PDA

View Full Version : On the Anniverasy of the Battle of Midway



Concordia 33
06-07-2012, 11:02 AM
Here is an interesting analysis of just how lopsided the war was between the US and Japan. The US held a much bigger advantage than I imagined.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

David W Pratt
06-07-2012, 11:26 AM
It is interesting.
Add in the P-51, arguably most effective in Europe, but capable of long range bombing/strafing missions, and don't forget the Barb, the only invasion of Japan.
The Zero was maneuverable. Thirty cal vs 50, wooden structure, burned nicely, poorly armored.

Concordia 33
06-07-2012, 11:29 AM
It is interesting.
Add in the P-51, arguably most effective in Europe, but capable of long range bombing/strafing missions, and don't forget the Barb, the only invasion of Japan.
The Zero was maneuverable. Thirty cal vs 50, wooden structure, burned nicely, poorly armored.

Was the mustang involved in great numbers in the Pacific? I know that the Corsair and Lightning were.

wardd
06-07-2012, 11:36 AM
p-51's did escort for b-29' and strafing of japan

Gerarddm
06-07-2012, 11:36 AM
Economic power IS military power. Classically speaking, anyway.

wardd
06-07-2012, 11:37 AM
Economic power IS military power. Classically speaking, anyway.

since the time of alexander at least

Concordia 33
06-07-2012, 12:17 PM
Economic power IS military power. Classically speaking, anyway.


Also true for the Civil War

TomF
06-07-2012, 12:25 PM
I'd imagine, though, that recent events show that the relationship has loosened a bit. Economic power is most effective when you're talking about waging what Clausewitz called a "total war." It's far less effective when you're not interested in turning the entire country to a smoking rubble, and instead are fighting an insurgency.

Arguably, the advantage also lessens if the timeframe to build re-supply weapons is too terribly long. WWII relied on the industrial capacity of the adversaries to bring weapons to battle quickly ... I've no confidence that in a prolonged conflict between two modern powers, that any fighter aircraft at all could be replenished from nothing during the war itself.

Dan McCosh
06-07-2012, 12:39 PM
Economic power IS military power. Classically speaking, anyway. At least before atomic weapons.

seanz
06-07-2012, 08:56 PM
At least before atomic weapons.

They don't come cheap..........

wardd
06-07-2012, 09:24 PM
They don't come cheap..........

nukes are cheaper than standing armies which was their appeal after ww2

seanz
06-08-2012, 02:15 AM
nukes are cheaper than standing armies which was their appeal after ww2

I'll believe that just as soon as the Vatican replaces the Swiss Guard with a "Gone to Jesus" nuke.

PeterSibley
06-08-2012, 03:02 AM
Here is an interesting analysis of just how lopsided the war was between the US and Japan. The US held a much bigger advantage than I imagined.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

From Pearl harbour it was just a matter of time. The Japanese must have known, the planning boys anyway .It was like a form of ritual national suicide from the very first, the guys doing the dying just hadn't been told. A pity Manchuria didn't have sufficient oil , the whole face of northern Asia might be quite different.

PeterSibley
06-08-2012, 04:06 AM
From Concordia's link .

In retrospect, it is difficult to comprehend how Japan's leadership managed to rationalize their way around the economic facts when they contemplated making war on the U.S. After all, these were not stupid men. Indeed, internal Imperial Navy studies conducted in 1941 showed exactly the trends in naval shipbuilding I have outlined above. In the end, however, the Tojo government chose the path of aggression, compelled by internal political dynamics which made the prospect of a general Japanese disengagement in China (which was the only means by which the American economic embargo would have been lifted) too humiliating a course to be taken. Consequently, the Japanese embarked on what can only be described as a suicidal venture, against an overwhelmingly large foe. However, their greatest mistake was not just disregarding the economic muscle which lay partially dormant on the other side of the Pacific. In actuality, their chief error lay in misreading the will of the American people. When the American giant awoke, it did not lapse into despair as a result of the defeats that Japan had inflicted upon it. Rather, it awoke in a rage, and applied every ounce of its tremendous strength with a cold, methodical fury against its foe. The grim price Japan paid -- 1.8 million military casualties, the complete annihilation of its military, a half million or so civilians killed, and the utter destruction of practically every major urban area within the Home Islands -- bears mute testimony to the folly of its militarist leaders.

WX
06-08-2012, 06:17 AM
The P51 didn't see service in the Pacific till late 1944.

Paul Pless
06-08-2012, 06:28 AM
The P51 didn't see service in the Pacific till late 1944.It was mostly a naval air war until then. The P51 wasn't used by the Navy. It wasn't until the capture of Iwo Jimo that the P51's primary mission as a long range bomber escort came to fruition in the Pacific. There was also a bias towards the twin engine P38 for long over water missions.

But, I have to say it certainly would have been interesting if Australia's growing aircraft industry had been able to manufacture even a small fraction of the approximately 20,000 that were built by General Motors, well. . . . . . that really would would have been something to chat about.;):D

PeterSibley
06-08-2012, 06:51 AM
As long as they had wooden wheels all would have been well.

Concordia 33
06-08-2012, 08:45 AM
From Pearl harbour it was just a matter of time. The Japanese must have known, the planning boys anyway .It was like a form of ritual national suicide from the very first, the guys doing the dying just hadn't been told. A pity Manchuria didn't have sufficient oil , the whole face of northern Asia might be quite different.

Their planners believed that the US did not have the stomach for war. They believed that it would be what Vietnam became. The public would grow war-weary and politicians would cave. Some of the Japanese planners thought that a series of startling Japanese victories would bring peace in 6 months and would get the US to stop interfering with their Imperialist plans, and also resume exporting Oil to Japan.

Concordia 33
06-08-2012, 08:54 AM
From Concordia's link .

In retrospect, it is difficult to comprehend how Japan's leadership managed to rationalize their way around the economic facts when they contemplated making war on the U.S. After all, these were not stupid men. Indeed, internal Imperial Navy studies conducted in 1941 showed exactly the trends in naval shipbuilding I have outlined above. In the end, however, the Tojo government chose the path of aggression, compelled by internal political dynamics which made the prospect of a general Japanese disengagement in China (which was the only means by which the American economic embargo would have been lifted) too humiliating a course to be taken. Consequently, the Japanese embarked on what can only be described as a suicidal venture, against an overwhelmingly large foe. However, their greatest mistake was not just disregarding the economic muscle which lay partially dormant on the other side of the Pacific. In actuality, their chief error lay in misreading the will of the American people. When the American giant awoke, it did not lapse into despair as a result of the defeats that Japan had inflicted upon it. Rather, it awoke in a rage, and applied every ounce of its tremendous strength with a cold, methodical fury against its foe. The grim price Japan paid -- 1.8 million military casualties, the complete annihilation of its military, a half million or so civilians killed, and the utter destruction of practically every major urban area within the Home Islands -- bears mute testimony to the folly of its militarist leaders.


I think the people of the US did not truly appreciate the advantage they held. Military analysts at the time thought that if we lost all of our Pacific Naval capabilities, that a Japanese west coast invasion could not be stopped until they got as far east as the mid-western US. I think they may have overestimated this. I think that's why Dolittle's Raiders was so significant to the American spirit: a symbolic counter-punch. In either case, the battle in the Pacific was a brutal one. I read Flyboys which detailed the incredible brutality of the Japanese towards US combatants - beheadings, officers eating the livers of executed soldiers and letting the non-coms and front line soldiers eat the remaining parts.

The Bigfella
06-08-2012, 09:18 AM
The Japanese weren't only brutal towards US combatants. Australian soldiers found their dead comrades on the Kokoda Track with body parts removed... for food.

It may have escaped your attention, but the war in the Pacific didn't actually start with Pearl Harbour. It started up near the Malaysian / Thai border a bit before the Pearl Harbour attacks.... and the land war was going long before a US soldier saw action. As with the Germans, it was the Aussies who first defeated the Japanese on land in WW2.... and an Aussie air force officer was the first death of the Pacific war.

And Paul... I'm sure you know exactly how many Mustang P51's Australia manufactured. Quite a lot actually.

Paul Pless
06-08-2012, 09:25 AM
And Paul... I'm sure you know exactly how many Mustang P51's Australia manufactured. Quite a lot actually.I can only find documentation for 80 completed aircraft from 100 kits supplied by Allison and General Motors. Do you know of others that were completed before VJ-Day? Were any built prior to the end of the war with significant components actually manufactured in Australia? Does bolting the wings and propeller onto an airframe count as manufacturing?

The Bigfella
06-08-2012, 09:46 AM
I'll try a third time and see if the web lets me answer....

Yes, Paul, of course I do. A68-1 the first Aussie production Mustang flew in April '45.

We, as did the US, used them in Korea... where they distinguished themselves by gaining the highest loss rate for any allied aircraft.

Paul Pless
06-08-2012, 09:58 AM
Just for a little perspective and relevance regarding aircraft production and the Arsenal of Democracy. In 1944, The General Motors owned and operated North American Aviation plant in Inglewood, was rolling out one P51D ready for flight every 21 minutes during regular production hours!

wardd
06-08-2012, 10:04 AM
I'll believe that just as soon as the Vatican replaces the Swiss Guard with a "Gone to Jesus" nuke.

first they have to get beyond spears and here i am shoot me uniforms

Concordia 33
06-08-2012, 10:06 AM
The Japanese weren't only brutal towards US combatants. Australian soldiers found their dead comrades on the Kokoda Track with body parts removed... for food.

It may have escaped your attention, but the war in the Pacific didn't actually start with Pearl Harbour. It started up near the Malaysian / Thai border a bit before the Pearl Harbour attacks.... and the land war was going long before a US soldier saw action. As with the Germans, it was the Aussies who first defeated the Japanese on land in WW2.... and an Aussie air force officer was the first death of the Pacific war.

And Paul... I'm sure you know exactly how many Mustang P51's Australia manufactured. Quite a lot actually.


It did not escape my attention. The original thesis of this thread was about the mismatch between the US and Japan. Japanese aggression started well before Pearl, and in part because the US attempted to influence Japan's aggression elsewhere. Even in the US, the aggression started with Pearl, but the war itself really started before that. The US had accepted that was was inevitable and had started making plans and upgrading its pacific military capacity.

wardd
06-08-2012, 10:13 AM
the japonese military wasn't highly thought of by western military leaders

their tactics were wanting

their navel damage control was deficient and the lost ships to battle damage that the us navy saved

their weapons were second rate and of inferior quality

their industrial quality control was almost nonexistent, for instance vacuum tube production was to test after build and throw away the bad ones, they never improved the manufacturing process so wastage was high

their aircraft handling on carriers was substandard and gas lines did not have purging systems so fire hazard was very high

they operated on the theory that fighting spirit would over come technology deficiencies

Concordia 33
06-08-2012, 10:17 AM
Just for a little perspective and relevance regarding aircraft production and the Arsenal of Democracy. In 1944, The General Motors owned and operated North American Aviation plant in Inglewood, was rolling out one P51D ready for flight every 21 minutes during regular production hours!

It never ceases to amaze me just how effective the US civilian industry was able to turn itself into a Military Manufacturing juggernaut. The Liberty Ship is another good example where a new liberty ship was commissioned every day.



In early 1941, the US Maritime Commission placed an order for 260 ships of the Liberty design. Of these, 60 were for Britain. With the implementation of the Lend-Lease Program in March, orders more than doubled. To meet the demands of this construction program, new yards were established on both coasts and in the Gulf of Mexico. Over the next four years, US shipyards would produce 2,751 Liberty Ships. The majority (1,552) of these came from new yards built on the West Coast and operated by Henry J. Kaiser. Best known for building the Bay Bridge and the Hoover Dam, Kaiser pioneered new shipbuilding techniques.

Operating four yards in Richmond, CA and three in the Northwest, Kaiser developed methods for prefabricating and mass producing Liberty Ships. Components were built all across the US and transported to shipyards where the vessels could be assembled in record time. During the war, a Liberty Ship could be built in a about two weeks at a Kaiser yard. In November 1942, one of Kaiser's Richmond yards built a Liberty Ship (Robert E. Peary) in 4 days, 15 hours, and 29 minutes as a publicity stunt. Nationally, the average construction time was 42 days and by 1943, three Liberty Ships were being completed each day.

Operations:
The speed at which Liberty Ships could be constructed allowed the US to build cargo vessels faster than German U-boats could sink them. This, along with Allied military successes against the U-boats, ensured that Britain and Allied forces in Europe remained well-supplied during World War II. Liberty Ships served in all theaters with distinction. Throughout the war, Liberty Ships were manned members of the US Merchant Marine, with gun crews provided by the US Naval Armed Guard. Among the notable achievements of the Liberty Ships was SS Stephen Hopkins sinking the German raider Stier on September 27, 1942.

Legacy:
Initially designed to last five years, many Liberty Ships continued to ply the seaways into the 1970s. In addition, many of the shipbuilding techniques employed in the Liberty program became standard practice across the industry and are still used today. While not glamorous, the Liberty Ship proved vital to the Allied war effort. The ability to build merchant shipping at a rate faster than it was lost, while maintaining a steady stream of supplies to the front was one of the keys to winning the war.



The first liberty ship protype was built in 244 days. Eventually the proces was reuced to an incredible 42 days. One ship as a publicity exercise was actually built in 4 days and 15 hours.

This series of photos is from day 2 to day 24 when she is complete and ready for commissioning:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Liberty_ship_construction_03_keel_plates.jpg/145px-Liberty_ship_construction_03_keel_plates.jpg


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/Liberty_ship_construction_09_lower_decks.jpg/144px-Liberty_ship_construction_09_lower_decks.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/Liberty_ship_construction_10_upper_decks.jpg/146px-Liberty_ship_construction_10_upper_decks.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Liberty_ship_construction_11_prepared_for_launch.j pg/145px-Liberty_ship_construction_11_prepared_for_launch.j pg

leikec
06-08-2012, 10:19 AM
Japan wasn't the only country with blinders on--in the U.S. the leaders of the time were reluctant to gear up for war. Defense appropriations and legislation increasing the size of the standing army barely passed through Congress in the late 1930's.

David Brinkley's book "Washington Goes to War" gives an excellent account of this time period in Washington.

Jeff C

wardd
06-08-2012, 10:22 AM
Japan wasn't the only country with blinders on--in the U.S. the leaders of the time were reluctant to gear up for war. Defense appropriations and legislation increasing the size of the standing army barely passed through Congress in the late 1930's.

David Brinkley's book "Washington Goes to War" gives an excellent account of this time period in Washington.

Jeff C

which along with england may have been a blessing as when we rearmed it was with the latest generation of technology

Paul Pless
06-08-2012, 11:16 AM
which along with england may have been a blessing as when we rearmed it was with the latest generation of technology

There's another chapter to this story somewhat analogous that pertains to Japan. After the almost complete destruction of Japan's industry, education system, and infrastructure; we rebuilt Japan with the very best available technology and processes available at the end of WWII. This had some to do with Japan's emergence as a manufacturing power just two and an half decades after WWII.

Concordia 33
06-08-2012, 11:44 AM
Japan wasn't the only country with blinders on--in the U.S. the leaders of the time were reluctant to gear up for war. Defense appropriations and legislation increasing the size of the standing army barely passed through Congress in the late 1930's.

David Brinkley's book "Washington Goes to War" gives an excellent account of this time period in Washington.

Jeff C

Hindsight is always 20/20 as they say....

If you know you will be at war at a certain date, you have the ability to be a peak levels by the specified date, and if you know you will be at peace for a protracted period, you can cut military spending to the bone. Where to set the line has always been the issue. Sometimes we are over prepared for a war that never comes, and more than once we have been unprepared for wars that we weren't sure would occur.

Paul Pless
06-08-2012, 11:49 AM
Hindsight is always 20/20 as they say....

If you know you will be at war at a certain date, you have the ability to be a peak levels by the specified date, and if you know you will be at peace for a protracted period, you can cut military spending to the bone. Where to set the line has always been the issue. Sometimes we are over prepared for a war that never comes, and more than once we have been unprepared for wars that we weren't sure would occur.

There's also the issue of being prepared for the type of war that might come your way. . .

leikec
06-08-2012, 11:53 AM
Hindsight is always 20/20 as they say....

If you know you will be at war at a certain date, you have the ability to be a peak levels by the specified date, and if you know you will be at peace for a protracted period, you can cut military spending to the bone. Where to set the line has always been the issue. Sometimes we are over prepared for a war that never comes, and more than once we have been unprepared for wars that we weren't sure would occur.


That's why Brinkley's book is so good--it does a great job of showing the mindset of Washington politicians in the late 30's, and the beginning of the change in our capital from a sleepy Southern town into the place it is today.

Jeff C

seanz
06-08-2012, 03:09 PM
first they have to get beyond spears and here i am shoot me uniforms

But you said nukes were cheaper than a standing army...........and, just to make this clear, you were wrong.

Nuclear weapons have been demonstrated to be anything but cost-effective.

Dan McCosh
06-08-2012, 03:13 PM
Just for a little perspective and relevance regarding aircraft production and the Arsenal of Democracy. In 1944, The General Motors owned and operated North American Aviation plant in Inglewood, was rolling out one P51D ready for flight every 21 minutes during regular production hours! That's about 20 times longer than it takes to build a car.

wardd
06-08-2012, 03:20 PM
But you said nukes were cheaper than a standing army...........and, just to make this clear, you were wrong.

Nuclear weapons have been demonstrated to be anything but cost-effective.

don't do much thinking do you

a nuke just sits there it doesn't eat, doesn't have to be trained or paid

nukes were thought in the late 40s early 50s to be a cheap deterrent rather than maintaining large standing armies

i was in a nuke rocket unit in germany in the mid 60's

seanz
06-08-2012, 03:22 PM
That's about 20 times longer than it takes to build a car.

It has wings and 1500hp......I'd wait.

:)

seanz
06-08-2012, 03:29 PM
don't do much thinking do you

a nuke just sits there it doesn't eat, doesn't have to be trained or paid

nukes were thought in the late 40s early 50s to be a cheap deterrent rather than maintaining large standing armies

i was in a nuke rocket unit in germany in the mid 60's

Don't do much thinking, do you?

You were in a unit that had nukes..........they still needed you. You weren't replaced, if anything, the cost was higher. Who said nukes were a cheap deterrent?


Take a look at the total cost of the Manhattan project. Nukes destroyed two cities, not exactly competitive with conventional weapons.

Paul Pless
06-08-2012, 03:32 PM
It has wings and 1500hp......I'd wait.

:)and guns!:d

wardd
06-08-2012, 03:32 PM
Don't do much thinking, do you?

You were in a unit that had nukes..........they still needed you. You weren't replaced, if anything, the cost was higher. Who said nukes were a cheap deterrent?


Take a look at the total cost of the Manhattan project. Nukes destroyed two cities, not exactly competitive with conventional weapons.

now try thinking this through

as a deterrent nukes replace a lot of man power, man power is the largest single military expence

by this time the production facilities were already in place

what would the invasion of japan have cost?

switters
06-08-2012, 03:41 PM
I was fortunate enough to stop on Midway for a few hours once. What an exposed and flat place to defend.

There was show on the nature channel recently about the bird sanctuary there, and it looked much greener than I remember.

seanz
06-08-2012, 03:54 PM
nukes are cheaper than standing armies which was their appeal after ww2


now try thinking this through

You first.


as a deterrent nukes replace a lot of man power, man power is the largest single military expence

by this time the production facilities were already in place

what would the invasion of japan have cost?


A lot of nukes have been decommissioned in the last 20 years........standing armies must have become significantly larger, right?

wardd
06-08-2012, 04:02 PM
You first.




A lot of nukes have been decommissioned in the last 20 years........standing armies must have become significantly larger, right?

go read some history about the beginnings of the cold war

read up on why the toe was established as it was

during the cold war our object was deterrence not invasion, it's aggression that requires large armies

deterrence requires weapons and strategy to dissuade your enemies from aggression and nukes fulfill that purpose

seanz
06-08-2012, 04:16 PM
go read some history about the beginnings of the cold war

No. I have other books that need reading. And. If you don't at least suggest authors (titles are preferred) your 'suggestion' won't be taken seriously.



read up on why the toe was established as it was

TO&E? Or Theory Of Everything?



during the cold war our object was deterrence not invasion, it's aggression that requires large armies

So, even with nuclear weapons, you failed.



deterrence requires weapons and strategy to dissuade your enemies from aggression and nukes fulfill that purpose

No, no they don't. You've still been attacked, or hadn't you noticed? And the response to the attack was an entirely conventional one.

wardd
06-08-2012, 05:52 PM
No. I have other books that need reading. And. If you don't at least suggest authors (titles are preferred) your 'suggestion' won't be taken seriously.






TO&E? Or Theory Of Everything?




So, even with nuclear weapons, you failed.




No, no they don't. You've still been attacked, or hadn't you noticed? And the response to the attack was an entirely conventional one.


the russians never passed through the fulda gap en-mass

you don't know what you're talking about

seanz
06-08-2012, 07:16 PM
nukes are cheaper than standing armies which was their appeal after ww2


the russians never passed through the fulda gap en-mass

you don't know what you're talking about

I'm not sure you know what or when you're talking about.

wardd
06-08-2012, 07:50 PM
I'm not sure you know what or when you're talking about.

i'm talking about policy decisions on defense after ww2, it's rather cut and dried history and all your drivel can't change the past

as for limited warfare that was covered by liddle hart long ago

seanz
06-08-2012, 08:20 PM
nukes are cheaper than standing armies which was their appeal after ww2


i'm talking about policy decisions on defense after ww2, it's rather cut and dried history and all your drivel can't change the past

as for limited warfare that was covered by liddle hart long ago

Drivel, eh?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._H._Liddell_Hart


Back soon...........

wardd
06-08-2012, 08:24 PM
good you read the wiki write up on him, i read his books

along with fuller, guderian and even mein kamph, not to mention that tome by goelitz

seanz
06-09-2012, 02:36 AM
good you read the wiki write up on him, i read his books

along with fuller, guderian and even mein kamph, not to mention that tome by goelitz

Goody. Any correlation between demographics, economics and nuclear proliferation in those books?

wardd
06-09-2012, 10:20 AM
Goody. Any correlation between demographics, economics and nuclear proliferation in those books?

finished

Paul Pless
06-09-2012, 10:30 AM
finishedAt last!

So can we get back to Midway then?

wardd
06-09-2012, 10:40 AM
compare the loss of the jap carriers to the saving of the franklin

seanz
06-09-2012, 05:23 PM
At last!

So can we get back to Midway then?

Probably not.
:D

The USS Franklin wasn't even laid down until December 1942.........

WX
06-10-2012, 12:57 AM
It was mostly a naval air war until then. The P51 wasn't used by the Navy. It wasn't until the capture of Iwo Jimo that the P51's primary mission as a long range bomber escort came to fruition in the Pacific. There was also a bias towards the twin engine P38 for long over water missions.

But, I have to say it certainly would have been interesting if Australia's growing aircraft industry had been able to manufacture even a small fraction of the approximately 20,000 that were built by General Motors, well. . . . . . that really would would have been something to chat about.;):D
We built them for a while after the war but then switched to the Avon Sabre.

The Bigfella
06-10-2012, 02:08 AM
We built them for a while after the war but then switched to the Avon Sabre.

Its amazing how much better the Australian developed Avon Sabre was than the F86 American version eh? I believe a few other countries preferred the Avon Sabre too.

Paul Pless
06-10-2012, 07:18 AM
Its amazing how much better the Australian developed Avon Sabre was than the F86 American version eh? I believe a few other countries preferred the Avon Sabre too.You continued to develop the aircraft after we had retired it and moved on to supersonic jets, notably the F100 and the F4. You only built 112 of them, using wings and cockpits manufactured by North American and jet engines from Rolls. Another kit plane. . .

The U.S. built 9,860 F86 aircraft.

The Bigfella
06-10-2012, 07:24 AM
We've even got one still flying. I remember when the RAAF was flying them, seeing them do a rocket attack on a valley... very impressive.

Paul Pless
06-10-2012, 07:37 AM
We've even got one still flying. I remember when the RAAF was flying them, seeing them do a rocket attack on a valley... very impressive.

There's a really good gathering of combat aircraft each year at Willow Run Airport, the former Ford Factory that produced over 18,000 B-24 Liberators during WWII. Its about 30 miles from Hell. We've been a few times. Last year the aerial exhibitions began with a Wright Military Flyer and ended with the Blue Angels. It included flights of B1's, B2's, and B52's. Mock combat between Mustangs and FW190's and Zero's and P40s. the highlight of the mock combats to me was the F86 versus Mig.

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e178/fishbed2/mig15-f86Small.jpg

The Bigfella
06-10-2012, 07:44 AM
That would have been interesting. The Avon Sabre had 45% more power btw.

In '88 I watched a demo between the F18 and the Mirage III that it replaced. A major difference in turning capability.

WX
06-10-2012, 08:16 AM
I've sat in the cockpit of a Mig 17 and I've seen it do a mock cannon attack...instant shellshock.

WX
06-10-2012, 08:21 AM
You continued to develop the aircraft after we had retired it and moved on to supersonic jets, notably the F100 and the F4. You only built 112 of them, using wings and cockpits manufactured by North American and jet engines from Rolls. Another kit plane. . .

The U.S. built 9,860 F86 aircraft.
Paul we are still buying your stuff and assembling it here. personally I'd rather see a few Sukhois in our stables.

The Bigfella
06-10-2012, 08:26 AM
I was watching a few Sukhois go through their paces recently

Paul Pless
06-10-2012, 08:30 AM
Paul we are still buying your stuff and assembling it here. Just think how different things would be for y'all if Churchill had allowed you to build Spitfires starting in 1940. . .

WX
06-10-2012, 04:43 PM
Just think how different things would be for y'all if Churchill had allowed you to build Spitfires starting in 1940. . .
Now I know that's tongue in cheek but let's look at it. To the best of my knowledge we didn't have a Bauxite mining industry back then so all Alumnium would have had to have been imported. Most likely from the US. We would have had to import the engines and the US wasn't building Packard Merlins at that stage so they would of had to have come from the UK. Which was still a perilous journey in 42. The first Spitfires to arrive was in 43 for the defence of Darwin.
http://www.darwinspitfires.com/
The best fighter for us would have been the Mustang P51 because of it's range but as I have already stated these didn't see service in the Pacific till 44 and by that time we had a couple of squadrons of MK VIII Spitfires.

The Bigfella
06-10-2012, 08:41 PM
Just think how different things would be for y'all if Churchill had allowed you to build Spitfires starting in 1940. . .

The UK's attempts (as reported by your President Johnson) to stop us developing an advanced manufacturing base failed.



The most remarkable feature of the wartime history of the Australian aircraft industry was its impressive growth. From a handful of people in 1937 and without a developed base of sub-contractors, it grew to 5,000 in June 1940 and to a peak of some 44,000 people in 1944 operating in four main factories and several annexes. Sub-contractors accounted for another 10,000 people. This industry delivered some 3,500 aircraft of all types to the R.A.A.F. and, at the end of the war, was capable of designing and manufacturing aircraft equal to the best in the world.[26]
Even the licence-built aircraft were improvements on their originals: for instance the Beaufighter was more heavily armed than its British forebear and the Avon Sabre faster and more heavily armed than the original F-86.

After the war, the Beaufort Division, renamed the Government Aircraft Factories, undertook, in 1948, at the behest of the Commonwealth Advisory Aeronautical Research Council, the design and development of a pilotless target aircraft to be used in guided weapons trials at Woomera. This aircraft, called the Jindivik, first flew in 1952 and became the longest lived product of the Australian aircraft industry.[27]
It is still in production in 1986 and over 500 Jindiviks of various versions have been produced; it has been exported to Britain, United States and Sweden. In 1953, a part of the design team at Government Aircraft Factories turned to guided weapons and began the development of a heavy anti-tank weapon, the Malkara. This device became the standard anti-tank weapon of the Royal Armoured Corps in Britain and over 1,000 Malkaras were exported to the United Kingdom.


http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/MEGGS_CAC.html

Interesting link that one.

We were producing aircraft engines here, btw. Couple of interesting snippets there... the F-86 fuselage had to be 60% redesigned to take the engine it deserved. The CA-15 (our version of the Mustang) wasn't powered by a Packard... rather it used the RR Griffon.

Oh yes.... and drones. We designed, built and sold the Jindivik to the Americans. Incidentally. Wiki says the US drone program began in 1959.... the Aussie Jindivik first flew in 1952.

The Bigfella
06-10-2012, 08:56 PM
Interesting link on the costs of local aircraft engine manufacture during WW2. We were doing it for under 40% of the cost of imported aluminium castings. Funny, didn't someone say we didn't do aluminium?


http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/images/MERLINLEs_600.JPG

Clan Gordon
06-10-2012, 09:18 PM
Funny, didn't someone say we didn't do aluminium?


Yes - that is correct.

Although Australia is the world's largest producer of alumina and bauxite, the first Australian aluminium smelter started production only in 1955.

So CAC wartime aluminium casting scope would not have included the supply of raw material and smelting of ingots.

CAC work was simply casting - and would have begun with imported ingots (probably from Canada).

On the other hand, costs of imported castings WOULD have included the cost of raw material plus smelting (expensive as you know) and transport.

The Bigfella
06-10-2012, 09:50 PM
I doubt the costing would have excluded the raw material component.

Paul Pless
06-11-2012, 12:58 AM
and, at the end of the war, was capable of designing and manufacturing aircraft equal to the best in the world.[26] er

Name an Australian designed and manufactured aircraft comparable to any frontline fighter or bomber that was being built by the United States, Britain, or Russia at the end of the war. As I have shown when you proudly point to the improved CAC Mustang, we had already stopped production and moved on to jet fighters; and similarly when you point to the improved CAC F-86, we had already moved on towards the F4. . .

The Bigfella
06-11-2012, 01:07 AM
er

Name an Australian designed and manufactured aircraft comparable to any frontline fighter or bomber that was being built by the United States, Britain, or Russia at the end of the war. As I have shown when you proudly point to the improved CAC Mustang, we had already stopped production and moved on to jet fighters; and similarly when you point to the improved CAC F-86, we had already moved on towards the F4. . .

I think you are getting confused Paul.

The Avon Sabre first flew in 1953... and the American produced F-86 was still being made in the States many years after that.

The F4 was introduced in 1960.

btw... the CAC version of the Mustang was used in a ground attack role in the Korean War... where it could get into the tight valleys to protect your Marines (and our soldiers too)... if you follow some of the links I posted earlier, you'll find Marines praising our RAAFies for saving Marine butts

Paul Pless
06-11-2012, 01:34 AM
See post #57. I understand the timeline of jet fighter development in the U.S.

The Bigfella
06-11-2012, 01:57 AM
See post #57. I understand the timeline of jet fighter development in the U.S.


You continued to develop the aircraft after we had retired it and moved on to supersonic jets, notably the F100 and the F4. You only built 112 of them, using wings and cockpits manufactured by North American and jet engines from Rolls. Another kit plane. . .

The U.S. built 9,860 F86 aircraft.


But Paul. the very first CAC Sabre went supersonic in 1953

http://hars.org.au/2009/05/cac-ca-27-sabre-a94-901/

Paul Pless
06-11-2012, 05:16 AM
Okay I'm convinced. Obviously Merry Olde England foresaw that if they allowed Australia to build Spitfires that Australia would become the dominate player in advanced fighter aircraft development. And they just couldn't stand for that! It makes perfect sense. . .

seanz
06-11-2012, 05:25 AM
Okay I'm convinced. Obviously Merry Olde England foresaw that if they allowed Australia to build Spitfires that Australia would become the dominate player in advanced fighter aircraft development. And they just couldn't stand for that! It makes perfect sense. . .


Well, that's what the evidence seems to suggest........

purri
06-11-2012, 05:50 AM
I doubt the costing would have excluded the raw material component.
Materiel.

WX
06-11-2012, 06:02 AM
I think you are getting confused Paul.

The Avon Sabre first flew in 1953... and the American produced F-86 was still being made in the States many years after that.

The F4 was introduced in 1960.

btw... the CAC version of the Mustang was used in a ground attack role in the Korean War... where it could get into the tight valleys to protect your Marines (and our soldiers too)... if you follow some of the links I posted earlier, you'll find Marines praising our RAAFies for saving Marine butts

77 Squadron, they were based in Japan and were packing up to come home. They were actually having a party when they were called into action. I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong but I think they were the first non US fighters to see action in Korea.


No. 77 Squadron was committed to action over Korea as part of the United Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations) forces, and flew its first ground attack sorties on 2 July 1950, making it the first non-United States UN unit to see action. No. 77 Squadron deployed to Korea in October to support the UN advance into North Korea but was withdrawn to Pusan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pusan) in November in response to the Communist forces' counter-attack. The Squadron was withdrawn to Japan in April 1951 to re-equip with Gloster Meteor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor) jet fighters and returned to action with these new aircraft in July. Following heavy losses from MiG-15 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG-15) fighters No. 77 Squadron operated in the ground attack role from December 1951 until the end of the war; it remained in South Korea on garrison duties until returning to Australia in November 1954.

seanz
06-11-2012, 06:38 AM
Materiel.

Whirled.

The Bigfella
06-11-2012, 06:41 AM
Materiel.

Not in the context I used it, Sunshine