By 1943 the Soviet CAS doctrine was pretty well advanced. I would say the British had the best system overall, but the IL2 was by far the best CAS aircraft out there.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I would be interested in how people here rank the CAS systems for each major country in WW2 - British, US (navy vs. army), Soviet, German, Japanese (navy vs. army), Italian, Finnish, French whatever. Maybe for early vs. late war (with some participants not around in the later period).
The big question and probably the most controversial in here, is how effective was the Soviet CAS. The Sturmovik, the Pe-2, the fighters armed with rockets. A lot of people say they weren't very... but somebody wrecked a lot of German tanks on the Eastern Front.
Yeah no, the Lee Enfield wasn't a bohemoth with five round magazine, it's a very robust, reliable, very quick firing, very quick reloading rifle, I have three of them and use them for culling Camels, an introduced pest were I live as well as competition shooting. Having owned and shot many if not all WW1 WW2 rifles from around the world I'd suggest calling the SMLE anything but a riflemans rifle wrong, the Arisaka on the other hand is a clumsy ill fitting rifle much like the Cacarno, I'd go as far as saying having carried both that the designers of them had never handled a rifle before. The Mauser, I also have three is without question the greatest turn bolt design there is, so good in fact almost everything made today is a version of it.but most of the rifles being used around the world in the early war were great big bolt action bohemoths with five round magazines.
Yeah no, the Lee Enfield wasn't a bohemoth with five round magazine, it's a very robust, reliable, very quick firing, very quick reloading rifle, I have three of them and use them for culling Camels, an introduced pest were I live as well as competition shooting. Having owned and shot many if not all WW1 WW2 rifles from around the world I'd suggest calling the SMLE anything but a riflemans rifle wrong, the Arisaka on the other hand is a clumsy ill fitting rifle much like the Cacarno, I'd go as far as saying having carried both that the designers of them had never handled a rifle before. The Mauser, I also have three is without question the greatest turn bolt design there is, so good in fact almost everything made today is a version of it.
Admittedly, I was intending on primarily discussion the obsession the Japanese had with maneuverability, evident in some of their designs, in particular, the wings. I probably should have named this topic "Wing Area, Maneuverability, and Speed" or similar, or have discussed wing loading and wing area more in my opening post. This would have provided a clue for what part of "maneuverability" I'm focusing on, which is turn-rate, and to a somewhat lesser extent, roll-rate. This is part of a bigger discussion on the significance of turn-fighting and whether or not turn-fighters like the Zero truly were as advanced, and perhaps, as crushingly superior, as people across the internet seemingly consider them to have been, especially in their prime.As far as the OP, the other tricky part to me, aside from the definition of "maneuverability" which I got into earlier, is does the aircraft have some performance as well. Can it dive or climb away?
Life is a struggle. Some struggle less than others.Japan faced some immense challenges in WW2, but so did every country.
Late-war Japanese aircraft were beset with constant issues with their engines, and there was also the problem of oil leakage. Constant bombing, a problem exacerbated by seemingly feeble anti-air defenses and issues with intercepting relatively quick, high-flying B-29s, would certainly have not helped. The US were also experimenting with technologies such as night vision equipment for foot soldiers, with some success. Their battleships also had more advanced fire control systems onboard than those of the Japanese, like Yamamoto's floating hotel the Yamato. Also, good workmanship, unless it involved some novel manufacturing equipment/process, isn't inherently innovative.The US lagged behind in many aspects of weapons design during the war, some of which took years to rectify. The Mk 13 and 14 torpedoes for example. Many early US aircraft designs such as the F2A, P-39, TBD Devastator also did poorly, and many of the aircraft which ultimately had significant success were deeply flawed and / or had major, extended teething problems (P-38, P-40, P-47, F4U, SB2C) and / or relied heavily on technology transfers from the UK (P-51). The F6F and B-29 were more successful but came relatively late in the war.
The Japanese exploited American and (distracted) British incompetence and weakness to have advanced so rapidly. MacArthur failing to do anything to stop the Bombing of Pearl Harbor, dithering on striking Japanese Taiwan, and there is also the case of inadequate British preparation to counter an invasion through the Malay Peninsula, the guns in Singapore being an infamous example of this... The French strategy seemed to be more competent, at least in theory; their lack of consideration for a tank offensive through the Ardennes appeared to be more sensible, and the German plan was extremely risky and daring anyways. Meanwhile, a non-negligible part of the Japanese element of surprise was down to misinterpretation, if not outright dismissal, of radar readings. The Japanese also had plenty of their own nonsensical decisions that boggle the mind and could make one question their authenticity, such as the supposed refusal to adopt radar because active radar equipment could have increased the chances of being detected. Adequately-equipped, motivated and trained soldiers could also inflict costly tolls on the Japanese even early in the war, from what I've heard. Also, the P-40 took quite the toll on the IJAAF in China.I would say your summation above is a breathtaking under-estimate of Japanese military technology and capabilities. Aside from destroying the US surface fleet at Peal Harbor, they conquered Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and the Philippines with a swiftness that shocked the world, and their navy proved equally devastating - major setbacks such as Midway not withstanding - well into 1943. They were relatively slow to develop radar (though they did have it) but the fact that their torpedoes worked, unlike ours, and the skill they demonstrated at night combat meant that they were extremely dangerous in war at sea. Their aircraft like the D3A were highly effective and sunk many US ships while the A6M and Ki-43 took a very heavy toll on Allied aircraft and remained quite dangerous for allied pilots through the mid-war.
Islands are inherently more challenging to invade, and the great expanses of ocean to cross...For a relatively small island they held their own remarkably well.
In turn-fights, probably. World-class? Maybe if the F6F was world-class. It wasn't an unimpressive aircraft, to say the least. When I see the world-class in reference to late-war aviation, images of the Ta-152, Sea Fury, P-51D, F8F, Hornet, P-47N and La-7 come to mind. Pacific-class? Until 1945, that is. The Ki-83 and Ki-64 could maybe have been world-class had they debuted in 1944, if they managed to achieve specifications.The late war Japanese aircraft designs may have come too late but they were hardly inferior. A6M, Ki-43, Ki-61 and Ki-44 (as well as the D3A) were competitive designs into the mid war. J2M, N1K1, Ki-84, Ki-67, B7N, Ki-83 etc. were all highly competitive, world-class designs through the end of the war, they just didn't make enough of them.
Estimates for the J7W1 suggest an uncomfortably slow climb-rate, dimming its prospects somewhat, but with testing coming to end with the war's conclusion, it's hard to say with any confidence. The J7W1 prototype that did fly did not exceed 300kph in speed. The J8M was 50-150kph slower than contemporary Western designs, depending on which source you refer to, and the Kikka was slower than than advanced Japanese prop designs like the Ki-64 and even the Ki-83! It's high altitude performance seemed good, but its rate of climb is horrific, worse than I thought. This slow bird of predators could easily keep up with a B-29, if it was allowed to get up that high, but come a soaring P-51D, F-82 or F-80 and [insert maniacal laughter and blood-curdling screaming here].Experimental planes like the J7W were innovative and high performing, and they were working on jets derived from German designs (see the Kikka). Nor was the P-80 necessarily a war winner, in spite of being a jet. What ultimately did-in Japan was lack of resources and the scale of production in the US, not inferior technology. Having their code broken didn't help either, but the same thing happened to the Germans.
They didn't lag in level speed? Where's the >660kph (military power, altitude ~10km) Japanese fighter in late 1943? Where's the >900kph Japanese jet fighter in late 1944 / early 1945? Where's the radar-equipped anti-air defense network (in 1944-45) to protect the home islands? Where's the Japanese long-ranged ballistic missile in 1945?It is certainly possible to overstate the excellence of the Japanese military in WW2 but it's quite possible to understate it as well. In design terms, the only thing they really lagged at in the later war was was tanks and maybe mobile artillery.
While this is pertinent to the discussion, comparing extreme maneuverability with high speed, the Me-262 was intended to serve as a slightly different class of aircraft, an interceptor / ground-attack/bomber aircraft.I don't see where anybody has mentioned this yet, but to fairly judge whether speed or maneuverability is more important, there needs to be at least a somewhat comparable set of relative abilities, as there was with the Zero and Wildcat. But imagine, if you will, a Fokker triplane, extremely maneuverable, pitted against an Me262...
The Garand only had eight and couldn't be topped up so against a mauser or enfield that could be as required I can't see any great advantage it had except for wasting lots of rounds unnecessary as soldiers wouldn't have attacked with less than eight in the mag so either fired them off or dumped them.Wild Bill is correct, Most of the rifles WERE 5 round capacity, and not very nice. The fact that the Commonwealth had the SMLE merely reinforces what Wild Bill said. And while the Mauser is certainly one of the best bolt action systems ever devised, it was in fact a 5 round magazine, and when facing a Garand, not a very fun experience.
This was touched on in the "guns we own" thread.Wild Bill is correct, Most of the rifles WERE 5 round capacity, and not very nice. The fact that the Commonwealth had the SMLE merely reinforces what Wild Bill said. And while the Mauser is certainly one of the best bolt action systems ever devised, it was in fact a 5 round magazine, and when facing a Garand, not a very fun experience.
I had read elsewhere that it wasn't intended to be a fighter, though this may have been in the very early design phases. Otherwise, if this was indeed the case, I stand corrected. Yes, the pilot is the key ingredient in the performance of an aircraft.This was touched on in the "guns we own" thread.
So without expanding too much and thus hijacking the thread any further, a well trained Wehrmacht soldier or SS Panzer Grenadier could work the action of the Mauser quickly and accurately and was demonstrated to me first hand. It was both impressive and a a bit unnerving to see.
In regards to the Me262, it was designed as a "heavy fighter" and was very capable of high speed maneuvering. It was when an inexperienced pilot slowed to engage piston powered fighters, that it was in trouble.
This could be seen as comparable to when Allied pilots got sucked into a low-speed turning fight with the A6M or KI-43.
The Me262 was originally conceived and designed as a heavy fighter.I had read elsewhere that it wasn't intended to be a fighter, though this may have been in the very early design phases. Otherwise, if this was indeed the case, I stand corrected. Yes, the pilot is the key ingredient in the performance of an aircraft.
Heavy fighter, interceptor...well, there wouldn't be focus on maneuverability as there would be for other types of fighters, I would think.The Me262 was originally conceived and designed as a heavy fighter.
The bomber version was a result of Hitler asking Willy if it could do so during a demonstration.
A similar "experiment" was tried in Britain between a Spitfire and I think a Lightning. The Lightning could get the drop on speed but couldn't target the SpitfireI don't see where anybody has mentioned this yet, but to fairly judge whether speed or maneuverability is more important, there needs to be at least a somewhat comparable set of relative abilities, as there was with the Zero and Wildcat. But imagine, if you will, a Fokker triplane, extremely maneuverable, pitted against an Me262, extremely fast. If the Fokker was intent on dodging the Me's bullets, it would be very difficult to hit, and the Me might have to withdraw because of running low on fuel after many unsuccessful passes. But if the Fokker pilot simply turned upward toward the diving Me and threw the dice on hitting one or both of the Me's engines before being disintegrated, it might be possible for the Fokker to shoot down the Me. But, seriously, nobody is going to choose to fly the Fokker in that scenario.
MacArthur failing to do anything to stop the Bombing of Pearl Harbor, dithering on striking Japanese Taiwan, and there is also the case of inadequate British preparation to counter an invasion through the Malay Peninsula [...]
I've heard he had some intel that Pearl Harbor was going to be bombed, but dawdled on alerting anyone about it, or something similar, if I am remembering the details correctly.MacArthur couldn't do anything to stop Pearl Harbor, given his location. Sutherland could certainly have changed some things by allowing the -17s to take off early as Brereton had suggested, but nothing that happened in PI was going to stop Kido Butai on 7 Dec over Oahu, thousands of miles away.
I've heard he had some intel that Pearl Harbor was going to be bombed, but dawdled on alerting anyone about it, or something similar, if I am remembering the details correctly.
MacArther had to walk the line between the U.S. and Philippine President Quezon, who was insistent that MacArther did not do anything to "provoke" the Japanese.
Quezon was under the illusion that the Japanese would not attack the Philippines.
Admittedly, I was intending on primarily discussion the obsession the Japanese had with maneuverability, evident in some of their designs, in particular, the wings. I probably should have named this topic "Wing Area, Maneuverability, and Speed" or similar, or have discussed wing loading and wing area more in my opening post. This would have provided a clue for what part of "maneuverability" I'm focusing on, which is turn-rate, and to a somewhat lesser extent, roll-rate. This is part of a bigger discussion on the significance of turn-fighting and whether or not turn-fighters like the Zero truly were as advanced, and perhaps, as crushingly superior, as people across the internet seemingly consider them to have been, especially in their prime.
Life is a struggle. Some struggle less than others.
Late-war Japanese aircraft were beset with constant issues with their engines, and there was also the problem of oil leakage. Constant bombing, a problem exacerbated by seemingly feeble anti-air defenses and issues with intercepting relatively quick, high-flying B-29s, would certainly have not helped. The US were also experimenting with technologies such as night vision equipment for foot soldiers, with some success. Their battleships also had more advanced fire control systems onboard than those of the Japanese, like Yamamoto's floating hotel the Yamato. Also, good workmanship, unless it involved some novel manufacturing equipment/process, isn't inherently innovative.
The Japanese exploited American and (distracted) British incompetence and weakness to have advanced so rapidly. MacArthur failing to do anything to stop the Bombing of Pearl Harbor, dithering on striking Japanese Taiwan, and there is also the case of inadequate British preparation to counter an invasion through the Malay Peninsula, the guns in Singapore being an infamous example of this... The French strategy seemed to be more competent, at least in theory; their lack of consideration for a tank offensive through the Ardennes appeared to be more sensible, and the German plan was extremely risky and daring anyways. Meanwhile, a non-negligible part of the Japanese element of surprise was down to misinterpretation, if not outright dismissal, of radar readings. The Japanese also had plenty of their own nonsensical decisions that boggle the mind and could make one question their authenticity, such as the supposed refusal to adopt radar because active radar equipment could have increased the chances of being detected. Adequately-equipped, motivated and trained soldiers could also inflict costly tolls on the Japanese even early in the war, from what I've heard. Also, the P-40 took quite the toll on the IJAAF in China.
Islands are inherently more challenging to invade, and the great expanses of ocean to cross...
In turn-fights, probably. World-class? Maybe if the F6F was world-class. It wasn't an unimpressive aircraft, to say the least. When I see the world-class in reference to late-war aviation, images of the Ta-152, Sea Fury, P-51D, F8F, Hornet, P-47N and La-7 come to mind. Pacific-class? Until 1945, that is. The Ki-83 and Ki-64 could maybe have been world-class had they debuted in 1944, if they managed to achieve specifications.
Estimates for the J7W1 suggest an uncomfortably slow climb-rate, dimming its prospects somewhat, but with testing coming to end with the war's conclusion, it's hard to say with any confidence. The J7W1 prototype that did fly did not exceed 300kph in speed. The J8M was 50-150kph slower than contemporary Western designs, depending on which source you refer to, and the Kikka was slower than than advanced Japanese prop designs like the Ki-64 and even the Ki-83! It's high altitude performance seemed good, but its rate of climb is horrific, worse than I thought. This slow bird of predators could easily keep up with a B-29, if it was allowed to get up that high, but come a soaring P-51D, F-82 or F-80 and [insert maniacal laughter and blood-curdling screaming here].
They didn't lag in level speed? Where's the >660kph (military power, altitude ~10km) Japanese fighter in late 1943? Where's the >900kph Japanese jet fighter in late 1944 / early 1945? Where's the radar-equipped anti-air defense network (in 1944-45) to protect the home islands? Where's the Japanese long-ranged ballistic missile in 1945?
While this is pertinent to the discussion, comparing extreme maneuverability with high speed, the Me-262 was intended to serve as a slightly different class of aircraft, an interceptor / ground-attack/bomber aircraft.
This topic has gone slightly off topic form what I've noticed, though I played a part in that tangent. Discussion is veering towards what-if territory, but I don't want to bother the admins, so I might a new topic in the appropriate section instead if needed.
You are correct. Most artillery doctrine was based on conservation of material. Hoard your munitions till there was a need, then plaster the hell out of the target. The use of artillery is universally the same, have an FO direct the fire to the target etc. the difference between us and everyone else was the ability to drop multiple calibers, from multiple batteries, from multiple directions and ranges onto the target at the same time. No one else had that ability.
And yes the British 2nd TAF was devastating when it got up and running. Helped a lot by the capabilities of the aircraft involved.
And back to the MG3, I could get two shot bursts out of it, and yeah, long range accuracy was outstanding.