Shortround6
Major General
Answering this post heare rahter than derail/clog up the original thread.
Mr Bender:
"revolutionary approach for the time
The USA did lots of things different from other nations.
.....Mass produced an expensive semi automatic rifle for infantry use. Other nations kept using bolt action rifles until an inexpensive semi / full auto rifle was ready for production.
.....Infantry .30cal MGs were updated WWI models. Most other nations introduced modern LMGs during the 1930s.
.....Built a working atomic bomb. Several other nations investigated the possibility but gave up when they realized how much it would cost.
.....Failed to build a reliable 20mm aircraft cannon. Most other nations had one by 1941.
.....The USA built fighter aircraft such as the P-47 and P-38 which were twice as heavy and twice as expensive as fighter aircraft produced by other nations.
.....The USA had the worst torpedos in the world.
.....The U.S. Army had essentially no CAS capability until the final year of the war. Nothing comparable to German Ju-87, Soviet Il-2, RAF Hurricane Mk IIC etc.
Doing things our own way is an American tradition. I see no reason we shouldn't build a large twin engine fighter aircraft during the 1930s to take advantage of those giant (for 1930s) Lexington class aircraft carriers."
#1. US was the first to introduce in large numbers a semi automatic infantry rifle. However Two other nations built such rifles at least in the 10-20,000 number range if not more before, during WW II, not including Sweden.
Price may subject to question also. Good bolt action rifles are not cheap. A few other nations used/adopted " expensive semi automatic rifle for infantry use" in the 1950s, like the dozens of nations that adopted the FAL.
#2. Yes the US did use updated .30cal MGs WWI models in WW II. Of course what is not noted is that the US guns date from 1917-1919 and not 1900-1914 like everybody else's "WW I" guns. A few minor nations (Belgium, Poland and others) use the same "LMG" that the US did, the BAR. The French "Modern LMG" was pretty much a BAR turned upside down. The Italian and Japanese "Modern LMGs" should have been dropped in the nearest rubbish bin and factories tooled up for the BAR ( which was actually none too good as a LMG, but those guns were worse). US medium and heavy infantry MGs carried on until the 1960s and beyond, not bad for "updated WW I" models.
#3. The US fighters were also much more capable than many other nations smaller fighters. The Japanese were trying to build large fighters at the end of the war. I am not sure that the P-38 and P-47 were twice the size and price of a Ta 152. If you want to carry a certain weight of guns and ammo a certain distance and height and achieve a certain speed a small cheap fighter cannot do it. There is no magic.
#4. The US army had a lot of CAS support aircraft available, they just didn't use them. Hundreds if not several thousand A-24s, A-25s, A-33s and so on. Not to mention the A-20s. Of course all those heavy, expensive US fighters had a fair ability at CAS except perhaps in tank busting, making the need to deploy a seperate type of aircraft for CAS duties rather unneeded, what do you know, a cost savings!! fewer spare parts needed in the 3000-6000 mile long supply line.
Mr Bender:
"revolutionary approach for the time
The USA did lots of things different from other nations.
.....Mass produced an expensive semi automatic rifle for infantry use. Other nations kept using bolt action rifles until an inexpensive semi / full auto rifle was ready for production.
.....Infantry .30cal MGs were updated WWI models. Most other nations introduced modern LMGs during the 1930s.
.....Built a working atomic bomb. Several other nations investigated the possibility but gave up when they realized how much it would cost.
.....Failed to build a reliable 20mm aircraft cannon. Most other nations had one by 1941.
.....The USA built fighter aircraft such as the P-47 and P-38 which were twice as heavy and twice as expensive as fighter aircraft produced by other nations.
.....The USA had the worst torpedos in the world.
.....The U.S. Army had essentially no CAS capability until the final year of the war. Nothing comparable to German Ju-87, Soviet Il-2, RAF Hurricane Mk IIC etc.
Doing things our own way is an American tradition. I see no reason we shouldn't build a large twin engine fighter aircraft during the 1930s to take advantage of those giant (for 1930s) Lexington class aircraft carriers."
#1. US was the first to introduce in large numbers a semi automatic infantry rifle. However Two other nations built such rifles at least in the 10-20,000 number range if not more before, during WW II, not including Sweden.
Price may subject to question also. Good bolt action rifles are not cheap. A few other nations used/adopted " expensive semi automatic rifle for infantry use" in the 1950s, like the dozens of nations that adopted the FAL.
#2. Yes the US did use updated .30cal MGs WWI models in WW II. Of course what is not noted is that the US guns date from 1917-1919 and not 1900-1914 like everybody else's "WW I" guns. A few minor nations (Belgium, Poland and others) use the same "LMG" that the US did, the BAR. The French "Modern LMG" was pretty much a BAR turned upside down. The Italian and Japanese "Modern LMGs" should have been dropped in the nearest rubbish bin and factories tooled up for the BAR ( which was actually none too good as a LMG, but those guns were worse). US medium and heavy infantry MGs carried on until the 1960s and beyond, not bad for "updated WW I" models.
#3. The US fighters were also much more capable than many other nations smaller fighters. The Japanese were trying to build large fighters at the end of the war. I am not sure that the P-38 and P-47 were twice the size and price of a Ta 152. If you want to carry a certain weight of guns and ammo a certain distance and height and achieve a certain speed a small cheap fighter cannot do it. There is no magic.
#4. The US army had a lot of CAS support aircraft available, they just didn't use them. Hundreds if not several thousand A-24s, A-25s, A-33s and so on. Not to mention the A-20s. Of course all those heavy, expensive US fighters had a fair ability at CAS except perhaps in tank busting, making the need to deploy a seperate type of aircraft for CAS duties rather unneeded, what do you know, a cost savings!! fewer spare parts needed in the 3000-6000 mile long supply line.