Article

2010-12-17 China-Japan-Koreas

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2010-12-17 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11126 views ] Top

#1 True, but less, less, less isn't a great default policy decision either.

Posted by Excalibur 2010-12-17 09:11|| 2010-12-17 09:11|| Front Page Top

#2 It's like the CIA counting tubes rather than capability in adjudging a military. Hugo can amass a large number of tanks and planes, but could he actually use them against anyone but his own people. The question is 'projection'. What size fleets can a country put beyond its territorial waters and sustain them.

Posted by P2kontheroad 2010-12-17 09:26|| 2010-12-17 09:26|| Front Page Top

#3 I'm still a big advocate of quantity, as well as quality.

We have about maxed out quality, much like the Germans did in WWII, their boffins even proposing a "tungsten cannon" as the best possible quality artillery weapon, though it would use all the known tungsten in the world right then just to make one gun.

Instead, the US chose to make many of its warships "cheap and cheerful", cranking them out in such volumes that Japan's high quality navy was overwhelmed by sheer numbers of US ships. Though are ships were not bad, it was numbers that won the day.

Posted by Anonymoose 2010-12-17 11:10|| 2010-12-17 11:10|| Front Page Top

#4 If you check and if I recall correctly, even on December 7th, 1941, the US Navy had more tonnage and ships both sliding down the construction ramps and in production than the Japanese. A look at the Japanese carriers showed a lot of 'one of's rather than standardized models. Japanese industry was never geared for the long war while American war capacity had been prepped for since the '20s by the Navy and War Departments in a series of pre-war plans and programs.

Posted by P2kontheroad 2010-12-17 12:39|| 2010-12-17 12:39|| Front Page Top

#5 The T-34-85 Model was the right balance of cheap and deadly and had great mobility.

Quantity can be misleading but it's something to ignore.

Posted by Uleatch Dribble8106 2010-12-17 16:04|| 2010-12-17 16:04|| Front Page Top

#6 not* something to ignore

Posted by Uleatch Dribble8106 2010-12-17 16:04|| 2010-12-17 16:04|| Front Page Top

00:03 Sherry
23:57 trailing wife
23:45 SteveS
23:37 SteveS
23:26 trailing wife
23:22 trailing wife
23:20 trailing wife
23:16 European Conservative
23:14 trailing wife
23:13 rammer
23:10 Frank G
23:03 trailing wife
22:57 gorb
22:56 newc
22:49 P2kontheroad
22:30 gorb
22:27 gorb
22:25 gorb
22:22 gorb
22:20 European Conservative
22:13 European Conservative
22:02 Rambler in Virginia
21:45 Adriane
21:45 Steven