3 ms·

The Evolution of the American Tank

11 points by pmcpinto 9y ago

fractallyte 9y ago
Here's an interesting article about tanks being made obsolete by anti-tank guided missiles: http://g2mil.com/Anti-armor.htm http://g2mil.com/Anti-armor.htm It points out that: "Tanks remain in large numbers because modern anti-armor tactics employing modern anti-armor weaponry have yet to occur on a large scale that would show them obsolete. Losses of tanks during minor clashes with insurgents are rarely reported, but hundreds of examples can be seen on youtube. Most Generals refuse to accept the tank is dead because recent engagements have been limited to sporadic attacks."
robert_foss 9y ago
> Eventually, it would be America’s industrial capacity that would overwhelm Nazi Germany.. That's a wee bit revisionistic. If any of one country is to be portrayed as defeating the Nazis, it should probably be the USSR, and that at an astronomic cost.
- Someone 9y ago
  Russian lives, but without America’s industrial help, many agree neither Britain nor the Russians would have been able to keep the war going. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#Significance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#Significance: ”I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin’s views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war”
  - bjelkeman-again 9y ago
    Without an in-depth analysis of production capacity of the USSR at that point we probably will never be able to simulate that well (not sure if we have the data). But it clearly was the Soviet Union that took the big hit in people lost.
  - kahnpro 9y ago
    That's great, bit is still only a secondhand account of Stalin's opinion. I heard argued a lot that by the time lend-lease really kicked in, Stalingrad was already over and the balance tipped in the Soviet Union's favour.
    - Someone 9y ago
      Second-hand, but by Nikita Khrushchev (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev), and that Wikipedia article also has quotes from Zhukov (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgy_Zhukov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgy_Zhukov) agreeing with it and a quote from Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Vadimovich_Sokolov https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Vadimovich_Sokolov) and doesn’t mention this as controversial. Yes, that whole page may be biased, but Stalingrad was ‘only’ the mental turning point, but only after Kursk, 7-8 months later, was the German collapse unavoidable. Even then, lend lease didn’t contribute much percentage-wise, but it doesn’t take a huge amount to tip a well balanced battle. Also, the allied landing in Sicily forced Hitler to move forces from Kursk, and that might not have taken place that early without land lease aid to the British.

11 points by pmcpinto 9y ago

Here's an interesting article about tanks being made obsolete by anti-tank guided missiles: http://g2mil.com/Anti-armor.htm http://g2mil.com/Anti-armor.htm It points out that: "Tanks remain in large numbers because modern anti-armor tactics employing modern anti-armor weaponry have yet to occur on a large scale that would show them obsolete. Losses of tanks during minor clashes with insurgents are rarely reported, but hundreds of examples can be seen on youtube. Most Generals refuse to accept the tank is dead because recent engagements have been limited to sporadic attacks."

robert_foss 9y ago

> Eventually, it would be America’s industrial capacity that would overwhelm Nazi Germany.. That's a wee bit revisionistic. If any of one country is to be portrayed as defeating the Nazis, it should probably be the USSR, and that at an astronomic cost.

Someone 9y ago
Russian lives, but without America’s industrial help, many agree neither Britain nor the Russians would have been able to keep the war going. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#Significance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#Significance: ”I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin’s views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war”
- bjelkeman-again 9y ago
  Without an in-depth analysis of production capacity of the USSR at that point we probably will never be able to simulate that well (not sure if we have the data). But it clearly was the Soviet Union that took the big hit in people lost.
- kahnpro 9y ago
  That's great, bit is still only a secondhand account of Stalin's opinion. I heard argued a lot that by the time lend-lease really kicked in, Stalingrad was already over and the balance tipped in the Soviet Union's favour.
  - Someone 9y ago
    Second-hand, but by Nikita Khrushchev (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev), and that Wikipedia article also has quotes from Zhukov (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgy_Zhukov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgy_Zhukov) agreeing with it and a quote from Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Vadimovich_Sokolov https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Vadimovich_Sokolov) and doesn’t mention this as controversial. Yes, that whole page may be biased, but Stalingrad was ‘only’ the mental turning point, but only after Kursk, 7-8 months later, was the German collapse unavoidable. Even then, lend lease didn’t contribute much percentage-wise, but it doesn’t take a huge amount to tip a well balanced battle. Also, the allied landing in Sicily forced Hitler to move forces from Kursk, and that might not have taken place that early without land lease aid to the British.