Fastest Allied victory with a POD AFTER December 7, 1941

McPherson

Banned
Protip: Self-appointment as an expert, especially without other evidence of such, might lead people to believe the contrary. Given your attention to detail, which I appreciate, let's keep going regardless.

PROTIP rejoinder: READ Those Marvelous Tin Fish and make up your own mind. I've PUBLISHED more than enough sourced research in that thread from the USN original sources to know where you are going wrong on this and other subject matters. I also know that fish's problems from the user manuals and sub patrol reports. Some of the other source matters that you've gotten hideously wrong especially the duralumin citation is another matter. It was not 7075 aluminum alloy, we used before WW II, but the 2000 series. This is in the JAPANESE article you cited. That would be an alloy that used copper not zinc as the prime alloy base additive.

And how many reports were sent back from BuOrd under Blandy that basically read, "They're just not handling the torpedoes right", before actually acknowledging the problem? How many ships kept sailing for Japan and how many US lives might have been saved had BuOrd listened earlier?

You might try reading in that same thread what I wrote about the ATOMIC PLAYBOY. He got to the problem late, and while he should have been jailed for his own involvement during wartime, the real culprit is Leahy. As for what the problem was; THE POINT was that you cited sources that were flat-out wrong and you misquoted those sources as to what the actual defects were without understanding WHY it took the field forces and not the lab jockeys to see what was going wrong. For example, without Tinosa, Momsen would not have figured out that the travel path of the firing pin was BENT, not the !@# !@#$%^ pin; when the impact forces were in excess of 500 gees deceleration. The steel pin replacement had to be much lightened without losing hardness or tensile strength so that the lateral shove strike (KE=1/2 MV^2) the steel pin inflicted on the pin guides would not bend them and jam the pin in mid travel. Hence the Japanese propellers. 2000 series aluminum alloy would have bent under spring load.

Sheesh.

McP.
 
Let's review. You previously said:

.
2. The reason that Japanese propellers (not engines---PROPELLERS (duralumin alloy unknown to the Americans, Japanese invented and not duplicated until mid 1943) were chopped up and milled in Pearl Harbor machine shops, was because the lightweight pins so milled were not as heavy and were STIFFER that the STEEL pins used in the torpedo firing mechanism which was set SIDEWAYS to the direction of Mark XIV torpedo travel instead of inline like German, and Italian percussion triggers.

Now you're saying:

PROTIP rejoinder: READ Those Marvelous Tin Fish and make up your own mind. I've PUBLISHED more than enough sourced research in that thread from the USN original sources to know where you are going wrong on this and other subject matters. I also know that fish's problems from the user manuals and sub patrol reports. Some of the other source matters that you've gotten hideously wrong especially the duralumin citation is another matter. It was not 7075 aluminum alloy, we used before WW II, but the 2000 series. This is in the JAPANESE article you cited. That would be an alloy that used copper not zinc as the prime alloy base additive.

So the United States did, in fact, know about duralumin alloy (aka the 2000 series as designated by the IADS - International Alloy Designation System) before World War II. And it was invented by the Germans, not the Japanese. We did NOT know about 7075 aluminum alloy, which is not the same thing as duralumin, hence the article I cited.
You might try reading in that same thread what I wrote about the ATOMIC PLAYBOY. He got to the problem late, and while he should have been jailed for his own involvement during wartime, the real culprit is Leahy. As for what the problem was; THE POINT was that you cited sources that were flat-out wrong and you misquoted those sources as to what the actual defects were without understanding WHY it took the field forces and not the lab jockeys to see what was going wrong. For example, without Tinosa, Momsen would not have figured out that the travel path of the firing pin was BENT, not the !@# !@#$%^ pin; when the impact forces were in excess of 500 gees deceleration. The steel pin replacement had to be much lightened without losing hardness or tensile strength so that the lateral shove strike (KE=1/2 MV^2) the steel pin inflicted on the pin guides would not bend them and jam the pin in mid travel. Hence the Japanese propellers. 2000 series aluminum alloy would have bent under spring load.

Sheesh.

McP.

We're not disagreeing on the physics or that there was a problem and we agree that at least one of the people involved needed at least a trial. Based on the evidence I think that BuOrd's inability to admit problems existed played a role in its delay in their reconciliation, leading to events and timelines as they were. As before, the handling of incorrect statements with attempts to re-route discussions to something else instead of addressing the issue at hand does not help an argument. I appreciate the chance to discuss these topics with you and the opportunity to learn from your sources, but especially for someone talking about being 'published' in this area, please be more cautious about your statements.
 

McPherson

Banned
Let's review. You previously said:

Now you're saying:


You got that exactly BACKWARDS. Read it again.


So the United States did, in fact, know about duralumin alloy (aka the 2000 series as designated by the IADS - International Alloy Designation System) before World War II. And it was invented by the Germans, not the Japanese. We did NOT know about 7075 aluminum alloy, which is not the same thing as duralumin, hence the article I cited.

The pins were made out of ZINC based aluminum alloys, not copper. Get that fundamentally straight. The Japanese alloy was STIFFER.

We're not disagreeing on the physics or that there was a problem and we agree that at least one of the people involved needed at least a trial. Based on the evidence I think that BuOrd's inability to admit problems existed played a role in its delay in their reconciliation, leading to events and timelines as they were. As before, the handling of incorrect statements with attempts to re-route discussions to something else instead of addressing the issue at hand does not help an argument. I appreciate the chance to discuss these topics with you and the opportunity to learn from your sources, but especially for someone talking about being 'published' in this area, please be more cautious about your statements.

We are disagreeing about the physics, chemistry, metallurgy, engineering across the board, and who should have been shot for dereliction for the torpedo crisis; (Leahy, and the people who ran Goat island, not Blandy who flubbed the follow through when in the middle of the war. You don't shoot someone for incompetence, it has to be criminal malfeasance and negligence.) in that you have not gotten one of the claims you made or your sources cited as fundamentally correct. This is not an easy subject, the Mark 14. The devil is in the details. Too many oversimplifications for why things happened or how things get misinterpreted are present in your case.
 

You got that exactly BACKWARDS. Read it again.


So the United States did, in fact, know about duralumin alloy (aka the 2000 series as designated by the IADS - International Alloy Designation System) before World War II despite your claim to the contrary.

We are disagreeing about the physics, chemistry, metallurgy, engineering across the board, and who should have been shot for dereliction for the torpedo crisis; (Leahy, and the people who ran Goat island, not Blandy who flubbed the follow through when in the middle of the war. You don't shoot someone for incompetence, it has to be criminal malfeasance and negligence.) in that you have not gotten one of the claims you made or your sources cited as fundamentally correct. This is not an easy subject, the Mark 14. The devil is in the details. Too many oversimplifications for why things happened or how things get misinterpreted are present in your case.

Gross incompetence can be classified as criminal per Title 10, Section 892, Article 92 of the USCMJ, IIRC. Again, based on the available evidence, I disagree with you that it was a mystery why technical intelligence from analysis of Japanese (and some American) material from the field got to the needed people in the given time frame.​
 
Given the Mediterranean is effectively tideless, I'm not sure about a preferred practice. A bigger difference was the switch to daylight landings to use heavy bombers and naval bombardment.

The preference of the people assaulting, particularly the first wave is to set foot as close to the seawalls, dunes, shingle, or other wise the closest cover & the enemy defense. Those guys tend to get fanatical about even a few meters. Conversely the boat commanders prefer the early assault waves land at low tide so the boats don't risk being caught in the receding tide and be stranded on the drying beach. There are exceptions & variations to both, but those have been the general preferences whatever the tide high & low interval.
 

McPherson

Banned

So the United States did, in fact, know about duralumin alloy (aka the 2000 series as designated by the IADS - International Alloy Designation System) before World War II despite your claim to the contrary.


I don't know why you keep claiming this when you I told you three times that your understanding is false. I don't want to accuse you of trolling. Don't persist in the error.

2. The reason that Japanese propellers (not engines---PROPELLERS (duralumin alloy unknown to the Americans, Japanese invented and not duplicated until mid 1943)

The type of Durainum alloy the Japanese invented was used in their propellers as well as the stiffening members of the air frame> I cannot help you if you cannot READ what I wrote.

Gross incompetence can be classified as criminal per Title 10, Section 892, Article 92 of the USCMJ, IIRC. Again, based on the available evidence, I disagree with you that it was a mystery why technical intelligence from analysis of Japanese (and some American) material from the field got to the needed people in the given time frame.

I'm not even going to dignify that nonsense. "Dereliction of Duty" is not incompetence. Dereliction of duty is defined as willful action to perform a duty as in refusal to obey an order or doing harm to oneself in such fashion so as to be physically unable to carry out an assigned duty. COMPETENCY has nothing to do with the willful decision or act to refuse to perform a duty.

In the case of the atomic playboy (Blandy) he argued that the operational record being developed in the first year of war operations with a brand new weapon system to the United States Navy (The submarine was being used in war by the USN as a strategic weapon for the first time, and they were having EXACTLY the same kinds of problems the British and Germans encountered 2 years earlier. The British and Germans were on their SECOND outing with submarines. It took the British and Germans about 2 whole years to fix their issues, so the 18 months it took Blandy was actually not out of technical expectations once he got verified field testing and forces at sea op-feedback that was concrete and testable: unless you were the ones who had to fight and die with the non-working weapons and launch platforms.) was unclear as to whether it was human error or mechanical fault that was the cause of the poor probability of kill by the Mark XIV. He did act as fast as he could, once his technicians determined for themselves that there was a common mechanical problem across the entire torpedo line in use by the USN that involved a botched depth control setup. His stubborn refusal to have Bu-Ord look at the tumbled gyros, the case leaking in the power unit of the torpedoes and the exploders was based on his presumption (Which has actually a good historical precedent in USN weapon usage history from the War of 1812, forward...) that when a weapon fails, it is because of lapses in training and understanding the idiosyncrasies of the weapon. HUMAN error. In effect Blandy was correct about Human error, but for the wrong reasons. The weapons failed because of inadequate testing and weapon proof at the front end and poor manufacture and quality control in production. The enduser crews did not know what they were doing because they had no practice with working exploders aboard the torpedoes and they did not make enough simulated live war-shots against target sleds in sufficient numbers to show the torpedoes had all the problems in the production runs even in the five years of peacetime when the USN should have trained up and prepared for war and had the money and incentive to do such active training.. Guess what BASTARD was in charge of the fighting forces from 1937 to 1939? That chief of naval operations was William D. Leahy. He was followed by another bastard. Harold R. Stark. 1939-1942.

Now the bozos who did not do their jobs at Bu-ord to fix production of the torpedoes at Goat Island were guess who?: William D. Leahy, 1927–1931 and Harold Rainsford Stark, 1934–1937 (them, again). Guess that would be the fools I would've court martialed and had shot for dereliction; if I were the 'right' kind of (Teddy) Roosevelt, but Franklin preferred to promote his discovered buffoons out of the active navy to some harmless place where they could do nothing to further damage the Republic. Leahy occupied the "ceremonial" place of chairman of the Joint Chiefs while Marshal and King ran the real war. Stark, that other poltroon, was sent to Europe to run the USNEUR "diplomatically" and attend all the RN cocktail parties in London, about the only thing he was good for as a known stuffed uniform. Royal Ingersoll ran the REAL Atlantic war.
 
Threatening to report someone for trolling when they call you out on false statements is inappropriate. I am concerned for the provocotive nature and repeated digressions displayed in response to attempts at correction of false statements and false information. Post in question is reported, poster is ignored.
 

McPherson

Banned
Threatening to report someone for trolling when they call you out on false statements is inappropriate. I am concerned for the provocotive nature and repeated digressions displayed in response to attempts at correction of false statements and false information. Post in question is reported, poster is ignored.

If I were to accuse you of trolling, it would be done here in black and white M79. When you called me a liar, YOU escalated the situation. I have kept strictly to the topic which is your fundamental misunderstanding and deliberate misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what I wrote. Why you want to go down this personal attack path is beyond me, but for the fourth time, the Americans DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE ZINC BASED version of Duralumin alloy the Japanese developed in 1935, until they began to work with it in 1942 and 1943.
In any event, it has become abundantly clear to me, that this has gone off topic and the best thing for me to do is to ENDIT.

If you reported, then I am sorry you have drawn fire.
 
Top