Ineffective & deficent Allied equipment

[redcoat]

[Once war had been declared in September 1939, I don't think that the RAAF wanted to publicly declare any existing problems with the Ansons, so the inquiry results were probably handed over to the RAAF with no public fanfare.

After reading the reports on that crash I don't think there was anything wrong with the aircraft , its seems it was pilot error with poor visability (fog) being a major factor.

As recent news has shown, fog is still highly dangerous even for modern aircraft

[takata_1940]

I wish to nominate the French Caudron C.714 fighter, due to poor rate of climb and general performance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caudron_C.714

This program was supposed to be used for advanced training, then canceled, short of this sixty aircraft serie which was sent to Finland (nothing else being available). Hopefully for the Finns, the war ended after only 4-5 aircraft deliveries and the remaining aircraft were left stocked until March-April 1940. They were issued to Polish pilots regrouped in Lyon, again only for training. It ended as being also used in combat by the same group as they had nothing else to be equiped with and could not wait to fight... then it proved to be a bad idea as their losses were high, despite shooting down few German aircraft.
S~
Olivier

[varjag]

The Reising submachine-gun was not well received by the US Marines....u can scrape the blue off with your finger-nails and it rusts in no time....

the folding stock M55.... the weapon's poorly designed wire-framed stock (which tended to fold while firing ) soon earned the M55 a poor reputation......

:roll:

with other Marines only drawing their new Reisings onboard ship while headed towards Guadalcanal with a minimum of familiarization.

Unfortunately, the Reising was designed as a civilian police weapon and was not suited to the stresses of harsh battle conditions encountered in the Solomon Islands—namely, sand, saltwater and the difficulty in keeping the weapon clean enough to function properly. Tests at Aberdeen Proving Ground and Ft. Benning Georgia had found difficulties in blind-folded reassembly of the Reising, indicating the design was complicated and difficult to maintain. Many of the parts were hand fitted at the factory; this lack of parts interchangeability was not a problem for a civilian or police firearm, but it caused difficulty when Reisings were maintained in the field under combat conditions.[10]

In clear: Undiluted Shit! (why - were the Marines always the last - to get first-rate equipment???? :roll: )

Varjag

[Graham Clayton]

HI Phylo,

While these crashes were possibly caused by poor pilot judgement, there were a couple of crashes of Ansons near the Richmond RAAF base in 1939 which strongly seem to suggest that there was a problem either with the engines of the Anson, or the maintenance procedures:

http://www.ozatwar.com/ozcrashes/nsw164.htm

http://www.ozatwar.com/ozcrashes/nsw48.htm

[frcoplan]

Actually - the LAM's from Harrows flown by 93 Sqn. accounted for ONE kill and one Probable from December 1940 to November 1941! And "Pandora", also known as the "P.A.C. Apparatus", did as mentioned above account for one Do17 during a raid on Kenley.

In DUEL OF EAGLES by Peter Townsend a name of a pilot, that got tangled in PEAC is given. He was Lamberty flying Do 17 during an attack on Biggin Hill. It is stated that he made an emergency landing with burning plane, but does not state if plane was brought down due to PAC alone or was also attack by a fighter.

frcoplan

[phylo_roadking]

While these crashes were possibly caused by poor pilot judgement, there were a couple of crashes of Ansons near the Richmond RAAF base in 1939 which strongly seem to suggest that there was a problem either with the engines of the Anson, or the maintenance procedures:

Graham, yes there was a known "problem", but not necessarily one you might assume; there were major concerns over the Anson's ability to stay in the air on one engine.

[redcoat]

In DUEL OF EAGLES by Peter Townsend a name of a pilot, that got tangled in PEAC is given. He was Lamberty flying Do 17 during an attack on Biggin Hill. It is stated that he made an emergency landing with burning plane, but does not state if plane was brought down due to PAC alone or was also attack by a fighter.

frcoplan

Oberleutnant Lamberty was flying a Do 17 of the 9th Staffel, Bomber Geshwader 76 which was damaged in the attack on Kenley by a PAC, but he was actually brought down by fire from light AA and fighters.
The aircraft 'plucked out of the sky' by the PAC was a Do 17 flown by another pilot of the same Staffel, Feldwebel Petersan, who along with the rest of his crew was killed when his plane crashed just outside the airfield.

It was a bad day for the 9 aircraft of 9th Staffel with 4 aircraft shot down, 2 returned with major damage, and the remaining 3 with lesser damage.

Source; The Hardest Day, by Alfred Price

[Lightbob]

I don’t know much about the Brewster Buffalo other than the ones used by the Commonwealth Air force were Rubbish. I know we did not have supermen flying them.

Regards the Hurricane it was the back bone of the RAF in the BOB which in spite of our lack of Nordic supermen and Buffalos, we managed to win. The Hurricane also proved to possess an astounding propensity for adaptation, and the multifarious roles that it undertook earned for it the distinction of being the most versatile of single seat warplanes to emerge from the Second World War. Wasn’t able to convert it to a Buffalo though! Other wise we would have got the war over in 1940. The only Victoria Cross ever awarded to a Fighter Command pilot was won by Ft Lt James Nicholson, a Hurricane pilot of No 249 Squadron who, on August 16,1940, while attacking a German aircraft in front of him, was pounced on from above and behind by other German aircraft. Nicholson’s aircraft caught fire, but he continued his attack until he had shot down his original target, then parachuted to safety. The highest scoring Allied pilot of the battle - a Czech named Sergeant Josef Frantisek, who claimed 17 victories - was also a Hurricane pilot.

When it became clear that the Hurricane was becoming outclassed as a pure fighter, other duties were assigned to it. In October 1941 the 'Hurribomber' fighter-bomber came into being, carrying either two 113 kg (250 lb) or two 226 kg (500 lb) bombs under its wings. The Mk IID of 1942 was fitted with two 40 mm cannon for tank busting and two machine-guns, and was operated mainly in North Africa against Rommel's desert forces and in Burma against the Japanese were it held its own against the Zero. Other Hurricanes carried rocket projectiles as alternative ground attack weapons.

I looked through this thread did the Finnish Buffalos ever fight any ME 109s or FW 109 Oh sorry you were on the same side! I see that three of the top Luftwaffe aces all got their high scores against the Red Air Force in Russia. Bruno Kittel 267 kills, Walter Novotny 258 kills and Eric Rudorffer 222 kills were they flying Buffalos. No I think they flew FW 110s

Come on! I’m sure that the Finns had some good pilots but I am also sure that the Russians had many problems before they even got into the cockpit. The Finnish Air force was second class airforce fighting a fourth class one and until it had fought a first class one I would still consider it second class. The Buffalo was out of its class when up against good pilots in good aircraft and it was certainly no match for the Hurricane.

Whilst talking about inferior weapons I would like to submit the M1 Garand Rifle and the Browninh auto rifle

[Mark V]

Other wise we would have got the war over in 1940.

Hi.

OK...

In eastern front typical combat altitudes were way lower than during BoB. Hurricane was excellent fighter/fighter-bomber, robust, easy to repair, good armament, good gun platform - but "on the deck" it was very stiff compared to Buffalo, or many other fighter types used in eastern front.

This partly explains why Hurricane did not quite live up to its fame in our theatre of airwar (though served respectably). Buffalo pilots did consider Soviet Hurricanes as especially easy kills.

... the combat was different, and the technical strenghts/weaknesses sometimes upside down compared to for example BoB.

did the Finnish Buffalos ever fight any ME 109s or FW 109

Nope, only La-5s and Yak-9s...

You seem to miss that many of our Finn members actually do value the light Brewster Buffalo type we had very high as an combat aircraft by its technical merit - it was many ways superior fighting machine compared to what our enemy had in first year or two of war.

- well armed, 3x .50 BMG + 1x .30 (later 4x .50)
- could turn better in low altitudes than anything faster than it, and was faster than anything that could outturn it in our theatre
- ac itself and its engine was realible
- good visibily from roomy cockpit
- etc..


Regards

[GD,grenedier]

Lightbob,ok, you submit the M1 Garand and the Bar as deficent or inefective,why?, (as a matter of point I don't get into aircraft enough to say one way or another on there shortcomings real or imagined)

[Mark V]

why?,

Propably because dismissing the above 2 is equal in provocation meter to many in US, than is dismissing Buffalo to Finns

[ChristopherPerrien]

Lightbob,ok, you submit the M1 Garand and the Bar as deficent or inefective,why?, (as a matter of point I don't get into aircraft enough to say one way or another on there shortcomings real or imagined)

A good question , the M-1 garand was the best rifle of WWII, bar none. most other were out of date bolt-actions, and no other SLR had the power of the 30-06 round.

Granted the BAR was not a LMG , but it gave a level of supporting firepower to a "squad" , that was far lighter than tugging around a true LMG, after all it was designed for the failed doctrine of "walking fire". A true LMG pretty much turns an infantry squad into a MG section. Granted the BAR was no Zb26 or an mg 42, as it was not designed for the doctrine that was eventually developed for those weapons.

[Delta Tank]

Lightbob,

Ligthbob wrote:

Whilst talking about inferior weapons I would like to submit the M1 Garand Rifle and the Browninh auto rifle

I see a thread in Lightbob's posts, you hate America or you hate Americans, or you hate anything associated with America. I briefly looked through some of your posts and this common theme struck me, you just hate America. Why?

To state that the M-1 Garand was an inferior weapon is just so incredibly stupid that there can be no response! I own an M-1 Garand and a 303 Enfield, Mk1 No. 4, and a K98K, they all are fun to shoot and very accurate, but a semi-automatic rifle that you do not have to reload for 8 shots, and allows you to stay on your target without moving either arm to reload every shot manually with a bolt, gives that rifleman such an advantage that it is ridiculous to argue differently. It also helps the 17% or so of the population that are left handed, that do not have to manipulate a right handed bolt. As far as I know we were the first nation to arm its infantry with a semi-automatic rifle, and I notice today that everyone has followed suit.

Mike

[Tim Smith]

Granted the BAR was not a LMG , but it gave a level of supporting firepower to a "squad" , that was far lighter than tugging around a true LMG, after all it was designed for the failed doctrine of "walking fire". A true LMG pretty much turns an infantry squad into a MG section. Granted the BAR was no Zb26 or an mg 42, as it was not designed for the doctrine that was eventually developed for those weapons.

Far lighter? The Bren is only about 1 kg heavier than the BAR (assuming the BAR has it's bipod attached). In the LMG role, the Bren gives you a lot more capability for that extra kilogram of weight.

As an automatic rifle, the BAR was totally unnecessary since the US had the M1 Garand available. As an LMG, the BAR was outclassed by the Bren and MG34, although I would still take the BAR over the Italian Breda M30 or the Japanese Type 11, which had severe reliability problems.

[Delta Tank]

Granted the BAR was not a LMG , but it gave a level of supporting firepower to a "squad" , that was far lighter than tugging around a true LMG, after all it was designed for the failed doctrine of "walking fire". A true LMG pretty much turns an infantry squad into a MG section. Granted the BAR was no Zb26 or an mg 42, as it was not designed for the doctrine that was eventually developed for those weapons.

Far lighter? The Bren is only about 1 kg heavier than the BAR. In the LMG role, the Bren gives you a lot more capability for that extra kilogram of weight.

As an automatic rifle, the BAR was totally unnecessary since the US had the M1 Garand available. As an LMG, the BAR was outclassed by the Bren and MG34, although I would still take the BAR over the Italian Breda M30 or the Italian Type 11, which had severe reliability problems.

Tim,
What is the difference between the Bren and the BAR? Other than caliber, they are both magazine feed machineguns, on a bipod. Or am I missing something. Obviously the BAR was not up to the job and you will find that some units (1st Infantry Division) acquired more machineguns and replaced some of their BARs.

Mike