undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjjk1663mo ago0 comments

Maintenance is an issue for more than just profitability. More maintenance means fewer sorties in a given time period, heavier reliance on and utilization of supply chains, and fewer platforms that can be serviced by a given set of mechanics and facilities.

Just look at WW2: Germany had some fantastic equipment, but they couldn't field it because they didn't have the fuel, spare parts and the maintenance capabilities available. A tiger could kill 10 Shermans, but the Americans could always bring up an 11th Sherman.

For decades we have been able to afford complacency - we strike when we're ready against people who mostly can't strike back. We can afford to be wasteful because we have so much more than anyone we would go up against. No one is seriously threatening our ability to keep our military going. But militaries need to be prepared for peer conflicts where someone could give us a run for our money.

0 comments

6 comments · 2 top-level

KaiserPro3mo ago· 2 in thread

> A tiger could kill 10 Shermans, but the Americans could always bring up an 11th Sherman.

Supply is one part, being able to repair is another. The tiger was a massive pain in the dick to fix. It had a weak gearbox that took _hours_ to get to.

Plus most of the parts were bespoke, which means lots more tooling needed to service everything. The other thing is that germany wasn't actually that mechanised compared to the french, or english

jjk166OP3mo ago

> The tiger was a massive pain in the dick to fix. It had a weak gearbox that took _hours_ to get to.

Which is exactly the topic under discussion.

conorcleary3mo ago

Stopping war gets cheaper every day.

greedo3mo ago· 2 in thread

The comparison in tech is apt, but the countervailing argument is that the discrepancy in economies doomed the Nazis in WW2. German was a little powerhouse considering the size of its population, but it only had half the GDP of the US, not to mention the other Allies. Combine this with a smaller population, and it really didn't matter what the Germans did in terms of equipment. They were destined to lose unless they struck gold with a wunderwaffe like the atomic bomb.

In today's world, the US outspends the next 10 countries combined. In normal times, it values the lives of its servicemen, and is willing to spend quite a bit to ensure dominance. So it will often have boutique gear that other countries could never afford.

jjk166OP3mo ago

That's not a countervailing argument, that is the argument. The side able to apply more industrial power defeated the side with more capable but less useful equipment.

The US outspends the next 10 countries combined in peace times. By comparison, Germany outspent the US on its military by a factor of 20 on the eve of WW2. Obviously once the war got going, the US' immense industrial capacity (along with the other Allies; the British Empire and the Soviet Union had the number 2 and 3 GDPs) was unstoppable.

We no longer live in the age where the US represents half of the world GDP and the bulk of that is manufacturing. China's has a larger economy in terms of Purchasing Power Parity, it has extensive manufacturing capacity, and a vast population. If push came to shove, we wouldn't be able to simply outspend them. In that hypothetical conflict we are the germany with a bunch of questionably useful wunderwaffe.

151553mo ago

> we wouldn't be able to simply outspend them

You're right: we would simply starve them (in addition to strategic bombing of all of these manufacturing centers.)

They do not possess the food calorie production to sustain their population, nor do they have the arable land to magically begin to do so.

> we are the germany with a bunch of questionably useful wunderwaffe.

We have outstanding fast attack submarines which can't be stopped by ASBMs: exactly zero freighters carrying food from South America or crude oil would be permitted.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

6 comments · 2 top-level

KaiserPro3mo ago· 2 in thread

> A tiger could kill 10 Shermans, but the Americans could always bring up an 11th Sherman.

Supply is one part, being able to repair is another. The tiger was a massive pain in the dick to fix. It had a weak gearbox that took _hours_ to get to.

Plus most of the parts were bespoke, which means lots more tooling needed to service everything. The other thing is that germany wasn't actually that mechanised compared to the french, or english

jjk166OP3mo ago

> The tiger was a massive pain in the dick to fix. It had a weak gearbox that took _hours_ to get to.

Which is exactly the topic under discussion.

conorcleary3mo ago

Stopping war gets cheaper every day.

greedo3mo ago· 2 in thread

jjk166OP3mo ago

That's not a countervailing argument, that is the argument. The side able to apply more industrial power defeated the side with more capable but less useful equipment.

151553mo ago

> we wouldn't be able to simply outspend them

You're right: we would simply starve them (in addition to strategic bombing of all of these manufacturing centers.)

They do not possess the food calorie production to sustain their population, nor do they have the arable land to magically begin to do so.

> we are the germany with a bunch of questionably useful wunderwaffe.

We have outstanding fast attack submarines which can't be stopped by ASBMs: exactly zero freighters carrying food from South America or crude oil would be permitted.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse