Torpedos

[damocles]

And which Nverse nation would have inadequate testing before accepting a new weapon?

But one can run a lot of tests and arrive at wrong conclusion, if the initial test criteria are faulty - as the RN had learned after Jutland, and the US Army with the 76mm tank gun.

As for the 76mm gun, it worked too. It was the 75 that you mean and in a curious way that is also very misunderstood when it is called a failure.

I meant the 76mm gun. I recall from somewhere that the ammo tests were done at perpendicular penetration, and the shells had subpar performance against sloped armor - APCBC had the same performance as  the 7,5cm KwK 40 L/43 (with 40m/s less MV), which degraded worse as the impact angle increased.

http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/weapons/german_guns5.html
http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/weapons/usa_guns5.html

And 91mm@30* won't penetrate Panther's upper front hull, 80mm@55*. HVAP could penetrate, but those rounds were available August '44 in limited quantity.

McNair, TDs and 76mm Shermans...

Indeed, the 76mm Sherman was available, but no one wanted it, armored commanders (like Abrams) and the Tank Board included. 75mm can deal with the Pz IV, has better HE, and the occasional Tiger can be dealt with like in Tunisia. Their new heavy tank with fancy sloped armor should not be a big problem either.
However, Panther was not a heavy tank but a mass-produced "MBT". So field commanders got their wish with 75mm armed Shermans, and the 76mm armed tanks were sitting in warehouses in the UK.

A gigantic (45 page) thread on Tanknet on this topic, might take a few hours to read:
http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=32156&st=0

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/guns/76-mm.asp

That is the correct data for the 76 mm..

http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/90-mm-ammunition/index.html

That is the correct information on the M-3 90mm gun. Note the data for composite rigid which was not rare.

Also the  Panther was not a main battle tank. It was a German medium tank, but with only 5000 of those made with just 1500 that could be called 'acceptable' for service, it was the PZKW IV that was the German main tank. As for the Sherman 75 not being able to do its job? I am typing this in English on an an American developed information network. The Shermans did their jobs.           


http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/2-17883/page11.aspx

MUCH better discussion. Please pay attention to the US Army Ground Forces (Eisenhower and Patton to Marshall) demands for 76mm and 90 mm weapons to Tank Automotive and Army Ordnance after Italy and before Normandy.  

My statements may be fact-based opinion, but they are not false in the slightest.

Hey Play Nice we are all expressing Opinions here even Commander Poirier is simply using Statistics and Facts to support his arguement.

Interesting, is he Irish Navy?  

I am playing nice.  ;)

Ok that being said... I will hopefully not have my 2 pages of replys eaten by the computer this time.  So I will try to be Brief... ;D ::)

8)

I have always been a supporter of a Balanced Fleet Option.   A Dozen or even 2 Dozen subs cannot replace a battle ship in all circumstances.   They cannot provide AAA defense to a Carrier, nor can it provide Naval Gunfire Support to an Amphibious landing.  I also doubt you would find enough volunteers among the crew of One Iowa class BB to man 20 Subs...????   To many people do not like boats that sink or really really tight confined spaces.

1. That is what the 7000 ton cruiser is for.
2. A US 6" cruiser actually gave better gunfire support; faster response better area coverage, more barrage load.
3. I can find 40,000 Americans for subs, if I can find 100,000+ (40,000 killed and wounded,) of them for strategic bombers.
   
In addition Japanese failures in the Radar Department really hampered their Convoy and ASW escorts.

Japanese used MAD detector equipped flying boats, and auto-gyros aboard ASW carriers from 1943 on. They were deadly enough at the end.

So given my choice and realizing that without Radar a sub can only see a very very small circle around itself and with Radar that circle only increase slightly then I want to Have Destroyers, Subs, Cruisers, Battle Ships and Carriers... all have their uses and an all Sub force or all Destroyer force is unbalanced and has limitations.

Charles

You have a balanced air and sea fleet as I laid out. Just one designed and optimized to kill the Nihon Kaigun much quicker and hit those islands before they fort up.    

[P3D]

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/guns/76-mm.asp
That is the correct data for the 76 mm..

The penetration data is identical, so I don't understand your point.

http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/90-mm-ammunition/index.html
That is the correct information on the M-3 90mm gun. Note the data for composite rigid which was not rare.

My comments were concerning the 76mm gun not on the 90mm one.
You might mean the solid AP shot for the 90mm (that could penetrate Panther glacis by your link), as APCR is HVAP in British-speak.

Also the  Panther was not a main battle tank.

I did put it in quotation marks. And Pz IV numbers were not much higher than Panther numbers, even on the West, so it was anything but scarce.

http://ww2total.com/WW2/History/Orders-of-Battle/Germany/German-Orders-of-Battle-December-1943.htm
http://www.feldgrau.com/org44.html

BTW, have you read Hunnicutt?

[damocles]

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/guns/76-mm.asp
That is the correct data for the 76 mm..

The penetration data is identical, so I don't understand your point.

Not quite Look at the angle of the test plate.

http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/90-mm-ammunition/index.html
That is the correct information on the M-3 90mm gun. Note the data for composite rigid which was not rare.

My comments were concerning the 76mm gun not on the 90mm one.
You might mean the solid AP shot for the 90mm (that could penetrate Panther glacis by your link), as APCR is HVAP in British-speak.

I am aware of the criticism you made. I should have included this.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1-02.htm

Another fact that helped the Tigers a lot was the "shatter gap" effect which affectted allied ammunition, a most unusual situation where rounds with too high an impact velocity would sometimes fail even though their penetration capability was (theoretically) more than adequate. This phenomenon plagued the British 2 pounder in the desert, and would have decreased the effectiveness of U.S. 76mm and 3" guns against Tigers, Panthers and other vehicles with armor thickness above 70 mm. It should be noted that the problems with the 76 mm and 3" guns did not necessarily involve the weapons themselves: the noses of US armor-piercing ammunition of the time turned out to be excessively soft. When these projectiles impacted armor which matched or exceeded the projectile diameter at a certain spread of velocities, the projectile would shatter and fail.

Penetrations would occur below this velocity range, since the shell would not shatter, and strikes above this range would propel the shell through the armor whether it shattered or not. When striking a Tiger I driver's plate, for example, this "shatter gap" for a 76mm APCBC M62 shell would cause failures between 50 meters and 900 meters. These ammunition deficiencies proved that Ordnance tests claiming the 76 mm gun could penetrate a Tiger I's upper front hull to 2,000 yards (1,800 meters) were sadly incorrect.

Its called shatter gap and that is why the US went to hardened steel capped composite rigid, as opposed to wolfram dart sabot. British darts tended to skip off when fired by US guns. The velocity had to be kept down! Also the US lacked larger supplies of wolfram.     

I am also aware that some do not seem to understand what composite rigid is. Composite rigid (at least in US and British parlance because they invented it to break each other's ironclads during the US Civil War [who captured the other's shells is and duplicated the others' work is argued] see the Battle of Charleston for the Armstrong and Rodman's shells )  is dense steel or wolfram wrapped in a lighter metal shell (aluminum or light alloy steel or in the case of the Civil War wood!). Upon the strike of the face armor the the shell peeled off like the petals of a banana peel and the dart or the bullet punched through the armor with higher strike energy (joules/centimeter squared.)##    

http://67thtigers.blogspot.com/2009_06_01_archive.html

The British version was called the Palliser Bolt by the Confederates.     

Also the  Panther was not a main battle tank.

I did put it in quotation marks. And Pz IV numbers were not much higher than Panther numbers, even on the West, so it was anything but scarce.

Twice as many (yes I include the Semnovente [Stug] versions, since I regard those like the actual AusF forward as the German's primary general purpose panzers.)    

Average Panther numbers were never more than half. And average German tank numbers were about ~100 Tigers, ~300-600 Panthers, and about 800 other machines most of them IVs in either pure tank or self propelled gun version.

http://ww2total.com/WW2/History/Orders-of-Battle/Germany/German-Orders-of-Battle-December-1943.htm
http://www.feldgrau.com/org44.html

BTW, have you read Hunnicutt?

Yes, have you read Ian Hogg? Greatest expert on WW II ordnance (in my opinion) that ever lived.

D.

[P3D]

Thanks. Will look into Hogg.

[Sachmle]

Was his son's name J.D.?

[damocles]

Was his son's name J.D.?

http://openlibrary.org/authors/OL218678A/Ian_V._Hogg

No it was not.

[Sachmle]

Was his son's name J.D.?

http://openlibrary.org/authors/OL218678A/Ian_V._Hogg

No it was not.

Was a joke

[damocles]

Was his son's name J.D.?

http://openlibrary.org/authors/OL218678A/Ian_V._Hogg

No it was not.

Was a joke

This is a joke.

A soldier, a marine, and an airman

A soldier, a marine, and an airman got into a fight about which service is best. The fight was so heated, that they killed each other.

Soon, they found themselves in Heaven. They see St. Peter walk by and ask, "Which
Branch of Service is the best?"

St. Peter replied, "I can't answer that. But, I will ask God what He thinks the next time I see Him."

Some time later, the three see St. Peter again and ask him if he was able to find the
answer.

Suddenly, a dove landed on St. Peter's shoulder. The dove was carrying a note in
its beak. St. Peter opened the note and read it out loud to the three fellows:
"Gentlemen: All the Branches of the Service are 'Honorable and Noble'. Each one
of you has served your country well. Be proud of that.

(signed)
GOD, USN (Ret.)"