On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Bret Indrelee <[email protected]> wrote: > One more thing to keep in mind: sometimes there are other constraints on > the vehicle. > > The US Tanks in WWII needed to be shipped, which limited their tonnage and > size. As I understand it, they were shipped via rail and then cargo ship, > the rail further limiting their width and height. > > The US tank problem in WWII was almost entirely political. The general in charge of the organization that approved equipment for production was a field artillery officer, who didn't believe in tanks. So the M26 tank didn't go into production until late in 44. Had McNair supported the M26, there could have been a division (maybe two) of them at Normandy, and more importantly, in the Ardennes.
McNair is also responsible for the tank destroyer nonsense, for much the same reasons. He did good things, too. > The German Panzer Tanks could be driven to the front lines. > Not if they wanted to fight when they got there... > > > One should also keep in mind that the US Army doesn't have planes, which is > one of the reason they have so many helicopters. It is the Air Force and > Navy that gets to use planes. I don't know if other nationalities have > similar artificial constraints on which branch of the military can use what > vehicles. Combined forces doesn't mean combined budgets. > Well, the US division of foces is idiotic and stupid and dumb. And artificial, as you note. It's also dumb. -- David Scheidt [email protected] _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
