TheReal_ND wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:49 pm
C-Mag wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:47 pm
Smitty-48 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:33 pm
Congress rejects the Soviet model, because America values individuals and their families, whereas the Soviets were perfectly willing to kill 20 million of their own people without blinking an eye.
92,000 T-34 death traps for Stalin, is not the American Way.
Not the point I was making. My point is the Germans continually tried to up their tech to the best available equipment on the battlefield, it hurt them in the end not find a good platform and sticking with it. I would argue they would have done much better if they would have just focused on building the Panzer IV.
We are jumping from platform to platform right now. A decade ago it was the F-22, closely followed by the F-23. I'm just staying cautious. I remember lot's of hype on teh F-23 and I don't think it ever went into production.
The fuck you know? The Germans started the war with glorified tractors. God forbid they try and advance the design.
The Stug III destroyed more armored vehicles than anything in the war, allied or axis, followed by the Panzer IV. They were great platforms, had them early on too. German production, training and tactics would have been well served centering their armored operations around them instead of super tanks or the Me 262 becoming a dominant bomber or the Horten 229 evading all of the Allied radar, or Vengence weapons bringing the Brits to their knees. The Krauts got blinded by high tech answers.
The best weapon system does you no good unless it is part of an overall ability to close with, destroy the enemy and get a rifleman on the ground standing there saying I own everything within the range of my rifle.
