RE: Starting to build a tank [TANKS]

[Rick v100 <rickv100-at-yahoo.com>]

I would think that multitudes of projects and no clear
direction where the projects were kept going for
politcal rather then project needs and the Germans
overwhelming over complicating everything was there
down fall. 

The Germans and there equipment have achieved near
mythical status in the last 20 years. But lets face
facts, this was WWII and right or wrong they started
WWI and II. Rommel just like Robert E. Lee was blinded
by duty and took the cause of the losing side. 

Granted Rommel was a great commander but he still
supported and furthered the aims of a madman. 

Rick 

--- Steve Tyng <STyng-at-acptrust.com> wrote:
> Jon wrote:
> 
> >   The Tiger, while a very impressive machine, may
> very well 
> > have been a 
> > factor in causing the Germans to lose the war.  By
> diverting 
> > huge amounts of 
> > resources away from other types they reduced the
> numbers of vehicles 
> > available overall.   My optinion is that they
> should've 
> > improved the Pzkw 
> > IVG and build a s$^tload of them instead of
> building three 
> > types of tanks, 
> > one of which was horribly unreliable (Pzkw V) and
> one of 
> > which was never 
> > available in sufficient numbers to actually equip
> all of the 
> > units with.
> 
> You have to give the Germans some credit concerning
> their armor.  They
> obviously put a higher priority on crew safety than
> the US did.
> 
> It's an interesting about face nowadays.  The US is
> so polarized towards
> the invulnerable concept (that produced the Abrams).
>  We no longer have
> a viable, easily deployable airborne tank that our
> Marines and airborne
> forces need.
> 
> Steve
> 


                
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/