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, @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?