Ha! :D No, I was being respectful of your service, service I did not have.
Originally Posted by palmetto defender
Of course it was. Sort of.
The Pershing tank at the end of WWII was better than the Tiger.
The M26 Pershing Heavy Tank entered service in Feb. of 1945, with the full weight of technological and battlefield experience of the War behind it's design. It was indeed a very good tank, and lived on to serve in Korea. However, it's service in WWII was very limited, and exclusively at the end when Germany was all but defeated.
The Tiger I entered service in 1942, and was an older generation fo Tank design technology. By the time it saw action vs. the Pershing, it was outdated.
A more apt comparison would be the M26 vs. the Tiger Ausf. B, the Tiger II or "King Tiger", which entered service in 1944, and was based on a similar level of experience and tech. as the M26 was. The Tiger II was almost undefeatable on the battlefield, and most losses were due to mehcnical breakdown or running out of gas, not combat damage.
With that said, the Germans were clearly a year+ ahead of the U.S. in design, but the Pershing was a very good tank, no doubt about it. it was just too late.
Agreed. German mismanagement fo the Luftwaffe (Goering) led to all the fancy and utterly useless to the War effort tech. advances, but few truly good planes after the ME109 was outshined. U.S. Air Power wasn't cheaper or simpler than German Air design tho, which was the original argument if you recall.
Our aircraft were the best in the world
I would disagree with both. The Hummel > Priest, and the German Artillery was vastly superior. As was their submarines all the way through the War.
Our artillery was the best. Our subs were the best.
Anything naval beyond Subs, the U.S. was better. But Germany was not a sea power per se, and never even really tried in the Carrier segment.
Our aircraft carriers were the best - plus we had 100 of them.
Debatable. Also debatable as to improtance, with air power (and the U.S. being int he lead in Carrier design and sea-based air power) had clearly put the Battleship in the background in direct naval conflict. Thos ebig guns sure did help in coastal bombardment tho.
Even our battleships graded out better than the Japanese.
Agreed. So was the Mouser tho, and costs were not terribly different if I recall.
The M1 rifle was outstanding.
Agreed. Our abillity to win was based not only on keeping up technologicly in WWII, but out vastly superior economy and production.
No country had anywhere near the different pieces of military equipmment as the U.S.
Our regular Army troops were good- better than Germans?
Agreed, but we hadn't exactly put a lot of effort into it yet. Same goes for our codebreakers and e-intel staff, who was weaker than both the British and Polish-in-Exile guys.
For the record though, our special forces types were very inferior to British commandos and in fact spent a great deal of times learning from the Brits in this area.
Agreed, what we lacked at the end of WWII we quickly cought up and surpassed most others around.
Plus we wound up having lots of this type soldier and now have way more than any country ( Rangers, Special Forces, Seals, Delta Force etc.).