Michael Dorosh Posted May 4, 2004 Share Posted May 4, 2004 Point taken, Sirocco - I meant more along the lines of how the artillery operated - flexibility, response time, etc., rather than weight of fire. The Russians had lots of tubes but I think the British and Americans had incredibly complex fire control systems. I would give the British the nod, but I don't know very much about the US system. I do know the British could call down the artillery of an entire corps when the occasion demanded it within a handful of minutes, and also had a wide array of complex fire plans in their arsenal - rolling barrages, pepperpots, blah blah blah. I am sure its been discussed before, just wondering what JonS, JasonC et al would consider the "best" system in terms of flexibility and ability to call down varying weight of fire in short amounts of time - US or CW. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 I'd give the nod to the Americans artillery, their communications and training allowed them to concentrate fire better than any other during WWII. Best of Best cavalry: Hungarian Best use of a bad situation: Italians Best coastal forces: Brits Best surrender: Danes Best neutral: Switzerland Slickest political maneuvering: Turkey Stupidiest politico-military move: Thailands alliance with Japan Best field kitchens: Bulgarian Worst battlefield, Aleutians tied with Petsamo Best battlefield: France Most annoying country: Spain and Ireland Worst neutral: Portugal Best fighting men for spirit: New Zealand Army best capable of fighting despite trashed country: China 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Point taken, Sirocco - I meant more along the lines of how the artillery operated - flexibility, response time, etc., rather than weight of fire.I just thought it ironic the Navy might win the artillery laurels. I would argue that with a longer timeframe of expertise, and it's importance in victories such as Alamein, the Commonwealth artillery should be rated very highly indeed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Originally posted by Hans: I'd give the nod to the Americans artillery, their communications and training allowed them to concentrate fire better than any other during WWII.I wouldn't, but then no-one would expect me to would they In terms of equipment, I think the 25-pr was better than the US 105s, while the heavier US guns were better than the British stuff (although the 5.5-in was good too). In terms of comms and training, the RA have the edge up till about early '44, then it's likely a wash. Many of the innovations the Americans introduced (eg, airborne observers) were adaptaions or copies of RA practice. In terms of employment, the RA - IMO - had a more sophisticated set of tools in the bag than the Americans seem to have used. The RA CB organisation too, by 1944, was very sound and effective. In additon to the types of missions and plans that Dorosh talked about above, there was also the recognition that 'destruction' was an impractical task for field artillery, and that 'suppression' was both acheivable and gave the same desired effect. Finally, giving the authority for missions to the FO, rather than holding it back at the FDC, again gives the edge to the RA. But, considering things from a German POV, I suspect there wasn't a lot to choose between them. Regards JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Best sniper - Simo Häyhä, with over 500 kills during the Winter War. He didn't use scope. I have always wondered, though, how you confirm a sniper kill. Or other such kill stats. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Axe_ Posted May 5, 2004 Author Share Posted May 5, 2004 Originally posted by Hans: Stupidiest politico-military move: Thailands alliance with Japan Best field kitchens: Bulgarian Most annoying country: Spain and Ireland Worst neutral: Portugal Bwahahaha!! Told you this thread would be good for something. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Originally posted by Axe2121: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hans: Stupidiest politico-military move: Thailands alliance with Japan Best field kitchens: Bulgarian Most annoying country: Spain and Ireland Worst neutral: Portugal Bwahahaha!! Told you this thread would be good for something. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Boggs Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Originally posted by Hans: Best field kitchens: Bulgarian LOL! How the hell was this determined? A cook-off? What about: Best Mobile Brothels: Italians 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Best divisional action: My vote goes to 1st Para (GER) at Cassino. Best unsung commander (DiV or under): Hermann Balck Los 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Puppchen Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 I think we need to tip our hats to the marines at Wake Island. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/USMC-M-Wake/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Originally posted by Carl Puppchen: ... the marines at Wake Island. Yeah, good pick. IIRC, the only force to ever turn back a seaborne invasion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Originally posted by Hans: In August 1942, he was hit in the face by a bullet from a Grumman Avenger torpedo bomber.That was his claim. However, there were no Avengers in the area at the time he was shot. He was hit by the combined fire from a formation of SBD Dauntlesses. This was probably lucky for him as the rear guns on the Dauntlesses at the time was only .30 caliber and the one on the Avenger was .50 caliber, which might have blown a serious piece of his head off. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: My interest in the Midway battle goes back to 1979 when I was in grade six. I wish I had a copy of the book I first read. And I just reread Walter Lord's INCREDIBLE VICTORY about a month ago, for the 10th time. Michael, since you seem to a Midway fan, may I recommend two more books to you? The first by Gordon W. Prange et al, Miracle at Midway, is very good with an almost minute by minute account of the fighting, yet seems to have some confusion over exactly who bombed what in some cases. The second, The First Team by John B. Lundstrom, is even better as he has the advantage of more time to sift through the documentary accounts as well as to conduct interviews of survivors and I tend to give his accounting a bit more confidence given the ultimate unknowability of historic events. These two books may enlarge your picture of the battle. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Originally posted by Hans: Stupidiest politico-military move: Thailands alliance with JapanWhat was stupid about that? It may not have been blindingly shrewd, but it cost them little and may have saved them from some destruction and a harsh occupation. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wisbech_lad Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Actually the Thai's did quite well - it wasn't a stupid political move to ally with the Japanese. They were coming thru anyway, and by letting them in, Thai stayed independent. The OSS ran a "free Thai" movement, and after the war, when the Thai's surrendered, those guys took over. However in 1947 (or 49, can't remember which) the "old guard" took over again, and killed/ exiled the "Free Thai" faction. So, all in all, allying with Japan cost the Thai generals 2-4 years out of power, but saved the nation from becoming a Japanese colony. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yacinator Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 [ May 05, 2004, 01:47 AM: Message edited by: yacinator ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: My interest in the Midway battle goes back to 1979 when I was in grade six. I wish I had a copy of the book I first read. And I just reread Walter Lord's INCREDIBLE VICTORY about a month ago, for the 10th time. Michael, since you seem to a Midway fan, may I recommend two more books to you? The first by Gordon W. Prange et al, Miracle at Midway, is very good with an almost minute by minute account of the fighting, yet seems to have some confusion over exactly who bombed what in some cases. The second, The First Team by John B. Lundstrom, is even better as he has the advantage of more time to sift through the documentary accounts as well as to conduct interviews of survivors and I tend to give his accounting a bit more confidence given the ultimate unknowability of historic events. These two books may enlarge your picture of the battle. Michael </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
With Clusters Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 How about the Rat Patrol? Boy, those guys must have taken out dozens of German tanks, and all from the backs of only two MG Jeeps! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikko H. Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Best sniper - Simo Häyhä, with over 500 kills during the Winter War. He didn't use scope. I have always wondered, though, how you confirm a sniper kill. Or other such kill stats. I have always been very suspicious of the kill stats presented for fighter aces and especially for snipers. Häyhä's number is almost certainly inflated -- I don't remember the details, but IIRC couple of weeks before Häyhä was grievously wounded (he didn't see battle afterwards) he was semi-officially stated to have somewhat more than 100 'kills'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: EDIT - just did a search of the University of Calgary library - Lundstrom wrote two different books by that title!! Must be this one, eh? Other one is about Guadalcanal. I take it that it is a whole series? D790 .L842 1984 The First team : Pacific naval air combat from Pearl Harbor to Midway Lundstrom, John B. Right. I just finished the Guadalcanal book and liked it even better than the first one. So if you find you like the first one, you might want to give this one a look as well. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Originally posted by Mikko H.: I have always been very suspicious of the kill stats presented for fighter aces...With good reason. I've just finished reading a pair of books (see post above) that compare the performance of American and Japanese naval fighter pilots in the first 11 months of the Pacific War, and one thing I noticed was that while the Americans on average during that period claimed about 2-3 times as many kills as the enemy actually lost, the Japanese consistently claimed something like 7-10 times the actual number. This discrepency is hard to understand or explain, but it seems that the Japanese pilots assumed that any plane they shot at was automatically dead. It might be the case that their debriefing officers were none too critical too. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 My pick: The 2nd Marine Division, it participated in only 4 campaigns in WWII, but these were: Guadalcanal Tarawa Saipan Okinawa There were no cakewalks in the Pacific, but the 2nd was involved in some of the nastiest fights of the entire war. While we're on the topic of the 1st Marine Division's younger and much lesser known siblings, take the 3rd Marine Division, who also only participated in "only" 4 campaigns in WWII: Bouganville Saipan Guam Iwo Jima The best army, the best air force, or the best navy maybe be up for grabs, but the USMC was the best marine corps of the war. Gyrene 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Originally posted by JonS: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hans: I'd give the nod to the Americans artillery, their communications and training allowed them to concentrate fire better than any other during WWII.I wouldn't, but then no-one would expect me to would they In terms of equipment, I think the 25-pr was better than the US 105s, while the heavier US guns were better than the British stuff (although the 5.5-in was good too). In terms of comms and training, the RA have the edge up till about early '44, then it's likely a wash. Many of the innovations the Americans introduced (eg, airborne observers) were adaptaions or copies of RA practice. In terms of employment, the RA - IMO - had a more sophisticated set of tools in the bag than the Americans seem to have used. The RA CB organisation too, by 1944, was very sound and effective. In additon to the types of missions and plans that Dorosh talked about above, there was also the recognition that 'destruction' was an impractical task for field artillery, and that 'suppression' was both acheivable and gave the same desired effect. Finally, giving the authority for missions to the FO, rather than holding it back at the FDC, again gives the edge to the RA. Hans: Most nations gave their unit commanders the reponsibility to be observers - they then tended to be concerned about their own unit. The American FO system left the commander back with the guns while another officer liaisoned with maneuver. For TOT etc the Americans tended to be faster and better, particularly with ammunition supply. I'd stick with the American and Brits being best overall artillery wise with the Americans taking the lead from the brits after Normandy. But, considering things from a German POV, I suspect there wasn't a lot to choose between them. Regards JonS </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Originally posted by Jim Boggs: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hans: Best field kitchens: Bulgarian LOL! How the hell was this determined? A cook-off? What about: Best Mobile Brothels: Italians </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Originally posted by Hans: Delousing technique - Soviets, douse everyone with water and have them run outside in -30c, lice freeze and fall off. In summer a less popular 'run of fire' was used. I must say I kinda like the Finnish 'täisauna' better. There even were special saunas for horses (head of the horse would stick through the hole): As a result, Finland didn't have a lousy army. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.