Picture of the day

eos said:
Considered to be the best torpedo in WWII.
Click to expand...

It also had an exceptionally long range, up to 40Kms I believe, and could be set to run in overlapping circles after reaching a given range. You can imagine what that does to a line ahead formation of ships!

The Japanese were looking for weapons that worked. The Allied admirals didn't like torpedoes or submarines for the same reason the samurai didn't like guns: too easy for the underdog to knock off the top dog!
 
Good day men! New day new picture :)

US_GI_w_weapons_WWII.jpg


Cheers
Joe
 
I wouldn't exactly call the Japanese the "underdog" by any means.

Granted, they were one very short step out of the Middle Ages when Perry forced his way into Yedo, but that didn't last very long. The Japanese looked around, saw what worked and why..... and copied it.

Their Army was modelled on German originals, as much of their equipment. Improvements and modifications were made to suit local manufacturing conditions, to satisfy national pride ("THIS rifle is OURS!!") and to avoid the necessity of paying much in the way of royalties for the designs they were stealing. Their navy was modelled on the Royal Navy, at that time the biggest and best in the world.

By 1904 the Japanese Army and Navy were good enough to take on.... and defeat decisively..... the forces of the Russian Empire. Japan ended up with Sakhalin and Port Arthur and Russia didn't get them back until the end of the Second War.

China, then as now the most populous country in the world, had been buying Western technology and Western weaponry since the 1870s. Japan ripped into China in the 1930s and the results were anything except pretty. They took on the British Far Eastern Fleet next, then attacked the US. That takes more than just guts: it also takes CONFIDENCE that you can DO THE JOB.

No, Japan was anything EXCEPT the underdog. It was heavily-armed, heavily-militarised, expansionist and aggressive..... and merciless toward its victims.

It was NECESSARY to destroy that..... and it was a hard job.

Just trying to put things into a bit of perspective.
.
 
smellie said:
I wouldn't exactly call the Japanese the "underdog" by any means.

Granted, they were one very short step out of the Middle Ages when Perry forced his way into Yedo, but that didn't last very long. The Japanese looked around, saw what worked and why..... and copied it.

Their Army was modelled on German originals, as much of their equipment. Improvements and modifications were made to suit local manufacturing conditions, to satisfy national pride ("THIS rifle is OURS!!") and to avoid the necessity of paying much in the way of royalties for the designs they were stealing. Their navy was modelled on the Royal Navy, at that time the biggest and best in the world.

By 1904 the Japanese Army and Navy were good enough to take on.... and defeat decisively..... the forces of the Russian Empire. Japan ended up with Sakhalin and Port Arthur and Russia didn't get them back until the end of the Second War.

China, then as now the most populous country in the world, had been buying Western technology and Western weaponry since the 1870s. Japan ripped into China in the 1930s and the results were anything except pretty. They took on the British Far Eastern Fleet next, then attacked the US. That takes more than just guts: it also takes CONFIDENCE that you can DO THE JOB.

No, Japan was anything EXCEPT the underdog. It was heavily-armed, heavily-militarised, expansionist and aggressive..... and merciless toward its victims.

It was NECESSARY to destroy that..... and it was a hard job.

Just trying to put things into a bit of perspective.
.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's an interesting story Smellie, although the Japanese actually ripped into China a lot earlier: the first Sino-Japanese War was 1894-5. The Western powers made them give back most of what they gained however, which of course put them in a mighty pout. They barely managed to defeat Russia on land and only at a huge cost - this is where the machine gun first demonstrated its power - and some observers were paying attention. Their secret service managed to buy the defence plans of Port Arthur from a corrupt Russian officer who subsequently met a sticky end. The Russians were fighting at the end of a single track railway, and fighting corruption and incompetence at every level. The Japanese were still unsure of the racial solidarity or lack thereof on the part of the Western powers so they were very careful not to treat the Russians the way they treated the Chinese. When they gained a better sense of the rivalries of the Western powers and greater confidence in their position, then the natural brutality was allowed free reign, as in WWII. There were riots in Tokyo at the signing of the the treaty to end the Russo-Japanese war. The people felt the gains had not been worth the cost in lives. If the Russians had not been so stupid as to make continual noises about invading India etc. then the British would probably not have backed up Japan in their treaty of 1902. If they had not, Japan would never have dared start such a war.

As for WWII, I never described Japan as the underdog, but rather smart enough not to neglect the weapons that smaller powers, "underdogs", often chose to help them compensate for the larger budgets and power of the great powers. Our brass hats didn't like weapons that could sink their beloved battle wagons in an "under-handed" way and so they neglected things like torpedoes and to a lesser extent naval aviation.

Fortunately the Japanese were foolish enough to attack the USA, believing the German's assurances that they were soon going to defeat Britain and the Soviet Union. Japan hoped to grab the property of the dying men in other words, and then devote their full strength to defeating the USA. Except the dying powers turned out not to be so dead after all! If they had merely attacked the British and Dutch however, we would have been in a sticky situation indeed.

Which just goes to show that all the diligence and attention to detail is for nothing if you do not have a good strategic sense and an understanding of the psychology of your enemy.
 
purple said:
That's a very early model M4A1 Sherman (first model vertical volute suspension and gun mantlet). It could be from either North Africa/Tunisia or Sicily.
Click to expand...

I see a big fuel can with a pea shooter stuck to the front. Those poor tankers. And the Americans weren't even smart enough to accept the Firefly later on.
 
plinker 777 said:
Am I naive to have believed that North Africa was an 8th Army (Montgomery/British) campaign?
Click to expand...

The British 8th Army campaign in North Africa was on the eastern side of the continent, and the US Army landed in Morocco in Nov '42 to catch the Afrika Korps in a pincer movement. It took until May '43 to have the Afrika Korps surrender in Tunisia.
 
RMXC51 said:
I see a big fuel can with a pea shooter stuck to the front. Those poor tankers. And the Americans weren't even smart enough to accept the Firefly later on.
Click to expand...

U.S. Army armored doctrine and equipment was wedded to the idea that tanks didn't fight tanks. Tanks were to be used for exploitation/pursuit following a breakthrough while tank destroyers were supposed to fight enemy tanks. Hence the lightly armored Sherman with it's low velocity 75mm gun that fired HE and solid shot projectiles. The powers that be, including Patton, persisted in this view even after tanks encountered German tanks, incl the first Tigers, in N. Africa.

The Brits got the message and scrambled to adapt the high velocity 17pdr anti-tank gun to the Sherman in time for Normandy. This gun was offered to the US Army who declined it based on their mis-guided doctrine and the "not invented here" syndrome. The US was also committed to volume production of the Sherman in spite of it's gun and armor inadequacies. It was, however, a good automotive design which was reliable and easy to maintain. The US quickly fitted a higher velocity 76mm gun to the Sherman in 1944, but it never was as effective as the 17pdr.
 
panzer 2 mine roller

purple said:
U.S. Army armored doctrine and equipment was wedded to the idea that tanks didn't fight tanks. Tanks were to be used for exploitation/pursuit following a breakthrough while tank destroyers were supposed to fight enemy tanks. Hence the lightly armored Sherman with it's low velocity 75mm gun that fired HE and solid shot projectiles. The powers that be, including Patton, persisted in this view even after tanks encountered German tanks, incl the first Tigers, in N. Africa.

The Brits got the message and scrambled to adapt the high velocity 17pdr anti-tank gun to the Sherman in time for Normandy. This gun was offered to the US Army who declined it based on their mis-guided doctrine and the "not invented here" syndrome. The US was also committed to volume production of the Sherman in spite of it's gun and armor inadequacies. It was, however, a good automotive design which was reliable and easy to maintain. The US quickly fitted a higher velocity 76mm gun to the Sherman in 1944, but it never was as effective as the 17pdr.
Click to expand...

in reality, tanks rarely fought other tanks and massive tank vs tank battles like Kursk number less than 10, in all of history

the sherman was also a good match for the same level of medium tank the germans had, early shermans meeting the panzer 3 with the longest 50mm, later ones meeting the panzer 4G and higher, etc
it was not a heavy tank like the tiger.

the brits had the same doctrine with the infantry tanks, like the matilda 2, the churchill, etc made to support infantry. and lighter faster cruiser tanks, like the crusader series, the cromwell, and the comet meant to fight tanks.
they didnt change until 1945 with the introduction of the centurion, as a main battle tank

the american thought the 17 pounder was "overpowered" as can be seen here:

British-ammo.jpg


the 3rd from left is the american 75mm, next is a 17 pounder and next is the 77mm from the comet, the 77 mm is still a bit bigger than the american 3" not shown and was meant to become standard between both armys
 
Americans did land in Sicily, took half of the island.

They had a lot of help from Salvatore Luciano, who sent The Word not to fight against the US troops and to help out wherever possible.

The US had an easy war in Sicily..... and Lucky Luciano got his "get out of jail" card early.

That "Capo di Capi" title came in really handy.
.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom