From Worst to Best?

[CombinedArms]

OK, how about units, elements or whatever that moved from the worst in the war to the best by war's end. Possible candidates:

1) British anti-sub intelligence. Right thru May 1943 the Brits were using book codes to route their convoys that the Germans could easily read. Yet when they changed the codes in mid-'43, the Germans never broke them again and Bletchley Park (which had been breaking the German Enigma sporadically) began reading German traffic with increasing consistency till war's end.

2) US air-ground support. The US was probably the worst at this of any major combatant when they entered the war but by war's end had become perhaps the best, judging by quality and quantity of weaponry and sophistication of tactics.

Candidates for "Best to Worst" can also be proposed.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

2) US air-ground support. The US was probably the worst at this of any major combatant when they entered the war but by war's end had become perhaps the best, judging by quality and quantity of weaponry and sophistication of tactics.

The Marines seem to have been pretty good at it right along. And all the combatants had their problems. I don't know of any clear proof that the USAAF was a lot worse than the others, though they did improve markedly during the last year of the war.

I'd say that the US Army ground forces left a lot to be desired during their first three months in Tunisia. But in the last couple of months started to pull their act together and were almost a different army by the time they got to Sicily.

In the Pacific, the US Navy sucked pretty badly at night surface combat in most of 1942, but a year later were pretty consistently beating the IJN at their own game.

The carrier forces, while not ever really bad, made a fair number of mistakes in the first year of the war. But by the time of the Mariannas Turkey Shoot, they had learned from their mistakes and refined their techniques until the Fast Carrier Forces constituted one of the most finely-honed military organizations on the planet.

Michael

[Shosties]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

In the Pacific, the US Navy sucked pretty badly at night surface combat in most of 1942, but a year later were pretty consistently beating the IJN at their own game.

The USN needed to get thrashed around in the Slot before it was learned how best to fight ships with good radar at night (hint: go from the bridge to the CIC!). The Japanese had drilled for this sort of battle for ages (presumably the disappointing results of the night torpedo attack on Port Arthur rankled, and this was originally how they invisioned attriting the US Pacific Fleet as it made its way to the Phillipines from California IIRC). They partly made up for their lack of radar or poor radar by searching hard for folks to conscript with excellent night vision and giving them good optics. Having the Long Lance helped too.

[ May 07, 2004, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: Shosties4th ]

[Michael Emrys]

Having the Long Lance was a huge advantage. Probably the best destroyer torpedo of the war. The IJN had some other advantages as well. Both their guns and their torpedo tubes used smokeless, flashless powder. This meant that they could launch their torps without being detected and their guns, although not really 100% flashless, were harder to spot at night.

Michael

[Shosties]

Yeah, serious torpedo envy on the part of the USN for WW2! Theirs actually went boom ( ), were fast, and had much longer reach than ours.

Still, I would have taken the fifteen rapid fire 6" and good radar that the USS Atlanta had. If you miss with torpedoes you've largely shot your bolt. Guns are the gift that keeps on giving.

Too bad Adm. Callaghan was old school. As it was, that melee hurt the Japanese significantly.

EDIT: as far as going "from worst to best", I think this an unfair label for the USN. Would the RN have done that much better under those conditions?

[ May 07, 2004, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: Shosties4th ]

[Holman]

Although it's kind of abstract (i.e. I can't name individuals), I'd say that Soviet tactical/operational flexibility made the greatest improvement of the war. From its lowest point (after the purges), this factor rose to become probably the single most decisive factor contributing to Allied victory. The Red Army of 1945 could have run rings around any military force in the world.

[KenH]

Originally posted by Shosties4th:

Yeah, serious torpedo envy on the part of the USN for WW2! Theirs actually went boom ( ), were fast, and had much longer reach than ours.

Still, I would have taken the fifteen rapid fire 6" and good radar that the USS Atlanta had. If you miss with torpedoes you've largely shot your bolt. Guns are the gift that keeps on giving.

Too bad Adm. Callaghan was old school. As it was, that melee hurt the Japanese significantly.

EDIT: as far as going "from worst to best", I think this an unfair label for the USN. Would the RN have done that much better under those conditions?

Psst, Atlanta-class CL's had 5"/38s; 15 x 6" I think you're thinking of a Brooklyn-class And in The Brawl, both Atlantas didnt do so good (mind you, no one was unscuffed , except USS Fletcher ) with Atlanta pounded by both IJN and friendly fire and sinking later, and Juneau getting her back broke by a long lance, and later obliterated by SS torp while retiring. Gotta love those monster Long Lances though, serious force-multipliers

[jeffsmith]

http://www.combinedfleet.com/

[flamingknives]

British tanks. From the A9 cruisers and MkIVs to the Centurion.

[Shosties]

Originally posted by KenH:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Shosties4th:

Yeah, serious torpedo envy on the part of the USN for WW2! Theirs actually went boom ( ), were fast, and had much longer reach than ours.

Still, I would have taken the fifteen rapid fire 6" and good radar that the USS Atlanta had. If you miss with torpedoes you've largely shot your bolt. Guns are the gift that keeps on giving.

Too bad Adm. Callaghan was old school. As it was, that melee hurt the Japanese significantly.

EDIT: as far as going "from worst to best", I think this an unfair label for the USN. Would the RN have done that much better under those conditions?

Psst, Atlanta-class CL's had 5"/38s; 15 x 6" I think you're thinking of a Brooklyn-class And in The Brawl, both Atlantas didnt do so good (mind you, no one was unscuffed , except USS Fletcher ) with Atlanta pounded by both IJN and friendly fire and sinking later, and Juneau getting her back broke by a long lance, and later obliterated by SS torp while retiring. Gotta love those monster Long Lances though, serious force-multipliers </font>

[KenH]

Yeah 5"/38s at 100m make swiss cheese out of even BB armour :eek: (vertical armour anyways)

You gotta love the DD guys, exchanging everything from main battery to .45 sidearm fire with a Battleship as you steam past at 30+ knots

[Shosties]

Originally posted by KenH:

Yeah 5"/38s at 100m make swiss cheese out of even BB armour :eek: (vertical armour anyways)

You gotta love the DD guys, exchanging everything from main battery to .45 sidearm fire with a Battleship as you steam past at 30+ knots

"A captain can do worse than to place his ship alongside the enemy's" or somefink.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Shosties4th:

EDIT: as far as going "from worst to best", I think this an unfair label for the USN. Would the RN have done that much better under those conditions?

The Battle of Cape Matapan (and others, incl the fiords in Norway) says 'yes'

Regards

JonS

[ May 07, 2004, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[CombinedArms]

Interestingly, the USN never came up with a torpedo to rival the Long Lance--they simply fixed the firing pins on the old torpedos they began the war with and ended up triumphing in both night battles and sub warfare, mostly because of improved tactics and training, combined with superior numbers.

Does the Centurion count? Didn't really make it into the war, did it?

Arguably German sub warfare is a case of best to worst--early war they were an elite service that ruled the seas. Later, though maintaining much of the old courage and skill, they became the hunted and were driven out of the North Atlantic by a combination of sonar, centimetric radar and huff-duff, combined with airpower, ever growing and increasingly aggressive surface escort, and the increasingly transparent Engima codes. By contrast, the US sub campaign was inept in the early years, but became increasingly deadly in the final years of the war.

[Kingfish]

Another example of best to worst is the Japanese 1st air fleet, who went from undisputed masters of the Pacific to sacrificial bait in a little over 2 years. In fact, the real transformation happened overnight, or to be more accurate over the course of one afternoon.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

2) US air-ground support. The US was probably the worst at this of any major combatant when they entered the war but by war's end had become perhaps the best, judging by quality and quantity of weaponry and sophistication of tactics.

The USMC was the best at it at the beginning of the war, and they were the best at it at the end of the war.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

Another example of best to worst is the Japanese 1st air fleet, who went from undisputed masters of the Pacific to sacrificial bait in a little over 2 years. In fact, the real transformation happened overnight, or to be more accurate over the course of one afternoon.

I am curious as to which afternoon you have in mind.

Michael

[Kingfish]

June 4th, 1942

[Michael Emrys]

I had a suspicion that that was what you had in mind.

While that claim is often put forward, I think it is a bit of an exaggeration. While Midway was a grievous blow to 1st. Air Fleet, it still had plenty of fight left in it. What really did it in was three months of attrition over Guadalcanal, New Guinea, and Rabaul. After that, it was never the same. The same could be said for a number of other Japanese air units that got fed into the New Guinea/Solomons meatgrinder. By the end of November of 1942 such replacements as had come through the pipeline were nowhere near the qualiity of the veteran pilots who had begun the war.

Michael

[flamingknives]

Does the Centurion count? Didn't really make it into the war, did it?

It never saw action, but it was in service before VJ day, so technically the war was still going on.

The Churchill came on leaps and bounds during it's career, but I'd never call it the best tank.

Allied CAS?

[jeffsmith]

B-26 Marauder

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by jeffsmith:

B-26 Marauder

Good call! And I think we could name the Corsair the worst carrier aircraft, which eventually became the best.

BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if the UMC was outstanding at CAS from start to finish, in large part because it's an integrated service and CAS would be the logical function of the UMC air arm, whereas the Army Air Corps started the war with its gaze fixed on strategic airpower and thought of CAS as an irritating distraction. But I don't know many details about Marine Corps CAS. Would be glad to learn more.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

And I think we could name the Corsair the worst carrier aircraft, which eventually became the best.

I wouldn't. the Corsair was never really a bad carrier fighter. It had an undeserved reputation because it required a bit of special handling on the landing approach which pilots and LSOs didn't want to be bothered with working out at first when the Hellcat was there and relatively more docile. The early versions of the Corsair had a nasty tendency to drop one wing suddenly in the stall, but this was fixed by installing a fixed spoiler on the other wing. Since the pilot's position was so far back in the plane, it made vision over the nose very limited. In order for the pilot to be able to keep the LSO in view on approach, it was necessary to fly a curving path. Once these procedures were in place, it was a truly great carrier plane.

At the height of the Kamikaze assault, it was found that the performance of the shipboard Hellcats was not always adequate to perform interceptions, so the call went out for Corsair squadrons. Since there weren't enough of them in Navy squadrons to meet the demand, several Marine squadrons were drafted for shipboard duty.

Michael

[A Panzer]

The U-boats never went from best to worst. They simply became overwhelmed like the rest of the German military. The type XXI U-boat was one the best subs until nuculer subs came along and they never ceased to be a threat compleatly until the final few months of the war.

[MadGav]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Once these procedures were in place, it was a truly great carrier plane.

That would be "once these procedures were worked out by the Fleet Air Arm"?

Martin