Red army to receive 250 new types of weaponry in 2006

PS: Mikhail Zhukov was a VERY great person!!! He was the greatest! I have a whole book about him! He is kinda like a god. Yes, he did help Russia win!

The answers to most of your questions, Donwhite, is yes. Yes children must die of malnutrition. Yes these people dying are good for US economy. It sounds harsh but the people that control the world have commited themselves to making this happen. While children die we passively conquer entire countries. (For the people that did'nt notice I was being sarcastic... you know who you are). Anyway.

We are responsible for these people dying around the world. We minus well call it murder. I love driving my "GINORMOUS" Ford or H2. I would rather do this than send a couple of bucks over to Africa. Hell I think cheese burgers at McDonnalds are $1. If anyone has $50 bucks to spare send 50 burgers over there. If not make our governments enforce a law that makes everyone be the same, equal human beings. My God! No we cant do this. Anyone who supports this is a communist. Communism is evil.

Communism is only a good Idea that will never work. But why it will never work will answer many questions. Communism will never work because of human nature. We are envious, evil, greedy... etc. by nature. And it is human nature why we dont help anyone out.

And for all you little kids here is my argument explained in a story...

One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.
The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn't see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.

Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

"Hellooo Mr. Frog!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?"

"Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly.

"Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!"

Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. "What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!"

"This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn't be able to get to the other side of the river!"

"Alright then...how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?" said the frog.

"Ahh...," crooned the scorpion, "Because you see, once you've taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!"

So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog's back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog's soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.

Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog's back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.

"You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"

The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog's back.

"I could not help myself. It is my nature."

Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.

Just my 2 cents.

This thread was really an eye opener for me ....the" Thread was regarding the Red Army getting some new weapons " but Now the thread is going in the lines of US vs Russia ....this explains the state of fear the Americans are in ...today they are not accaptable in any part of this world except their own country and perhaps Israiel....Russia dosent have any intensions to Fight with USA... still when it comes Improvements in Russian Military I see almost the whole US unready to accept it..... why?...as any convict they are today afraid of the punishment for the crimes commited by their president ....even knowing very well that today they are the most powerful country in this world .........


As for this thread I really dont fell like answering to the replies against me .....I backed all my replies with quotations by a world famous historian (see my last post ) for topics concerning WW2 ...but I didnot get a single quotation from some creditable historian in reply....people out here are more interested in voicing their hatred against Russia than speaking something logical....and speaking logical is not that easy you need to do a lot of studies for that...unfortunately lacking in most of my friends out here ....

For the people who speak about the crimes of "Red Army" ...i ll say that they know nothing about War history ...there is not a single army in this world that have not commited a similar crime ....i can go on giving thousand such examples by Americans in Iraq , Afganisthan and Vietnam ..but that will only exagerate this "Russia Vs America " battle ...

I will give an example which is unknown to many and excludes Russia and USA .
The example is a medicine oriented Example (i know it very well since I m medical Student )...Heamoplilia was a disease that was regarded to be a royal disease ...It was concentrated among the relatives of British Royal family(and perhaps their "secret " relatives ) ...Today heamophila is most common in countries once captured by the royal British Army ....as far as genetics Runs this is impossible unless someone from the British family have sex with local inhabitants of the colonies ..Now I think people out here are too mature to understand how it happened ....,.so today the Royal British Army along with the Royal family of Britain are accountable for 2 billion patients with haemophilia (and dont forget that Americans are a considerable part of it ) and the population will go on increasing exponencially ....
yet the western media as well as the American media is full of "Glorious stories " of the Royal british army...so is the BBC ...this is what I call propaganda

with this I will end and will like to say just one thing to my most of my fellow Americans who are so mad to prove how bad Russia is /was ..

It was my mistake to expect a logical argument from Americans considering the fact that their King once said " Either you are with us or you are against us"......so you dont have any choice what ever be your logic ...you have to be either "with " or "against" there is no place for people who are "in between" .... So its foolish to expect logic from Americans.

Originally posted by xmotex
As for "if the Germans could have matched your manpower" - the point is meaningless... If Lichtenstein had been able to match German manpower, would they have taken over Europe?

The Germans were tough and motivated when the initial assault was launched. Not so much when they outran their logistics trail and died in droves in the Russian winter.

Nein. The German fighting man was motivated throughout the war, which is why they still inflicted extraordinary losses on Soviet forces even during the attack on Berlin. You seem to have missed the point completel, man for man teh German Army was far superior to teh Soviet Army even the Western Allies.
A study by the US found that in attack or defence the German Army inflicted 150% on the opposing force - US, Brit or Soviet. A simple fact.
It was onl through sheer weight of overwhelming numbers - 10-1 that Germnay was subdued.

posted by rogue1

posted by xmotex
The Germans were tough and motivated when the initial assault was launched. Not so much when they outran their logistics supplies and died in droves in the Russian winter.
[Edited by Don W]

I have to concur with xmotex. The early successes of the German Army in Poland, Norway, Belgium and France were due in equal measures to 1) advanced German tactics using mechanization to its utmost; to well trained and highly motivated German soldiers, and 2) the lack of preparation by the other side. Poland never had a chance. Terrain-wise or military-wise. Norway was betrayed by its own Mr Quisling. Belgium was and is too small to count. And France was a sad case, like Italy, where there was no leadership. Soldiers cannot fight well without good leaders. It is easy to overlook that Italian and French soldiers are the equal to any in the world, when properly led. It is almost always the case that it is the leaders who fail the soldiers, not the other way round.

As to the reversals the Germans suffered in the USSR, from 1942 on, those were due in large part to the personal intervention by Hitler. Micro-managing. Elevated to one-man-rule status for a variety of reasons, Hitler’s own megalomania overshadowed his complete incompetence in military strategy. Plus, another poster just above said Germany had bit off more than it could chew when it attacked Russia (USSR). Too much to digest, he said. A racially motivated strategic miscalculation followed by endless tactical bumbling. The world was helpless to prevent the former. It is chilling to imagine what would have happened without the latter. Ironic. That Hitler was both the cause and the solution.

Fast forward to 2003. German mistakes repeated in Iraq when Rumsfeld, VP Cheney and Wolfowitz ignored or overruled the American General Staff. The JCS. This is an inherent risk in any society that imposes civilians - say amateurs - over the armed forces - say professionals. We don’t do that in medicine, we don’t do it in engineering, but we are happy to do it in the armed forces. It works ok sometimes (War 2) and sometimes not (Vietnam). The people as well as the soldiers in the field suffer. And die.

Beware of politicians who think they are generals. It is the politicians job to define the mission, it is the professional soldiers job to devise the means. How well it works in practice depends on the man at the top. To be a great man, you must first know your own limits. Woe unto a society whose leaders wrongly mix the two. Mission and means. In Iraq, we have suffered 2,511 KIA and counting, to show for that misuse of power. Despite the president’s best intentions, which I would allow to him.

More from Rogue1:

Nein. The German fighting man was motivated throughout the war, which is why they still inflicted extraordinary losses on Soviet forces even during the Battle of Berlin. You seem to have missed the point completely, man for man the German Army was far superior to the Soviet Army even the Western Allies. A study by the US found that in attack or defense the German Army inflicted 150% on the opposing force - US, Brit or Soviet. A simple fact. It was only through sheer weight of overwhelming numbers - 10-1 that Germany was subdued.
[Edited by Don W]

I’m not sure I’d give in to your “10 to 1" claims, R1. Don’t forget, as your defensive perimeter shrinks, likewise the number of men needed to defend is reduced. I’ve heard people who should know say an assaulting force requires 3 times the number of a defending force. But regardless how you slice it, the German soldiers in WW2 were equal to the best, if not the best.

Hey, it is hard to admit (or even to speak it) another country’s soldiers are better than your own. After all, "our own" in each separate case have committed themselves to defend us to their own death. You cannot take that lightly. And, “best” is a rather subjective concept, at best. [Ha]

By the bye, I have also read that the largest single component in the French Foreign Legion at Dien Bien-Phu were ex War 2 Germans. Another example of poor leadership. Giving away the high ground. It is first year ROTC in America not to do that. To hold the high ground is “Job 1” as Ford once advertised. A concept young boys learn at age 7 when playing "king of the mountain."


[edit on 6/25/2006 by donwhite]

A study by the US found that in attack or defence the German Army inflicted 150% on the opposing force - US, Brit or Soviet.

I'd like to see this study. I think that stat might hold - if you count the vast numbers of helpless civilians the NAZI's slaughtered as "opposing forces" - fact is they were not so good in combat as the ongoing "cult of the NAZI supermen" would like to maintain. Otherwise, they wouldn't have lost so badly. On the other hand, they were extremely effective at liquidating civilian populations.

The Idea that the Soviets had more manpower than the Germans is completely baseless according to historians (well a layman can say what ever he likes )
.Here is a quotation from Professor R Overy ..Specialist in the history of WW2

""The idea that the USSR had limitless manpower, despite its heavy losses, is inadequate as an answer. Germany and her allies also possessed a large population, and added to it the peoples of the captured Soviet areas - men and women who were forced to work for the German army or were shipped back to work in the Reich. Soviet armies were always desperately short of men.

Source:
www.bbc.co.uk...

posted by xmotex

Rogue 1
A study by the US found that in attack or defense the German Army inflicted 150% on the opposing force - US, Brit or Soviet.

I'd like to see this study. I think that stat might hold - if you count the vast numbers of helpless civilians the NAZI's slaughtered as "opposing forces" - fact is they were not so good in combat as the ongoing "cult of the Nazi supermen" would like to maintain. Otherwise, they wouldn't have lost so badly. On the other hand, they were extremely effective at liquidating civilian populations. [Edited by Don W]

Oops! I think you missed the nuanced “ . . in attack or defense . . “ Mr. Xmotex. Recall the Allied landing at Anzio and that followed not too long after at the battle of Monte Cassino. The German Army gave the Allies fits. Even earlier, recall the battle at the Kasserine Pass, where the Germans soundly beat the Americans. Lastly, recall the Battle of the Bulge, the battle around the Ardennes Forest area. In all examples, the Allies had air supremacy - maybe not in Africa - and our supply lines were able to support our troops whereas the German Army had to depend on captured fuel - in the Ardennes - to keep going.

That the Germans did wrong and a lot of it in War 2, is not disputed even by the Germans. That does not make their army less effective in “attack and defense.”

posted by Prelude

Prelude quotes Professor Overy: "The idea that the USSR had limitless manpower, despite its heavy losses, is inadequate as an answer. Germany and her allies also possessed a large population, and added to it the peoples of the captured Soviet areas - men and women who were forced to work for the German army or were shipped back to work in the Reich. Soviet armies were always desperately short of men. [Edited by Don W]

I think the Soviets having “limitless” manpower relates very much to the high number of casualties sustained by the USSR in the whole of WW2. I repeat, the US lost 450,000 KIA in the whole war in all theaters. The USSR lost that many men at Stalingrad. So, maybe “limitless” is just that, unlimited.



[edit on 6/25/2006 by donwhite]

No matter the numbers of the German army, a coalition of willing people to defend their motherland will always prove effective. They were more than men with guns and rifles, they were an idea (Yes I saw V for Vendetta) and an Idea cannot be killed or destroyed. Mexicans are alwasy fighting each other, be it for money or food or anything else, but if an invading army came into our country we would put our differences aside and fight for our cause. Unfortunatly I cant say the same about our leaders they're a bunch money hungry fatcats.... like in every country might I add.

In 1920, the US and GB invaded Russia at Archangel and Sevastopol. The Japanese invaded at Vladivostok. The Japanese also took (or may have taken in 1905-07) the south half of Sakhalin Island and a half dozen of smaller islands in the Kurile chain adjacent to Hokkaido. All of which the USSR took back in 1945.

The US and GB force numbered about 20,000. The Japanese army was of like size. The object was to support the White Russians in an effort to restore the monarchy, or at least, the nobility, to power. The Western powers - I include Japan - stayed about 18 months, then withdrew, in part because the White Russians were unable to unite and perhaps all the more there did not seem to be any popular support for the undoing of the October Revolution or restoring the Romanov family to power. A failed mission. Perhaps the brainchild of Churchill? [October 25, 1917, Old Style, November 7, 1917, New Style.]

I don’t know how many battles were fought. I know the then new Red Army was in opposition to the invaders, as well as the sporadic and ineffectual forays by the White Russians, but frankly, in 1920, 1921, the most important thing in the new country of the USSR was avoiding starvation.

Could you up-date me, Prelude, on my recollections of the history of the American intervention in old Russia?


[edit on 6/25/2006 by donwhite]

Are you suggesting Dax 13, that Karl Marx had it right?

As opposed to Adam Smith?

Originally posted by donwhite
Could you up-date me, Prelude, on my recollections of the history of the American intervention in old Russia?

Sorry friend I dont have enough info about the issue

Originally posted by xmotex
I'd like to see this study. I think that stat might hold - if you count the vast numbers of helpless civilians the NAZI's slaughtered as "opposing forces" - fact is they were not so good in combat as the ongoing "cult of the NAZI supermen" would like to maintain. Otherwise, they wouldn't have lost so badly. On the other hand, they were extremely effective at liquidating civilian populations.

It's in a book. As for casualties inflicted on opposing armies you only hvae to look at the statistics. Hell teh Red Army lost 5 million soldiers in the first year of the war, not to mention they had 18 million wounded during the conflict - of course many were returned to duty. The Germans lost 3 million men on the Eastern Front during the entire war. You do the math.
Well if you wnat to take into account teh civlian population it would be more along the lines of 400%. You should really do some reading, aka books.

If you actually want to learn something about teh Eastern Front read 2 books " The Road to Stalingrad " and " The Road to Berlin ", although they may be too long for attention span.

Originally posted by prelude
The Idea that the Soviets had more manpower than the Germans is completely baseless according to historians (well a layman can say what ever he likes )
.Here is a quotation from Professor R Overy ..Specialist in the history of WW2

""The idea that the USSR had limitless manpower, despite its heavy losses, is inadequate as an answer. Germany and her allies also possessed a large population, and added to it the peoples of the captured Soviet areas - men and women who were forced to work for the German army or were shipped back to work in the Reich. Soviet armies were always desperately short of men.

Source:
www.bbc.co.uk...

Complete BS, how many armies can lose 5 million men in teh first year yet still build up an even larger army. The SOviets had at least twice as mny people as the Germans

As well teh Soviets had massive losses even when they were "winning", to say they didn't have enough manpower is completely bogus. This guy whoeer he is, must be the only historian claiming this.

Originally posted by Russian soldier
The winter did not win the Germans, the Russians did. Just a reminder.

Greece defeated Germany in Russia. In fact, Mussolini defeated Germany in Russia.

Operation Barbarossa was put back so Germany could invade Yugoslavia and Greece.

Germany needed to invade Yugoslavia because it was the direct route to Greece.

Germany needed to invade Greece because its ally, Italy, had already done so and was losing.

Had Germany not invaded Greece it would have invaded the USSR months earlier and walked into Moscow and Leningrad long before winter set in. Had Germany taken Moscow before that first winter things would have been very different. Had Germany taken (or bypassed) Leningrad before that first winter the Wehrmacht would have been warm indoors through the winter.

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by prelude
The Idea that the Soviets had more manpower than the Germans is completely baseless according to historians (well a layman can say what ever he likes )
.Here is a quotation from Professor R Overy ..Specialist in the history of WW2

""The idea that the USSR had limitless manpower, despite its heavy losses, is inadequate as an answer. Germany and her allies also possessed a large population, and added to it the peoples of the captured Soviet areas - men and women who were forced to work for the German army or were shipped back to work in the Reich. Soviet armies were always desperately short of men.

Source:
www.bbc.co.uk...

Complete BS, how many armies can lose 5 million men in teh first year yet still build up an even larger army. The SOviets had at least twice as mny people as the Germans

As well teh Soviets had massive losses even when they were "winning", to say they didn't have enough manpower is completely bogus. This guy whoeer he is, must be the only historian claiming this.

So The "guy" who is appointed by the BBC (a news media that is generally Anti Russian) and is a Professor of History in the Univ Of Oxford speaks BS ...and you who cant even produce a single verification of your claims to speak justified??...I Have nothing to say But ..Ok you win and I loose ...I dont want to argue with you any more .

I have decided not to reply to the Chinese posters like you and Chinawhite(i hope all the chinese are not like you )...you people know nothing but to abuse Russia ....Inspite of the fact that you people owe a lot to Russia..economically ...technically militaryly and culturally .when the Japs were looting you the Red Army came to your help (so did the America) .

Just one request ...if you really have any creditable source to support your claims post it ...else please dont spoil my thread......

Sorry for any sort of offense(though I didnt Intend to do that ) from my side.

PRELUDE :

if you are going to quote Overy -- at least quote him in context -- and read the entire dammed article -- and do NOT ignore the parts that contradict your fantasies

the quote you seem so fixated on was refering to a specific time period - 1941/42

Above all, Soviet tactics in 1941-2 were extremely wasteful of manpower. If the Red Army had continued to fight the same way, it would simply have sustained escalating losses for little gain.

that is why they had manpower shortages in 41 / 42

say W00T for context

a few more points you conveniently ignore --

An exceptional burden was borne by Soviet women. By 1945 over half the workforce was female, and on the land, more than four-fifths. Women fought in their thousands in the Soviet armed forces as pilots, sharpshooters, even tank commanders. Many women joined the partisan movement operating behind the German lines - and by 1943 there were an estimated 300,000 of them.

hitler and the nazis abhored the concept of women in the military and industry and refused to mobilise such a valuable asset untill it was too late

lastly : overy writes -

Without Lend-Lease aid, however, from the United States and Britain, both of whom supplied a high proportion of food and raw materials for the Soviet war effort, the high output of weapons would still not have been possible

so i guess that contradicts your earlier claim

Originally posted by donwhite


(2) Germany and Japan had a mutual defense treaty. When the US declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941, Germany declared war on the US on December 11. 1941. That act of war by Germany solved Roosevelt’s problem what to do about England and how to get the US into the European war. Germany had already invaded the USSR in June, of 1941. The war was on.

The Germany-Japan defense treaty only made Germany come to Japans aide if it attacked first. If Japan strucked first as was the case with Pearl Habor Germany was under no obligation to declare war on the US under any treaty. So that mutual defense treaty did not work that way and wouldnt have sloved the problem of getting into the European war which was what Roosevelt wanted much more then any war in Asia.

Hilter declaring war on the US when he didnt have to remains one of the worst moves in the history of modern warfare right behind Hitler invading Mother Russia.


[edit on 26-6-2006 by ShadowXIX]

1

Above all, Soviet tactics in 1941-2 were extremely wasteful of manpower. If the Red Army had continued to fight the same way, it would simply have sustained escalating losses for little gain.

Its not possible for me to post each and every line which may appear important to you...I have given the link ..you just need a mouse click to go through it

My point was to prove that it was not manpower that led to the Soviet Victory but It was the soviet war strategy that won the war.....If I had any intensions to ignore lines that you have quoted I wouldnt have provided the link to this forum ....and besides I was Quoting to prove my point and not to educate people out here about the Russo-German war(as i said earlier that its not my responsiblity to educate others)...they were irrelevant...it would have taken more space ....I already took 2 posts to complete my reply (look at page 3)

Moreover when I mention the following lines in page 3 of this thread i need not quote the lines that you have quoted
I posted the following in Page 3

The central question of the German-Soviet war is why, after two years of defeats, and the loss of more than five million men and two-thirds of the industrial capacity of the country, the Red Army was able to blunt, then drive back, the German attack.

There is a thread in this forum called "Can China invade Russia? " there I have posted these lines that you have quoted


2

An exceptional burden was borne by Soviet women. By 1945 over half the workforce was female, and on the land, more than four-fifths. Women fought in their thousands in the Soviet armed forces as pilots, sharpshooters, even tank commanders. Many women joined the partisan movement operating behind the German lines - and by 1943 there were an estimated 300,000 of them.

...Any way I dont see any reason for which I wont quote these lines for "my interests" ...these lines go to my favor and support my "fantasies"
....that was a good strategy by the Soviets to involve the women

Hitler and the nazis abhored the concept of women in the military and industry and refused to mobilise such a valuable asset untill it was too late

Russians were superior to the Germans in strategy that's why they won

Without Lend-Lease aid, however, from the United States and Britain, both of whom supplied a high proportion of food and raw materials for the Soviet war effort, the high output of weapons would still not have been possible

Now I see that you havent even gone through my post ...before posting all these BS...look at my earlier post (page 3 in this thread ) this line has been posted.
page 3 of this thread

Moreover I dont believe in keeping people ignorant as you did your last post (to the one I am answering now) by not quoting the lines just following the lines that you have quoted ......

here is the full paragraph :

The impressive production of weapons was achieved by turning the whole of the remaining Soviet area into what Stalin called 'a single armed camp', focusing all efforts on military production and extorting maximum labor from a workforce whose only guarantee of food was to turn up at the factory and work the arduous 12-hour shifts. Without Lend-Lease aid, however, from the United States and Britain, both of whom supplied a high proportion of food and raw materials for the Soviet war effort, the high output of weapons would still not have been possible.
The chief explanation lies not in resources, which Germany was more generously supplied with than the Soviet Union, during the two central years of the war before American and British economic power was fully exerted. It lies instead in the remarkable reform of the Red Army and the Russian air force, undertaken slowly in 1942

Now shall I speak in your way :
You Didnot quote the lines in block letters deliberately to fulfil your AntiRussian "fantasies"????
(take it easy i am just pulling your legs....I dont want a debate on this )



[edit on 26-6-2006 by prelude]

Originally posted by prelude

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by prelude
The Idea that the Soviets had more manpower than the Germans is completely baseless according to historians (well a layman can say what ever he likes )
.Here is a quotation from Professor R Overy ..Specialist in the history of WW2

""The idea that the USSR had limitless manpower, despite its heavy losses, is inadequate as an answer. Germany and her allies also possessed a large population, and added to it the peoples of the captured Soviet areas - men and women who were forced to work for the German army or were shipped back to work in the Reich. Soviet armies were always desperately short of men.

Source:
www.bbc.co.uk...

Complete BS, how many armies can lose 5 million men in teh first year yet still build up an even larger army. The SOviets had at least twice as mny people as the Germans

As well teh Soviets had massive losses even when they were "winning", to say they didn't have enough manpower is completely bogus. This guy whoeer he is, must be the only historian claiming this.

So The "guy" who is appointed by the BBC (a news media that is generally Anti Russian) and is a Professor of History in the Univ Of Oxford speaks BS ...and you who cant even produce a single verification of your claims to speak justified??...I Have nothing to say But ..Ok you win and I loose ...I dont want to argue with you any more .

Aside from the fact that Rogue1 is an Aussie and not Chinese, as you assert, his point, while harsh, is at least as accurate as yours.

Overy's word is "inadequate". Yours is "completely baseless". You are wrong.

Overy says manpower is not enough of an explanation. It is not the whole explanation, but it is part of the explanation. His argument is that manpower is a populist, traditionally popular and lazy answer to what is a complex problem.

He does not say it is "completely baseless".

Part of the problem is the fact that the Soviets and the Americans concentrated on a single tank design and produced it in massive, never-ending numbers.

The Germans, however, split their attention between competing designs which were often over-engineered and complex. Leading to wasteful development of designs which would not see combat and inadequate concentration on proving designs which would and which, as a consequence, went into combat still suffering from teething troubles. The direct outcome of which was that most Tigers broke down at Kursk before they even fired a shot.

However, this is inadequate as an explanation for why Germany lost the war.