
The Evolution of the American Tank - pmcpinto
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a17015005/history-american-tank/
======
fractallyte
Here's an interesting article about tanks being made obsolete by anti-tank
guided missiles: [http://g2mil.com/Anti-armor.htm](http://g2mil.com/Anti-
armor.htm)

It points out that: _" Tanks remain in large numbers because modern anti-armor
tactics employing modern anti-armor weaponry have yet to occur on a large
scale that would show them obsolete. Losses of tanks during minor clashes with
insurgents are rarely reported, but hundreds of examples can be seen on
youtube. Most Generals refuse to accept the tank is dead because recent
engagements have been limited to sporadic attacks."_

------
robert_foss
> Eventually, it would be America’s industrial capacity that would overwhelm
> Nazi Germany..

That's a wee bit revisionistic. If any of one country is to be portrayed as
defeating the Nazis, it should probably be the USSR, and that at an astronomic
cost.

~~~
Someone
Russian lives, but without America’s industrial help, many agree neither
Britain nor the Russians would have been able to keep the war going.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-
Lease#Significance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#Significance):

 _”I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin’s views on whether
the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and
survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I
would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times
when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if
the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war”_

~~~
kahnpro
That's great, bit is still only a secondhand account of Stalin's opinion. I
heard argued a lot that by the time lend-lease really kicked in, Stalingrad
was already over and the balance tipped in the Soviet Union's favour.

~~~
Someone
Second-hand, but by Nikita Khrushchev
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev)),
and that Wikipedia article also has quotes from Zhukov
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgy_Zhukov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgy_Zhukov))
agreeing with it and a quote from Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov
([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Vadimovich_Sokolov](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Vadimovich_Sokolov))
and doesn’t mention this as controversial.

Yes, that whole page may be biased, but Stalingrad was ‘only’ the mental
turning point, but only after Kursk, 7-8 months later, was the German collapse
unavoidable. Even then, lend lease didn’t contribute much percentage-wise, but
it doesn’t take a huge amount to tip a well balanced battle.

Also, the allied landing in Sicily forced Hitler to move forces from Kursk,
and that might not have taken place that early without land lease aid to the
British.

