A more vigorous US military buildup to the second Sino-Japanese war

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by Spencersj345.346, Sep 2, 2019.

  1. trurle bored blue collar worker

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    Location:
    Kyoto
    I do not know which units are you using (energy do not measure in tons). My database (WWIIg) has following (and quite typical) muzzle energy values for guns first made made in around 1940:
    37mm gun M1A2 0.25 MJ
    47 mm armata przeciwpancerna wz. 39 0.57 MJ
    57 mm anti-tank gun M1943 (ZiS-2) 1.58 MJ
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2019 at 1:34 AM
    McPherson likes this.
  2. marathag Well-Known Member with a target on his back

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2013
    _Sherman, a History of the American Medium Tank_ RP Hunnicutt. was ft.tons, for AP projectiles to that data charts
     
  3. trurle bored blue collar worker

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    Location:
    Kyoto
    1 ft*ton should be about 3 kJ. 112 ft*ton 37mm M6 was therefore 0.34 MJ, a lot for weapon of 37mm caliber. AP-T projectile of M3/M6 actually weighted 0.87kg, compared to 0.61kg (and at lower muzzle velocity) of M1. Even modern Millenium GDM-008 have muzzle energy of 0.31 MJ (although at caliber 35mm, which scale to 0.37 MJ for 37mm)
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2019 at 2:35 AM
    McPherson likes this.
  4. McPherson McPherson; a guy who needs a shave.

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2017
    Location:
    Somewhere where rockets fly.
    That piece of junk was powered by a Continental R-670, the same engine you find in the PT-17 Stearman biplane trainer aircraft that was the first trainer aircraft many USAAC pilots are going to see. Engine bottleneck. So guess what? Not only is this slower than a Stuart cross country, paper thin armored clunker, with the handle me gently or my transmission will quit on you; a mere way-stop to the Stuart, but it is a lot less reliable than this... piece of junk.

    And there are only about 300 of them, the M-2 A4s.

    [​IMG]

    That thing's (^^^ Ha-Go) shortcoming was paper thin armor (1.5 cm frontal plate, about the actual same plate as a British cruiser tank A9 of 1941 of the same period) and a lack of a radio. But its transmission, diesel engine and gun were absolutely 100% reliable. It could shoot holes in the M2 (^^^) and more importantly, it weighed only half as much, so it could be easily shipped. It was one of the many reasons the British in Malaya were routed. (Any tank supported infantry is 2x as lethal as none tank supported infantry,)

    I think that the US Army Automotive Command should have pulled their collective hat-racks out of their biological waste treatment plant orifices and tried for this:

    [​IMG]

    Hi, I'm what beat the Japanese at Khalkin Gul.

    Which this was a hop skip and jump toward...(see below the ancestor of the BTs)

    [​IMG]

    That is American (^^^) BTW and the only thing wrong with it, is what sits on top of it. (Not just the turret, but some of the braindead evaluators.).

    The Stuart was indeed a considerable improvement over it, and equally almost a full magnitude over the Rock Island M2 which started life as a Vickers 6 tonner riopoff. Better engines and armor package in the Stuart. The gun (3.7cm) was still pathetic. A British 2 pdr or a French 4.7cm would have made the Stuart more lethal. (Prefer the French gun. It comes with HE and canister for anti-infantry work.)

    Of course going straight for an M-7 instead of farting with the Stuart would have meant North Africa in 1941 would have been "interesting" in a negative Axis outcome kind of way.

    [​IMG]

    Hi, there! I'm an evolved Stuart. I'm not as tall as a Sherman, I weigh less than a Sherman, have better protection than any British cruiser, with the same cross country performance and a better gun! My problem? I'm 3 years too late in 1943! So why build me? (Correct decision BTW. With the war in full swing, the resource diversion was not justifiable. McP.)

    BTW as modern scholarship has shown, a "Honey" to a British tanker means something that is a bit "sticky" and messy, so one cannot conflate Americanisms with what the British actually meant by "Honey".

    Don't know where that wrong idea came from, maybe R. P. Hunnicutt?
     
  5. McPherson McPherson; a guy who needs a shave.

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2017
    Location:
    Somewhere where rockets fly.
    I'm used to joules (^^^) and that is VERY helpful to me to keep things straight in my mind.
     
  6. marathag Well-Known Member with a target on his back

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2013
    South Africans who were equipped with them after their Cruisers fell to pieces, called them that. Brits followed.

    Might want to read_Brazen Chariots_ by Major Robert Crisp on how well those air-cooled radial powered M3s worked in the desert thru 1941
     
  7. marathag Well-Known Member with a target on his back

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2013
    Going thru the charts, picked the ammo that had the most energy for each tube. The M6 37mm was a very good gun for hole punching, but icing on that cake was a full set of ammo types, like canister and HE
     
  8. McPherson McPherson; a guy who needs a shave.

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2017
    Location:
    Somewhere where rockets fly.


    Look at what he says about the M3 Stuart. He has the most recent scholarship to hand.
     
  9. marathag Well-Known Member with a target on his back

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2013
    So, don't care about what one of the top Commonwealth TCs of WWII thought on the tank?
     
  10. McPherson McPherson; a guy who needs a shave.

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2017
    Location:
    Somewhere where rockets fly.
    Actually, while I greatly respect the man's achievements and regard very highly his general comments on the M3 because he cites actual incidents embedded in the record; I don't have to accept his comments on the "Honey" myth about the M3; if it conflicts with so much else in the original source material. Nobody gets everything absolutely correct, and this just happens to be his one minor error.
     
  11. Dathi THorfinnsson Daði Þorfinnsson

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2007
    Location:
    Syracuse, Haudenosaunee, Vinland
    jsb, Driftless and Draconis like this.
  12. McPherson McPherson; a guy who needs a shave.

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2017
    Location:
    Somewhere where rockets fly.
    I want to revisit that Christie thing, because some people do not know how far back it goes or why Christie had a hate on for the US Army.

    This reminds of another Christie and his pet torpedo the Mark XIV, but let's look at what is happening.

    [​IMG]

    That (^^^) is what the M1928 Christie competed against.



    Then you had the Russians...

    That is where those BT-series tanks originate.
    The Russians kept their bargain, the Poles sort of fell out with Christie.

    But it gets worse:

    [​IMG]

    The upshot of all the hemming and hawing is that after a road march test, the US Infantry board reached the conclusion that they liked the Christie. They wanted the Christie, but they did not get the Christie. Why?

    Well, it was not because of Patton;

    As for ... Captain John K. Christmas? He goes on to accomplish relatively little in the Service of the Republic. Would not even be worth a footnote except that the T1 was his baby.

    It kind of makes one think that what if?
     
  13. Father Maryland Enemy of Neo Secesh Everywhere

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Location:
    The Grand Duchy of the Chesapeake
    You're ignoring Christies tendency to ignore literally any aspect other then speed including very firmly set and relatively sensible qualities such as armor and weapons.
     
  14. McPherson McPherson; a guy who needs a shave.

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2017
    Location:
    Somewhere where rockets fly.
    You are correct, but I do have to wonder if the American Army had bought the tank and sent it to Rock Island to tinker around with it and/or just made a deal to license the patents or buy Christie outright, that maybe both sides could have met in the middle?
     
  15. Father Maryland Enemy of Neo Secesh Everywhere

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Location:
    The Grand Duchy of the Chesapeake
    I believe part of the problem was that Christie was pig headedly obsessed with actually building the tanks himself. And it was virtually impossible to get him to even pretend to give a shit about any specific requested capabilities other then speed.
     
  16. McPherson McPherson; a guy who needs a shave.

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2017
    Location:
    Somewhere where rockets fly.
    That has me curious. He was willing to practically give his work to the Russians and to the British, so why was he so obstinate with the American Army? It just makes no sense to me. Your customer after all is the guy buying the thing.
     
  17. jsb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2013
    I think you are applying far to much hindsight, everybody kept wanting BB if they could afford/allowed them.

    Battleships rank very high in officer promotion progression and numbers, dominating all the main navy's.

    Nobody spent the time or money to work out all the lessons of WWI properly, expecting US to do so far better is very much exceptional hindsght.

    What loophole? (cutters only work under 1WNT and as they are slow)

    BY 2LNT its not 10,000t its,
    http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-089_London_Treaty_1936.php

    I don't see any reason to not just build new copies of the OTL ships to speed it up as number would matter more than slightly better ships.

    As to your Omaha, I really question that (5 x 2 15.3 cm/53 4 x 2 12.7/38 and 2 x 5 TT on 10,000t)
    I would go for triples to try and save length & weight and don't think the 5/38 is great until VT so would prefer 40mm/56 or better still a 57mm/60 version?
    So 3x3 15.3 cm/53 (ABX), 4x1 3"/50 (sides), 6x2 40mm/56 (sides and top of B&X) and 2 x 4 TT on 8,000t


    It doesn't matter everybody (a most importantly high older decision makers) still counted navy strength in BBs so for deterrence you need them....
     
  18. McPherson McPherson; a guy who needs a shave.

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2017
    Location:
    Somewhere where rockets fly.
    Battleships continue to make sense until about 1935, but that is not what is the lesson of WW I. The Americans were doing analysis of what worked and what did not.

    One rung on the ladder, but not the decisive rung. In the USN, shore assignments, such as overseas naval attaché postings, command of ports and bureaus and wrangling a plum aide to the president or a Congressional liaison assignment counted for a lot. Take a look at King (no battleship, but commanded Lexington as the experimental AIRCRAFT CARRIER), Ingersoll (Russo Japanese Peace Conference, became a communications intelligence specialist (spook), worked for Woodrow Wilson, some survey work, NWC, then ONI, some stints as exec for 2 "troubled" battleships, the Connecticut and the Arizona to help straighten them out, then battle staff for William Pratt, got to know FDR on the Augusta and commanded the San Francisco, then did a 3 year tour at War Plans where he butted heads with Turner. Part of the Op20-G experience was telling the Americans at the LNT where the RN was trying to pull a fast one on Uncle. His next sea billet was commander scouting force for the US fleet. After that he was LANTFLT (actual) charged with cleaning up the mess King created there with the U-boat war. He ended up commander of the Western Sea Frontier to straighten that MESS that RADM Bagley had reduced it too. Not a BB command in his resume.), Nimitz (bunch of subs and FDR's yacht the USS Augusta, along with a bunch of shore assignments that includes the Bureau of Navigation, and the usual NWC stint.) or Halsey (Bunch of destroyers, 1 of which he ran aground [Wickes?], the Saratoga, circumnavigated the Earth with the GWF on the Missouri PDN, NAS Pensacola, not a battleship command in his resume.)

    Actually the RN with ASDIC, their early aircraft carrier operations, night fighting training, evolution of fleet command and control procedures and basic ASW convoy doctrine shows that someone was trying hard.

    Look if the RN could skate with HMS Unicorn, then the USN could skate with "frigates".

    Oh you will love this discussion. You know I actually agree with you, but by 1936, there was so much cheating going on, that the Atlantas, Juneaus and Didos just sailed on through.
    That's a very good point, but what do you do, when the technology makes the old design moot? or how about changed circumstances (like lots more money and a scared legislature?)

    a. 4 cm is not available to the USN in 1936. You wind up with 2.8 cm quads if you are lucky.
    b. as a function of mutual interference in flight in a ladder, a 2 gun turret is preferable to a 3 gun turret and a triple is a disaster. (There is a difference in that a triple is unit mounted and cannot be individual barrel elevated.).
    c. 5"/38 was historically actually devastating as AAA at Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz so maybe I like it a bit more than others might. YMMV and should.
    d. I like heavy torpedo salvoes (at least 5 fish per volley) because of the nose wander problem, but again YMMV and I'm not insistent.
    e. 6 pounder is a good suggestion, but the USN does not have it, so maybe 3"? That's a lot of weight and you only might cover what the 5"/38s already give you?

    Another good point, so what did Carl Vinson want in the 2 Ocean Navy Bill? Aircraft Carriers.
     
  19. marathag Well-Known Member with a target on his back

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2013
    Type Rounds fired Kills Rounds per bird

    3"/50 29,614 87.5 338

    5" VT 117,915 346.5 340

    5" Com 223,770 342.0 654

    40 mm 1,271,844 742.5 1,713

    1".1 85,996 44.5 1,932

    20 mm. 3,264,956 617.5 5,287
     
    McPherson likes this.
  20. jsb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2013
    But you need to do it by year and rate of fire and weight/cost of each system.....

    Is the 1.1" really 88.66% as good as the 40mm?

    If this is really all equal then this looks amazing as its lighter and fires faster than the 5" as well?