Quality or quantity - which is more important for war
-
Britain is falling for the same military trap that vanquished the Nazis
They're going to invade Russia? Fucking hell, there goes my holiday plans.
-
Both are important.
Lt. Colonel Nick Moran has given multiple presentations on the Sherman. The Sherman was "good enough". It fit on standard rail cars, it could be lifted by the average ship's cranes, it was highly reliable with the first stabilized main gun of the war. It was meant as infantry support more than as a tank destroyer, hence the 75mm with its superior HE round.
As the war evolved, the 75 was replaced by the 76 mm and a better AP round.
But besides having a lot of Sherman's, the Allies had a ton of available parts and resources to fix battle damaged tanks. Most of the time, TAT was three days, and then the tank was back on the line.
Lessons from the Sherman?
- Be good enough
- Have a big enough weapon
- Be reliable
- Be transportable on standard roads and bridges
- Be easy to repair
So yes, if you have the best tank in the world, it doesn't matter if you don't have enough of them. And even if you have an advantage in numbers, if they are sub-par, they can't fulfill their mission.
