s were pre-deployment and then the units switched aircraft when deployed. The P-40 is one of my favorites and was produced quite a bit till the end of the war but saw most use given to allies fighting in North Africa.
      Similarly airplane upgrades were given new designations while other countries just gave another number or letter. Bf-109E and F are as different as the A-20 and A-26. Again I will repeat that a lot of those aircraft mentioned are pre/post war.
      Also a lot of the aircraft designations I had to search up and found although the designations were used those aircraft were little known or made variants, this list is: A-25 (USAAF designation of Helldiver, all aircraft were given to USMC), A-29, A-30, B-30. The P-36 and A-12 were pre-war and never really saw service, P-63 and P-80 were post war.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Pththththhhhhhhhhht

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Phtagn

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    you should see the list from ww3, phew

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Germans and Japs has just as much plane autism too I think, minus the 4E bomber variety. Brits too

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    One of the reasons was the fact that the USA fought two wars with different logistic demands.

    In the Pacific they needed a long range bombers that can fly half of the pacific and then land on islands. They needed a carrier fighters that can match Japanese's Zeros during naval battles.

    In Europe then needed a high-load bombers than can fly in formations and defend off against German's planes while bombing the Reich.
    Fighters were primarly used in the role of escort planes.
    They also needed some planes to defend Britain (black widow etc.)

    Two planes for twk different wars.
    That's why they abonded air cobras and gave them to Soviets: neither front needed them.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The aircraft of the Pacific war would have been ample for the ETO and mostly being air-cooled radials were more resistant to battle damage. A pinhole in a liquid cooling system eventually requires engine shutdown while air-cooled radials are cheaper to produce and easier to repair than inlines. The type diversity was understandable because no one had fought that sort of war before and aircraft were extremely primitive and unreliable.

      US crashes in CONUS approached combat losses. Flying anything anywhere was amazingly dangerous and type diversity let the US try then discard what didn't work well while developing what did.

      https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/wwiis-tragic-aviation-accidents/

      Pursuit.
      [...]
      That's not even counting some designs that we ourselves never used, like the Maryland and Baltimore bombers that we sold to the Bongs and Frogs.
      Simple answer: Muthafrickin. American. Industry. We could affor not only to build all of those planes, but also dump tens of thousands on our allies and co-belligerants, and all these planes were premium quality, too.

      >premium quality

      They were fairly decent but outside maintenance nerds (and very few of those) aircraft reliability and maintainability interest no one. Even most of /k/ are just kids who like the way they look.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >They were fairly decent but outside maintenance nerds (and very few of those) aircraft reliability and maintainability interest no one
        the average armchair general on /k/ has at least a conceptual grasp that "logistics and availability are good". Even the premise of the thread is basically "why not simplify production and logistics". The idea "reliable planes are good" could trickle down even to morons here doesn't seek unthinkable.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Trial and error. Experimentation. A drive and will to be on the cutting edge. Resources and because we can. Use your brain Black person.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    One of the reasons was the fact that the USA fought de facto two different wars with different logistic demands.

    In the Pacific they needed a long range bombers that can fly half the Pacific and then land on islands. They needed a carrier fighters that can match Japanese's Zeros during naval battles.

    In Europe then needed a high-load bombers than can fly in formations and defend against German's planes while bombing the Reich.
    Fighters were primarly used in the role of escort planes.
    They also needed some planes to defend Britain (black widow etc.)

    Two design principles for different wars.
    That's why they abonded air cobras and gave them to Soviets: neither front needed them.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      One of the reasons was the fact that the USA fought two wars with different logistic demands.

      In the Pacific they needed a long range bombers that can fly half of the pacific and then land on islands. They needed a carrier fighters that can match Japanese's Zeros during naval battles.

      In Europe then needed a high-load bombers than can fly in formations and defend off against German's planes while bombing the Reich.
      Fighters were primarly used in the role of escort planes.
      They also needed some planes to defend Britain (black widow etc.)

      Two planes for twk different wars.
      That's why they abonded air cobras and gave them to Soviets: neither front needed them.

      Frick, double posted.
      Frick captcha

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I mean the RAF had a shit ton of different types too, just off the top of my head;

    > Hurricane
    > Spitfire
    > Typhoon
    > Tempest
    > Beaufighter
    > Mosquito
    > Blenheim
    > Halifax
    > Wellington
    > Lancaster
    > Stirling
    > Defiant
    > P-40
    > P-47
    > P-51
    > A-20
    > B-25
    > C-47

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You are listing a bunch of American planes.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Brits bought a bunch of American planes
        Things like the P-51 and P-38 were built to meet British requirements and the Brits were the ones that chose the names Mustang, Lightning etc.
        Part of the reason the US had so many different planes like the OP is asking, is because they took on a bunch of additional types that had been ordered by Britain and France before America joined the war, so the production lines were open and could churn out additional planes when the war effort stepped up, or in some cases the US could take aircraft that were awaiting delivery to another country with the promise that they would be replaced at a later date

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Bless you

      [...]
      You forgot the most important US fighter of the European Theater:
      >P-47
      Heavy fighter bomber that could hold its own against Luftwaffe aircraft and had excellent ground attack capability

      [...]
      You tried

      Hurricane, Typhoon, Tempest, Fury
      Spitfire, Walrus
      Whirlwind
      Mosquito
      Defiant
      Fulmar, Albacore, Roc, Battle, Swordfish, Skua
      Beaufort, Beaufighter
      Lancaster, Blenheim, Halifax, Hampden
      Wellington, Wellesley, Whitley, Whitworth
      Stirling, Sunderland

      Both these Black folk missed out my boy Gladiator, the defender of Malta (Italians HATE him)

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I admire obsolete aircraft that managed to remain in service throughout the duration of the war. The Hudson is based.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      the ventura put the "fighter" in fighter-bomber
      "NZ4509 was attacked by nine Japanese single-engined fighters over St. George's Channel. It shot down three, later confirmed, and claimed two others as probables,"

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Planes were relatively cheap back then to design, build and fly. Many of the early War were made out of wood and fabric. The most expensive part was the engines and those were often reused in different airframes. Also, arronautical engineering was rapidly advancing at the time and designs quickly became obsolete within a few months and sometimes repurposed for other uses.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >The autism was out of control.
    Yes. And the most autistic countries ended up designing the most SEX designs that also happened to have some of the highest K/D ratios, especially Germany, Britain, the US, and Japan in about that order.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >P-36
    Pre-war design that didnt see wide service except at the very start
    >P-39
    Flaws were noted and mostly used as lend lease fodder

    >P-38
    >P-51
    The P-38 was rushed into production because it was their fastest fighter at the start of the war
    The P-51 entered service in the middle of it because they needed a long range escort

    >P-63
    An improved P-39, mostly used for lend lease because the USAAF didnt want it

    >P-80
    Early jet fighter that never saw combat

    >B-17
    Their primary heavy bomber at the start of the war

    >B-18
    Pre-war bomber that didnt see any major role

    >B-26
    Primary medium bomber at the start of the war

    >B-29
    Late war heavy bomber, developed to fly higher and faster than any existing bomber

    >B-24
    Main heavy bomber, its production outstrips all other 4-engined bombers by a hilarious margin
    They kept both it and the B-17 in production because some crews preferred the B-17 and it would take a while to disassemble the existing production lines

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Bless you

      https://i.imgur.com/VjFw27Q.jpg

      Why did the US have so many different types of airplanes in WW2?
      >P-36
      >P-39
      >P-38
      >P-51
      >P-63
      >P-80
      >B-17
      >B-18
      >B-26
      >B-29
      >B-24
      >B-30
      >B-32
      >A-12
      >A-20
      >A-25
      >A-26
      >A-29
      >A-30
      This is just listing the Army Air Force planes. The autism was out of control.

      You forgot the most important US fighter of the European Theater:
      >P-47
      Heavy fighter bomber that could hold its own against Luftwaffe aircraft and had excellent ground attack capability

      I mean the RAF had a shit ton of different types too, just off the top of my head;

      > Hurricane
      > Spitfire
      > Typhoon
      > Tempest
      > Beaufighter
      > Mosquito
      > Blenheim
      > Halifax
      > Wellington
      > Lancaster
      > Stirling
      > Defiant
      > P-40
      > P-47
      > P-51
      > A-20
      > B-25
      > C-47

      You tried

      Hurricane, Typhoon, Tempest, Fury
      Spitfire, Walrus
      Whirlwind
      Mosquito
      Defiant
      Fulmar, Albacore, Roc, Battle, Swordfish, Skua
      Beaufort, Beaufighter
      Lancaster, Blenheim, Halifax, Hampden
      Wellington, Wellesley, Whitley, Whitworth
      Stirling, Sunderland

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >P-47
        >Hold it's own
        Is this another "der Gabelschwanz Teufel" myth like what the Germans supposedly called the P-38 even though it's American propoganda, because the Luftwaffe , either test pilots or pilots who fought against them were not impressed by the P-47 at all. Same with RAF test pilots.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          P-47 is the best high altitude fighter of the war, except it switched roles with the P-51 which was intended for low altitudes to replace the P-40. The reasons for this being the better pilot protection in the P-47. The P-47 couldn't "hold its own" against the entire Luftwaffe but dogfight cameras against Fw-190s show that it was a good turnfighter regardless, owing to its better wing loading characteristics against German fighter designs made for boom-n-zoom energy fighting tactics.
          >Germans supposedly called the P-38
          Never heard of this as the P-38 rarely served in Europe. Also many pilots who didn't like the P-47 at first grew to love them, they were just biased at first because it was the heaviest fighter of the war and looked dumb.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Never heard of this as the P-38 rarely served in Europe.
            P-38 saw action against the germans in north africa where it performed well
            later action in italy was more mixed, but still kept because it did better than the P-40

            in western europe, it was occasionally used as fighters but their main role was as a photo-recon plane where it was exceedingly effective
            also did fighter-bomber missions
            main reason it wasnt used there as much was because it did poorly at high altitudes due to controls locking up in a dive
            P-38J brought it up to the same standard as the P-51D with hydraulically boosted controls and dive flaps, but the air war was already winding down by then

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Pilot protection
            Same as in the P-51, armoured seat, engine firewall and bullet resistant glass for the windshield. Reason P-47 was more durable was due to the aircooled engine being more resistant to damage. But pilot protection was the same as every other US fighter at the mid-late stage of the War
            >Best high altitude fighter
            Yes but also not as big a difference, while in 1943 the 109 and 190 topped out at 6-6.5km vs ~8km. In the west they had GM-1 system to give them power at high altitude. In 1944,Bf-109 variants with the DB605AS/DB605D engines had the same critical altitude as the P-47 (~8km)
            >Wingloadinf
            Doesnt mean anything on its own especially when the power to weight ratio of the P-47 is so poor, the thing weighs nearly as much as a P-38 yet has 2/3rds the power
            >P-38
            >Rarely served in Europe
            Now this is alt history
            12th AF, 15th AF in North Africa/Italy, 8th AF (until summer '44) and 9AF in NW Europe extensively used P-38

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >were not impressed by the P-47 at all.
          That's funny. Because they got over 3000 A2A kills (4.6:1) and destroyed over 7000 aircraft total.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The P-47 in the ETO was something of a compromise, similar to the F4F vs Zero matchup (but not that lopsided).

          Of course the Luftwaffe and the RAF weren't impressed; they had better fighters. However like the "obsolete" Hurricane earlier in the war, the P-47 although outmatched by the best enemy aircraft (Fw190) could still competitively fight against older aircraft (Bf109), escape, or even win in a favourable scenario.

          The P-47 was able to do this because it had a huge engine, strong protection and massive firepower that enabled it to zoom and boom, or run away, even if it couldn't manouevre, dogfight or convert on enemy Fw190s. Once it got up to high altitude, it held the advantage over German fighters.

          Hence, before P-51s entered the theatre, the P-47 was used as long-range escorts for bombers.

          Anybody can point at a fighter that defeats its opponent in all categories and say it's better. That's child's play. In reality, the distinctions are not so clear-cut and different aircraft have different advantages and tradeoffs.

          >Never heard of this as the P-38 rarely served in Europe.
          P-38 saw action against the germans in north africa where it performed well
          later action in italy was more mixed, but still kept because it did better than the P-40

          in western europe, it was occasionally used as fighters but their main role was as a photo-recon plane where it was exceedingly effective
          also did fighter-bomber missions
          main reason it wasnt used there as much was because it did poorly at high altitudes due to controls locking up in a dive
          P-38J brought it up to the same standard as the P-51D with hydraulically boosted controls and dive flaps, but the air war was already winding down by then

          P-38s were supplanted by P-47s in the ETO as combat aircraft, it was no contest.
          The P-38 fanboy club has just been more vocal, and most people remember the P-47 for its ground attack missions.

          The P-47s record is impressive not only by raw numbers but also because they were largely responsible for the erosion of the Luftwaffe's experienced pilot core, which was the primary goal of the bomber offensive. By the time the P-51s came onto the scene, German pilots were being rushed through training programs and the quality levels were in free fall.

          >they were largely responsible for the erosion of the Luftwaffe's experienced pilot core
          The Spitfire has the largest Allied fighter score of WW2 across both theatres. Although this is somewhat inflated by the Battle of Britain (the USAAF entered the game late), even post D-day the Spitfire is reckoned to account for roughly a quarter to a third of Luftwaffe kills at least, and in the end comes out about 10% ahead of the Mustang in second place.

          The Mustang did extremely well considering it served for about 1.5 years but quickly ran up the score as the best USAAF fighter and second-best Allied fighter.

          What few know is that the Thunderbolt has a respectable 60% of the P-51's kills.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because there were far more aircraft companies back then and they could get a drawing to a flying prototype in months or even faster instead of decades like today.

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because technology and designs were advancing very rapidly.

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The USA basically gave a blank check to every plane manufacturer in the country.

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    BECAUSE WE FRICKIN COULD

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It was a time of fantastically fast aircraft development
    Here's an illustration:
    Around March 1937 the RAF brought into service their latest bomber, the Bristol Blenheim. It was the fastest bomber in existence at the time, which would make it difficult for older fighters to catch up to it and shoot it down. 6 months later the RAF introduced the Hawker Hurricane, a bomber-killer even faster than the Blenheim, so that enemies who made fast bombers wouldn't escape. It was also a capable fighter though not the fastest.

    But 7 or 8 months later the Supermarine Spitfire flew, and almost immediately obsoleted the Hurricane in the fighter arena.

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because tech was evolving at an insane rate.

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    My family ran a machining shop in Buffalo and when the war started they got a contract to create like an exhaust valve tube thing or whatever and by the early 60s it had made all the employees that owned shares in the company millionaires. It was just every city was having federal gubment money raining into every industry generating an unprecedented global war machine. And it was a crazy economic stimulus the middle class and everyone else.

    That’s the thing I thing a lot of ferners don’t understand is that a big chunk of our economic stability hinges on the continued machinations of the war robot that feeds on brown people bones

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >a big chunk of our economic stability hinges on the continued machinations of the war robot that feeds on brown people bones
      What a moron
      Stop consooming anti-US peacenik memes
      The American defence sector isn't even 3% of the economy
      The civilian sector is the real powerhouse of American prosperity

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        The post WW2 US civilian sector was built on the dividends of the military and that's a fact.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >the war robot that feeds on brown people bones
      You say that like it's a bad thing.

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Airplane design was hit and miss.

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    They hade a near Infinite industrial capacity, ofc they are going to experiment and specialize aircraft

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    8n addition to the other stuff pointed out, I would like to remind everyone that all belligerents had separate aircraft as night fighters as well. I don't know why they needed completely different aircraft, but undoubtedly they had a reason.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      he US had the P-62 black widow, but everyone else mostly just used converted heavy fighters or light bombers

      radar was heavy, complicated, and delicate
      you basically needed a person whose only job was to operate it
      and you needed something that had space and lift to carry it
      and to hit anything in pitch darkness, you needed radar

      so the germans used the twin engined BF-110, with the radar jammed between the gunner and pilot
      the british initially used converted blenheim bombers but later used beauforts and beaufighters with a radar station in the center of the fuselage

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >british initially used converted blenheim bombers but later used beauforts and beaufighters with a radar station in the center of the fuselage
        and then mossies

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Radar was bulky as frick back then, which meant that a plane carrying it had to be bulkier and less maneuverable, which in turn would make it less suited to daylight operations.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The instruments and skills needed to fly when you can’t see weren’t standard yet. Night fighters tended to actually have primitive radars and better navigation equipment, and were larger to carry all that stuff. This increased size and weight enough to make them bad vs normal fighters in the daytime, but actually able to find enemy planes at night

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    That's not even all of the ones that entered service, much less the even larger number that didn't make it past the prototype stage.

    They were trying all kinds of things. Some stuff worked. Some stuff didn't work. Some stuff eventually worked, but it was unneeded by that point (looking at you, Flying Flapjack). Some stuff worked, but it wasn't any better than what already existed, or wasn't worth the cost (see: F5F, which had an awesome climb rate, but otherwise wasn't any better than F6F or F4U).

    There was no straight-line tech tree; just a bunch of different companies trying different things, all at the same time (because we needed stuff *now*).

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    different planes for different purposes?
    Multirole is a fairly new idea for airforce and navy planes.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      More like multirole is a newly viable idea, it was always available. Now with BVR combat better equipment (more weight) and more weapons (more weight) matter more than flight characteristics (less weight). We used to have to balance equipment and weapons with flight characteristics, but the F-14 and F-15 were the last airplanes that almost kinda tried to balance flight characteristics. It was pretty much proven that the F-14's swept wings were worthless as it shot missiles from BVR and scared away enemies by flicking on the TWS radar. The F/A-18 is interesting as it is a clear step back in performance from the F-14 in everything but low speed turns but it can bomb in a cost effective manner, which the F-14 was relegated to at the end of its career.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Kinda looks like my ex if she would've lost weight

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        My sympathizes.

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The P-47s record is impressive not only by raw numbers but also because they were largely responsible for the erosion of the Luftwaffe's experienced pilot core, which was the primary goal of the bomber offensive. By the time the P-51s came onto the scene, German pilots were being rushed through training programs and the quality levels were in free fall.

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Bf-109
    >Fw-190
    >Bf-110
    >Me-262
    >Me-410
    >He-219
    >Me-163
    >He-162

    >Ju-87
    >Hs-123
    >Hs-129
    >Ju-88
    >Ju-188
    >Ju-388
    >He-111
    >Do-17
    >Do-217
    >He-177
    >Ar-234

    everyone was autistic

  26. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Smaller contracts in the 1930s, and when the War started, the US bought more of everything that was in production, along with new stuff.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *