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 TheLink on Friday November 14 2014, @07:11AM
You're not seeing the full picture. Most of the US debt is in US dollars. Is Russia's debt mostly in russian rubles? Seems not: http://www.cbr.ru/eng/statistics/print.aspx?file=credit_statistics/debt_currency-compos_e.htm&pid=svs&sid=ITM_37529 [www.cbr.ru]
Who could possibly create huge amounts of US dollars if they need to? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-23/fed-s-once-secret-data-compiled-by-bloomberg-released-to-public.html [bloomberg.com]
Not the Russians.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar [wikipedia.org]
If one day people preferred to trade stuff in another currency it will be much harder for the USA. But till then, the US can print its way out of economic problems - whenever they create dollars they transfer wealth from other countries that have positive amounts of US dollars.
When China sells their stuff to the USA they get lots of US dollars and having no easy place to put them, they promptly lend large amounts back to the USA. They are trying to buy stuff. But it's not so easy to buy stuff at those magnitudes: http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1879866,00.html [time.com]
The US can make stuff if it has to - some manufacturing has come back onshore (but due to automation, often not many jobs are created). A significant proportion of Toyota cars are made in the USA.
The problem is the US is making super expensive low bang for the buck stuff like the F35. There are plenty of other signs are those in power are not interested in actual military effectiveness and more interested in other things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002#Aftermath [wikipedia.org]
The US should be making stuff that would be more effective in the real world: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/what-america-can-learn-from-russias-cheap-but-deadly-t-1540829820 [jalopnik.com]
The parasitic load has become too high? ;)