Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink
The forgotton heroes
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
Hi all,
With regards to the Hurri Vs Spit argument what do you think the "forgotton heroes" were in relation to WW2 and onwards if you wish - I'm talking about the equipment rather than the troops at this point so although I give a salute to the 14th Army I'm suggesting we honour those things that put up and shut up as oppossed to the glamour models of the era e.g. Spitfires and RR Merlin engined P-51's.
My top nominees would be -
The B-24 Liberator - as in no way has this been as honoured as the B-17
The Halifax heavy bomber - as although the Lanc just did more stuff. The Lanc was more versatile I read due to its single bomb bay rather than the Halifax's mulitple bays. But still the Halifax still shifted a large tonnage of HE to Germany.
The Curtis C-46 - might have been appalling in ETO but in the far east they kept things going when nothing else could.
The HC-34 chopper - in Nam although the Huey shifted a lot of troops and there was no doubt the Huey was a good chopper the HC-34 helped the marines who were in it up to their necks on so many occassions.
The Bristol Beaufort - was essential until the Beaufighter was developed.
The SLR rifle - everyone reckons it was glam to have either an M-16 or AK-47 et al. or even as Uzi. But the SLR kept Brits alive accross the world and could stop a target when you wanted it to. And from what I've been told by ex-forces people it kept on working just as well as the others.
ANy other suggestions welcome. -
Message 2
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
There is a book worth reading. Forgotten Bombers of The Royal Air Force. Covers a lot of interesting A/C
-
Message 3
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
Sounds good - I forgot to add however the Vickers Wellington.
I have one of those big photographic accounts of the RAF from the 75th annivesary in the loft somewhere. It has a lot of aircraft in it that I never knew existed - things like the Vickers Wellesey and Hydrabad. Also the inter-war fighters like the Hawker Hart and Fury et al.
Very intereting indeed - the Fury family were magnificent aircraft and indeed it's a bit worrying that some people were happy that some RAF front-line squadrons had these aircraft as late as 1938.
But it's like the P-47 and P-51 - no reason one should get all the plaudits and the other be relative obscure but that's how it is in my mind. -
Message 4
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
The Boston / Havoc (A20?) was about the best light bomber the RAF had until the Mossie came along.
I think the Australians had a neat little fighter called the Boomerang which they replaced the woeful Buffalo with. -
Message 5
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
Hi there - Yeah I've heard of that one and I think it was a promenent type in the Desert Air Force. If I'm right in remembering it was a twin engined light attack bobmer and I believe thew Havoc was cannoned armed and served in Korea as well as WW2.
Was the A-26 Invader based on this type? I know that was used in Vietnam by the USAF-SOAF. -
Message 6
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
NEWCFALCON, reply to #1,
Well the Lee Enfield of course, the PIAT (a horrible piece of junk that in the hands of a skilled and determined operator could produce wonders (ref Pegasus bridge, Major Kanes VC citation, George MacDonald Fraser memoirs), the Lee Grant (if you use it in a jungle it has some benefits plus it gave some good service in North Africa), the Swordfish, the Catalina and Sutherland, the Corvette class and the Fairmile Dogboats.
Oh and the Dodge, GMC, Studebaker and Chevrolet trucks. (Apologies to Bedford, Austin and Leyland).
(Aplogies, anglocentric and WW2 based). AA.
(And I agree with the B24). -
Message 7
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
Ah that old war horse the Lee-Enfield (Might I presume we are talking cut price No4 Mk1) - pretty good and pretty heavy - I had to carry one at Rememberance Day parade and yeah they were heavy. That was unloaded and without any kit as well!!!
How about also the Vickers Heavy MG - ugly, water cooled and again heavy but did it's job well enough.
Maybe the Stirling SMG as well - why have one of these when what any self respecting "freedom fighter"/"terrorist" wants is an Uzi (because they are cool!?!) -
Message 8
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
NEWCFALCON,
Indeed the No4 Mk1 and the various other marks until it was replaced in 1957. (Interesting to me, in the early days of the latest conflict in the Gulf War I seem to recall an Iraqi television clip interviewing an Iraqi who had brought down an American helicopter and he was holding a Lee Enfield).
Made me proud of British engineering with some very mixed emotions.
A now confused AA. -
Message 9
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
That Iraqi must have have forearms the size of jackhammers to point it upwards, fire and then reload and keep on doing it to hit a chopper - ten lucky hits - reminds me of the film "Flight of the Intruder" where a Vietnamese peasant kills the main character's BN with something like a Mosin-Nagant rifle with a lucky shot through the side canopy. All those SAMS and AAA and that's what took him out!?!
-
Message 10
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
Well, to be honest, I did have some reservations about;
a) If the helicopter had been shot down
b) If it had been done by a bloke with a Lee Enfield
c) The accuracy and reasoned reporting of Iraqi television.
So, thanks for picking me up on this, it just goes to show you shouldn't believe all you see on TV.
Cheers AA. (It was a good shot of a Lee Enfield though, I'll get my anorak). -
Message 11
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
Hi AA,
Didn't mean that one to sound like criticism toward you mate - sorry if it did.
I reckon that Lee-Enfields were great weapons even if by the end of WW2 when soldiers were kicking in doors in German towns they were a bit of a liability being bolt actioned, long and heavy.
I wonder if we ever thought of putting into production either StG44's or maybe MP-40's both of which on my understanding were excellent weapons for urban warfare? Along the same lines why didn't we get a few T-34's as examples to crawl all over, improve e.g. fit radio's and then use them on the Western Front? Or even dare I say take a few 88mm guns and re-engineer them and fit them to Allied tanks? -
Message 12
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
NEWCFALCON,
No offence taken at all, gave me a chance to ramble and ramble and ramble on a bit, and glad someone took me up on it so I could explain before Buckskinz came in.
My thoughts about the Lee Enfield are that for a rifle in the modern age it did last for 60 yeras? in its various marks as the service rifle for the British Army so must have had something going for it, and is still used today by irregulars.
From my understanding the adoption of the MP-40 would have been a good move, however would have meant a massive change in the British armamaents industry, re-tooling all the assembly lines and the armanents factories that there wasn't the money for, or there was the money for them but "we" spent it on the NHS.
Plus, we'd have had to adopt metrication. (Personally I believe SI units are a godsend, whenever I have to convert BTUs per half bucket of gravel per fortnight into easy sums I despair), however the country wasn't prepared to accept these funny ideas then.
(I still have fond memories of working on a 1980 Vauxhall Astra where I had to swap spanners from Whitworth to Metric as they'd built it during the "change").
I'll now give my "thoughts" about the T34 in a separate post.
Cheers AA. -
Message 13
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
Hi AA,
If you remember the "In Combat" magazine c. 1992 then you might have read that the Soviets in Afghanistan (where have I heard that name from?) were pretty scared of Afghans with Lee-Enfields as they were rather accurate when fired from static hides in the hills and there were reports of snipers popping Russians off at 600yds (with a scope I guess) through windscreens and the crash goes the tank transporter. I guess that unless the Russians then opened up on the hill side the sniper would in all likelyhood just stay hidden and either do off at first oppotunity or then sit back and pop off all the Russians paniking at the bottom of the hill.
I know in many cases the Soviets took to using ZSU-23-4's and the old ZSU-40-2 (i think that's right)(both SPAAG types) to fend off Afghans as their high elevation made them ideal for this - until the Mudj realised an RPG through the turret of these well armed but poorly armoured vehicles was enough to blow them sky-high.
The next tactic was to use the Airborne version of the BMP with the high-elevating 30mm cannon and just literally hose down the mountainside in tandem with Mi-24's and whatever else was available - just such a waste of firepower and time and then left aircraft vunerable to Stinger users camoflaged on the other side of the pass.
Crafty people those Afghans. -
Message 14
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
NEWCFALCON,
Some of my previous post still applies, the T34 was (in my opinion) the best tank of WW2.
So, why didn't "we" (the Americans and British) copy it?
Well, the Germans had tried with the Panzer Mk V (Panther), plus the Russians had taken the Christie suspension and made it work. A modern parallel would be with the rocket engines that NASA said were impossible to engineer but the Russians made work in the Soyuz?
It's no simple task to re-equip a production line, you have to have confidence that you are producing something new, with a cutting edge. The tank designers of the era did study the T34, used some of the design features and discarded others. (And BTW the USSR did realise that fitting radios was an advantage during WW2).
Anyway, I'm starting to ramble, so will sign off for the moment.
Cheers AA. -
Message 15
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
NEWCFALCON,
I'm sorry but my knowledge here has stopped dead in its tracks. I cannot comment although DL and Mani and Hasse may contribute (and I hope they do so I can learn a bit).
My only contribution to this is that the Afghans throughout my knowledge of history have been wily devils and well equipped and well versed in irregular / guerilla warfare.
Cheers AA. -
Message 16
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
See your point there AA - I guess by the time we could have done something with the T-34 it was creeping toward obsolence as the Sovs were getting IS-2's, the Yanks the M-26 Pershing with its "fire on the move" capability and we were getting the Firefly tank-destroyer and other such improvements - I can only imagine if the Centurion has come about a year or two sooner - surely that would have been the best tank in the ETO.
I suppose by the end of the war we had taken everything we'd found out and applied a lot of those principles to the new generation of fighting vehicles and aircraft e.g. properly sloped armour on tanks instead of high slab sides, swept wings on aircraft and moving towards developing proper airborne radar capability.
Not sure what naval devlopments came through on stream direct from the war other than ASDIC and Sonar - although I guess the development of meodern fast carriers (am I right in saying the US "Essex" Class?) was a big one i.e. the cohesive carrier battle group was born. -
Message 17
Posted by MB (U177470) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
Sounds good - I forgot to add however the Vickers Wellington.Μύ
Not as glamorous as the bigger ones that came later but could take a lot of damage and get home.
And of course one became the world's first AWACS!
MB -
Message 18
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
Too true re: Afghan's - I think they ahve to be the best in the world since the Wehrmacht c. 1945 of making their defensive skills work to defeat an enemy in a local engagement sense - they are wily, well armed with regards as to what they need to do e.g. a couple of hi-velocity rifles, a couple of anti-armour weapons, maybe an LMG and a couple of guys with AK's and in those mountain passes they could make mincemeat of anything that moved.
This is why the Sovs. found they needed to use a lot of choppers (mainly Mi-24's and flair-kitted Mi-8's) and then later Su-25's and some Su-24's - interestingly (you might think) the Su-25 was the Sov. response to the need for a CAS aircraft and although they knew they might have to use it to take on NATO armour they didn't go for the A-10 big gun approach but the loser's approach to the USAF COIN specification the Northrop YA-9. A light, fast and manouvarble single seater with a small calibre gun and mainly missle/rocket armament. -
Message 19
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
Didn't know about the AWACS thing there - thought the AD-4 AWACS units flew by the USN were the first but there you go - you learn something new every day
In my humble opinion the Wellington ended up a bit like the Hurricane in that it was the best we could come up with at the time and so became technically obsolete by the war's end in 1945.
But we salute it for taking the war to the "Fatherland" when nothing else could. -
Message 20
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
See your point there AA - I guess by the time we could have done something with the T-34 it was creeping toward obsolence as the Sovs were getting IS-2's, the Yanks the M-26 Pershing with its "fire on the move" capability and we were getting the Firefly tank-destroyer and other such improvements - I can only imagine if the Centurion has come about a year or two sooner - surely that would have been the best tank in the ETO.
I suppose by the end of the war we had taken everything we'd found out and applied a lot of those principles to the new generation of fighting vehicles and aircraft e.g. properly sloped armour on tanks instead of high slab sides, swept wings on aircraft and moving towards developing proper airborne radar capability.
Not sure what naval devlopments came through on stream direct from the war other than ASDIC and Sonar - although I guess the development of meodern fast carriers (am I right in saying the US "Essex" Class?) was a big one i.e. the cohesive carrier battle group was born.Μύ
NEWCFALCON,
Well, I fully admit that my "knowledge" of weaponry stops at the end of WW2, so will only comment upon the things I feel "qualified" to talk about.
So, the Comet was, along with the Pershing the best tank of WW2 never to see serious action. The Firefly Sherman equipped with the 17pdr did see action and was much appreciated by the tank crews of WW2 (from what I've read, obviously I wasn't there).
The Centurion was a great example of outstanding "crap" engineering in my opinion. I do know that the 2nd tank (Centurion) in the line at Suez also for a time led the line during the first Gulf War.
However I also know that Hasse has a somewhat differing opinion.
Cheers AA. -
Message 21
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
I don't know that much about the Comet I have to admit - did it go to Korea then? Was the Commet a direct response to heavy German armour or the ultimate development of WW2 technology?
I'm not really up on the early Cold War armour prior to the T-54/5 and onwards really - I know there was a real mix in thought about what armour was all about in the 1950's i.e. was the job of a tank to slug it out with other heavy armour and therefore be a monster with a big gun and that didn't have to be either fast or all that manouvrable (along the lines that we rached with the Chieftan) or fast and light with a big gun - the thought being that if the "warhead" always wins then what does it matter that your tank gets hit if it'll always be destroyed. This theory was fully exploited by the French AMX-13 (a light tank that ended up with a monster gun)and AMX-30 (a WW2 style medium tank with MBT armament).
The tanks that you see the Israelis use in the news, the Merkava is an amazing compromise in that it is part MBT and then in the back if you wish you can unload the ammo and put troops inside - like a super-sized MICV and amazingly in Lebanon they did this rather often and then crashed the tanks in apartment blocks after blasting them with their main guns. Can you imagine seeing that going on? I think I'd have my hands up in a shot. -
Message 22
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
NEWCFALCON,
Yes, the Comet was in combat in Korea, as was the Churchill MkIII (if I read my sources correctly).
Anyway the Comet and Centurion were a response to the JSIII and the later (earlier) marks of the T54s.
I can't really comment on the effectiveness of the Soviet or USA / British / German tanks as they have never been in (true) combat.
The Merkava is an incredible tank as it is a (despised) upgraded Sherman, and yet it still beat the upgraded T34, possibly a reflection upon the belief of "spirit" over technology?
Anyway, DL and Hasse will be able to point out my several flaws as they have served in this armour.
Cheers AA. -
Message 23
Posted by MB (U177470) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
Didn't know about the AWACS thing there - thought the AD-4 AWACS units flew by the USN were the first but there you go - you learn something new every day :Μύ
A radar set complete with rotating antenna, a bit like a modern AWACS though VHF of course, was fitted to a Wellington in a attempt to get early warning of attacks by Condors on shipping. They then tried using it for spotting attacks by E-Boats. It was not very successful.
MB -
Message 24
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
Sounds pretty funky (for it's day) just shows how good british ingenuity is when pushed to it's limit - if the Germans had have got this technology and been able to use it against bomber streams it could have potentially changed the night-war over Germany surely? They could have had local CAP's on and then left it to the JU-88's and He-210 nightfighters to pick off the bombers?
-
Message 25
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
Hi AA,
Talking with reference to WW2 armour I've read on a couple of posts by PaulRyckier(sorry if that spelling is wrong Paul) that a lot of French Armour from the early period of the war was pretty good for it's time and a definate match for early Panzer II's and III's with their small caliber guns (still not sure if i'd liked to have been shot at in one).
I think my all-round fav. tank has to be the Panther as opposed to the Tiger. -
Message 26
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 5th March 2006
NEWCFALCON,
Well, PaulRyckier is generally sound in that he posts some well researched comments, and I haven't caught him out in anything that directly contradicts me.
The Somua and Char B (sp?) were good technically sound tanks, yet the Germans had much better tactics (see several of my posts expounding the brilliance of Guderian).
I'm sorry, but I need some sleep and so cannot comment further.
Cheers AA. -
Message 27
Posted by Goldfinches (U2947535) on Monday, 6th March 2006
Hi Newcfalcon,
This is a really interesting thread - thanks for starting it off. On the subject of equipment and its capacities, pros and cons, I once met someone who was a specialist on Soviet tanks based up in Scotland - fascinating.
First WW tanks are also interesting to get into - some of the massive tanks produced by Germany were almost like double decker buses with room for 15/20+ crew. Not that succesful as you might expect.
In many movies the capabilites of equipment are all to often over or miss estimated. I'm sure many of us have their 'favourite' moment! -
Message 28
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 6th March 2006
Don't forget the other trick done with the Wellington. Place a very large magnetic ring from wing to nose to tail to wing, then have it fly at zero feet and allow the magnetic ring to blow up magnetic mines underneath you. Now that takes guts. Oh don't forget both the Flower Class Corvets, and The Black Swan Class Sloops both responsible for turning the tide in the Atlantic.
-
Message 29
Posted by DocMike15 (U3167117) on Monday, 6th March 2006
The A-20 was very effective, but we should also remember the Hudson, the Maryland and the Baltimore (the B-25 gets a lot of kudos anyway). All good solid bombers, but not exactly celebrated. Interesting that they are all American, which says a lot about many similar british types (Heyford?). The Boomerang is interesting in that it was a stopgap based at least in part on the local version of the Harvard, so a fighter based on a trainer would have been interesting in combat! Actually its max speed was 305mph, so I have to admit that I would have been worried should I come up against a Zero. When they were replaced, one of the replacements was the Kittyhawk, which is another example of a forgotten hero. My other vote would possibly go to the Bell Airocobra, which might have been disliked by the Western Allies, but was preferred to the Spitfire by the Russians. What we find in these posts is that aircraft and other kit which is seen as boring or predestrian also have their part to play - perhaps they just needed better PR at the time!
-
Message 30
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 6th March 2006
How about the Avro Anson. Drafted in to be a stand in Coastal Command Aircraft until the Hudsons arrived, but the bomb load would hardly frighten a U boat crew, never mind sink one. But the A/C stayed in service until the late 50s as a station taxi.
-
Message 31
Posted by Lt_Henson (U2436367) on Monday, 6th March 2006
The Glouster Meteor. Purely because its the first Allied and British Jet powered fighter and if you look at is rcord, looks and preformance was in my view, a ross in a patch of brambles.
Also The Mini Subs and their crews used in port attacks and D-day -
Message 32
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Tuesday, 7th March 2006
Was the A-26 Invader based on this type? I know that was used in Vietnam by the USAF-SOAF.Μύ
The A-26 (Douglas Invader) was re-designated the B-26 sometime in the late 1940's, thus replacing the Martin B-26 (nicknamed ''Marauder'') in the history of the USAF. I've never been able to find out why the Martin bomber was drummed out of the corps, nor why it was deemed necessary to give its numerical cognomen to the Douglas a/c, but I assume there is someone who knows.
The Douglas B-26 was used extensively in Korea as both a strategic bomber and daytime tactical ground-support intruder. There were two wings (the USAF equivalent of RAF groups) in Korea -- the 17th and the 3rd -- and both featured 'soft-nosed' B-26's (those with plexiglass noses for bomb-aimers) and 'hard nosed' types (all-metal noses fitted with 8 50-calibre machine guns). Although the B-25 (the Mitchell) and the Martin B-26 were seemingly ubiquitous - certainly highly publicized - during WW2, the Douglas Invader was hardly ever heard of during that time.
The Douglas Invaders were extremely effective in Korea whilst the B-25's were never seen in combat there and the Martin Marauder had (apparently) become extinct. -
Message 33
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Tuesday, 7th March 2006
Hmm after a bit of thought I came up with the Typhoon. Bit of a disaster as an interceptor/dogfighter but awesome as a ground attack aircraft after D-Day. Ditto the Thunderbolt!
-
Message 34
Posted by Lt_Henson (U2436367) on Tuesday, 7th March 2006
how about the Ppsh machine gun - Russian, held 71 bullets in a magazine and fired them all in 4-6 seconds. fairly light and very durable, was the pride of the generals and commissars. You never hear about it much like the MP40 or Thompson.
just thought I'd give it a mention... -
Message 35
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Tuesday, 7th March 2006
Sopwith Triplane. For its time, the best fighter plane on the Western front. So good that the Germans copied it and produced the more famous but probably inferior Fokker DR1.
-
Message 36
Posted by DocMike15 (U3167117) on Wednesday, 8th March 2006
The Douglas A-26 (lets avoid the confusion of the B-26!) was basically a new aircraft. The reason why you dont hear about the B-25 or the Martin Marauder in Korea is that these aircraft had both been retired by then (although the B-25 carried on as a transport in USAF service until 1960, and was very popular with South American airforces). The B-25 was a prewar design (first flown in 1939), and the Marauder first flew in 1940. The Invader was over 80mph faster than either, had the same bomb load or greater, and only had three crew, compared with 5 (for the B-25) or 7 for the Marauder. The reason the Invader really does not figure much during WW2 is that it did not reach combat units until 1944, whereas the B-25 had been in action from the start, and the Marauder entered service in 1941. The Marauder was unfairly treated, since its tricky handling at low speed and its high performence meant that it was initially unpopular. But it was a highly successful design, with a very low loss rate. However, after 1945, it was rapidly scrapped (which is why the B-26 designation became available), and never perhaps got the recognision it deserved.
-
Message 37
Posted by DocMike15 (U3167117) on Wednesday, 8th March 2006
The Thunderbolt was a very good fighter as well, although it was not as pretty as the P51. I'd agree with the Typhoon, although its basic fault as a fighter was due to its very thick wing. Its a mystery why Camm's team did this, but once the messege got through, the Tempest (which is basically a late mark Typhoon) was superb.
-
Message 38
Posted by DocMike15 (U3167117) on Wednesday, 8th March 2006
And lasted in service a ver long tme, you still see pictures of irregular forces around the world with WW2 era Russian SMG's. They may not have got the attention, but were effective.
-
Message 39
Posted by Lt_Henson (U2436367) on Thursday, 9th March 2006
What about the Springfield '02 sniper?
great, but you dont hear much bout it its all, Gewher, Mosin Nagant.... -
Message 40
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Friday, 10th March 2006
Can I expand this post please to include what kit was considered second best that actually turned out to be rather good.
For example the original P-51 Mustang was a bit of a failiure by all accounts - the good gents of Rolls-Royce fettle a Merlin engine into it and hey presto we've got a winner on our hands.
Might I also suggest the Handley Page Victor - we might not have had the Russians to bomb anymore but let some blokes put a big tank of fuel in the back and we've got a rather effective AAR aircraft - same thing in principle with the Nimrod (adapted after Comet failiure) and VC-10 (not bad as an airliner but pretty fine as a RAF AAR tanker).
Any suggestions? -
Message 41
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Saturday, 11th March 2006
The Atlantic Bridge of Steel.
Between 1941 and 1945, 2,751 Liberty Ships were constructed in 16 United States ship yards.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 42
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Saturday, 11th March 2006
All of a Britisg design. The first Liberty design was offered to the Brit Government in the 30s by a brit. Ship Designer. BUT and I can see the logic. he was told, As most of our ship yards are empty, why would we be intersted in building Pre Fab ships faster. When the war started, and shipping loses outnumbered the new ships, the design was given to the Yanks. I bet the designer (Like Whittle and his jet wengine) never got anything out of it.
-
Message 43
Posted by DocMike15 (U3167117) on Saturday, 11th March 2006
We often overlook the 'also-rans', which turn out to last for years in a different role. But it fairly depressing to look at the number of mostly British kit that we've had to adapt, because there is nothing else available. Converted bombers dont make the best AAR's, but they are better than nothing. The KC-135 will do double the range of a Victor or a VC-10 with a max transfer payload. Hopefully, the Airbus replacement will give the RAF what it needs, but its sad to see that the replacement for Nimrod will be an upgrade to a 50-year old design - Nimrod. Its a bit like trying to use a 50 year old Ford as your family car - you could do it, but its really not worth the effort. Once again, trying to make do and mend...
BTW -the A36 Apache/Invader/Mustang was actually a very good ground attack aircraft, with good low altitude performance, but the Allison engine was not great above 15,000 ft. Even with the Allison, it was faster at low altitude than the Spitfire V, with excellent agilty. The Merlin was a natural replacement, since it was one of the few proven inline engines available, had excellent high altiude performance, and was being built under licence by Packard. -
Message 44
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Saturday, 11th March 2006
The Liberty Ship design was adapted from that of an old and time-proven British tramp ship The contract plans and many others for the Liberty ship were obtained form the British. Detailed plans were prepared by Gibbs & Cox, a firm of naval architects in New York, and by the U.S. Maritime Commission. The design came from sunderland and originated in 1879. The prefabrication concept was designed and implimented by Kaiser shipyard.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 45
Posted by CliffS (U3481245) on Friday, 17th March 2006
As I read my military history, the Brit idea of using tanks was to design 'em as either infantry support (heavy) tanks, or for the cavalry fast reconnaissance role (cruiser tanks). The Churchill was the last word in inf support, the Comet was the peak of cruiser tank design, then the Centurion combined these roles - a superb tank. Although the German Panther was years ahead of this conclusion by the British. Oh - & the original German design copied from captured T34s, was almost identical to the Soviet tank, but the German engineers wanted something more "German", i.e: more sophisticated, ergo the Panther. Eventually, all this superb German kit was buried in garbage: the T34 & US Sherman just overwhelmed them by sheer numbers.
-
Message 46
Posted by clankylad (U1778100) on Friday, 17th March 2006
I'm going to be a controversialist and nominate the Brewster Buffalo. I think this aircraft suffered because allied pilots expected it to be able to dogfight on equal terms with the Zero, something that many more highly regarded aircraft were also unable to do. Performance-wise, it was comparable to the Grumman Wildcat, which also suffered against the Zero until its pilots learned to use its strengths and develop appropriate tactics such as the Thach weave. Once this was done, Wildcat pilots were able to tame the Zero. I don't see why the Buffalo couldn't have been used in the same way. After all, the Finns were able to operate the type successfully. Any opinions?
Next: Why the Boulton-Paul Defiant is the forgotten hero of the Battle of Britain...
-
Message 47
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Friday, 17th March 2006
I'm going to be a controversialist and nominate the Brewster Buffalo. I think this aircraft suffered because allied pilots expected it to be able to dogfight on equal terms with the Zero, something that many more highly regarded aircraft were also unable to do. Performance-wise, it was comparable to the Grumman Wildcat, which also suffered against the Zero until its pilots learned to use its strengths and develop appropriate tactics such as the Thach weave. Once this was done, Wildcat pilots were able to tame the Zero. I don't see why the Buffalo couldn't have been used in the same way. After all, the Finns were able to operate the type successfully. Any opinions?
Next: Why the Boulton-Paul Defiant is the forgotten hero of the Battle of Britain...Μύ
According to what I've been told about the Buffalo, it was faster than the zero and could out-dive it, but its service ceiling was only 25,000 feet and it was very sluggish at that altitude -- in fact, it was sloppy above 15,000 feet. It could fight effectively against the zero at altitudes below 15,000 feet using the same tactics as those used by the AVG's P-40 pilots, but it was not the equal of the P-40 in any of those abilities. Its biggest problem was its lack of firepower and susceptibility to damage, particularly wing damage. The wings had a single spar running all the way across both wings and hits in those areas were extremely hard to repair because you couldn't replace a single wing -- you had to replace both. Also, the seats were inadequately armoured and some of the controls difficult to access by a right-handed pilot.
When tangling with the Buffalo, the Zero could evidently choose when and how to fight, or could simply climb away from the Buffalo if it chose not to enter combat. -
Message 48
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 17th March 2006
NEWCFALCON,
Yes, the Comet was in combat in Korea, as was the Churchill MkIII (if I read my sources correctly).
Anyway the Comet and Centurion were a response to the JSIII and the later (earlier) marks of the T54s.
I can't really comment on the effectiveness of the Soviet or USA / British / German tanks as they have never been in (true) combat.
The Merkava is an incredible tank as it is a (despised) upgraded Sherman, and yet it still beat the upgraded T34, possibly a reflection upon the belief of "spirit" over technology?
Anyway, DL and Hasse will be able to point out my several flaws as they have served in this armour.
Cheers AA.
Μύ
Can't believe I missed this thread!
Well, I'll have to join belatedly, sorry AA!
With regards to Soviet armour, the only accounts I can really give of them is how they fare as opposition (although I did have a quick go in a BMP just to see how it compared to our Warriors, and wasn't impressed!). The Soviets had a rather poor way of designing their weapons- it was basically design by committee, which is why they ended up with an APC with its main fuel tank built into the main rear door. Their armour was, in my opinion highly inferior to almost everything else on the battlefield.
From what I gather about the T34, it was a bit of an odd creation anyway. It had remarkable suspension (designed by a Yank whose name momentarily escapes me!) system which was years ahead of everything else, it had sloped armour, a low profile and was quite simple to manufacture in engineering terms (especially when compared to the Germans technical meisterwerks), and so, a factory manned by relatively inexperienced machinists could still churn them out. The weight of numbers wins (almost) every time. The later JS models were more technologically advanced, and the predecessors of the modern Soviet tank, and as such way ahead of our contemporary vehicle IMO.
I never got my hands on a Centurion or Chieftain in my army career, although did drive a Challenger on an exercise, purely for the experience, and found it the most amazing vehicle. However, I have had the misfortune of driving many an AFV 436/432/439 which date back to the 50s I believe, and have had the added misfortune of being in actual combat while commanding one of those antiques. Admittedly it did perform ok, and didn't take any serious fire, so it did ok. The army's tradition of "If it moves, salute it, if it doesn't move, paint it!" seems to have reinforced the armour on these things, with about an inch of various layers of paint! We immediately nicknamed this accumulation "Chobham 2", since the impact of bullets had revealed the old heap's military career- beneath its white UN paintwork was revealed a few layers of green from its days on the old Iron Curtain border, a layer of sandy brown desert paint (first Gulf War), and deep down, more layers of green and black, with another UN white paintjob hidden beneath. We never managed to find out how old the old thing was, but if anyone reading this post is off to Bosnia in the near future, I last saw this clapped out old APV in the vicinity of Vitez in October 93! It's probably still there, and undoubtedly still in army service!
Going back to the original post, I would say Mr Falcon, you should probably remove the SLR from your list of forgotten heroes-any old squaddy who used it knows full well what a marvellous weapon it was, and I don't know of anyone who welcomed its departure and replacement by the plastic mess that was the early SA80.
It isn't forgotten, it's fondly remembered.
Cheers
Waffling over...
DL -
Message 49
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 17th March 2006
Sopwith Triplane. For its time, the best fighter plane on the Western front. So good that the Germans copied it and produced the more famous but probably inferior Fokker DR1.Μύ
Re reading threads, apologies, TonyG, the Sopwith Tripe, although great you have to ask why there weren't more triplanes produced?
Climb like the devil, turn like the devil but just too slow with the engine you can put in them.
Cheers AA. -
Message 50
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Friday, 17th March 2006
you should probably remove the SLR from your list of forgotten heroes-any old squaddy who used it knows full well what a marvellous weapon it was, and I don't know of anyone who welcomed its departure and replacement by the plastic mess that was the early SA80.
It isn't forgotten, it's fondly remembered.
Fondly remembered? I'd marry one if there wer'nt laws against it!
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.