Ineffective & deficent Allied equipment

Discussions on the Allies and the Neutral States in general and the countries that does not have sections of their own.
User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11500
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 20 Jan 2004 15:43

Hi varjag!

...and thanks.
varjag wrote:'wasteful Anglosachsian art of war'
:)
sisu. (I can't translate it to English, because it's something u feel in your veins when the chips are down).
Well explained

Regards, Juha

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Post by Caldric » 20 Jan 2004 18:30

varjag wrote:What an exciting dogfight! Could one thought be spared for the small and poor Finnish nation that fought for it's life with the back against the wall. With what they had - and made the best of it. None of the largesse of the'wasteful Anglosachsian art of war' but one on the paupers budget.Where every quality of whatever they had - was maximised, by ingenuity,tactics and sheer bloody sisu. (I can't translate it to English, because it's something u feel in your veins when the chips are down). The USAAF, USN, RAF and RAAF could afford to blame their failures on their aircraft and demand something better. No such luxuaries were granted the Finns. They perhaps proved - that the critics - should have blamed themselves - more than their aircraft.


You nor our Finnish friends have yet to get the point.

So we will just assume the Finnish were the best in the World fighting again the 2nd best the Soviets. The rest were just wasteful morons that could not fight.

Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Post by Mark V » 20 Jan 2004 19:28

Caldric wrote:So we will just assume the Finnish were the best in the World fighting again the 2nd best the Soviets. The rest were just wasteful morons that could not fight.


Well, that is entirely your opinion - none here have even suggested such. :lol:

Anyway - you can't force any Finn to say bad word about Brewster, since the men who piloted it (here) loved it and praised it's qualities - and proved in the combat that their opinion about the plane was right without shadow of an doubt.

Mark V

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Post by Caldric » 20 Jan 2004 19:32

Mark V wrote:
Caldric wrote:So we will just assume the Finnish were the best in the World fighting again the 2nd best the Soviets. The rest were just wasteful morons that could not fight.


Well, that is entirely your opinion - none here have even suggested such. :lol:

Anyway - you can't force any Finn to say bad word about Brewster, since the men who piloted it (here) loved it and praised it's qualities - and proved in the combat that their opinion about the plane was right without shadow of an doubt.

Mark V


That is good! Debating with the Finnish is like facing a pack of wolves. And you guys call us nationalistic! :D

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Post by Caldric » 20 Jan 2004 19:40

Back to the topic though I think one of the worse tanks to come out of the US is the M3 Grant. The Soviet tankers called it 4 brothers and a coffin?

Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Post by Mark V » 20 Jan 2004 19:45

Caldric wrote:That is good! Debating with the Finnish is like facing a pack of wolves. And you guys call us nationalistic! :D


We just agree on this issue... :wink:

Anyway - Caldric and Alf are right, this issue has been chewed thoroughly. Let's move to qualities of Lee/Grant...

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4214
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 11:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

Post by Harri » 20 Jan 2004 19:52

We just try to tell that all American planes were not as bad as it is said... :wink:

Caldric wrote:So we will just assume the Finnish were the best in the World fighting again the 2nd best the Soviets. The rest were just wasteful morons that could not fight.


You said that. But I don't think that pure good luck or some kind of random factors would have been behind the successes (or failures).

Let me tell you one thing: Japs had fought ten years in China and their experience was of course much better than Americans' who had just replaced their obsolete and rather agile fighters to modern, faster but much clumsier ones. How on earth American pilots could have been even close to Japanese level in combat tactics and experience?

Japanese Army Air Force used bi-planes (Kawasaki (Ki-10) Type 95 ‘Perry’) until 1940 but Japanese Imperial Navy had used Mitsubishi A5M1 fighters since late 1930' Zeros since 1940 just like US replaced their P-26s with P-35s and P-36As.

There are examples that also obsolete planes can claim aerial victories:

There were still some P-26s sitting on the flight line at Wheeler Field at the time of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Six of them were destroyed and one was damaged.

Most of those P-26s that had been stationed in the Philippines had been sold to the government of the Philippines by the time of the Japanese attack. The Philippine government acquired 12 P-26As beginning in July of 1941. Some of these P-26s were serving with the 6th Pursuit Squadron of the Philippine Army Air Force based at Batangas Field at the time of the Japanese attack. Despite their total obsolescence, the Filipino P-26s succeeded in scoring some victories against the Mitsubishi A6M Zero during the first few days of the Japanese attack. One of the Philippine P-26s is credited with shooting down the first Japanese plane destroyed during the early attacks on the islands. The best-known action took place on December 12, 1942, then a group of six Philippine P-26s led by Capt. Jesus Villamor shot one bomber and two Zeros with the loss of three P-26s. However, the few P-26s operated by the Philippine Army Air Force were quickly overwhelmed by the onslaught of the Japanese Zero fighters, and the surviving P-26s were destroyed on the ground by Filipinos to prevent them from falling into enemy hands.

Following Pearl Harbor, only nine P-26s remained airworthy in the Panama Canal Zone. They were replaced by P-40s in June of 1942

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Post by Caldric » 20 Jan 2004 20:02

I think the worst thing about the Grant/Lee is its huge silhouette! Plus the armor have almost no angle to it so any German AT gun had a good chance of knocking it out. I would think the German 88 would absolutely destroy the M3.

Following are some images. The Soviets were still using these guys at Kursk 43. I must add I have heard the British were damn happy to get them in 40-41 for Africa there just was not enough Brit tanks to go around and they used them to some success.

But in 1943 I would hate to be going up against the Germans in one of these things, even as infantry support your chance of survival is very small indeed.

Dead M3's at Kursk
Image

M3 on their way to Kursk frontline 43.
Image

Cutaway drawing of M3 layout:

Image

All images from Battlefield.ru

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4214
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 11:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

Post by Harri » 20 Jan 2004 20:15

Caldric wrote:Back to the topic though I think one of the worse tanks to come out of the US is the M3 Grant. The Soviet tankers called it 4 brothers and a coffin?


I don't think British tankers disliked their Grants in 1941/42. Compared to German tanks it was about equal and technically more reliable than British designs.

Americans had self more problems with their M3 Lees but perhaps time had already passed away these in 1943 when they faced German PzKw IVGs and Tiger Is in Tunis. Actually Americans had voluntarily sent their new Shermans to British 8th Army and were waiting for new ones to replace the old obsolescent Lees. M3 Lee madium tank was originally designed for interim use and probably met the needs well.

Soviets on the other hand had good domestic types which belonged to a newer generation of tanks than M3 Lee/Grant. Soviet concept was totally different from US or British one. They had loaned best parts from German and Western designs and had own innovations which made their tanks more advanced. The only drawback was that Soviet designs were hastily made for short war-time service. For sure Lee/Grants were not made for Russian conditions which is also good to keep in mind.

User avatar
Mauser K98k
Member
Posts: 766
Joined: 30 Aug 2003 03:29
Location: Colorado

Post by Mauser K98k » 20 Jan 2004 21:30

I'm sure the designers of the M3's were proud of themselves. But having the large gun untraversable (where the tank itself has to be aimed) should have been an obvious flaw.

Plus, in the world of tank combat, two "little" guns is not equal to one "big" gun. Also, with that short barrel on the 75mm gun, it couldn't have developed enough muzzle velocity to threaten a German tank.

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11500
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 20 Jan 2004 22:31

Mark V wrote:
Caldric wrote:That is good! Debating with the Finnish is like facing a pack of wolves. And you guys call us nationalistic! :D


We just agree on this issue... :wink:
We do :)

Anyway - Caldric and Alf are right, this issue has been chewed thoroughly.
One more thing: the strenght of undercarriage of Buffalo.
Did the Europeans and Australians have more gentle touch to the plane (and airfield) as they seldom seem to have complained it to be weak?
Here the Dutch praise the strenght of it: http://www.danford.net/dutch.htm

Regards, Juha

alf
Member
Posts: 1343
Joined: 09 Oct 2003 10:45
Location: Australia

Post by alf » 20 Jan 2004 23:20

hi Juha :) its been a great debate.

Did the Europeans and Australians have more gentle touch to the plane (and airfield) as they seldom seem to have complained it to be weak?


The Buffalos didnt last that long for that to be a problem. :)

The Lee/Grants, in the Desert War, I remember reading the 37mm gun had greater penetrative power than the 75mm, yet the British seemed to think the other way round, and so exposed their tanks unnecessarily instead of being hull down

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11500
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 20 Jan 2004 23:36

Caldric wrote: The Soviet tankers called it 4 brothers and a coffin?
IIRC:
-Coffin for four - SU-76(m?)
-Grave for six(seven?) brothers - Lee

Regards, Juha
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11500
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 20 Jan 2004 23:45

alf wrote:hi Juha :) its been a great debate.

Did the Europeans and Australians have more gentle touch to the plane (and airfield) as they seldom seem to have complained it to be weak?


The Buffalos didnt last that long for that to be a problem. :)

arrrggghhh...ok then.
Exhausted to "fight" from Alaska to Australia :)

Regards, Juha

User avatar
Mauser K98k
Member
Posts: 766
Joined: 30 Aug 2003 03:29
Location: Colorado

Post by Mauser K98k » 21 Jan 2004 03:17

One more thing: the strenght of undercarriage of Buffalo.
Did the Europeans and Australians have more gentle touch to the plane (and airfield) as they seldom seem to have complained it to be weak?
Here the Dutch praise the strenght of it: http://www.danford.net/dutch.htm

Regards, Juha


Remember, the Americans had trouble with the landing gear on Aircraft Carrier decks. Carrier landings are notorious for being hard on landing gear. Especially with the Buffalos being over design weight because of modifications.

One final note from me on this debate. Granted, the Finn pilots were very good and utilized tactics which were most adventageous to them; I'm happy that they loved the Brewster. But I still think the Russian level of proficiency was relatively low at that time. The Luftwaffe had many aces with hundreds of Soviet kills. Anyone know what the kill ratio was? It had to be over 100:1.

Check out the chart at this website. note how many kills these aces got on the Eastern front.

http://www.acepilots.com/german/ger_aces.html

Return to “The Allies and the Neutral States in general”