Why this peculiar fixation endured is hard to ascertain when armor production in other parts of the world was being geared toward the Main Battle Tank (MBT). What it ultimately reveals is, when conquering foreign battlefields, bigger is always better.Įven with the excellent hindsight provided by its experience in Europe, the post-war US Army was still mesmerized by the concept of fielding light, medium, and heavy tanks. Here is a mechanized line of descent tracing the various tanks deployed by the US military in the last 70 years. Even with the ongoing decline in tank inventories, the historical experiences of Poland, Israel, South Korea, and Pakistan drive home an important lesson: ground control is determined by armor.
It’s a reputation at risk with more countries than ever before producing newer and deadlier MBTs. Today the US can boast having the best tanks in the world. Hence better armored fighting vehicles were always needed. It also helped that, unlike any other armed forces on the planet, the US’ own military had to deploy in force across five continents. This inadequacy, combined with the demands of the Cold War, spurred a development cycle that goes on to this day. The success of the M4 Sherman, with nearly 50,000 built in all variants, wasn’t transferred to US tanks in the immediate post-World War Two era. But it wasn’t until the advent of mechanized warfare in Central Europe that the US Army, still lethargic from isolationism, realized the tank–not the howitzer or the machine gun–is the decider for ground forces on any terrain. Throughout the 20th century the United States found itself in the unenviable position of having to decide far away conflicts.
0 kommentar(er)
