• Aljernon@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    equipment that is easy to mass produce; which is what beat the Germans.

    Over simplification. That was the Soviet strategy sure. Almost no changes were allowed to Soviet tank design unless in lowered cost or simplified manufacture. But that wasn’t British or American doctrine and they often had much more advanced equipment in key fields like radar and aircraft than their adversaries. I like your first point better though: the allies won thru superior manufacturing capacity. The Americans were a juggernaut and the Soviets managed to move most of their factories east beyond the reach of German aircraft while Germany itself got pummeled by bombing campaigns.

    • thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Sure, the allies had more advanced equipment in some areas (e.g. air power). On the other hand, what made the Sherman a good tank was never that it was individually better than a Tiger, but rather that there were more of them, and that they were easier to repair in the field. Basically, Sherman’s were production-line tanks, while Tigers were not. Looking at the production time of anything from submarines to Leaopards in NATO today is what makes me think that’s a bit ironic: It takes a loooong time to build stuff today.