• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

What are you reading?

Uncle Fester

Robot Pimp
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Brought it up in another thread, but I'm about halfway through War Beneath the Sea, which compares-contrasts the major (USN, RN, Kriegsmarine, IJN) submarine forces during WWII. Comprehensive but a good read nonetheless, and makes some very interesting observations on how the pre-war doctrines, training, and sub designs panned out once the shooting started.

The author is British, so I expected the usual English habit of "we did it better than anyone else; and if anyone did it better than us, it's because they copied/learned from us," but there's pleasingly little to none of that, and he's very clear-eyed about the goods-and-others of each service. The US and Germans had good boats but their prewar tactics and training turned out to be wrong. The Brits had lousy boats but good morale and improvised quickly. The Japanese had over-specialized boats and never adapted their doctrine (ignoring merchant shipping, for example).

One interesting statistic he cited: of all the USN submarine COs when war broke out, only about 40% were still in command by Dec 1942. Apparently SUBPAC was absolutely ruthless about relieving skippers who weren't sufficiently aggressive on patrol. The abysmal failure rate of US torpedoes certainly has to be factored in...boats were emptying full spreads of fish at point-blank range under ideal conditions and not getting any hits; I'd be somewhat reluctant to go in hard, too...but he makes the point that it's almost impossible to train and select for shooting-war aggressiveness during peacetime.
 

Randy Daytona

Cold War Relic
pilot
Super Moderator

Thought this was appropriate.
http://www.warbirdsnews.com/aviatio...7410067e6ccf242&at_ab=per-2&at_pos=0&at_tot=1

151027-F-DW547-005.jpg


USAFM_North-American-XB-70-Valkyrie-Cockpit_-pilot-.png


 

ryan1234

Well-Known Member
Brought it up in another thread, but I'm about halfway through War Beneath the Sea, which compares-contrasts the major (USN, RN, Kriegsmarine, IJN) submarine forces during WWII. Comprehensive but a good read nonetheless, and makes some very interesting observations on how the pre-war doctrines, training, and sub designs panned out once the shooting started.

The author is British, so I expected the usual English habit of "we did it better than anyone else; and if anyone did it better than us, it's because they copied/learned from us," but there's pleasingly little to none of that, and he's very clear-eyed about the goods-and-others of each service. The US and Germans had good boats but their prewar tactics and training turned out to be wrong. The Brits had lousy boats but good morale and improvised quickly. The Japanese had over-specialized boats and never adapted their doctrine (ignoring merchant shipping, for example).

One interesting statistic he cited: of all the USN submarine COs when war broke out, only about 40% were still in command by Dec 1942. Apparently SUBPAC was absolutely ruthless about relieving skippers who weren't sufficiently aggressive on patrol. The abysmal failure rate of US torpedoes certainly has to be factored in...boats were emptying full spreads of fish at point-blank range under ideal conditions and not getting any hits; I'd be somewhat reluctant to go in hard, too...but he makes the point that it's almost impossible to train and select for shooting-war aggressiveness during peacetime.

I picked up that book based on your recommendation - I'm about halfway through as well and it's one of the better books I've read in the past year. The book has very in-depth research and tells a great story. You can't help but wonder the parallels and differences of current tactical and strategic inertia.
 

Pags

N/A
pilot
I think the 60F was originally billed as the "ocean hawk". Maybe the 60R should be called the LAMPSHawk in honor of the 60B.
 

ChuckMK23

FERS and TSP contributor!
pilot
41e8XZv92xL._SX372_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg


I could not be more impressed by this book - it is a treasure trove of interesting technical facts and anecdotes, as well as a comprehensive survey of current Russian manufactured military aircraft. If you are on this forum, and are in the profession of arms in any way, or simply an enthusiast, this book deservers to be on your bookshelf now. This is a working piece of print, meaning it is printed on high quality paper, and bound in a way that it lends itself to serious reading and study by aircraft model.

I suspect this work exceeds even that of official US Navy classified intelligence works.

I have been a fan of Russian aircraft since childhood - ignited by stories of the IL-2 Sturmovick. The design and engineering approach on Russian (nee Soviet) is remarkable to me. This book totally feeds my inner aviation geek.

Delighted to see a volume 2 is in work.

http://amzn.com/0985455454
 
Top