От HorNet Послать личное сообщение Ответить на сообщение
К park~er Информация о пользователе
Дата 08.02.2019 09:11:13 Позвать санитаров Версия для печати
Рубрики WWII; ВВС; Игнорировать ветку Найти в дереве

Да. Т.н. "системный стиль ведения войны"

>Армия очень богатой страны воюет в режиме регулярного производственного процесса

War production in the United States and Soviet Union reached levels that allowed them to flood the battlefields with a constant stream of new forces. The systematic form relies on constant pressure and overwhelming firepower to pulverize enemy forces and force the surrender of the enemy. This form also relies on competence and determination if not ruthlessness in its generals and in its soldiers; genius may be an added benefit, but it may also get in the way. Kitfield reports on how in Vietnam, General Depuy rejected and suppressed innovative tactics by junior officers because they did not conform to the overall doctrine. Technology flows along the same lines: the American Sherman tank, like its Soviet cousins {T-34}, was in many ways inferior to the best German tanks, but the U.S. could make lots of Shermans and they were logistically supportable and easy to use. The Germans had a number of superior tank types, but their industrial strategy of designing and fielding limited numbers of ever better tanks confounded their logistic system, vitiating whatever benefits the newer tank conferred.

Here one can see the differing roles of technology in the heroic and logistic forms of warfare. The German Tiger tank was supposed to overcome the Soviet horde with its pure excellence. However, there were never enough of them to make a difference. Better, as the Soviets said, is the enemy of good enough. The Soviet T-34s and American Shermans were good enough because they could be built in numbers and be supported with parts. That is the heart of systematic warfare.

(с) Robert Rubel, Styles of Warfare