|
Post by Yan Taylor on May 22, 2012 4:01:17 GMT -6
Hi Dan, just some facts for you.
In total out the 164 DD Tanks launched on D Day, 30% were lost swimming (sank).
Interestingly enough, the 741st Battalions DD Tanks launched on Omaha Beach had ordered to head for the Church Spire at Colleville, however the west to east tide had pushed them east, so when they turned to head for Collevile they were sailing diagonally across the current, this placed pressure on the struts holding up the canvas skirts making them collapse.
You could say that the DD Tanks were a failure, maybe there were but considering that the allies predicted that The Ranger attack at Pointe du Hoc was expecting 60% casualties. The Airborne drop was expecting up to 80% casualties, 30% sounds low considering.
One last note, the DD Tanks that did make it made a big difference to the Infantry being shot at from pill boxes, direct fire beats indirect fire every time.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by steve1956 on May 22, 2012 6:43:47 GMT -6
Interesting to note that the technology needed by the Japs to build a carrier fleet was supplied by paid British agents and the first carrier pilots were trained by the Brits. Maybe Gatewood or the Colonel might have something on this? And why not?.....Japan had been an ally in WWI...........
|
|
|
Post by wild on May 22, 2012 6:50:10 GMT -6
DARK CLOUD I grasp the concept that there was a doctrine of precision bombing by Bomber Command and the 8th Air Force, but there could just as well have been a doctrine of invisibility. It did not exist Not only was it a doctrine it was the practice. In the last two years of the war the combined Bombing Offensive was directed at Germany's industrial economy.The RAF bombed major cities and industrial centres,the US 8th AirForce attacked precision industrial targets-mainly fuel oil plants.transportation and aviation industry.Technical improvements permitted much greater accuracy. In all the combined Offensive dropped 906000 tons of bombs on German and French targets.Most on industrial targets. 57000 On aircraft industry 224000 on oil,319000 on transportation.In addition the Brits dropped 674000 tons on German and Italian cities. Precision bombing in addition forced the dispersal of the arms industery to less efficent and decentralised areas. Both Area and precision bombing proved decisive in undermining the continuation of war production at a high level. Source.The Times Atlas Of The Second World wAR.
If Precision bombing is to be dismissed then we must conclude that the RAF alone destroyed German war production.
|
|
|
Post by wild on May 22, 2012 6:53:51 GMT -6
Steve1956 The material they were supplying to the Japs was secret.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 22, 2012 7:35:18 GMT -6
Richard: I don't understand your point here. Of course it was probably secret. Such things are rarely discussed openly.
The IJN battleship IJNMS Kongo was built by Vickers Armstrong at Barrow in Furness starting in 1911. Her other three sisters built in Japan. They were based upon the design of HMS Lion. The guns for all of them were made in the UK as was the machinery.
The United Kingdom and Japan were both parties to a defense treaty. As a result there was a great influance on IJN design and construction by the Royal Navy. This carried into the arena of naval aviation as well including types of aircraft, deck handling procedures and in the design of the IJN's first carrier IJMS Hosho, which was based upon the aircraft arrangements of HMS Eagle and HMS Hermes, although Hosho's hull was a built for the purpose carrier.
If you look today at the naval arm of the Japanese SDF you will find huge transfers of American technology in just about every ship built for them since the late 1950's. Their newest destroyer class closely resembles or Burke class complete with Aegis systems.. All their ships are home grown, but you can bet every Euro you own that the plans for our ships are readily available to them and the designs are adapted for local needs. European navies have done much the same since the conclusion of WWII. Cuts costs. Insures interoperability, and there are problably dozens of other reasons as well.
So in light of these things happening the only thing I could find that was secret were the specific details of the technology involved and I don't find that at all surprising. So what is the issue here. Do not long standing allies transfer information?
PS: So dismiss from your mind the idea that this whole affair was something like a Mickey Rooney - Judy Garland movie where halfway through some snotty nosed brat says "Hey kids let's build a modern navy" and all of a sudden the technology appears, the curtain rises and behind it appears building ways, drydocks, machinery plants, boiler factories, plants to produce armor and sophisticated for the time guns and fire direction and control equipment, and the thousand and one other things it takes to build a navy, not the least of which are a skilled work force and trained sailors. They don't just appear. When they do, it is with the help of someone on the outside. For Japan that someone was the Royal Navy and the UK shipbuilding industry.
|
|
|
Post by steve1956 on May 22, 2012 7:36:29 GMT -6
Steve1956 The material they were supplying to the Japs was secret. Fair enough..I misinterpreted it as Britain just selling technology/supplying training...........
|
|
|
Post by steve1956 on May 22, 2012 7:40:37 GMT -6
DARK CLOUDI grasp the concept that there was a doctrine of precision bombing by Bomber Command and the 8th Air Force, but there could just as well have been a doctrine of invisibility. It did not existNot only was it a doctrine it was the practice. In the last two years of the war the combined Bombing Offensive was directed at Germany's industrial economy.The RAF bombed major cities and industrial centres,the US 8th AirForce attacked precision industrial targets-mainly fuel oil plants.transportation and aviation industry.Technical improvements permitted much greater accuracy. In all the combined Offensive dropped 906000 tons of bombs on German and French targets.Most on industrial targets. 57000 On aircraft industry 224000 on oil,319000 on transportation.In addition the Brits dropped 674000 tons on German and Italian cities. Precision bombing in addition forced the dispersal of the arms industery to less efficent and decentralised areas. Both Area and precision bombing proved decisive in undermining the continuation of war production at a high level. Source.The Times Atlas Of The Second World wAR. If Precision bombing is to be dismissed then we must conclude that the RAF alone destroyed German war production. I'm also going to be really picky and mention Amiens prison,The Tirpitz,Bielefeld viaduct.......But these were all "special" missions.....
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on May 22, 2012 7:48:31 GMT -6
Hi Chuck, I have just remembered what you said about the Arizona yesterday, when you mentioned about it may have been pink, when I used to work on heavy goods vehicles in the 1980s, one of my jobs was in the paint department, these huge petrol tankers used to in full of rust and mud, my first job was to steam clean the vehicle, then shot blast any rusty parts, then sand the whole thing down and mask up any area not for paint, when the spray painters came along, they sprayed the whole thing in pink priming paint, was this why the Arizona was pink ?.
If the ship was in dock having repairs done, they may have been in the process of re-painting the ship with primer before the main paint job started.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 22, 2012 8:02:13 GMT -6
This has become a quibble session on steroids.
Prewar U S Army Air Corps doctrine developed upon the ideas of Billy Mitchell, Spaatz, Arnold and others postulated that a bomber flying at high altitude with a built for the purpose high technology bomb site could be the decisive implement of war by bombing specific targets such as industrial facilities, rail yards, ships at sea (remember the Rex incident) and other like targets. The doctrine was called High Altitude Precision Bombing. We spent a great deal of time, money, and manpower developing this theory, culminating in the design of the B-17 and B-24 bombers, which were expected to penetrate enemy airspace at high altitude without fighter escort, and score precise hits on any target within range.
That was the doctrine. While we and the Brits alternating night and day kicked the crap out of the German industrial heartland and other targets of value in the rest of Europe, it was far from the precision envisioned by the early doctrine developers. Someone pointed to post war bombing surveys saying that in terms of monetary and human cost it was not worth it. I suspect that is true, but I would remind everyone here these are the only methods we had at the time. Now if they plowed up at lot of fields rather than decisively destroying a ball bearing factory or a submarine pen those are the breaks. We along with the Brits, operating night and day, made life for the Germans a living hell and so what if we did not destroy all we thought we did, we destroyed enough, we killed enough, and who the hell won anyway.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 22, 2012 8:06:04 GMT -6
Ian: The pink was a bit of hyperbole on my part, but you are correct that red primer was used and if it was not mixed properly it would have pinkish properties upon exposure to the sun. There was a pink sub in the Pacific, Seadragon I think, that got a quick coat of primer before she departed the Phillippines.
|
|
|
Post by steve1956 on May 22, 2012 8:10:41 GMT -6
This has become a quibble session on steroids. Prewar U S Army Air Corps doctrine developed upon the ideas of Billy Mitchell, Spaatz, Arnold and others postulated that a bomber flying at high altitude with a built for the purpose high technology bomb site could be the decisive implement of war by bombing specific targets such as industrial facilities, rail yards, ships at sea (remember the Rex incident) and other like targets. The doctrine was called High Altitude Precision Bombing. We spent a great deal of time, money, and manpower developing this theory, culminating in the design of the B-17 and B-24 bombers, which were expected to penetrate enemy airspace at high altitude without fighter escort, and sore precise hits on any target within range. That was the doctrine. While we and the Brits alternating night and day kicked the crap out of the German industrial heartland and other targets of value in the rest of Europe, it was far from the precision envisioned by the early doctrine developers. Someone pointed to post war bombing surveys saying that in terms of monetary and human cost it was not worth it. I suspect that is true, but I would remind everyone here thase are the only methods we had at the time. Now if they plowed up at lot of fields rather than decisively destroying a ball bearing factory or a submarine pen those are the breaks. We along with the Brits, operating night and day, made life for the Germans a living hell and so what if we did not destroy all we thought we did, we destroyed enough, we killed enough, and who the hell won anyway. Yeah.....Another valid point,is that for years the Bomber offensive was THE only way Britain could strike directly at Germany.
|
|
|
Post by wild on May 22, 2012 8:28:49 GMT -6
Steve I think Monte Cassino would qualify as well.
Colonel In the late 20s and 30s Japan had become a threat.The US put pressure on the Brits to withdraw from any arrangements they had with Japan which they did but a couple of Brits who had got friendly with the Japs during that period of friendship maintained contact with the them passing secret information to on them.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 22, 2012 8:38:34 GMT -6
Ok, now you are not talking technology transfer, you are talking treason. That's why the British Empire retained a hangman on staff.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on May 22, 2012 8:47:38 GMT -6
Chuck you don’t mean (gasp) Operation Petticoat do you!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 22, 2012 8:53:44 GMT -6
Gasp and Gasp again. Yes I do. It was a fictional story based very very losely on a real incident.
|
|