WesWorld

The year in review - Washington DC

Politics:
This has been a difficult year in politics, as the President, elected almost without a party and having to cobble up majorities for any issue he wants to press, has struggled with the Congress to make progress on his agenda. Similarly, Congress has had to struggle to make progress with the split in power (no party having a majority in Congress, and a third-party President). Luckily, the Dust Bowl seems to be beginning to abate with the return of rains to the Great Plains, which has alleviated some economic pressures on the country. The mid-term elections went fairly well for the President, his new party gained a number of seats in both the Senate and the House, but even with the gains there remains no majority party in either the House or the Senate.


Military:
The re-equipping of the US armed forces begun under Roosevelt has continued apace under President Long. New ships, aircraft, tanks and guns are all being procured to replace older weapons, and to build up stocks. New airbases are being built to house the expanding USAAC, and older airbases are getting their runways lengthened to base the new B-17s, B-24s, B-26s, A-20s, P-38s, P-40s, C-47s, and so on. Late in the year, the Army tested a version of the M-4 tank armed with a 4" howitzer in place of the 3" howitzer originally installed and found it satisfactory. This vehicle (which lost the hull-mounted MGs) is expected to replace the current design in production shortly. The M-6 heavy tank design remains a paper and wood concept at the moment, while work continues on the transmission needed for such a large vehicle. Concern has been expressed about the long-term suitability of the 2" gun for anti-tank work, but Tank Destroyer Command has not yet placed any orders for larger weapons. The USN laid down 4 new large battleships and a class of new light cruisers, while continuing to produce destroyers and submarines to replace classes built around the period of the Great War.

Economics:
One area where Congress and the President were able to agree was on Alaska: it was time and past time to integrate it into the country and to make better use of it's resources. Surveying for the route of the Alaskan Railroad began in the fall of 1937, and construction began in the spring of 1938 from Libby, MT and Fairbanks, Alaska. Several of the copper mines around the famed Kennecott lode that had closed announced plans to reopen in the spring of 1939, after the completion of the new smelter in Cordova. The release of the holds put on development by the federal government has also spurred investment and exploration for oil, coal, and other minerals in Alaska, and a number of new projects have been announced.

So in terms of tanks, the M4 is pretty much soley for blowing up infantry due to the lack of HEAT rounds for the 4" gun. The M18 tank destroyer with the 2" gun for shooting at tanks?

I heard a great phrase to describe the US's tank destroyer doctrine; "The tank destroyers went out to destroy enemy tanks. Usually they didn't find any, and when they did, they usually didn't come back."

This doctrine is a good one.
Looks good on paper and all.
Who cares if its work or not?


No really US doctrine is sound.
Its just that the vehicles did not performed as well as it was hoped.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
So in terms of tanks, the M4 is pretty much soley for blowing up infantry due to the lack of HEAT rounds for the 4" gun. The M18 tank destroyer with the 2" gun for shooting at tanks?

I heard a great phrase to describe the US's tank destroyer doctrine; "The tank destroyers went out to destroy enemy tanks. Usually they didn't find any, and when they did, they usually didn't come back."

Something like that. The 4" howitzer's HE shells would be sufficient to knock out light armor, but most mediums would survive hits across their frontal arcs. The smaller, lighter version of the M18 has the 2" gun for now, but Tank Destroyer Command is starting to get concerned that it may not be enough.

I'm sticking with historical US Army doctrine here because there's no reason for the US to have changed it yet. Is it flawed? Sure, we all know it's flawed. But it was historical doctrine, and I'm trying to limit hindsight usage a bit.

It definitely makes sense to stick with the historical doctrine when there is no reason to change it.

Were there any reasons for sticking with the 75mm historically instead of moving to the 105mm?

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
It definitely makes sense to stick with the historical doctrine when there is no reason to change it.

Were there any reasons for sticking with the 75mm historically instead of moving to the 105mm?

The 105mm seems to have come into service at about the same time as the 76mm, so it may have been an attempt to keep up the anti-infantry firepower when other M4 versions were going to a main armament that was distinctly less capable against infantry. (the 76mm vs the 75mm)

The other thing that the decision to go to the 4" howitzer on the M4A1s does is it greatly increases the likelihood that the M6, if it ever actually gets built, will be armed with the 6" howitzer as standard (at least until the US Army starts to modify it's doctrine). After all, if the M4 has the 4" howitzer, there's little reason to build the M6 if it's equipped with the same main gun.

A 6" gun is going to be a bit of squeeze into the M6, even with the really big turret on the M6A2E1. Even so, there isn't much to be said for something the size of a small house trundling around the battlefield, especially when it's got pretty thin armour. Wouldn't it be better to go with a casemate mount instead. Historically the M6 was mounting a more powerful anti-tank gun, rather than anti-personnel. Is there anything better than the 2" gun in the M18 at the moment?

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
A 6" gun is going to be a bit of squeeze into the M6, even with the really big turret on the M6A2E1. Even so, there isn't much to be said for something the size of a small house trundling around the battlefield, especially when it's got pretty thin armour. Wouldn't it be better to go with a casemate mount instead. Historically the M6 was mounting a more powerful anti-tank gun, rather than anti-personnel. Is there anything better than the 2" gun in the M18 at the moment?

There's three guns that would be better than the 6" howitzer (for anti-tank purposes): the 3.5" AA gun, the 4.7" AA gun or the 4.7" field gun. Of course, those have to get past the doctrine issue before they can be used. I can't see the US going to an assault-gun design, here, really, that just wasn't something the US army liked. Simple cure would be to (as historical) skip production of the M6 and move on to improved designs like the T29/T30.

The year in review, continued

The nationalization of the Mexican oil fields was a new crisis for the Administration to manage. The President was no friend of the big oil companies, but he knew very well that failing to respond would be seen as weakness by his political enemies and used as a bludgeon against both him and the new Union Party. The lights burned late into the night after the Mexican announcement, as a response was hammered out.

The eventually agreed-upon response was simple: Mexico had the right to nationalize the oil industry, but the privately owned oilfield equipment was the property of the owners until and unless they agreed to sell. That meant, in practice, that while the government of Mexico owned the oil and could charge what it wished for it, and could prosecute companies for any damage to the fields, the companies owned their equipment and could cap the wells and pack up their equipment for use on other fields.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
The year in review, continued

The nationalization of the Mexican oil fields was a new crisis for the Administration to manage. The President was no friend of the big oil companies, but he knew very well that failing to respond would be seen as weakness by his political enemies and used as a bludgeon against both him and the new Union Party. The lights burned late into the night after the Mexican announcement, as a response was hammered out.

The eventually agreed-upon response was simple: Mexico had the right to nationalize the oil industry, but the privately owned oilfield equipment was the property of the owners until and unless they agreed to sell. That meant, in practice, that while the government of Mexico owned the oil and could charge what it wished for it, and could prosecute companies for any damage to the fields, the companies owned their equipment and could cap the wells and pack up their equipment for use on other fields.

One item that came up for discussion was the Mexican Canal. If the Mexicans were going to nationalize their oil fields, would they also nationalize the Mexican Canal?. The response from the White House was emphatic: they'd better not. The Mexican Canal was a strategic imperative for the US, it would not be allowed to fall into other hands than the team that built it. There was a solemn treaty governing the Canal, it's building and it's running afterwards, abrogating that treaty would have the very gravest of consequences on relations with the United States.