The Japanese had an obsession with torpedoes, and developed the best in the world.The Japanese didn't realize how useless the US torpedoes were
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Japanese had an obsession with torpedoes, and developed the best in the world.The Japanese didn't realize how useless the US torpedoes were
The Japanese had an obsession with torpedoes, and developed the best in the world.
The USN at Midway proved to be incapable of coordinating strikes so I'm not sure the fighter cover would have been better. As to the increased numbers again it depends on timing. If they all come at once they can overwhelm the defense but the US was very poor at coordination at that timeZeroes need to come low in so their cannons can be re-armed.
US aviators all coming at 15000 ft and higher also means F4Fs can provide more meaningful cover, all while US bomber force is up in numbers by 25%+-?
Even Stanhope Ring might take issue with that comment.The USN at Midway proved to be incapable of coordinating strikes so I'm not sure the fighter cover would have been better. As to the increased numbers again it depends on timing. If they all come at once they can overwhelm the defense but the US was very poor at coordination at that time
The USN at Midway proved to be incapable of coordinating strikes so I'm not sure the fighter cover would have been better. As to the increased numbers again it depends on timing. If they all come at once they can overwhelm the defense but the US was very poor at coordination at that time
This was, above all an issue of doctrine and command and control. The very concept of a large, multi carrier task force was kind of a new thing to USN, whose carriers had always operated in single carrier task groups.The USN at Midway proved to be incapable of coordinating strikes so I'm not sure the fighter cover would have been better.
But, first ya' gotta get it right.This was, above all an issue of doctrine and command and control. The very concept of a large, multi carrier task force was kind of a new thing to USN, whose carriers had always operated in single carrier task groups.
Two task forces, commanded by two admirals, with one only nominally in charge, and air groups that had almost no experience (and no doctrine for) working together, kinda like the wild, wild west. We had no right to win that one, but the stars aligned in our favor.
Cheers,
Wes
I don't see these as mistakes, but mere rungs on the ladder. The F5F demonstrated what was possible for high rate of climb fighters, like Grumman's F8F.The only possible mistake that I can see is:-
1. Not making any F5F Skyrockets.
2. Building the Buccaneer / Bermuda.
The only problem here is that if Skyrocket production is subcontracted to Brewster, its sure to be a failure.
3. Not enough Dominators built. I'd have used R-2800s without turbo superchargers to power it.
Any more ideas, guys?
The world would be a better place if there were more P-35's.Somethings aren't any easier in a dictatorship either. Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
Hundreds more O-52s
View attachment 571501
A few squadrons of B-21s?
View attachment 571502
More P-35s?
View attachment 571503
Simply throwing money at some problems doesn't always speed up the progress that much.
Sometimes the underlying knowledge takes time.
Maybe P-41's.The world would be a better place if there were more P-35's.
I think you may have misread what he typed, I did the first time I read it. He is saying they made a mistake by not building the F5F Skyrocket, I agree with that as well.I don't see these as mistakes, but mere rungs on the ladder. The F5F demonstrated what was possible for high rate of climb fighters, like Grumman's F8F.