That seems to be a feature of legislative bodies the world over.(poor Daring class destroyers)Now tell me what do you think the army should spend its $120 million on?Actually the construction it AUTHORIZED was even more than that (closer to $8B than $4B, just the 7 BB would have exceed $800M, Carriers would have been $1.5B and CB $480M, 115 Fletchers would have been $640M, etc.).
Congress does things in really odd way. They say, yes, start all this construction, here $$$ to get you started. Then, the next budget cycle you have to come back and ask for more to continue until the project is complete (that how an approval for 750 ATF i.e. the F-22, turns into 187 airframes, Congress changes it s mind).
That seems to be a feature of legislative bodies the world over.(poor Daring class destroyers)Now tell me what do you think the army should spend its $120 million on?
I agree here. If the US becomes stronger (in the eyes of the Japanese) then the war with China would probably be a quicker border type war that gets settled within a year. I've said before that I'm not sure what Japan's long range goal was in regards to China. If they conquered it and had to administrate it still not sure it would have been worth it.
If nothing else said junior officers should have been court marshalled and their names made a disgrace throughout JapanAs far as I can tell, Imperial Japan essentially did not have a set in stone, defined plan with regards to China. That's what happens when you let junior officers get away with starting international incidents and dictating foreign policy without reprisal.
If nothing else said junior officers should have been court marshalled and their names made a disgrace throughout Japan
There is nothing more disgusting than Modernism infecting the venerable tradition of pork barrel project spending.The only thing that came close to the Navy for pork barrel were all those National Guard armories, built in nearly every county in the US in the early 1920s. Really nice masonry 1920s era construction with Sullivaneque and Art Deco features. Some still stand as monuments to quality design and construction, even tho the post 1950 imperative for more pork barrel contracts caused them to be replaced by Modernist post 1950 designs.
They had multiple plans, it seems. The Navy wanted in particular to focus on sending expeditions to seize territory along China's coast to spread their defenses, and cripple their economy. The Army seemed to value more on the push from Manchuria and Hebei.As far as I can tell, Imperial Japan essentially did not have a set in stone, defined plan with regards to China. That's what happens when you let junior officers get away with starting international incidents and dictating foreign policy without reprisal.
As far as I can tell, Imperial Japan essentially did not have a set in stone, defined plan with regards to China. That's what happens when you let junior officers get away with starting international incidents and dictating foreign policy without reprisal.
In 1937? Just the ground force?That seems to be a feature of legislative bodies the world over.(poor Daring class destroyers)Now tell me what do you think the army should spend its $120 million on?
Umm Calbear the Two Oceans Navy Act allotted just over 4 billion dollars for naval construction. But you're right in that it really puts the IJN under the gun as in regards to its window of opportunity as related to the USN
4:1 funding for armaments:munitions gives just an average 100 rounds per weapon. Not enough even for one-day fight (standard for rifle is 120 rounds/day and for 75mm gun is 200 rounds/day). You need to spend all the remaining $ ~70mln. for ammunition, and may be even slash some weapons - army officers like to have at least a week supply of ammunition in divisional level stockpiles only.In 1937? Just the ground force?
2 Million M-1 Garands - ~$15M (Navy need to get about $3M of these as well)
Industrial espionage - $2M +/- to steal plans for MG39 (which went into full production as the MG42)
1 Million M-1938 .30 cal LMG - ~$15M (yep this is the stolen MG42 ported over to .30-06) BTW: this actually just saved the Army a few million bucks since there is no no need for 400k M1918 BAR @ $313 or 200K M1919 @$600 each.
$500K M2 Air cooled .50 cal (Navy need a decent numner of these for the Corps)
$5M M3/M5 Stuart w/HV 37mm gun
$8M M8 SP 105mm
$4M 75mm pack guns
$8M 105mm howitzers
$10M 155mm howitzers
$3M for medium heavy caliber AAA
$10M munitions
$5M prime movers/half tracks/trucks
Reserved remaining funds - waiting for the M3 Lee/M4 Sherman
If you are spending some cash on artillery in the late 30's, instead of "keeping up with the Jones" with a 37mm AT gun, how about a small hop to something in the 47-57mm category for both light tanks or towed? Get a gun that can also use a somewhat more useful HE shell in the process.The French were already heading there anyways...
Of course its far easier to make more ammunition than more finished weapons. Not to mention that Congress really tends not like buying munitions until they are needed.4:1 funding for armaments:munitions gives just an average 100 rounds per weapon. Not enough even for one-day fight (standard for rifle is 120 rounds/day and for 75mm gun is 200 rounds/day). You need to spend all the remaining $ ~70mln. for ammunition, and may be even slash some weapons - army officers like to have at least a week supply of ammunition in divisional level stockpiles only.
I was actually looking at artillery and shells. There's millions of WWI .30-06 M1 Ball that MacArthur used as an excuse to not go with the .276 for the Garand. (Yes I know not a round of M1 Ball was used in the Garand)4:1 funding for armaments:munitions gives just an average 100 rounds per weapon. Not enough even for one-day fight (standard for rifle is 120 rounds/day and for 75mm gun is 200 rounds/day). You need to spend all the remaining $ ~70mln. for ammunition, and may be even slash some weapons - army officers like to have at least a week supply of ammunition in divisional level stockpiles only.
I remember an anecdotal case i heard during my engineering practice. In late 1941, during a siege of Leningrad, an overworked Soviet engineer left the improperly calibrated gauge at artillery shell production line. A batch of slightly over-caliber shells was fabricated and promptly used, resulting in several tens of guns having their barrels "ballooned" to much larger caliber. In 3 days, same factory have started to produce a special shell variety for the damaged guns, and kept producing until end of siege.Of course its far easier to make more ammunition than more finished weapons. Not to mention that Congress really tends not like buying munitions until they are needed.
47mm AT gun (3-pounder) is 2-3 times the muzzle energy and cost of 37mm gun (one-pounder). 57-mm gun is 6-times the muzzle energy of 37mm. Not a "small hop". With a hindsight of 37mm gun soon becoming nearly useless in the AT role, the decision is obvious though..but large-caliber AT guns would be very difficult to push to Army in 1937.If you are spending some cash on artillery in the late 30's, instead of "keeping up with the Jones" with a 37mm AT gun, how about a small hop to something in the 47-57mm category for both light tanks or towed? Get a gun that can also use a somewhat more useful HE shell in the process.The French were already heading there anyways...