posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 10:15 AM
reply to post by I B Dazzlin
I meant, who was most clever
during ww2 between Nazi, Russian, British & American scientists/designers/engineers with specific reference to tank design? Those who designed & built
tanks eminently suited to their role, relatively cheap to make & run, or those that put all the bells & whistles on, making it more expensive to make
& run, but no less vulnerable to simple infantry tactics to immobilise it?
Lets take rocketry as a more pertinent example. As a hypothesis, lets forget politics & assume that Hitler didn't attack the Russians & that the USA
did then enter the war as an ally of Britain.
Its unlikely that D-Day would've been considered militarily feasable, but if it was, it'd have taken a considerably larger force than was used,
which would've taken a lot longer to amass, besides the British Isles would've needed to be garrisonned against invasion. @some point, the
Vergeltungswaffen, or "Vengeance Weapons", V1 & V2, would've been invented. Except they'd not have been called that, they'd have probably been
named with 1 of those long German compound words that meant "Easy Way To Kick Your Ass Without Risking Our Own Weapons", or perhaps something more
symbolic like "Valkyrie". Whatever, the US garrison would get proper pissed off by being on the receiving end. They'd want a way to get vengeance
Back in the USA, the Manhattan Project was underway. Sure, the key brains that made it possible were Germans who'd fled the Nazis, but they weren't
the only 1s. There were plenty of top-notch Americans involved taking theoretical physics & turning it into a working A-bomb. Does anyone think this
scenario wouldn't have happened?
*"Hi guys," begins Joe Govtman, "take a seat. We've got you aircraft, bomb & propulsion designers together to see if y'all can solve this." He
reveals a blackboard diagram of a V2. "Bigger ya say?" asks 1 of the team, "Why sure! Where's ma goddamned slide rule?"*