The Army did test a Sherman with a 90-mm, IIRC. And the M-36 Jackson TD had a 90, so fitting the gun to the Sherman shouldn't be that difficult. Blame one LGEN Leslie McNair, head of Army Ground Forces, for that debacle, which has had its own thread previously (see: the M-26).
Alternate Military Procurements
- Thread starter Have Blue-117
- Start date
While I like the M6, this means sacrificing a lot of armor on the battlefield, since shipping one M6 was the same as shipping two M4 Mediums for weight. The better option is one I've already proposed: M4s with 17pdr...which the Army will never accept, given the 17pdr is NIH.
I agree that there were major logistical problems with shipping the M-6, and I wasn't saying the U.S. was wrong to have very high reliability standards before standardizing a vehicle.
However I disagree with the 'replace the Sherman's gun with a 17pdr' idea that some people see as the solution. The 17pdr was a specialist antitank weapon. It was a lousy gun to deliver HE rounds. Most U.S. tanks were used to support infantry much more often than to fight tanks. The Sherman's 75 mm gun was excellent as an HE delivery weapon. HE was the primary round when fighting AT guns, infantry positions (including panzerfaust), built up areas, etc. The 76mm gun was not quit as good as the 75mm. If anything the best replacement for the 75mm gun would have been the 90mm. The Sherman had the same size turret ring as the Pershing so it would have been pretty straight forward to drop a Pershing turret into a Sherman. The only problem would have been the higher center of gravity making it less stable on side slopes.
True enough, although there was a later Mk. II high explosive shell which was apparently much improved. If the US had looked seriously at adding the 77mm version of the 17-pounder or the 17-pounder itself to some of their tanks then that could of been enough to get the improved fully developed sooner or just as likely they would have developed their own. That might have actually been better since IIRC it was several factors such as the quality of steel used to make the shells and the detonator design used that helped to make American high explosive shells that much better, an improved American version and supply that the Commonwealth troops could have tapped into might have been the best of both worlds. Or they just go with their own gun from the start.
Here is a more present day possibility - instead of overpaying the Russians to refurbish the Admiral Gorshkov, the Indians agree to purchase a retiring conventional CV from the US -probably the Kitty Hawk. The US gives the ship to the Indians for free but the Indians have to pay for all modifications and upgrades and part of the package is that they have to buy F/A-18Es and F/A-18Fs for the fighter squadrons, E-2Cs for the AEW squadron, and SH-60s for the helicopter squadron.
http://www.businessweek.com/stories...siness-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice
http://www.businessweek.com/stories...siness-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice
My £0.02:
The Hawker P 1083 over the Canadair Sabre for the RAF, The P 1083 is hands down the best option for Britain in the early fifties, it would have given the RAF a superb aircraft with supersonic capabilities years ahead of the EE lightning and with far more export potential and ability than said lightning.
The Hawker P 1083 over the Canadair Sabre for the RAF, The P 1083 is hands down the best option for Britain in the early fifties, it would have given the RAF a superb aircraft with supersonic capabilities years ahead of the EE lightning and with far more export potential and ability than said lightning.
It would certainly be a good plane, most of estimates I've seen peg it at 800 mph at sea level and a touch less at 35,000 feet which puts it roughly on par with the contemporary American Convair F-102 Delta Dagger. Aside from giving the RAF and Royal Navy a decent plane means the UK doesn't have to buy in foreign aircraft and as you say would have good export potential both of which are nice for the national balance of trade.
The Lightning however was very good and did exactly what it was designed to do as a point defence fighter, it was never meant to get into dog fighters or do ground attack like the Hunter. Before nuclear armed missiles the main threat was seen to be from bombers armed with nuclear bombs so you needed something that could get up to height as fast as possible to shoot them down with the basic air-to-air missiles of the day once they had been detected by ground based radar as far away from you as possible before they got close enough. Unfortunately it was seen as an interim design, but as is the way with British defence projects the future designs were cancelled, so it never really got the updates and modifications it deserved. Which is a shame as I've seen some designs that were looked at that would have helped deal with issues such as the radar and fuel capacity and potentially turned it into a pretty decent plane.
Good point but the Indian military is a mish-mash of foreign and domestic systems with foreign systems coming from Russia, the UK, France, and now the US (P-8Is, C-17s, and the Austin class LPD). The biggest issue I would see for the Indians going this route is one of crewing the ship. The Kitty Hawk has a crew of over 5600 which would be about 10% of the Indian Navy's total personnel strength for one ship. The Vikramaditya supposedly will only need about 1400 men or around 25% of what the Kitty would need.
You are right I was being quite unkind to the Lightning, I just a huge fan of Hawker Siddeley.
Whilst we're at it, I feel obliged to bring up the P. 1121, If I could have met Harold Macmillan I would have said to him, amongst other things; Buy. This. Plane.... Oh and if Duncan Sandy even mumbles 'Automated Air Defence' make him ambassador to Antarctica
The P.1121 has always looked like a very good possible aircraft to me, and in true Camm style I'm style I'm sure it wouldn't need the structural strengthening early F-4s had to get for low level work - he always did build them solid. The only worry I have would be the size, IIRC it was a bit larger than the Phantom and some of the later designs with different engines look as though they grew a bit larger still. That could well disqualify it from carrier work which was a major advantage for McDonnell Douglas' bird.
The only worry I have would be the size, IIRC it was a bit larger than the Phantom and some of the later designs with different engines look as though they grew a bit larger still. That could well disqualify it from carrier work which was a major advantage for McDonnell Douglas' bird.
WILDGEESE
Gone Fishin'
For the R.A.F
Buccaneers instead of the TSR-2, thus money saved from not needing to design Tornado allows more F-4 Phantoms to be purchased., Short Belfast's instead of the C-130.
No money spent on developing Nimrod AEW, money spent instead on Boeing E-3 Sentry allowing RAF to purchase a full squadron of 12 instead of 7 which isn't enough for UK air defence needs.
All R.A.F.G & B.A.O.R bases closed in West Germany and the money saved allowing a doubling of the R.A.F so more able to keep US-U.K air bridge open in the event of WWIII.
British forces then would act as a Rapid Reaction Force. In the event of tension or possible war, British forces would scramble to forward bases in Europe similar to US Reforger Exercises.
The R.N
Navy halved in the 60's but with the savings, not 2 but 3 CVA-01 carriers would be built with a full air complement.
Also with the extra R.N savings a full fleet of SSBN's would be built with Polaris SLBM's, proberly around 12 or 16 for good measure.
Buccaneers instead of the TSR-2, thus money saved from not needing to design Tornado allows more F-4 Phantoms to be purchased., Short Belfast's instead of the C-130.
No money spent on developing Nimrod AEW, money spent instead on Boeing E-3 Sentry allowing RAF to purchase a full squadron of 12 instead of 7 which isn't enough for UK air defence needs.
All R.A.F.G & B.A.O.R bases closed in West Germany and the money saved allowing a doubling of the R.A.F so more able to keep US-U.K air bridge open in the event of WWIII.
British forces then would act as a Rapid Reaction Force. In the event of tension or possible war, British forces would scramble to forward bases in Europe similar to US Reforger Exercises.
The R.N
Navy halved in the 60's but with the savings, not 2 but 3 CVA-01 carriers would be built with a full air complement.
Also with the extra R.N savings a full fleet of SSBN's would be built with Polaris SLBM's, proberly around 12 or 16 for good measure.
The Grumman F-11F-1F Super Tiger is purchased by Canada, Japan, and West Germany instead of the F-104 Starfighter.
The USS John F. Kennedy is built as a nuclear powered supercarrier as originally planned.
The North American NA-335 wins the F-X competition becoming the F-15 Eagle instead of the McDonnell-Douglas Model 199B
The F-14B and F-14C enter service in the mid and late 1970s as originally planned.
The 1970s strike cruiser is actually built.
The USS John F. Kennedy is built as a nuclear powered supercarrier as originally planned.
The North American NA-335 wins the F-X competition becoming the F-15 Eagle instead of the McDonnell-Douglas Model 199B
The F-14B and F-14C enter service in the mid and late 1970s as originally planned.
The 1970s strike cruiser is actually built.
After reading all eight pages of jet aircraft fanbois text the few bits like this:
...are refreshing. My variant would be for the US Army, or any army take a closer look at Modragons patent and early one offs of his gas operated self loading rifle. It was twenty six years from Modragons 1888 patent to the start of WWI, time enough to test, improve & test and improve again Mondragons concept into a useful battlefield weapon. Along the way light MG are liable to emerge as familiarity grows.
...are refreshing. My variant would be for the US Army, or any army take a closer look at Modragons patent and early one offs of his gas operated self loading rifle. It was twenty six years from Modragons 1888 patent to the start of WWI, time enough to test, improve & test and improve again Mondragons concept into a useful battlefield weapon. Along the way light MG are liable to emerge as familiarity grows.
@ Carl Schwamberger,
I could see some strumtruppen/raider units using a Mondragon variant.
Casualties were nasty enough with bolt-action rifles with <10 round magazines.
Actually weren't SMGs developed in WWI to make trench assaults (and defenses) easier w/o heavy arty and crew-served HMG's?
Having a .303/8mm rifle in full auto to me in 1920 with wooden and steel contruction would be an unruly beast and sorta overkill at 20-50m where an SMG would be far more effective and easier to work with.
Earlier research on 5.56 or 6.5mm assault rifles and grenade launchers, maybe?
@ Judge
As an ex-squid I like your POD's.
WI the Sea Eagle was more than napkinwaffe where the navy got navalized F-15's that could fire the Phoenix?
It'd make the F-15 such a powful interceptor benefiting both USN and USAF it's not even funny.
My thought is that the Navy'd push getting a Strike Eagle variant quicker
and it'd be an even more awesome aircraft. YMMV.
Maybe I talked to the wrong people but variable-geometry always seemed like a maintenance nightmare to begin with and CW was that the Tomcat was underpowered.
As much as an 8"-gun armed Aegis cruiser with tons of SM-2, 'Poon, and T-hawk missiles makes me sweaty- it seems a Kiev knock-off to me that doesn't really add much offensive power vs a Spruance can. The Aegis allows it to be a helluva quarterback for a CBG.
I served on a Spruance can and it's glaring flaw was that it needed SM-3's to not be punked by ALCM's outside Sea Sparrow range. Basically we needed more Kidds IMO vs Spruances if we're talking 70's USN ships.
I could see some strumtruppen/raider units using a Mondragon variant.
Casualties were nasty enough with bolt-action rifles with <10 round magazines.
Actually weren't SMGs developed in WWI to make trench assaults (and defenses) easier w/o heavy arty and crew-served HMG's?
Having a .303/8mm rifle in full auto to me in 1920 with wooden and steel contruction would be an unruly beast and sorta overkill at 20-50m where an SMG would be far more effective and easier to work with.
Earlier research on 5.56 or 6.5mm assault rifles and grenade launchers, maybe?
@ Judge
As an ex-squid I like your POD's.
WI the Sea Eagle was more than napkinwaffe where the navy got navalized F-15's that could fire the Phoenix?
It'd make the F-15 such a powful interceptor benefiting both USN and USAF it's not even funny.
My thought is that the Navy'd push getting a Strike Eagle variant quicker
and it'd be an even more awesome aircraft. YMMV.
Maybe I talked to the wrong people but variable-geometry always seemed like a maintenance nightmare to begin with and CW was that the Tomcat was underpowered.
As much as an 8"-gun armed Aegis cruiser with tons of SM-2, 'Poon, and T-hawk missiles makes me sweaty- it seems a Kiev knock-off to me that doesn't really add much offensive power vs a Spruance can. The Aegis allows it to be a helluva quarterback for a CBG.
I served on a Spruance can and it's glaring flaw was that it needed SM-3's to not be punked by ALCM's outside Sea Sparrow range. Basically we needed more Kidds IMO vs Spruances if we're talking 70's USN ships.
Delta Force
Banned
Why didn't designers just give aircraft higher thrust (perhaps even water injection) to help short field performance instead of variable wings? Aircraft are most efficient when operating within their flight regime. A subsonic or transonic aircraft shouldn't need variable geometry in the first place, while a supersonic design shouldn't be spending so much time at lower speeds and altitudes. Additional thrust and/or fuel is more useful than variable geometry.