Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
I thought they had some teething problems with the P-47 turbos too?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I thought they had some teething problems with the P-47 turbos too?
The great advantage is the ability to take a second shot, with the same sight picture, while maintaining the cheek weld on the stock, at the same target, within a second.
The Mauser operator must remove hand from trigger, operate the bolt, reacquire the target, reacquire the sight picture, and then he gets to shoot again. And that is only if he is an expert who can do that while not removing his cheek from the stock. Most can't. So add another two seconds to his follow up shot.
So, the Garand operator gets a follow up shot in a second, while the Mauser man doesn't get one for at least 4 seconds, possibly as many as six.
Which is better?
You have to assume they are equally accurately sighted.Which one is more accurately sighted in t the time.
That's not how combat works. While your Mauser guy is hunkered down from the fire from the Garand guy, the Garand guys buddies are flanking your Mauser guy, and taking him prisoner when he figures out he is surrounded.Then the Mauser user waits for the M-1 user to run out of ammunition and them shoots at him.
I'd rather have the M-1 in combat unless it was longer range and the Mauser had a scope whereas the M-1 didn't.
Read up on the Boer war battles, same as for the BEF in 1914, those men showed the world what fire power was, at 1,000 yards or more.The advantage of the Garand wasn't so much the 3 more rounds as the semi-automatic rate of fire, which was very useful when at close range or when trying to suppress enemy positions compared to any bolt action rifle. It was basically the same as most of the other bolt action military rifles except in that very helpful respect. A platoon of infantry shooting M1 Garands as fast as they could was quite intimidating.
The bloke who shot accurately the first time, you think you can get an accurate shot away within a second of firing the first one in a Garand?, you will still be coming down from recoil and wouldn't have a sight picture in under a second, the .303, 8x57, 30/06 have robust recoil, no chance.So, the Garand operator gets a follow up shot in a second, while the Mauser man doesn't get one for at least 4 seconds, possibly as many as six.
Which is better?
And the ones they did face were the lowest performing models that fought in WW2, once new MkVIII's started arriving it was all over. I'm not a fan of the A6M and haven't hidden that fact, it was designed to fulfill a particular design brief which it did well but ultimately it made it a one trick pony and a road a nowhere which is why no other air force followed it's design philosophy. The Japanese were very good at exploiting weakness but that's not a long term strategy if you want to win because your opponent learns over time and can then use it against you, you only have to look at Midway, the IJN were a great military force but overall both their tactics and weapons were found wanting as the war progressed, as a fighting force they had glass jaws,So there was no Spitfires in the early days for the Japanese to dominate them.
When I shoot fast I hold the bolt in my trigger finger and thumb and shoot with my second finger, 10 shots away as quick as I can get the forsight on target.I have seen newsreel footage of British soldiers, prone position, firing at German lines using left hand on bolt, arm curved over receiver, to allow rapid fire, keeping cheek weld.
I have seen newsreel footage of British soldiers, prone position, firing at German lines using left hand on bolt, arm curved over receiver, to allow rapid fire, keeping cheek weld.
Which is still nowhere as fast as a Garand.When I shoot fast I hold the bolt in my trigger finger and thumb and shoot with my second finger, 10 shots away as quick as I can get the forsight on target.
And the ones they did face were the lowest performing models that fought in WW2, once new MkVIII's started arriving it was all over. I'm not a fan of the A6M and haven't hidden that fact, it was designed to fulfill a particular design brief which it did well but ultimately it made it a one trick pony and a road a nowhere which is why no other air force followed it's design philosophy. The Japanese were very good at exploiting weakness but that's not a long term strategy if you want to win because your opponent learns over time and can then use it against you, you only have to look at Midway, the IJN were a great military force but overall both their tactics and weapons were found wanting as the war progressed, as a fighting force they had glass jaws,
Which is still nowhere as fast as a Garand.
No. That was a conspiracy between the ammunition peddlers and corrupt bureaucrats of the military-industrial complex.The difference between semi-auto and bolt action is rather obvious. There are some advantages to shooting bolt action, which is why most hunting rifles and sniper rifles still use this method. However, most weapons issued to 99.99% of soldiers are automatic or semi-automatic, and with very good reason. The enfield was not as effective as a Garand and was an order of magnitude less effective than any semi-automatic or automatic rifle with a detachable magazine. That is why every army in the world switched to the latter
"World class" was perhaps the wrong term for me to use, I was moreso thinking the latest of cutting-edge technology of that era, as opposed to combat experience, with the former being a relevant factor in determining a great power, and a nation's future in an Industrial age.The F6F had the highest kill-tp-loss ratio in aerial combat. Not world class? I don't think so. Of course, that's just me.
Some argue that the FM-2 had a higher kill-to-loss ratio...
What of high-altitude combat, and of diving faster to escape, which most of the heavier, more advanced aircraft were capable of? How many of these victories were against experienced Allied pilots, and their frequency? Many of the reports of fast Japanese aircraft seemed like they involved fighting at lower altitudes, where the high-performing Allied aircraft could have been slower. But really, if Japanese air doctrine was so amazing, why didn't the Western powers think of it earlier, this emphasis on maneuverability and slow speed dogfighting? I touched upon experiences in the air war in China having inspired this; would any other nation with similar Interwar experience have also chosen this path of development? Both points are two cruxes in my question, foundation.Competently-flown Japanese aircraft were dangerous threats all the way to the end of the war. Yes, they suffered from pilot attrition, but there were exceptional veterans who were flying and fighting until the end. Nobody who was there dismissed Japanese aircraft as "inferior." At least, none of the dozens of real, live US Pacific combat pilots I have spoken with at museum functions. They knew some caught fire easily and didn't tolerate battle damage readily, but they were not under the delusion that if one got behind you, it wouldn't kill you quickly.
I guess aircraft designs emphasising power, that would have larger engines, would weigh more, negatively impacting climb rate, but ultimately, wing area, considered to be an important factor in maneuverability due to wing loading, increases drag, which affects speed and energy retention (for energy fighting, which can involve diving), and this is why I am focusing largely on wing loading, and turn rates and roll rates (though I'm not sure if wing loading has much of a relationship with the latter). More powerful engines, accounting for other factors, would increase climb rate, from what I've read.Like I mentioned, climb and dive can also be part of maneuverability (which you could group together as 'vertical turning' per the Soviets). This was particularly important for the A6M.
I think the Japanese emphasis on maneuverability was not as delusional as has been suggested. They were lagging a bit in engine development (though I would argue, they did catch up) and they had enormous distances to contend with, without an immediate need for winning an intensive air superiority fight over a battlefield (as they had the Chinese and Soviets beaten in air to air combat) nor to defend their homeland from strikes. Excellent maneuverability + superb training gave them a pronounced edge in early air combat which was almost unparraleled (Germans early victories over the Soviet VVS were similar). But the Japanese were winning these victories over better trained and equipped US and British forces.
I've always heard that the Flying Tigers achieved kill ratios in excess of 15:1 (the classic 20:1 number that gets touted around) against the IJAAF, using P-40Bs, with lower ratios apparently reliant on dubious criteria like Japanese kills against airmen on the ground. The Soviet Volunteer Group also seemed to have achieved favorable kill ratios at times—if I remember correctly, the details are hazier there—though the Soviets appeared to have underperformed in aerial battles over Khalkhin Gol. The RAF Hurricane also seemed to be comparable to the Zero, especially if the ~330mph estimate for the A6M2/3 is valid. There is the 12:1 kill ratio that the Zero apparently achieved in combat, but I am unsure about the actual details of this kill ratio, whether it be its source, date (China and/or the Pacific?), types of aircraft destroyed (including on the ground or in the air).Which brings us to the fact that the top early war Japanese fighters - A6M and the oft forgotten Ki-43, were clearly quite well suited to winning crushing victories over the short term. They were able to dominate most Allied fighters in the early days of the war, including Hurricanes, Spitfires, P-40s, P-39s, F2A and Wildcats. It was only with adjustments to strategy that a few of these types (Wildcats, P-40s, and eventually Spitfires) were able to basically hold their own. No Allied types, except maybe the P-38 was really overwhelmingly successful against the first-line Japanese fighters until well into 1943.
I don't disagree, though that still doesn't endear me to the industrial and technological strength of Imperial Japan, which are significant criteria for determining a great power. I guess Japan in this case would be a great power based on the criterion that a great power would be able to keep pace with another in a war, but I wonder, and this is (slightly absurd) what-if territory, how pilots and equipment of the IJNAS, relying on some potentially applicable Japanese tactics and strategy, would fare in the Mediterranean, and the Eastern and Western Fronts.In part, I would argue they were making the same bet that the Germans were - on an overwhelming, annihilating victory in war conducted over the short term, rather than a long term war of attrition which they knew they couldn't win against enemies like the US and USSR. They turned out to have made a strategic mistake here, but given that they wanted to fight (which was, in both cases, in large part down to a delusional ideology by the national leaders, and in itself a strategic error) this was really their only strategy.
It took quite a while for Allied pilots to work out the 'best practices' for contending with Japanese fighters, and it was done gradually and at great cost in lives lost. The Japanese armed forces did not field as many aircraft as the Germans did but they proved to be extremely formidable. I don't think many Allied pilots took Japanese fighters lightly. Even P-38, Hellcat and Corsair aces were being killed right to the end of the war.
Well, they still managed to deploy at least some of those designs, and in non-negligible numbers at that. Germany was also being bombed, and the information I have seen on German air defense suggests doctrine and equipment superior to Japan's, with more Allied fear and casualties. "Butcher" Harris, anyone? This reminds me, while the Germans were building underground complexes for the construction of hundreds of fast, cutting-edge Me-262s, the Japanese were doing similarly, but for Ki-84s...I think almost all of the late war high HP aircraft had a fair number of development issues. F4U certainly did. P-38 definitely did. Look at the Soviet Vk-106 engine. Shall we talk about the Typhoon? How many new engine types in the US, UK, and Germany were heavily delayed or cancelled?
I think the Japanese had similar teething issues, exacerbated by the fact that they didn't standardize their parts (though this was also the case with some British and most Soviet aircraft as well) and the strategic problems they had vis a vis supply and then bombing of their homeland.
Allied and German designs could have had greater, more significant flaws, but I will need to do some more reading in this area to provide any satisfactory thoughts on the matter. Similarly for the USN and IJN battleship designs, because discussions on the internet, for instance, favored the Iowa over the Yamato (and the Bismarck if mentioned), and US advancements in analog computer systems were brought up as point of superiority.This is certainly true, but it was quite a late development. But I think you are conflating aircraft design issues with production, supply and maintenance which are different matters.
The US had radar controlled guns which proved useful in a couple of battles, but the Japanese came out on top in most of the surface combat through the end of 1943. There was nothing second rate about Japanese warships. They were superior to every navy in the world except the USN, and the USN only barely got an edge over them, and only gradually.
My point here primarily concerned the Commonwealth, who had an ongoing front in Europe and North Africa where the best troops and equipment were fighting in. But still, the claims of radar mismanagement on the American side are farcical, on the level of Iraqi AAs in the Gulf War not firing at clearly visible aircraft unless commanded to do so. It was questioning Japan's great power status if they were primarily defeating second-rate armies.Couldn't you say the same thing for the Germans? Or almost any successful army? I'm fine with making this point so long as it's made consistently.
The early Zero success? One of the first deployments of the Zero was against I-15 biplanes and interwar I-16s with mediocre Chinese pilots, and there still existed some inferior designs like F2As and P-36s active in the Philippines and beyond.The early P-40 success was largely against second tier fighters (like Ki-27) and by the time they were facing Ki-43 they had improved P-40s with much improved tactics. The speed / diving advantage in particular became more pronounced...
If the Japanese Empire was stronger, these projects might have been further in development, if not produced and deployed with better specifications.Fair points, but J7, Kikka etc. were experimental aircraft which never got through development during the war - much some of the others you mentioned up above. Luckily for us the Japanese ability to complete these designs was interrupted and degraded.
The course of the war largely followed War Plan Orange, reportedly, and The Great Pacific War (1925) did have some parallels with the later conflict. I've seen some contemporary maps of US contingency plans on another forum, one in particular (dated to the early 1940s) that featured a defeated Japan, though I don't have it on hand now.I think a lot of the criticism of the Japanese aircraft and other kit is due to hindsight and the fact that we know who won the war. I don't think it was so obvious in 1942 or 1943 who was going to win.
Burma and Malaya. Not insignificant, but not as large as British India, "the Crown Jewel", or British colonies in Africa. Britain was essentially caught in a two-front war during this time.They sure took plenty of territory from the UK, and their navy was far more powerful than the British navy, that is pretty clear.