Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Torplexed
Every nation plays to it's strengths. For the Germans it was tactical finesse and excellent small unit leadership. For the Soviets, it was sheer brute manpower. For the British it was commando raids and regimental tradition. For the USA it was overwhelming industrial output. The result was an army that had a larger tooth-to-tail ratio than any other nation. An army where a lot of leg units confiscated their own 'unofficial' motor pool. An army where a jeep built for four usually carried only two..or one. Not to mention a huge amount of pilfering and waste and stuff ending up on the black market. But considering that the United States had the 16th largest army in the world in 1940 (after Portugal's) waste in the expansion department was probably inevitable. In retrospect, I'm sure World War 2 could have been fought a lot more efficently and smartly by all sides...but unlike a simulation there was only one go at it.
|
Spot on. Wasn't having a go at the USA, more saying that the icecream on subs was really a nothing compared with the supplies to a normal combat division when compared with other nations. Interestingly, in some respects the Soviets were superb logisticians and their divs fought very well on even lower supply requirements than the Germans. They also had a mania for camo and concealment, and were probably the best of anyone at achieving large-scale force movements in secret.
Would be interesting to speculate on what a division made up of the best aspects of the various combatants' forces would look like and how it would perform.
11-02-06, 07:26 PM
Threaded Mode