i think they bet it all on overwhelming air superiority and terrorbombing campaigns against much weaker enemies, and they still lost every fucking war.
this emphasis on quality is just empty nazi rhetoric.
i mean, the longer ww2 went on, the more the nazis wanked about superior technology and shit, while the war kept getting worse and worse for them. they had their best successes with their well tested, relatively simple, easy to repair/manufacture early war tanks.
and then what equipment actually won the war? well tested, mass produced, easy to repair shermans and t34s. these were tanks where the designers actually cared how big bridges are, and how heavy a tank can be if it still wants to be able to cross bridges. or how fast you can swap a busted transmission in a muddy field. or or or.
and now NATO is continuing the great tradition of nazi wunderwaffe worship.
Much like many of the Nazi wunderwaffles, the ones from the USA also have mostly never faced the test of large scale deployment on a real battlefield in a peer conflict either so they say whatever they want about the superiority of their equipment and doctrine and who knows, it could be true, right? Ukraine is really revealing it all to be just so much bullshit though.
I’m trying to think of western weapons that did actually face a real trial and a lot of the examples I can think of the performance was just kind of “fine”. The F-86 was bested in some important characteristics by the MiG-15/17, the F-4’s shortcomings in flight characteristics and complete reliance on unreliable missile technology was a problem, the M-16 rifle’s early history is pretty notorious, various helicopters that seem to be real good at crashing. A lot of these problems were addressed eventually resulting in a weapon system that was adequate (but hardly war-winning), but fixing a problem requires acknowledging the problem first and, at least publicly, the USA doesn’t seem to be doing that. Perhaps the weapons manufacturers behind the scenes are putting the new experiences to use, and perhaps they can produce weapons that are merely overpriced instead of overpriced and inadequate.
I mean, after WW2 a lot of those Nazis got cushy jobs in NATO and other US-controlled organizations. AFAIK they appointed one as General Secretary right after the war. Not to mention - operation Gladio and operation Paperclip is a thing.
i think they bet it all on overwhelming air superiority and terrorbombing campaigns against much weaker enemies, and they still lost every fucking war.
this emphasis on quality is just empty nazi rhetoric.
You’re probably right. “Over-engineered” definitely isn’t the same as “quality”.
i mean, the longer ww2 went on, the more the nazis wanked about superior technology and shit, while the war kept getting worse and worse for them. they had their best successes with their well tested, relatively simple, easy to repair/manufacture early war tanks.
and then what equipment actually won the war? well tested, mass produced, easy to repair shermans and t34s. these were tanks where the designers actually cared how big bridges are, and how heavy a tank can be if it still wants to be able to cross bridges. or how fast you can swap a busted transmission in a muddy field. or or or.
and now NATO is continuing the great tradition of nazi wunderwaffe worship.
Much like many of the Nazi wunderwaffles, the ones from the USA also have mostly never faced the test of large scale deployment on a real battlefield in a peer conflict either so they say whatever they want about the superiority of their equipment and doctrine and who knows, it could be true, right? Ukraine is really revealing it all to be just so much bullshit though.
I’m trying to think of western weapons that did actually face a real trial and a lot of the examples I can think of the performance was just kind of “fine”. The F-86 was bested in some important characteristics by the MiG-15/17, the F-4’s shortcomings in flight characteristics and complete reliance on unreliable missile technology was a problem, the M-16 rifle’s early history is pretty notorious, various helicopters that seem to be real good at crashing. A lot of these problems were addressed eventually resulting in a weapon system that was adequate (but hardly war-winning), but fixing a problem requires acknowledging the problem first and, at least publicly, the USA doesn’t seem to be doing that. Perhaps the weapons manufacturers behind the scenes are putting the new experiences to use, and perhaps they can produce weapons that are merely overpriced instead of overpriced and inadequate.
I mean, after WW2 a lot of those Nazis got cushy jobs in NATO and other US-controlled organizations. AFAIK they appointed one as General Secretary right after the war. Not to mention - operation Gladio and operation Paperclip is a thing.