Operation Overcast

[yellowtail3]

... only the USS Iowa is worth a good design, only the Sherman is a good tank and the Me 262 was a defective plane.... Good God! You are trying to write your own History.

sensitive to this, are you?

A quick look at each one: the Iowas were easily the most capable battleships ever built - fastest, very well protected, longest-ranged, with more firepower than anything except Yamato & Musashi. The Sherman was a workmanlike & capable design, reliable and easily mass-produced. I do understand it's been criticized as inferior to (much heavier) German tanks. As for the ME262... a fine, handsome aircraft with utterly unreliable, barely-serviceable engines.

oops.

[lwd]

...
Wrong again: the Germans were the US rocket program. No Germans, no man on the Moon in 1969.... and for what it seems no man on the Moon by December 12th, 2009.

No they were not "the US rocket program". They played an important part in the Army program but they were no where close to the whole program. As to whether or not there would have been a man on the mood in 69 that's a matter of conjecture. I suspect it would have been later than the historical case but perhaps later in 69 or 70. As for not by 2009 that is simply preposterous.
lwd:

The US had an extensive rocket/missile research program going at the end of WWII. Indeed it actually had a couple of them and while Von Braun made his contributions to the army program he had little or nothing to do with the navy program and if you look at the developments there you'll get an idea what the US program would have looked like without him.

Not entirely accurate. According to von Braun the years between he was sent to the US and the Space Race were the most frustrating in his life because the US didn´t show any interest in having a rocket program.
[/quote]
Which is hardly correct. Looks at:
http://www.spacearium.com/special/space ... ory/5.html
They simply weren't interested in the same things he was or at least the higher ups weren't.

The navy rocket program had his "own" Germans, by the way. It seems that you didn´t even bothered to read your own US History:

In May 1945, the U.S. Navy acquired Dr. Herbert A. Wagner, a highly regarded expert in aerodynamics, controls and guidance. The inventor of the Hs 293 missile, Wagner worked for the first two years at the Special Devices Center located at the Castle Gould and Hempstead House in Long Island. In 1947, Wagner moved his operation to the Naval Air Station Point Mugu.[12]

Of course he wasn't Von Braun and while he made significant contributions in the field of missile controls he was hardly the program. Indeed most of the German's seemed to have ended up working on the Army team and Vanguard was a NRL development.
See:
http://astronauticsnow.com/vanguard/

The Army's ABMA was practically excluded from the Vanguard development, and Wernher von Braun was not even invited as a consultant.

Certainly he and the Germans helped but claiming all the credit for them as you seem to want to do is simply wrong.

It´s the other way around: the US put the money and resources and helped von Braun to put together a rocket program.

And the tail wags the dog.

lwd:

... only the USS Iowa is worth a good design, only the Sherman is a good tank and the Me 262 was a defective plane.... Good God! You are trying to write your own History.

From where I sit that's not the case. From my view point it's more like you are trying to rewrite my opinion and messing it up badly. I have never claimed that the US had had any exclusivity in good designs. Indeed if you look at battleships I think you will find I've had good things to say about the KGV's, Vanguard, SoDak's, VV's, Yamatos, etc. As far as tanks go the M4 of the tanks designed and built in WWII it was probably the best for the US. For the USSR I the T-34 may have been better. On an individual basis the Tiger may have been one of if not the best tank of the war but it would have been a disaster if the US had used it instead of the M-4. The Me 262 was a very good X-plane. It was however not ready for operational usage and only the desperate circumstances that Germany found itself in lead to even an attempt to so use it.

[Karl Heidenreich]

lwd:

I have never claimed that the US had had any exclusivity in good designs.

This is where I rest here.

[Karl Heidenreich]

lwd:

I think you will find I've had good things to say about the KGV's, Vanguard, SoDak's, VV's, Yamatos, etc. As far as tanks go the M4 of the tanks designed and built in WWII it was probably the best for the US. For the USSR I the T-34 may have been better. On an individual basis the Tiger may have been one of if not the best tank of the war but it would have been a disaster if the US had used it instead of the M-4. The Me 262 was a very good X-plane. It was however not ready for operational usage and only the desperate circumstances that Germany found itself in lead to even an attempt to so use it.

I think we got where it was required. No further issues I raise from here, if permitted. And by way: I acknowledge your high level of instruction in all these topics.

Best regards,

[marcelo_malara]

As far as tanks go the M4 of the tanks designed and built in WWII it was probably the best for the US.

The Sherman design was a dead end. Its petrol radial engine, high vertical sides and old suspension technology were not to be repeated in future designs. It is strange that the country that gave birth to the more advanced Christie suspension failed to adopt it. The Sherman´s main advantage was to be available in large numbers The T-34 looks much more modern.

There are some instances that the American hardware was clearly superior to everyone´s else:

-the Colt 1911 pistol (along with the P-38 considered the best pistols of WWII)
-the Garand M-1, the only semiauto rifle that achieved widespread use
-the B-29, the most advanced bomber of the war (despite its trouble prone engine)

There are other instances of arguably superiority:

-the P-51, it has to deal with the Me-109 and Spittfire for the best fighter place
-the B-17 and B-24, some people believe that the best bomber in this category was the Lancaster

And there are some instances of clearly outdated designs:

-the M-1919 machine gun
-the M-2 and M-3 tanks
-the M-1 SMG

Broadly speaking, there were designs around that seems to have set the course for the future:

-the German assault rifles
-the German machine guns
-the A-4 missile
-the T-34 tank?

Obviuosly the list is not exhaustive.

Kind regards

[yellowtail3]

There are some instances that the American hardware was clearly superior to everyone´s else:
-the Colt 1911 pistol (along with the P-38 considered the best pistols of WWII)

whoa - no Browning HiPower? And don't forget the Iowa battleships & Essex-class carriers...

There are other instances of arguably superiority:
-the P-51, it has to deal with the Me-109 and Spittfire for the best fighter place

Not even close; the P-51 was easily superior to both. I suppose if you remove speed, load-carrying capacity and range, then maybe the Me-109 & Spitfire are competitive. Of course, they were a few years older.

[lwd]

As far as tanks go the M4 of the tanks designed and built in WWII it was probably the best for the US.

The Sherman design was a dead end. Its petrol radial engine, high vertical sides and old suspension technology were not to be repeated in future designs. It is strange that the country that gave birth to the more advanced Christie suspension failed to adopt it. The Sherman´s main advantage was to be available in large numbers The T-34 looks much more modern.

Hardly a dead end. Although some features did not show up in future tanks others did. For instance gun stabalization (be it in one axis only). The Sherman was also very reliable which a huge benefit. Some had diesel motors as well. Most of those used by the Marine Corp and sent to the Soviets were diesel models. As for suspension just about everyone changed after WWII the Britts might be the exception with there excellent and long lived Centurion design. The T-34 may have looked more modern but it also had a number of serious flaws. The lack of a turret basket and the size of the turret on the 76mm armed version for a couple.

...
And there are some instances of clearly outdated designs:

-the M-1919 machine gun
-the M-2 and M-3 tanks
-the M-1 SMG

Not sure these are accurate. The M-1919 saw considerable use after the war and indeed up into the 60s. Closely related to the M-2 12.7mm mg as well I believe.
The M-3 Medium was always an interim design but was the best tank on the battle field when it was introduced. Like wise the M-3 light was very well thought of when it was first introduced.
The M-1 was hardly outdated. It was designed to be cheap and easy to produce during the war as I recall. It was both of those and again saw service well into the 2nd half of the 20th century.

Broadly speaking, there were designs around that seems to have set the course for the future:
...
-the German machine guns

For lmg's certainly for HMG's the US and Soviet designs seem to have cornered the market.

...
-the T-34 tank?

Not sure any one tank can make this claim. Everybody took a good look at their experiance in WWII and the post war tank designs took into account bits and pieces from all nations as far as I can see.

[Thorsten Wahl]

What about the M 35 / M 40 /M 42 a clearly superior design

[marcelo_malara]

whoa - no Browning HiPower? And don't forget the Iowa battleships & Essex-class carriers

Did you ever handle a Browning HP? It has three serious flaws:

-the hammer is imposible to cock single handed, due to the angle required to the thumb, as is very easy done with the Colt.
-the connection between the trigger and hammer goes thru the slide, what produces the effect that once the slide rails get play with time, that play ends as a play in the trigger pull. As you start pulling the trigger, it first move the slide slightly up and then starts releasing the hammer, what is a little annoying to the firer.
-the magazine safety prevents you firing the pistol with magazine removed, what eliminates one advantage of the pistol over a revolver, and is that you can reload a pistol with a round in the chamber and still fire it, if you are caught in the process by your foe.

The success of the HP is due to it being a 9mm pistol with the same configuration of a Colt (safety, slide catch and magazine release all in the same place), what makes easy the transition from a Colt 45 force to a Browning 9mm.

[marcelo_malara]

The M-1 was hardly outdated. It was designed to be cheap and easy to produce during the war as I recall.

I think you are speaking of the M-3 SMG, the grease gun. I referred to the Thompson M-1. Beautiful machine, the receiver machined from solid steed...but take one in your hand. It is as heavy as a full powered military rifle, and that to fire a .45 ACP pistol cartridge. Certainly it is not the gun for the pretended use. Again here the Germans marked the pace, with the MP-38, all metal, folding stock, lightly made, and that was the future of all SMG.

[marcelo_malara]

What about the M 35 / M 40 /M 42 a clearly superior design

Sorry, I didn´t pretend to be exhaustive, as I wrote in the post. Certainly there are other items that can be discussed.

[Bgile]

Good post, Marcello, and I largely agree with you.

While the M-4 Sherman was an adequate tank and filled a useful role, the US ultimately over the years has gone along the German route with most of our current equipment in that we have chosen to build a limited number of high performance systems over large numbers of lower quality ones. We don't have the huge force required to do well with large numbers of cheap equipment anymore.

Having used 9mm and .45 acp - I was an expert shooter in the service - I greatly prefer the latter. There is still a lot of unhappiness about our switch to 9mm among experts. With respect to the Thompson - it is indeed heavy, but it's very controllable and you can actually spell out words in bullet holes with it. I have to admit though ... not something a guy would want to carry around for extended periods.

The P-51 probably was decisive in combining good range and performance, enabling the daylight bombing offensive to continue. There were other aircraft with equal or better air combat performance, but didn't have the wartime impact. It's notable that it used a British powerplant though, so I'm not sure it can be considered soley a US design.

[yellowtail3]

whoa - no Browning HiPower? And don't forget the Iowa battleships & Essex-class carriers

Did you ever handle a Browning HP? It has three serious flaws:

Yes - I"ve handled several, and owned one. I've also owned a 1911 (and a Makarov). On the HP... I removed the magazine disconnect, added a diff (larger) safety lever, cleaned/polished sear & enjoyed substantially improved trigger pull. It wasn't a bad pistol, by any means; it was usually carried in a Fobus paddle holster. I'm a fan of all-steel. I think I liked the 1911 better. In my case at last - shooting FMJ - the HP was a little less reliable than my 1911. I like the HP, though. Between the two, I'd prefer a 1911 - pref. a Para-0rdnance.

The P-51 probably was decisive in combining good range and performance, enabling the daylight bombing offensive to continue. There were other aircraft with equal or better air combat performance, but didn't have the wartime impact. It's notable that it used a British powerplant though, so I'm not sure it can be considered soley a US design.

I'd say the P-51 was definitely more useful than the Spit or 109 - just the range alone made it hugely more valuable. It was also faster than equivalent models, chronology-wise, which was the really important virtue in 1940s air combat. Give the Brits credit for the engine inspiration - the USAAF didn't see value in the Mustang with the Allison, having the P-38 and P-47 in the pipeline - that Packard-built 1650 was a marvel, and better than the hand-assembled Merlins from England. Combined with the Mustang's wing, clean frame, and huge internal fuel load... what's not to like?

Count me a fan of the P-47, though...

[marcelo_malara]

It wasn't a bad pistol, by any means

I think you hit the nail...you don´t refer to the best pistol as "wasn´t a bad pistol"..so it is out of the list.

I'd say the P-51 was definitely more useful than the Spit or 109

That´s what I ment with my post. There are equipment where there is no discussion, for example few would dispute the K-98 was the best bolt action military rifle. There are other instances in which hot arguments arises, like Tiger vs. Sherman, Iowa vs. Yamato...and the plain truth is that they will last forever, as there is no way of inequivocally say which is the better.

[lwd]

The M-1 was hardly outdated. It was designed to be cheap and easy to produce during the war as I recall.

I think you are speaking of the M-3 SMG, the grease gun. I referred to the Thompson M-1. Beautiful machine, the receiver machined from solid steed...but take one in your hand. It ....

Indeed you are correct but I'd still not consider the Thompson "outdated" heavy and expensive for a military SMG certainly but I'm not sure that equals outdated.