Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by azrael on Thursday November 13 2014, @06:49AM   Printer-friendly
from the for-better-or-worse dept.

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

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Thursday November 13 2014, @01:57PM

    by PizzaRollPlinkett (4512) on Thursday November 13 2014, @01:57PM (#115541)

    And ask the Germans how those big tanks worked in the dense Ardennes during the Battle of the Bulge. And about all that fuel they used.

    The US also had antitank weapons, from self-propelled antitank guns to bazookas. It wasn't just Sherman tanks.

    --
    (E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by fnj on Thursday November 13 2014, @03:12PM

    by fnj (1654) on Thursday November 13 2014, @03:12PM (#115569)

    And don't forget about the air power that finally came out when the weather broke. They chewed through the Germans like butter. Even the Tiger was hardly better than a matchbox with a legend "hit here to destroy" painted on the thin roof. With 7 inches of armor on the front, it still had only 1"-1.6" on the roof.