Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

What if? Roosevelt ignores Churchill and heeds his generals, no invasion of French Africa.

Discussion in 'North Africa: Operation Torch to Surrender of Tuni' started by archytas, Mar 18, 2018.

  1. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    694
    Well, insofar as I have ever been able to determine, the main point of most "ATL" is to simply ignore actual history and results in order to show off how much more clever the poster is than those stodgy idiots were 76 years ago. I mean, like they didn't even know how to use their iPads and cellphones right, so how smart could they be?

    In the rral world it worked very well indeed doing it that way. The relatively intact ports and rail lines of Southern France enabled provided about one-third the eventual logistical support for operations in Northern Europe, while requiring only about 20% of the total force commitment, which worked out very well.

    Indeed. And the entire problem remains force size. When NEPTUNE was launched there was some 19 American divisions staged in Britain, with the expectation of roughly 40 more arriving from America at the rate of three or four a month. In this insanity, worldwide as of the beginning of October 1942, there were 14 divisions available of which 7 had been committed by necessity to the Pacific, and three were in England. Exactly one more infantry division (43d ID) was expected ready for action before the end of the year, and all other divisions forming and training were not expected to be ready until 1 April 1943.

    In other words, this entire insane adventure is predicated on the apparent assumption that six or seven American divisions is sufficient to capture Sardinia, Corsica, Southern France, and to defeat Germany in the west in 1942.

    Asking "why" of this critter is pretty much wasting your breath.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2018
  2. archytas

    archytas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2018
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    The idea of the operation is to help the USSR and weaken Germany at a crucial moment, so that the USSR can fight more effectively. It is not to rapidly invade France. The objective is to bleed German forces counter attacking along to French Med coast. The idea of the invasion of Manchuria is to leave japan without minerals and with much reduced industry, food and IJA.
    As stated, while the USSR and China (Communists and Nationalists) experienced enormous losses and received ridiculously little L-L, the British received enormous ressources (completely out of proportion) and were not able even to finish off the weak axis forces in N Africa. All against the Chiefs of Staff and only because of Roosevelt's insane support for Churchill (despite asinine operations like Dakar, Dieppe, the far east defenses, the invasion of Madagascar, etc,).

    OTL the Tuskegee squadron was wasted for a year (it entered service in April 1942 and was kept away from the front, until it entered combat and performed extremely well in Anzio, despite flying Warhawks (obsolete at the time and flying from Naples), against FW 190, etc, it shot down 12 plane in 2 days! Vichy pilots contributed almost nothing in 1942. Excellent fighter pilots from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Canada, NZ, Australia, S Africa, etc, were wasted raiding the French coast, supporting DIeppe, and fighting small LW forces in N Africa.

    ATL the Tuskegee squadron is provided with Kittyhawks and deployed for the landings in Sardinia and then ferried to France. It is a great propaganda coup, for recruitment of African-Americans, who fight also well on land to prove their worth and promote human rights. Polish, French, Czech, NZ etc, pilots also perform extremely well defending the wide Beachhead with strong land and naval AA and attacking German supply lines, airfields, etc,
    Russian speaking Polish pilots are trained by Pokrishkin on P-39 tactics. The experoienced French pilots fighting Germany in the USSR (Niemen squadron) join the allies at home and perform very well.

    OTL In 1943 the US produced about 45,000 very expensive tanks (mostly Sherman and Stuart) and 85,000 even more expensive planes (including many 2 and 4 engine bombers), but only a ridiculously few, inexpensive and easy to produce (but just as valuable), 98,000 Bazookas, 26,000 mortars and about 2,000 M-3, M-10 and much superior M-16 (Hellcat) tank desptroyers!

    ATL Patton and Mac realize that the Bazooka is an invaluable AT weapon, which can be deployed much faster than a tank (airborne, motorcycle, truck or debarked troops) and with much less fuel. It is the ideal weapon to erode rapdily counter attacking forces. Mortars are also extremely inexpensive, deadly and easy to produce and deploy rapidly, Likewise, invaluable the M-3 in 1942 and the M-16 in 1943 (which is much less expensive and heavy, much faster than a Sherman).

    ATL owing to strong pressure by Mac and his influential backers in the US, in 1943 the US produces 45, 000 tanks (half Shermans and half Stuarts) but for every Sherman the US army deploys in the French coast 80 infatry men (4 Bazooka teams, 4 mortar teams, 30 trucks, a P-39, a Kittyhawk, 2 tank destroyers, a 200 mm AA gun, 10 .50 cal MG, 10 BAR, a lieutenant.
    For every 3 Shermans it deploys a P-38, a twin engine bomber (A-20, B-26, B-25, etc,) a 5" Howitzer, an SP gun, a captain, a 40 mm AA gun.
    For every 6 Shermans it deploys a Mosquito, a B-24, a 6" Howitzer, a major, a 90 mm AA gun. a naval observer to direct naval fire
    For every 12 Shermans it deploys an 8" howitzer, s colonel, a RADAR, an aviation observer to direct air support.
    Accordingly, in 1943, 20,000 Hellcat tank-destroyers, 200,000 Bazookad and mortars are built
    The invasion plan is to debark immediately in several ports, large numbers of AA guns, motorcycles, trucks, jeeps and half-tracks, to deploy Bazooka, mortar, MG, AA and mine laying teams and riflemen to ambush German forces, occupy hills, airfields, crossroads, etc, while tanks and artillery are unloaded. Simultaneously, airborne forces are deployed up to 30 km from the coast (within naval gun range), who will soon be joined by debarked troops. Some airborne troops are deployed to destroy key bridges, tunnels etc, further out and will receive air support to withdraw to the 30 km swathe.

    The invasion.
    General Eisenhower lands in Vichy concurrently with the landings and convinces Petain that a mighty armada, air force and army (landing at hte moment) can liberate France with help from the French forces, especially the immediate assistance of the navy and the prompt deployment of forces from French N Africa, Dakar, etc,). Petain and several members of his staff board Eisenhower'a DC-3 and fly to Sardinia. All other French officers. politians, patriots and troops are ordered to deploy "tout de suite" to the Catalan, Spanish border or the French coast or to join the Resitance or the Maquis, which ever is closer and to join US forces. All ships, planes, divisions, etc, from Africa are also ordered to deploy ASAP to Sardinia, Corsica, Nice, etc, and to attack any axis ships, derail and crash trains, blow up bridges, block roads, etc, in France (as the Belgians did heroically at the start of WW I).

    After months of heavy Panzer, plane and troop losses along the Med coast and having accumulated a strong armor, Hellcat, artillery, etc, and acquired invaluable experience and after Monty lands in Normady, is stuck and takes heavy losses in the hedgerows, Caen, etc, and advances at snail pace, but pinning down several German divisions, Patton advances rapidly, using the large numbers of Bazooka, mortars, planes, fast Hellcats and Stuarts to advance rapidly and the slow Shermans to stop counter attacks, consolidate, etc, French generals Koennig, Juin, etc, Polish general Anders and NZ general Kippenberger (Mac dismisses Freyberg), etc, proove invaluable in the fast offensive. French African troops excel in Bazooka attacks after night infiltrations, etc,
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2018
  3. archytas

    archytas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2018
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    OTL German forces in Italy caused extremely heavy casualties because they controlled the hills and installed rail guns in them and also controlled all the other hills in Italy. The allies wasted a lot of time and men taking a hill at a time, where there were hundreds. There was no ground to maneuver, there was malaria and mules played a major role. It was the only area where tanks, trucks, etc, were little use and where there was little ground to maneuver. Instead of copying Yamashita's repeated landing strategy (in quick succession, despite having no navy in the Indian Ocean) to outflank strong forces in the narrow, mountanous Malayan pensinsula. The allies landed only in Calabria, Salerno and Anzio (with months between each). The italian coast was also malaria-infested.
    OTL the French navy was little use throughout the war.

    ATL in the French coast Patton's men reach the hills before the Germans. It is the Germans who have to attack high positions and facing large numbers of mines, Bazooka, mortars, artillery, naval guns, etc, and much more numerous and better supplied troops than in Anzio. It is hell for the WM. ATL the French navy is extremely aggressive, defending liberated territory, shooting down LW planes and blowing up German forces. It wants to regain France's prestige, so even at the cost of heavy losses, it causes great damage, sailing aggressively along the coast to shell German offensives.. Much like the aggressive Polish navy lost a destroyer in Norway, after she caused considerable damage to German forces and she was sunk by an He 111.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2018
  4. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    694
    I'm sorry, but I have to ask. How old are you? You sound and write like you're about twelve.
     
  5. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    694
    How does sacrificing American naval and ground forces in an misconceived plan you still cannot coherently describe "bleed German forces"?

    Repetition of nonsense does not make it sensible.

    The 99th Fighter Squadron was activated on 22 March 1941. It deployed to Casablanca on 24 April 1943. In April 1942, it was still stationed at Tuskegee, where it was helping form and train the 100th (activated 19 February 1942, deployed 3 February 1944), 301st (activated 13 October 1942, deployed 8 February 1944), and 302d Fighter Squadrons (activated 13 October 1942, deployed 7 February 1944), which formed the rest of the 332d Fighter Group. In USAAF doctrine, fighter squadrons were rarely deployed singly, the early deployment of the 99th Fighter Squadron was unusual.

    When it deployed, the 99th FS was flying P-40L. The P-40 of all types was the majority fighter aircraft in the MTO at the end of April 1943, making up 668 of the 1,725 fighters on hand. At the time of "Anzio", i.e. 22 January-10 May 1944, the 99th FS was flying out of Cercolo and Pignataro Italy. While at Cercola, like the rest of the 332d FG, it was flying coastal patrols while it transitioned aircraft, going from P-40/P-39 to P-47, which is what they were flying out of Pignataro. On 11 June 1944, the 99th flew to Ciampino were it transitioned to P-51 by 17 June when it moved to Orbetello.

    None of which of course has anything to do with the insanity you keep proposing.

    Dear Christ! The P-40L IS THE KITTYHAWK! The British designated them Kittyhawk II or Kittyhawk III depending on which production block they were. The USAAF designation was Warhawk.

    As I pointed out to you in post #40, Pokrishkin's 16th Guards IAP was equipped with P-39 in March 1943...in October 1942 there were zero P-39 in the Soviet southern fronts. Deliveries began in November 1942 when the 25th ZAP was set up at Aji-Kabul in Azerbaijan to distribute aircraft ferried in from Abadan where they were assembled. How can he "train" anyone on anything six months before that?

    Put the f**king comic books down! In 1943, the US produced 29,504 tanks: 8,213 light, 21,256 medium, and 36 heavy. 85,405 military aircraft were completed, 54,077 of them combat. Of those, 9,485 were heavy bombers, 2,340 were patrol bombers, 5,411 were medium bombers, and 12,119 were light bombers.98,284 bazookas and 25,781 mortars were completed in 1943...but what the HELL does any of that have to do with OCTOBER 1942?

    BTW, the "Hellcat" was the 76mm Gun Motor Carrier M18, not M16. 2,300 were completed in 1943. 5,827 3" GMC M10 were completed in 1943 as well, but only 197 75mm GMC M3, which ended production in May...but what the HELL does any of that have to do with OCTOBER 1942?

    Jazus! Patton and Mac do what? "Mac" was CG SWPA...why in the world would he be anywhere else, especially given Roosevelt's attitude? Bazooka! It was a brand new, barely tested, Buck Rodgers weapon system that had never been used in combat before...how does anyone establish it was "invaluable" as anything then? Magic?

    More magic hand waving. Mac's "strong backers"? You mean the Republican Party? They did not govern production. That was the War Production Board.

    Airborne forces? You mean the 550 men of the 509th PIB? Seriously, if this wasn't so irritating it would be a bad joke.

    Does Captain America and the rest of your comic book characters land in Vichy at the same time?

    Oh, so after the United States cuts the UK loose, the UK lands Monty in "Normady"?

    BTW hotshot, I've asked for sources or further information nicely a number of times, but you simply continue to repeat false data over and over again.

    Cough up or shut up. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
     
    lwd likes this.
  6. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    694
    http://cdn.slowrobot.com/62920142008105.jpg

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    ColHessler likes this.
  7. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,056
    Likes Received:
    1,714
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Your being generous...
    [​IMG]
     
    ColHessler and RichTO90 like this.
  8. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    1,657
    Location:
    God's Country
    "for every Sherman the US army deploys in the French coast 80 infatry men (4 Bazooka teams, 4 mortar teams, 30 trucks, a P-39, a Kittyhawk, 2 tank destroyers, a 200 mm AA gun, 10 .50 cal MG, 10 BAR, a lieutenant.
    For every 3 Shermans it deploys a P-38, a twin engine bomber (A-20, B-26, B-25, etc,) a 5" Howitzer, an SP gun, a captain, a 40 mm AA gun.
    For every 6 Shermans it deploys a Mosquito, a B-24, a 6" Howitzer, a major, a 90 mm AA gun. a naval observer to direct naval fire
    For every 12 Shermans it deploys an 8" howitzer, s colonel, a RADAR, an aviation observer to direct air support."

    Please elaborate further, is this like a menu and you can select for a set Sherman cost: "Let's see I want two of the the bazooka/BAR selection for one Sherman each and I need a Colonel and an 8" howitzer so I'll take the 12 Sherman also." "Thank you sir that will be 14 Shermans, will this be cash or Lend-Lease?" Or is it cumulative? Let's see for the one Sherman (we call it the Pewter level) you get 80 infantry men-4 Bazooka teams, 4 mortar teams, 30 trucks, a P-39, a Kittyhawk, 2 tank destroyers, a 200 mm AA gun, 10 .50 cal MG, 10 BAR, and a lieutenant; however if you upgrade to the bronze level package for only two Shermans more you not only get the items contained in the Pewter level but you get a P-38, a twin engine bomber of your choice (A-20, B-26, B-25, etc,) a 5" Howitzer, a SP gun, a captain, and 40 mm AA gun!
    That brings me to my next question, can you substitute? Say I need an additional Lieutenant because one of the ones I had got his silly azz killed, and I already have a Captain, could I substitute two second Lieutenants? Then what is your policy on product unavailability? Do you refund a portion of the package cost or substitute for a similar item. Well, the US didn't produce a 200mm/8 inch anti-aircraft gun, so if I paid for the package with a Sherman, would I get a refund in the amount of a Stuart? What is the exchange rate? Like four Stuart's to a Sherman or 8 Jeeps, etc.
    You may think it's trivial but you are probably going to have some significant product unavailability issues. The US didn't make a 5"/127mm howitzer they had the excellent M2A1 105mm as their standard. Since we're talking US troops you'd think the guns need to be compatable with US munitions. I'd be pissed if I got ashore, spent the Shermans for a 5" howitzer and then found out the US only had rounds for a 105mm! Same-same with the promised 6", that's a 152mm piece and the US went with the 155mm both the old M-1918 and the excellent M1 155mm howitzer, but neither used the 152mm round. The Soviets had the 152 mm howitzer-gun M1937, 152-mm howitzer M1938 (M-10), and 152mm D-1 howitzer M1943, I don't recall any other major player using that caliber. Are we going to reverse Lend-Lease these from Russia? What advantage does the piece itself provide over the US 155mm howitzer? Do these advantages offset the logistical disadvantages with regards to the ammunition?
    Then there's the problem with de haviland Mosquito, it's British. Will the Brit's be willing to let us have some of them since we're cutting their Lend-Lease? Will it be reverse lend-leased to us, or will we purchase the rights to produce it? Since it entered service with the British in November 1941, if we bought the rights immediately that only leaves us 11 months (October 1942) to adapt it to US production methods, build a factory and pump out sufficient numbers to be of use. Then we have to train pilots and maintenance personnel, plus lay in sufficient spare parts to keep them operational. We'd be best off to get them from the British, but will that be possible?

    "80 infatry men (4 Bazooka teams, 4 mortar teams, 30 trucks, a P-39, a Kittyhawk, 2 tank destroyers, a 200 mm AA gun, 10 .50 cal MG, 10 BAR, a lieutenant."
    Another question with regards to this section. Are these to provide additional assets to the standard infantry formations, or are they going to be some special, stand alone, super-secret squirrel type unit tearing around the country side in their 30 trucks blowing up tanks with their bazookas and mortars, and slaying the dastardly Huns with impunity? Kinda' like the old "Rat Patrol" on steroids. If the latter, would you care to elaborate on their organization an employment doctrine?
     
    George Patton and RichTO90 like this.
  9. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    I've yet to see him source anything. Many and possibly most of his "facts" are in truth fallacies. No concept of logistics at all or how the military works. I'm not always the fastest off the mark but this troll/looser has pretty well demonstrated that at this point he's a waste of time. Some of the facts others have presented are all that makes this thread worthwhile. Perhaps it's time to ask the moderators to intervene.
     
  10. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    694
    Yeah that's pretty much when I realized we were probably dealing with a twelve-year old playing "I'm just so smarter than anyone else" games. His parents let him have way too much time on the internet that he should be spending on school work.
     
    USMCPrice likes this.
  11. archytas

    archytas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2018
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry I meant 20 mm AA gun. Likewise, it is 4", instead of 5" Howitzers. I always found it absurd that the US army went from 4" to 6", while the navy used thousands of excellent 5" guns, even in DE and quick firing 6" guns in CL. I also found it quite absurd that, despite the excellent Corsair having appeared long before the inferior Hellcat, the army did not addapt it for the Med campaign (it was infinitely supeiror to the Warhawk and even the Kittyhawk as a fighter-bomber.
    ATL the US army orders 10,000 Corsairs on Dec 12, 1941 and kicks butt with them. Its long range is ideal to cover warships, form army and navy land bases in Corsica, France and Sardinia. They can take off from carriers and land in these bases. They can fly from Britian and land in secured fields in France. It proves invaluable shallow dive bonmbing bridges, strafing and bombing counter attacking columns, etc,

    They are additional assets to boost the extremely expensive, slow and vulnerable Shermans and to wipe out counter attacking tanks. As stated already, these Bazooka, mortar, BAR, etc, deploy rapidly, while the tank destroyers, artillery, Stuarts, Shermans, etc are debarked, to take hills, set up ambushes, etc, They are complemented by airborn troops, mostly. landing as far as 30 km from the coast and beyond and some further out.

    As stated, each of those forces are assigned for each Sherman or set of Shermans. It is asenine to make, slowly debark and deploy and rapidly lose more expensive tanks than rapidly debarking and deploying large numbers of cheap, rapidly transported Bazooka, mortars, Hellcats, etc, Only an imbecil would produce a lot more very expensive planes and tanks than cheap mortars and tank destroyers, expecially since OTL they were produced to invade Sicily and Italy, where tanks were nearly useless much of the time.
    ATL the strategists realize that tens of thousands of cheap Bazooka can easily account for the hundreds of Panzers in France and that equal numbers of mortars deployed in hills and crucial roads, etc, can wipe out large numbers of men, trucks, horse drawn artillery, etc, Hellcat tank destroyers can go over many bridges that Shermans cannot cross, they also get less stuck in mud and climb climb steeper slopes. Tracked tank destroyers would have been much more useful in Gela, Salerno, Dieppe, Anzio, Normandy, etc, than heavy Churchills, Shermans and even than light Stuarts (expensive tanks with wimpy guns).
    It is incredible that nearly as many hellaciously expensive, 4 engine planes (many of them with 9 or more, expensive .50 cal guns) were built by the US in 1943 as bloody mortars! A hell of a lot more, expensive Norden sights were built than mortars!

    It is terribly ironic that cheap Hellcat tank destroyers experienced fewer percentage losses in France than the Shermans and destroyed more Panthers (also percentage wise).
    They had better guns and were much more maneuverable, often firing and hiding to reload and reappear elsewhere. They could advance much faster and the thin armor stop small caliber bullets, but often allowe Panzer and 88 mm shells shells to go through them without exploding. When they did explode, the blast exitted through the open turret, killing fewer men. It is ironic also that cheap, slow, vulnerable USN CVE experienced fewer losses than terribly expensive CV.

    At dawn, B-17, B-25, etc, from Britain land also with troops (Bazzoka, mortar, etc,) and secure 10 airports and airfields within 100 km from the coast in Vichy France. Some bombers carry bombs, instead of troops and drop them at dawn in LW airfields, before landing in newly secured airports and airfields.

    OTL there were so few BAR, that the poor guys in charge of them had very short life expectancy. ATL many more BAR, Bazookas and mortars at the front, mean that the life expectancy of MG 32 gunners is much shorter and that of BAR men much longer.

    Let me put it this way, had the WM had 20,000 Bazookas and mortars at the openning of Barbarossa for its motorcycle troops, Panzer grenadiers, etc, and high production during it (quite easy to achieve), it would have lost a lot fewer men, motorcycles, Panzers, trucks, planes (attacking tanks and fortifications), horses, 37 mm guns, etc,. They were cheaper than the 37 mm AT, much cheaper than Pz I and II and far more useful and easier to deploy and hide. OTL Kleist alone lost 200 of his 800 tanks in the first week, attacking very strong forces on the way to Kiev. ATL, with 4,000 Bazookas and mortars, he would have kicked butt and his 200 Panzer crews would have acquired great experience, instead of being incinerated.
    surviving Pz I, II and 38 (t) crews would have performed great with captured tanks (after removing the radios from their Panzers and installing them in the seized tanks).
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2018
  12. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    That's because you don't know enough about the issue. The requirements for naval and army guns are considerably different and they have different lines of evolution.
    The Hellcat is essentially on a par with the Corsair. Each has certain advantages over the other. The P-51, P-47, and P-38 all came into service prior to the Corsair and were army planes. So comparing the P-40 to the Corsair in the above is ... well silly.
    ???? The first production F4U isn't delivered to the Navy until July of 42 since it was developed as a Navy plane when do you think the army is going to start getting them? Here's a hint they aren't going to get them in 42. Indeed the production run for the Corsair ran until 1953 with less than 13,000 total produced.
    Nope.
    By WWII standards the Sherman is not expensive, slow, or vulnerable. Indeed it is one of the best medium tanks of the war.
    Sources PLS. Of course it doesn't matter that much because Panthers were far from the main threat to US tanks in France. Just another non sequitur. Can't expect much more from a silly troll though can we.
     
    RichTO90 likes this.
  13. KodiakBeer

    KodiakBeer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    6,236
    Likes Received:
    1,652
    Location:
    The Arid Zone
    What if we train a team of soldiers to parachute across enemy lines and assassinate everyone in the Wolf's Lair? The soldiers could be recruited from murderers, rapists and criminals on death row and promised commuted sentences. We include a street-smart black dude, a Mexican and a couple of guys that speak German. We put a rogue major in charge to train the men in hand-to-hand combat, explosives and getting by without showers or toilet paper, then drop them into East Prussia with bombs, submachine guns and big knives.


    .
     
    ColHessler and George Patton like this.
  14. archytas

    archytas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2018
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    Going from 4" to 6" is asinine, that's what the RN did. Producing thousands of 5" guns and shells and hauling them around the world is much easier than producing wimpy 4" guns and large numbers of 6" guns and debarking and hauling them in Tunisia, Sicily, Italy, etc, The USN was right, the RN and the US army were dumb. Didn-t the red army and WM have a 125 mm gun? Just because something was done by supposed US army experts, does not make it right, if it makes no sense.

    The point is that the Corsair appeared long before the Hellcat, P-51, P-47, etc, It kicked butt in a navy trial of several planes in 1940! yet neither the navy nor army adopted nor deployed it in large numbers as late as October 1942. It foirst entered service in Guadalcanal and pérformed stellarly, to bad it was wasted in the Med. It was much easier to fly Corsairs and they were much superior to the obsolete Hurricanes deployed in Malta and even to the first Spitfires, which the USN had to ferry to Malta in mid 1942! boith British fighters had ridiculous range, protection.and performance as fighter-bombers. The air-cooled engine was much tougher and much more powerful.

    ATL navy and army are smarter and order them in 1941, so they're delivered and enter service earlier. The USN wasted a lot of time trying to develop carrier landing tactics for it, whereas the army can use it right away.. ATL Europe has even stronger priority over the Pacific than OTL (with the imminent invasion of France and Sardinia), Mac, Marshall and Patton have much more politica clout than King. The USN is relieved that the expensive plane designed for carriers, but apparently useless for that purpose finds excellent use and it is expecting the Hellcat anyway, for its Essex class CV (it is glad to get rid of it).

    Pilots from Poland, CZ, NZ, France, Tuskegee, Australia, S Africa, etc, work wonders with the mighty, long range, tough and maneuverable fighter-bomber (as with the P-39, P-38, Kittyhawk, etc,).
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2018
  15. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    694
    Don't forget to give them a 4" guns since its so way much more cooler and better than a stupid 105mm howitzer...
     
  16. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,056
    Likes Received:
    1,714
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Superman needs no training, guns, bombs, or big knives to whip Nazi butt.
     
  17. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    1,657
    Location:
    God's Country
    I like the 4" gun idea, but only the Screaming Eagles get them because numerology is an important factor to consider.
     
    RichTO90 likes this.
  18. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    Sorry it's going to take more than your word to substantiate that.
    Nope.
    Wrong again. Part of it is you still don't understand there is a huge difference between a naval gun and a land based artillery piece.
    Still wrong ... and silly can't forget the silly ... indeed lets highlight it silly and even underline it silly
    Analyzing you got two things right... in a row even. Of course the opposite of the latter is also correct i.e. it doesn't make them wrong and indeed they are more likely to be right than wrong.
    If you really looked at the issue and had the time and the capacity to understand it there's a chance that you would realize that your assumption/opinion is what is wrong.
    Actually it didn't.
    Just looking at wiki
    Corsair first flew in May of 1940 but wasn't introduced into service until Dec of 42 so no way you'll see many in the med before late 43
    The F6F didn't make it's first flight until June of 42 but was operationally ready on a carrier by Feb of 43 so not very far if at all behind the F4U
    The P-38 first flew in Jan of 39 and was in service in 41 so well ahead of the Corsair.
    The P-47 first flew in May of 41 but was in service in Nov of 42 ... That's ahead of the F4U!
    The P-51 first flew in Oct of 40 and intered RAF service in Jan of 42 although it was 43 before it was introduced after up engineing into US service.
    For which there were good reasons.
    Where on earth did you get that idea.

    I guess I've responded to enough Sillyness
     
    George Patton likes this.
  19. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    694
    Seriously now, are you a child? Or simply that ignorant of the issues you are so confidently opining on?

    The RN went from a "4" to a 6" and that was asinine? WHY? The British 4" breechloader designs began in 1891. It was a convenient size in that the round weighed about 25 to 66.75 pounds depending on mark. By WW2 it included the QF Mark XXIII on subs, the low velocity QF Mark XIX anti-torpedo boat and destroyer gun, and the high velocity QF Mark XVI, XVII, XVIII, and XXI, which were antiaircraft guns. The 6" guns were very different beasts and were mounted principally on cruisers. They were separate loaded with the projectile weighing about 112 pounds and the powder bag about 30.

    No, the Red Army did not have a 125mm gun. The Red Army had 76.2mm, 85mm, 107mm, 122mm, 130mm, and 152mm guns and howitzers. The U.S. Army had 75mm, 76.2mm, 90mm, 105mm, 114mm, 120mm, 155mm, 203mm, and 240mm guns and howitzers.

    Sorry, but that is simply stupid. The Corsair was procured by the USN as the XF4U-1 in June 1938 as a development project. It was accepted for service on 3 March 1941. However, as a carrier fighter it had many faults, which took time to rectify. That is why the Hellcat XF6F-1 contract was signed on 30 June 1941. The USN needed a better carrier fighter and the Corsair was not it until April 1944. The XP-47 was procured by the Army in November 1939. The P-51 (NA73) was originally procured by the RAF on 23 May 1940.

    BTW, it was never considered "easy" to fly the Corsair and its performance, while better than the P-47 (which had the same engine) was superior at medium altitude, the P-47, with its turbocharger, was superior at high altitude.

    More hand-waving and counter-pushing. You see, archeoptryx is so much smarter than the dumb navy and army. All hail his genius! Never mind that he hasn't an iota of a smidgin of a fragment of a clue as to why these procurement decisions were made and which were actually "dumber" than the others and why.

    Fuck me but I get so tired of bullshit stupidity...

    [​IMG]
     
  20. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    694
    To illustrate the sheer ignorance displayed here...

    The USN 5"/38 gun weighed 3,990 pounds without breech. In its simplest mounting, the single open pedestal mount without shield, it weighed 29,260 pounds...and of course had no wheels. It fired a 55 pound round some 17,392 yards

    The US Army 4.5" Gun M1 weighed 4,200 pounds with breech. In its mount it weighed 12,455 pounds and had wheels...so it could move. It fired a 55 pound round 21,125 yards..

    The US Army 155mm Gun M1A1 weighed 9,595 pounds with breech. In its mount it weighed 30,600 pounds and had wheels...so it could move. It fired a 95 pound round 25,395 yards.

    However, all were guns firing at a relatively flat trajectory. Guns have limited use in land warfare, where opponents tend to be sneaky and hide behind things where howitzers become more useful.

    The US Army 155mm Howitzer M1 weighed 3,825 pounds with breech. In its mount it weighed 11,966 pounds and had wheels...so it could move. It fired a 95 pound round 16,000 yards.

    So which are most useful when engaged in land combat a distance inconveniently further away than 17,392 yards from salt water deep enough to float a destroyer?
     

Share This Page