M4 76mm is a good tank but it's available only after D Day and HVAP ammos also later, september, and in very few number. The M4 75mm was common in Europe also in '45.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yes and this was demostrated directly in M4A3E8 v T-34/85 actions in Korea, not just new research. And I agree the offensive power of the M4 could be further increased from 76mm, to 17pdr or even 90mm. However to be fair the M4 was still not as well protected as the T-34 (not to mention Panther) which could be important in other circumstances though not in direct M4 76mm (well supplied with HVAP ammo) v T-34/85 combats in Korea, which were usually at pretty short range besides: in that case either could penetrate the other reliably, outcome usually depended who got off the first accurate shot.
Joe
However to be fair the M4 was still not as well protected as the T-34 (not to mention Panther)
Joe
and re:fastmongrel:M4 76mm is a good tank but it's available only after D Day and HVAP ammos also later, september, and in very few number. The M4 75mm was common in Europe also in '45.
Great book, great man, awesome funeral - when General Titus (Eartquake McGoon) finished his eulogy at Air Force Academy on an overcast day - the clods parted and a ray of sunshine flooded the area - NO kidding. He was the man I loved and admired most, second to my father. Christina and Ed Rasimus did one helluva job on the book.
When to get to the point where Robin shot down two FW 190s on August 15 and noted someone from the 355th FG called Zemke to confirm the scores - that was my father. Robin was one of a kind.
Just finished reading a biography of Robin Olds and even he was sucked in by the myth that the AVG fought the Japanese before Pearl Harbor. Very wide spread myth.
[/QUOTE]That's all to say, I don't know that I'm too eager to buy into the inference that these torpedo-bomber pilots were somehow inadequate. It does make sense to me that they aborted their torpedoes too soon, however, given what they were up against.
Clods or clouds? Very ironic typo considering the subject matter. . . . 8)
I haven't read all of this one, so apologies if posted before.
Colin P. Kelly sinking the Japanese battleship "Haruna". The real heroic effort of Kelly's was holding the plane level so his crew could escape, according to Saburu Sakai.
They were a mixed bag. one unite of 16 SBD-1 or -2s and another of 11 SB2U-3s . IIRC, the SBDs suffered 50 pc casualties attaxking a CV and the SB2Us about 35 pc attacking a BB in the inner defense ring.Totally agree, except that, as far as I know, most of USMC dive-bombers were not SBD but SB2U.
Best regards,
Francis Marliere
Just a footnote on these torpedo-bombers. My dad's buddy piloted these TBF/TBMs. These planes had to come in very low to the water--I'm talking under 50', or so--just to deploy their "fish" effectively. What's more, they had to come in "broadside," or, i.e., in this case, right into the mouth of those carriers' guns.
That's all to say, I don't know that I'm too eager to buy into the inference that these torpedo-bomber pilots were somehow inadequate. It does make sense to me that they aborted their torpedoes too soon, however, given what they were up against.
Here's a typical approach. Do you now see the problem I'm seeing? It wasn't any bad torpedoes. And, while I'm sure it's beyond me to question the eyesight of those Japanese pilots, it probably wasn't our pilots, either. It was getting there, putting those unescorted torpedo-bombers into that position, while in that shooting gallery. I don't need a book to supply me with conjecture on why those pilots couldn't get a hit off on that task force. Given what they were up against, the explanation is right here. Good enough for me, anyway...That was just a comment from the Japanese according to the book. The Japanese were certainly experts in torpedo drops and their comments, if correct, should be taken seriously. I have no idea what kind of training the AAF pilots had on torpedo drops but I would guess not as good as the Navy, which would have been a shame given they were flying the most effective torpedo bombers at Midway. You are right in stating the environment in which they were operating, and the low speed and altitude requirements of those lousy torpedoes, made the situation horrendous.
Here's a typical approach. Do you now see the problem I'm seeing? It wasn't any bad torpedoes. And, while I'm sure it's beyond me to question the eyesight of those Japanese pilots, it probably wasn't our pilots, either. It was getting there, putting those unescorted torpedo-bombers into that position, while in that shooting gallery. I don't need a book to supply me with conjecture on why those pilots couldn't get a hit off on that task force. Given what they were up against, the explanation is right here. Good enough for me, anyway...
That's a very good point but on the other hand, histories written shortly after events are heavily influenced by accounts of the participants. That's appropriate of course but should take into account the participant may be a bit distracted by the intensity of the events and a slightly less than reliable witness. Participants also see events through the soda straw of their immediate locale and may not have the best global view of the events unfolding around them. I'm not saying anything you of all people don't already know but just restating the value of the post morton along with the necessity to be a diligent reporter in balancing the two perspectives.I just wonder how many of these "myths" are being "exposed" by other myths????
There is a saying....you can fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time. These so called "myths" have been accepted by some pretty well respected people, and are being ripped up by the flimsiest of evidence. Rather like the witches of salem, I fear the "crimes" against history we are "exposing" are causing the perpetration of greater crimes against history
That's a valid point. It's certainly safer there. Those torpedo-bombers had to get there, first, though. And, even then, even if ideally they're coming into their targets broadside, at that altitude, they're flying right into those carrier's hangar deck guns. Not a pretty picture.It remains the prime tactic of relatively defensively limited aircraft to get low when attacked by a fighter type to the present day.