Jump to content


Photo

American Equipment And Generals Suck, Part Whatever


  • Please log in to reply
246 replies to this topic

#1 Adam_S

Adam_S

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,069 posts

Posted 08 September 2018 - 0153 AM

Dons flame retardant underwear. :)

 

 

So why were the US so incapable of developing a decent supercharger for the Allison engine that they had to scrounge a proper engine design off the Brits?

 

Was it really that hard to produce a squad automatic weapon/light machine gun?

 

Also, Mark Clark. 'nuff said.


  • 0

#2 FALightFighter

FALightFighter

    Red-Legged Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,405 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 08 September 2018 - 0456 AM

The M1918 BAR was an exceedingly effective squad automatic weapon for a RIFLE squad. The weakness was the lack of machine gun back up for the rifle platoons from the company weapons platoon.

I'll see your Mark Clark and raise you Jacob Devers.
  • 0

#3 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,368 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 08 September 2018 - 0523 AM

Also, Mark Clark. 'nuff said.

I still have Ricks' The Generals sitting on my shelf waiting to be read.  It's been on the back burner after I saw a fairly lengthy talk he gave on the book when it was released.  While the premise is pretty straightforward (we had better leadership in WW2 and we happened to fire Generals all the time... since WW2 we haven't fired anyone and our leadership has sucked since) he never touched on the why underlying what seems like an obvious connection.  Maybe he was saving that part for when you read the book.  Still, I'll get to it one of these days.


  • 0

#4 MiloMorai

MiloMorai

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,014 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa

Posted 08 September 2018 - 0729 AM

Dons flame retardant underwear. :)

 

 

So why were the US so incapable of developing a decent supercharger for the Allison engine that they had to scrounge a proper engine design off the Brits?

 

Was it really that hard to produce a squad automatic weapon/light machine gun?

 

Also, Mark Clark. 'nuff said.

 

The Allison's single stage was just as good as the supercharger fitted to the Rolls-Royce. It was a 2 stage/2 speed supercharger that the Allison didn't have. Allison used a turbo-supercharger which gave the same HP at 30Kft as at it did at take-off, something the 2S/2S Merlin couldn't do.

 

The TBO was better for the Allison than the R-R. Allison parts are used in the Reno racers powered by R-R Merlins.


Edited by MiloMorai, 08 September 2018 - 0730 AM.

  • 0

#5 Murph

Murph

    Hierophant Lord

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,068 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 September 2018 - 1005 AM

Devers was pretty good compared to Omar Bradley (hurtgen forest). Mark Clark was a disaster. The refusal to see reality by AGF and put a decent gun on the Sherman.


The M1918 BAR was an exceedingly effective squad automatic weapon for a RIFLE squad. The weakness was the lack of machine gun back up for the rifle platoons from the company weapons platoon.
I'll see your Mark Clark and raise you Jacob Devers.


  • 0

#6 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 08 September 2018 - 1041 AM

Devers was pretty good compared to Omar Bradley (hurtgen forest). Mark Clark was a disaster. The refusal to see reality by AGF and put a decent gun on the Sherman.


The M1918 BAR was an exceedingly effective squad automatic weapon for a RIFLE squad. The weakness was the lack of machine gun back up for the rifle platoons from the company weapons platoon.
I'll see your Mark Clark and raise you Jacob Devers.


I understand you're trying to spark debate, but is there any point to rehashing the Sherman issue? An influx of new members since last time? New insights or information?
  • 0

#7 JWB

JWB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:everything (almost)

Posted 08 September 2018 - 1058 AM

Airforce went all in for the turbo. By the time it was realized turbos could not be fitted to the P-39/40/51 it was too late to develop a US version of the staged mechanical supercharger and they decided to simply use the Merlin 6X series.


  • 0

#8 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,666 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 08 September 2018 - 1211 PM

The M1918 BAR was an exceedingly effective squad automatic weapon for a RIFLE squad....

BAR as polish wz.28 or FN D or Swedish kg m/37 was pretty decent (even if it was not at a prime time), problem was that US "upgraded" A2 was actually downgrade. Ian from Forgotten Weapons did a list what went wrong compared to IIRC Polish version...


Edited by bojan, 08 September 2018 - 1211 PM.

  • 0

#9 MiloMorai

MiloMorai

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,014 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa

Posted 08 September 2018 - 1300 PM

The P-40 used both the Allison V-1710 and the R-R Merlin and there was no real performance difference.

 

P-40F, L - R-R

P-40K, M -  Allison

 

Edit to in include 'no'.


Edited by MiloMorai, 08 September 2018 - 1809 PM.

  • 0

#10 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,916 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 08 September 2018 - 1715 PM

The P-40 used both the Allison V-1710 and the R-R Merlin and there was real performance difference.

 

P-40F, L - R-R

P-40K, M -  Allison

 

The Allison didn't get a proper charger in the P-40. The P-40 was a kind of cheap low-end fighter compared to the heavy, high altitude, high speed, long range P-38.

 

Though it is a fact that the Allison development didn't keep pace with the Merlin 's at all (the Merlin was developed to such great performance that the Griffon spin-off was kind of unnecessary in hindsight). The British were working overtime to improve the Merlin since 1940 (giving up some parallel RR engine projects), and they had to compete with the bigger volume direct fuel injection DB601 inverted V-engine, later the innovatively controlled big BMW 801 twin radial. Their choice of a two-stage supercharger worked fine and was much more compact than comparable turbochargers (which the Americans preferred).

------------

 

I suppose the greater question is why do large armed forces struggle to reach a much higher quality of development and procurement decision-making than small armed forces? It is as if the small armed forces can do the same procurement decision-making with much less bureaucracy, and even non-corruption-driven procurement decision-making by individuals in power seems to be just as much hit-and-miss as huge bureaucratic efforts.

It's similar with generalship; the quality of officer corps appears to correlate well with the seriousness of threats (examples Finland, Israel till '73), not with the size of the training and education apparatus.


  • 0

#11 MiloMorai

MiloMorai

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,014 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa

Posted 08 September 2018 - 1850 PM

The Griffon was a RN/FAA engine that the RAF used.

 

Have to question the 'more compact' as an additional cooler had to be installed for the 2S/2S supercharger of the M60/70 series engines.

 

The US Army insisted on using GE turbo-superchargers, so one can't put all the blame on Allison.


  • 0

#12 Brian Kennedy

Brian Kennedy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,927 posts

Posted 08 September 2018 - 1920 PM

Honestly it's not like any country's choice of small arms made a significant impact on the war. But if you want to play that game, then I'll raise you the Garand.


  • 0

#13 NickM

NickM

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Concord, California, USA
  • Interests:Military history, computer sims, my daughter

Posted 08 September 2018 - 2048 PM

Devers was pretty good compared to Omar Bradley (hurtgen forest). Mark Clark was a disaster. The refusal to see reality by AGF and put a decent gun on the Sherman.

 

The M1918 BAR was an exceedingly effective squad automatic weapon for a RIFLE squad. The weakness was the lack of machine gun back up for the rifle platoons from the company weapons platoon.
I'll see your Mark Clark and raise you Jacob Devers.

 

The gun on the Sherman Easy 8 could punch thru ANY Panzer--and even a regular Sherman could deal with the most common Panzers: the Mark IV and the Stug III. Best of all, engineers learned (A) to wet stow the ammo so less 'boom' and (B) VERY sound ergonomics:  the crew hatches are RIGHT over your seat and each of you have one. IF You gotta bail out, at least you aint fighting the loader or commander for space.


Edited by NickM, 08 September 2018 - 2054 PM.

  • 0

#14 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,018 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 08 September 2018 - 2055 PM

Regarding US fighters, there wasn't much expectation for the hi-long missions that developed; in the '30s, most fighters were intended for medium-low altitude support in repelling notional invaders.  P-39 and P-40s with geared superchargers were quite adequate.  For the rare high-altitude encounter, the P-38 and P-47 with turbos were being developed.  The reality of WWII quickly made hash of these concepts, of course.


  • 0

#15 NickM

NickM

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Concord, California, USA
  • Interests:Military history, computer sims, my daughter

Posted 08 September 2018 - 2102 PM

 

Devers was pretty good compared to Omar Bradley (hurtgen forest). Mark Clark was a disaster. The refusal to see reality by AGF and put a decent gun on the Sherman.

 

The M1918 BAR was an exceedingly effective squad automatic weapon for a RIFLE squad. The weakness was the lack of machine gun back up for the rifle platoons from the company weapons platoon.
I'll see your Mark Clark and raise you Jacob Devers.


I understand you're trying to spark debate, but is there any point to rehashing the Sherman issue? An influx of new members since last time? New insights or information?

 

 

That being said Dave,Switching gears abruptly

I sometimes wonder about the US High Command during Vietnam; the whole idea of replacements seemed half assed==almost like the men were just 'spare parts' to be slotted into vacancies with little thought to stand downs, rest & unit cohesion. On top of that, I sometimes wonder if 'higher up' had any idea what was happening on the ground-I recall it was the policy of 1st ID commander Depuy that when the day's march was done he expected the grunts to dig a deep foxhole/trench & reinforce it with sandbags-as if after 8 hours of marching they had the strength to do anything. AND while we're on the subject of the 1st ID I read a book (the beast is out there? they marched into daylight?) about the son of The WW2 Commander Terry Allen, who was in command of battalion. His higher ups put a lot of pressure on him to 'get contact with the enemy', so he ill advisedly peeled off two very understrength companies, attached his command element to them & marched right into an ambush set by an NVA Regiment. Needless to say, Col. Allen & most of his command staff were killed in the opening ambush and the survivors were fighting for their lives with multiple brigade, regiment & division commanders buzzing overhead in helicopters trying to 'support & advise' the unlucky grunts on the ground via radio.


  • 0

#16 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 08 September 2018 - 2141 PM

There was a joke going round at the end of the war comparing how things changed from training in England, fighting in Italy, and ending the war in the Netherlands. One part went:
End of Day
England - We worked all damn day and they want us to dig in?
Italy - Right. Lets dig deep quick before the Huns know we're here.
Netherlands - We could get a few guilders for those pioneer tools.

Digging in at the end if the day does suck, but a lot less than being in the open when under fire.

As for the rest, it is generally acknoledged that rotation by individual rather than unit hurt effectiveness. As for the literal multiple levels of micromanagement, that seems to have worked as well as one would expect.

Edited by R011, 08 September 2018 - 2143 PM.

  • 0

#17 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 08 September 2018 - 2148 PM

Ok, the Sherman was good and got better, but it still a 32 ton tank that sometimes had to fight 45 and 69 ton tanks with a gun and ammo that was not always up to the job. There were reasons for that and it wasn't as if the Germans, British, or Soviets were perfect either.
  • 0

#18 Murph

Murph

    Hierophant Lord

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,068 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 September 2018 - 2210 PM

Not so much as a point being made.  We f'ed up with the Sherman and the whole Tanks fight Infantry, Tank Destroyers fight tanks.  Only a cannon-cocker could come up with that stupid an idea. McNair was not the right man for the job he should have been sent to some G_d forsaken Coastal artillery post and left there.

 

Devers was pretty good compared to Omar Bradley (hurtgen forest). Mark Clark was a disaster. The refusal to see reality by AGF and put a decent gun on the Sherman.

 

The M1918 BAR was an exceedingly effective squad automatic weapon for a RIFLE squad. The weakness was the lack of machine gun back up for the rifle platoons from the company weapons platoon.
I'll see your Mark Clark and raise you Jacob Devers.


I understand you're trying to spark debate, but is there any point to rehashing the Sherman issue? An influx of new members since last time? New insights or information?

 


  • 0

#19 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 08 September 2018 - 2228 PM

Deleted post.

Edited by R011, 08 September 2018 - 2230 PM.

  • 0

#20 Murph

Murph

    Hierophant Lord

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,068 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 September 2018 - 2244 PM

It is not that it was not a good tank, but it would have been better with a high velocity 90mm.  Just as the Garand would have been better if it had morphed into an M-14 style rifle with a detachable box magazine.

Ok, the Sherman was good and got better, but it still a 32 ton tank that sometimes had to fight 45 and 69 ton tanks with a gun and ammo that was not always up to the job. There were reasons for that and it wasn't as if the Germans, British, or Soviets were perfect either.


  • 0




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users