Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.

Reader mode

focus9912

allanpcameron said:
As interesting as all this is, I don't think Sir John Carden had much input into the design, production or use of the Mosquito.
Allan
Click to expand...
Yeah...I think the only thing Sir John Carden could technically ask about is whether the Mosquito is as crap to fly in as it is in a S.73.../s

But seriously though, I was kinda hoping that the massive losses incurred to the Allies by the bombing raids pre-1943 could be reduced/eliminated...that's all...

P/s: Haven't really commented on the previous chapters...but yeah...as I was saying previously...
focus9912 said:
The fact that the rate British advances seems to be slowed down, especially when compared to the advances made back in February, at least shows that the Japanese are competent enough to put some emphasis on its frontline defense here..
Click to expand...
Hopefully the pause would allow preparations for the next offensive, with the objective could be allowing the British to advance enough to the outskirts of Bangkok at the north and hopefully taking Songkhla at the south.
 

vetinari

pjmidd said:
Stealth is a relative term, Mosquitos were harder to detect than say Wellingtons, add in that they came in low and German reaction times were much more limited than other raids. It was not unknown for raids on coastal areas not be picked up at all by radar.
Click to expand...
"Stealth" as used in a modern sense is a means to make an aircraft invisible or near invisible to Radar and IR detection. Pioneered by the British in the 1960s and the USAF in the same decade it became a realistic production approach in the 1980s. No propeller driven aircraft can be described as "Stealthy" with it's spinning propellers. For some obscure reason it has entered into folklore that the Mosquito was stealthy. It has become popularised on the Web and for some reason fools keep repeating it. Flying low does not make an aircraft stealthy, it just makes it's approach obscure.
 

Asian Jumbo

Monthly Donor
allanpcameron said:
As interesting as all this is, I don't think Sir John Carden had much input into the design, production or use of the Mosquito.
Allan
Click to expand...
Well, we HAD noticed that, even in your masterpiece, he has consistently failed to improve British tank aerodynamics but were (until now) rather too polite to mention it…
 

HPM

Seawolf said:
Definitely doable. There was an experimental version that was armed with a 32-pounder.
Click to expand...
Sitck a Molins gun under each wing? I am not sure it's the way to go though. Performance would, I imagine suffer considerably. Perhaps better to stick to the single ventral mount. as in the FB MkXVIII, although that had its penalties too.
 
Last edited:

pjmidd

vetinari said:
"Stealth" as used in a modern sense is a means to make an aircraft invisible or near invisible to Radar and IR detection. Pioneered by the British in the 1960s and the USAF in the same decade it became a realistic production approach in the 1980s. No propeller driven aircraft can be described as "Stealthy" with it's spinning propellers. For some obscure reason it has entered into folklore that the Mosquito was stealthy. It has become popularised on the Web and for some reason fools keep repeating it. Flying low does not make an aircraft stealthy, it just makes it's approach obscure.
Click to expand...
Last post as this is a derail but this is not modern its WW2, the fact mosquito's were harder to spot was noted at the time. The only fool is you not realising words do not have to mean the same things in different contexts, in WW2 its just harder to spot not invisible ( propellers if you are not flying at a radar tend to reflect the wrong way )
 

Finbarr the Fair

pjmidd said:
Last post as this is a derail but this is not modern its WW2, the fact mosquito's were harder to spot was noted at the time. The only fool is you not realising words do not have to mean the same things in different contexts, in WW2 its just harder to spot not invisible ( propellers if you are not flying at a radar tend to reflect the wrong way )
Click to expand...
What @Look More Closely Later says.

You may well be right that the Mosquito was hard to detect on radar or by sight/sound. Like the Beaufighter being “quiet” (hence the ‘Whispering Death” nickname for it in the Japanese armed forces).

That might be “stealthy” in WW2 but not what is meant now.

And is not worth arguing over or attracting attention from the Mods
 
Derek Pullem

Derek Pullem

Donor
MarcH said:
On tank production I always go back to this graph.
8269.jpeg


While British production will be slightly higher, perhaps hitting 10000 total in 1942, the difference in available tank numbers will be larger than that. As others have pointed out the greater number of still serviceable tanks combined with lower losses and a relatively quiet period right now for Britain will lead to quite a substantial increase in available tanks compared to OTL.
Add to that the fact that Britain won't have to increase tank production capability after 1942 and the actual affect on the wider economy could well be fairly minimal. In fact Britain could possibly see a decrease in tank production over the next few years of war and still be in a far better position than they were OTL. With a higher 1942 peak combined with a more gradual decrease (so 1942 numbers in 43, 43 numbers in 44 etc) the British should be able to more than keep up with their own needs and that is before Empire production. If the Ram/Jumbuck is focussed in the SEA theatre (including for British divisions) then Britain will be fine in Europe. Add to that some rationalisation of production such as getting rid of everything that is not a Victor (or it's follow on) and various support vehicles will be a big help as well.
Click to expand...
The interesting thing is where all those Shermans will end up? If the British and Dominion armies are happy using Valiant II / Victors against PzIV and Panthers and Churchills and Jumbucks against the Japanese then who is buying the Shermans on Lend Lease? Could we see thousands of Shermans heading towards the Soviets? Or will US repurpose tank lines into SPG, TD and even Sherman versions of the Kangeroo?
Sherman-Kangeroo.jpg
 

kelgar04

Derek Pullem said:
The interesting thing is where all those Shermans will end up? If the British and Dominion armies are happy using Valiant II / Victors against PzIV and Panthers and Churchills and Jumbucks against the Japanese then who is buying the Shermans on Lend Lease? Could we see thousands of Shermans heading towards the Soviets? Or will US repurpose tank lines into SPG, TD and even Sherman versions of the Kangeroo?
Sherman-Kangeroo.jpg
Click to expand...
I think with less tanks being turned into candles and the general better quality of British armour means probably more Shermans going to the USSR.

Though have to wonder what the general opinion is on American Armour right now we know they trialed a Sherman against the Victor though not sure what the after thoughts were.
 

MattII

There's also the fact that the Sherman is likely to be available sooner too, given that the British didn't want the thousands of M3 Lees/Grants that got produced OTL, delaying Sherman production slightly.
 

kelgar04

MattII said:
There's also the fact that the Sherman is likely to be available sooner too, given that the British didn't want the thousands of M3 Lees/Grants that got produced OTL, delaying Sherman production slightly.
Click to expand...
Hope they get numbers up on engines so they can have a standard desgin.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top