or the RTS genre will die or be overrun by moba stuff...
This should be our greatest fear. Great games being turned into moba. Just like CoH almost did with the tales of valour stuff. *shrug* Pray to Great Gaben the RTS genre will prevail.
The US has always had at it's core a very competent and well trained officer corps. But until 1945 it's response to any war was "it's over, let's go home and stop spending money on all this." After the Civil war the Army went from having a huge portion of the populace under arms to having a total of 10 active regiments who were not always at full strength or readiness.
Even after 1945 they figured there was so much material and once-trained personnel around that they could put it all back together competently in no time. Task Force Smith showed the fallacy of that plan/dream.
As to having the "wrong" doctrines, that is pretty much true to some degree or another of every army that went to war in '39, including the Germans. Theirs just happened to be better in '39 than that of others, and they had the opportunity to refine it and to "train" in more real conditions (Poland, France). But they still went into Barborossa with infantry divisions that were not fast enough to support panzers, anti-tank tanks, or a logistic arm that could support long term conflicts.
On the other hand, the US strategic doctrine was superior. I can't think of a single significant weapons system whose design was started after the US entered the war.
The US officer corp was a mixed bag like every other officer corp out there. You had good thinkers like Eisenhower and total morons like Patton who couldn't fight a war to save their own ass.
Ultimately the US did modernize fairly quickly and the USAAF as well as the Naval Air component were very well lead and saw a lot of advancements throughout the war, but in many places the army had be dragged kicking and streaming into the modern age, thankfully it finally go there thanks to people like Marshall.
You seem to have an interesting discussion going. But the picture thread maybe isn't the place? I've quoted you into the General WW2 discussion thread, which is probably the best place for it, dont you agree?
Now just hoping the notifications will work and link you to the correct thread.
I'm never into these discussions as they don't really interest me, but with this new info (i read for a while, although not all of the summaries) in ligth, stuff becomes hard to explain.
So the allied tanks were matching all-in-all. Even the French. And Soviet optics were World class. And the German Aces figures are loads inflated.
But still the tank casualties for Allies compared to Germany were staggering. Due to sheer incompetence of allied crews then? How do the tank aces not have a great ratio when the ratio of allied tanks to German tanks were so uneven? Hah! "Maths" *sneer*. Maybe the ratios are not correct and Soviets had actually less tanks. Because Soviet did not have as much people as claimed, just big country geographics. They did have a big geographics didn't they? And very cold snow?
It's all so confusing.
I think your understanding of English is equally poor to your writing.