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 frojack on Thursday November 13 2014, @07:40AM
And then there is Agincourt [wikipedia.org] where somewhere around 5000 english defeated somewhere around 25000 french because of one single superior weapon, the long bow, and the tactics to wield it.
The french, by most accounts, lost well over half their force, the english 112.
The US Army thinks the M1A1 Abrams tank is obsolete. They are moving on [about.com].
Every other country except the British would give their right arm for a hundred of M1A1s.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by TheLink on Thursday November 13 2014, @08:53AM
If we're getting tanks I'd prefer my country to get T-90 tanks than M1A1 tanks: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/what-america-can-learn-from-russias-cheap-but-deadly-t-1540829820 [jalopnik.com]
And spend some of the difference in cost on equipping soldiers better so that they can destroy/disable enemy tanks/helis and soldiers more easily.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Thursday November 13 2014, @10:17AM
The main advantage of the longbow at Azincourt was its range. The British had more bowmen than the French had crossbowmen, and they had a big range advantage. There's still a big military advantage in being able to shoot your enemy when they can't shoot you - that's the entire point of drones.
I'm a bit surprised that anyone thinks this is news though. My history classes at school discussed this in the mid '90s: mass production was a key factor in both the first and second world wars.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 1) by monster on Thursday November 13 2014, @04:27PM
The main burden for the french in Agincourt was one of hubris: They even slaughtered their own (mercenary) crossbowmen when they saw them disengaging after heavy losses*, FFS. Then, they charged through bad terrain and got trapped in the mud. It was much more of a collection of bad tactical decisions than about superiority of longbows.
(*) The decision to attack was so rushed that the crossbowmen weren't even given time to get their pavises from the baggage carts, leaving them unprotected to longbow shots.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday November 13 2014, @11:08AM
The weapon had little to do with it. It's true that the longbow was capable of penetrating plate that would resist shots from the more common smaller self bows, but the crossbow would have done the job as well, and the French had plenty of them available (though they did not deploy them effectively.)
The reason the French got slaughtered at Agincourt is that they charged in heavy armor against a prepared opponent at a natural chokepoint where their superior numbers could not be brought to bear, across a recently plowed field, after a rain. Many of them probably suffocated after falling in the muck and being trampled by their fellows, without any English weapon ever touching them.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday November 13 2014, @05:53PM
So you say. My references say differently.
The Long Bow had 4 times the rate of fire, well over three times the range, shot a heavier projectile with greater striking power.
Almost all of the french casualties were outright KIA with arrows sticking out of their breast armor. Actual english KIA was less than 54, with again that many dying of wounds days or weeks later. Most of those lance or sword wounds while defending the couple places the french got close.
The french never did have a good idea of the size of the english forces, and assumed a much larger army.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday November 13 2014, @08:47PM
Sounds about right. It had roughly the same range and power of a crossbow, but a much higher rate of fire.
It also required a highly skilled archer, of which there were a very limited supply.
"well over three times the range"
What? Negative, sir, check your sources on that. Medieval crossbows were effective at ranges equal to and sometimes greater than the longbow.
"Almost all of the french casualties were outright KIA with arrows sticking out of their breast armor."
Citation needed.
IIRC most of the French casualties fell on the line in the melee, facing English men-at arms along a prepared line, with the longbowmen once the enemy reached the line often dropping their bows and charging in from the flanks with their poignards to dispatch French heavies that were already disabled, sunk into the mud or simply exhausted (and packed too tight to maneuver.)
You might find this interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVuVtP_xepU
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday November 13 2014, @09:02PM
IIRC most of the French casualties fell on the line in the melee
You don't recall correctly.
There was no general melee, just some vary limited ones near the flanks.
This is because the bowmen stood behind row upon row of pointed stakes driven into the ground at angles to prevent mounted or even dismounted troops from approaching. Attackers were cut down in a prolonged fusillade of arrows.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday November 14 2014, @02:28AM
From the wikipedia article you cited above:
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?