[sci.military] Qualitiy vs. Quantity

pt@dciem (Paul Tomblin) (06/05/90)

From: sce!cognos!geovision!pt@dciem (Paul Tomblin)

In article <16204@cbnews.ATT.COM> msmiller@gonzoville.East.Sun.COM (Mark Miller - Sun BOS Contractor) writes:
>|>From: cash%convex@uunet.UU.NET (Peter Cash)
>|>[how Germany at the close of WWII were stressing "quality over quantity",
>|>much like current NATO military doctrine]
>
>Not entirely correct. By '45 they started building the He162 "People's Fighter"
>in staggering quantity. This was an amazing little jet fighter with (I think) 2
>pnuematic 30mm cannons. The war ended before these really saw service, but the
>Allies uncovered scores of them in underground assembly plants. This wasn't a
>weapon of retibution, it was an attempt to compete in the production war.

Yes, but the one thing they didn't have at that point was a ready source of
raw materials, especially crude oil and steel.  They could build these
Volksjaegers (sp?) out of plywood, but couldn't fly them due to lack of
petrol.  If you can't fly, it doesn't matter whether you have quality or
quantity, because in effect you have neither.

In the case of the US, they won't have that problem in future wars, because
the war won't last long enough for restocking.  Even if it does, I'm sure
they will just come up here to Canada and take what they need, whether we
agree or not.

[mod.note:  I'm assuming this last part is a joke.  If not, I don't want
to hear about it.  - Bill ]
-- 
Paul Tomblin nrcaer!cognos!geovision!pt or uunet!geovision!pt
Quote of the week: "Don't it always seem to come, that you don't know what
you've got till it's gone"
Disclaimer: My employer probably does not agree with my opinions.  Me neither.