SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Sometimes a “good enough” military technology can achieve victory over better military technologies. Such a fact probably gave very little comfort to the five-man crews of U.S. Sherman tanks who faced an uphill battle against more powerful German tanks during World War II. British tank crews gave Sherman tanks the unflattering nickname “Ronson” — a grim reference to the Ronson cigarette lighter’s ad slogan “lights first every time” and the unfortunate fact that Sherman tanks often burned after taking just one hit. But that did not stop the U.S. from supplying tens of thousands of Sherman tanks to U.S., British, Canadian and other Allied forces, tipping the scales against the smaller numbers of elite German tanks on World War II battlefields.
The armchair historian debate over the Sherman’s war legacy could blaze up once more with the new war film “Fury”, starring actor Brad Pitt as a U.S. tank commander leading a five-man Sherman crew deep within Germany in the closing days of World War II. Some historians and military history enthusiasts still scoff at the capabilities of Sherman tanks when compared with the German Panther and Tiger tanks that carried both more armor and more firepower. But the U.S. strategy of mass-producing a reliable tank in large numbers should not be underestimated, according to the book “Armored Thunderbolt: The U.S. Army Sherman in World War II” by Steven Zaloga, a military historian and senior analyst at the Teal Group Corporation. The tale of the Sherman tank’s road to victory represents a history lesson with implications for the future of warfare.
“In battle, quantity has a quality all its own,” Zaloga writes. “Warfare in the industrial age requires a careful balance between quality and quantity.”
“Overwhelming adversaries through greater numbers is a viable strategy for technology competition, and was used successfully by the United States in World War II,” writes Paul Scharre, a fellow at CNAS, in a preview for the new report titled “Robotics on the Battlefield Part II: The Coming Swarm.” ( http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNAS_TheComingSwarm_Scharre.pdf )
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/lovesick-cyborg/2014/10/16/good-enough-us-tanks-won-wwii/#5465
(Score: 2) by mendax on Thursday November 13 2014, @07:09AM
The Soviet Union used the same tactic in the Cold War. They couldn't meet American technical superiority so they designed military equipment that was less complicated and simpler to make, allowing them to make more of them. Witness the MiG-21, a fast, maneuverable fighter jet but when the Israelis first got their hands on one courtesy of an Iraqi defector in the 1960's, they were surprised at its lack of fit and finish, yet it was very deadly in the right hands as the North Vietnamese proved a few years later to the detriment of U.S. Navy carrier pilots.
The AK-47 might also be considered another example of this tactic. Small number of parts, does not require very high machine tooling in its manufacture, and it'll still works when incredibly filthy. And as we know, the AK-47 is the most popular military weapon in existence.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 1) by monster on Thursday November 13 2014, @04:12PM
Not only in the Cold War. In WWII the T34 [wikipedia.org] started as a better tank than its german counterparts (Panzer II and III) but even after the more powerful Panzer IV and V were introduced, it continued to tip the scales with its low maintenance, decent speed and great numbers. Even when the improved armor of the newer Panzers made attacking them really dangerous, the sheer volume of T34s in the offensives made the superior german tanks unable to stop them. When a better heavy tank appeared (the IS-2 [wikipedia.org] or Iosif Stalin Tank) it was more of a specialized unit than the workhorse of the army.
Anyway, both the T34 and the Sherman had been designed that way on purpose. As the Wikipedia entry puts:
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Thursday November 13 2014, @05:51PM
This theory of war focuses the rhetoric on equipment. There is a another, succinct encapsulation from the English language:
"Cannon Fodder".
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by mendax on Thursday November 13 2014, @06:44PM
I thought about writing about the T34 tank but when I think of military equipment meant to be used on the ground what I marvel at is the fact that Soviet equipment, both weapons and vehicles, were designed to operate in the Russian winter. Unfortunately for the Germans, theirs didn't, and history recorded the result.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.