BigBoss said:
Yes, I agree with you here, the overall technological level does matter. But in this exact paragraph and point we are not talking about overall technological level. We are talking about the individual basis' on which warfare is engaged. If we are removing transportation and flight, then the NCR is equal to Cold War in terms of infantry warfare, not to World War I. World War I was a series of trench-battles because automatic weapons were not produced on a mass-level yet. In fact, the only side that had automatic weapons which could be carried by one man were the Germans, in their "Storm Trooper" (what the Nazi SA organization was subsequently named after).
Which is completely baseless. You can't arbitrarily remove integral elements of warfare and then declare two completely different powers equal once you have removed everything that doesn't stick. It's dishonest.
The NCR isn't on a Cold War technological level for reasons outlined already. Just because the individual grunt has automatic weapons (or rather, semi-automatics) doesn't mean there is any remote similarity. You might as well compare Somalia and the United States and declare them on a similar technological level because you don't factor in transportation, industrial capacity, and dozens of other factors that are the crux of warfare.
The infantry/ground basis of World War I was a war fought with first generation chemical weapons, single-shot rifles, hand-to-hand combat, and heavy machine guns which took two or more men to operate. The NCR is more advanced in all of these things, such as they have rifles with load in clips in which you do not need to reload after each individual round, outdating and technologically over-powering the single-shot rifle. They have much more powerful hand-to-hand technology considering that, in World War I hand-to-hand combat was formed around the basis of rifle and trench knife fights, in which the NCR has the technological capacity to utilize Power Fists for this purpose (as shown in Fallout 2). They also have Light Machine Guns which can be operated by one man, and can be carried fast and easily at will, with much better accuracy than the World War I machine guns. Keep in mind, that I've taken the liberty of leaving out the scavenged T-45d Power Armor units and the heavy weapons the NCR utilizes.
Dude, are you serious? "Single shot rifles"? In World War I? The primary weapon of World War I were bolt action rifles utilizing a full-size rifle cartridge with very high range and plenty of stopping power. These were supplemented by high numbers of heavy machine guns (which, again, utilized a full size rifle cartridge) and, in the latter stages, sub-machine guns for trench warfare. In all periods of the war, artillery played a prominent role in war. The real problem was the development and deployment of advanced military technologies (bolt action rifles, sub-machine guns, artillery, tanks, airplanes) in accordance with strategic doctrines of the 19th century.
The NCR has no advantage. Whatever they can field is easily countered by World War I technology, because the NCR overall has a similar technological level in terms of individual weapons and much lower in terms of mechanization and industrial capacity. And even then, the NCR would have to first survive artillery strikes that turn cities and fields into moonscapes, with no counter of their ownl.
BigBoss said:
Here it is the terms of the industry area of economy on how quickly a nation can produce weapons and vehicles, including recruit and train a standing army, not economy as a whole (though no doubt other areas of economy have factors that play in with industry). When your taking in the Soviet Union for example, this is a communist country, and in communist economy free-market policies and companies which are based off profit and capital are illegal here.
Economy is a different factor to play in a war between a capitalist and communist nation, or in this case, a Fascist nation (which utilizes Third Position economics and politics) and Communism. As one is dependent on a combination of free-market companies and factories and state directed companies/factories to produce their arms, while another is entirely a state controlled nation relying on a central, directed economy to develop its arms. When establishing a base argument about the effect economy plays in a war this large of scale, one has to take in the matter that these two economies operate in very different ways, and therefore the economic benefits and downfall that apply to one nation may not always apply to the other.
That's a lot of words that aren't actually saying anything, BB. The economic doctrine of a state is irrelevant in war, what matters is the industrial capacity and efficiency of production. These are not based in ideological factors, but production technologies, streamlining of the manufacturing process, supply lines, quality and availability of raw resources, the education of the cadre and personnel...
There is no difference between how a capitalist tank and a communist tank is assembled.
Also, the Third Reich had undetestable technological advantage over the allies, including the Soviet Union, United States, and United Kingdom (and especially France), but this mainly happened towards the center of the war).
Woah boy. You shouldn't have said that.
The King Tiger I and the notorious King Tiger II Tanks and Panzers I, II, III, and IV were no doubt better than the Shermans and T-34s, including the A13.
You're joking, right? The T-34 outclassed nearly all German tanks at the beginning of Fall Barbarossa with its 76mm cannon, manoeuvrability, sloped armour, and its raw thickness, from 15mm in the rear to 45mm in the front and as much as 60mm in the turret. The only comparable German tank of the time, the Panzer III, had a 50mm cannon and similar armour on paper (except it wasn't sloped, reducing it effectiveness).
They had better armor, and a larger gun where at the beginning of the war, some allied states were made with thin steel, where a regular Kar-86 round would go right through the armor, of course this was changed later.
Uh-huh. So I guess the Panther copying Soviet technologies used in the T-34 was just a mishap? You're operating on some fictionalized portrayal of the Third Reich as the technological superman of Europe. While they did have
certain advantages, these weren't overwhelming. The Reich started the war several years too soon and entered it with light tanks and medium tanks that had certain advantages, but couldn't quite compete with the best tanks of the period. Furthermore, the army of the Reich wasn't nearly as mechanized as you want it to be: the overwhelming majority of the Wehrmacht and auxiliary formations moved on foot or utilized horses for transporting supplies and ordnance.
I mean, seriously. Panzer I is better than contemporary tanks?
The German tanks also operated on the field of battle astonishingly, and were without a doubt the best tanks at the time. German late-war technology was able to compete with Cold War technology.
Uh, no. They had certain technological advantages and were more powerful in certain aspects, but they were hardly the best tanks of the time. The best tank was the T-34, owing to its reliability, simple design, ease of manufacturing, repair, and upkeep, as well as a good balance of firepower and protection. Sure, the Tiger and the Panther were more advanced on paper, but in practice they were over-engineered, expensive to maintain, and vulnerable to the elements.
Oh, and they were too few. The T-34s were mass produced and were deployed in hunting packs.
Nec Hercules contra plures. If the German tanks were clearly technologically superior on the order of several magnitudes, that would compensate for the numerical superiority of the Soviet armies. The fact that it did not should tell you something.
BigBoss said:
Many historians related that, if conventional warfare (i.e. non nuclear) broke out between the two powers, much of the fighting would be on the ground, and the individual infantry soldier would be the war winner, as he/she is with many wars. And as I recall, we were not talking about general warfare, we were relating it to post-nuclear warfare capabilities.
Also, the United States fell into decline after the Second World War because they will still recovering from a massive World Wide war. The UK had the same problem. You have to look at it this way. During the war, there was a large need for work. Men who weren't fighting (and women at home, not serving as medics) were needed to work factories for supplies and arms, crops for food, etc. There was a surplus of jobs. This was stimulated by what we call today, a war economy. The war was massive, therefore there were many jobs available, as any war of the era needs a workforce behind it to create the things needed for the war. Now look at this picture, after the war was over, there was no longer a need to employ so many people. People were laid off in mass levels. Many citizens of the UK said that post-war time was worse than war-time.
You're joking, right? The USA ousted the UK as the global hegemon and effectively dismantled the British Empire. The post-war era was a golden age for the United States, as it was the uncontested controller of the western hemisphere. If I have to look at things in a certain way, that means you're asking me to twist facts to fit a particular theory. That's the reverse of the scientific method.
The UK, like much of Europe, was devastated by the Second World War, which is where the economic hardships came from. The United States, by comparison, was unscathed. The Japanese never invaded the U.S. mainland, leaving its industrial and economic base intact, allowing it to pump vast amounts of money into Europe to help the destroyed continent rebuild (look up the Marshall Plan).
This established the U.S. as the de facto hegemon of Western Europe and counterweight to the Soviet Union occupying the Eastern portions of the continent. And then came the arms race that kept the military and industrial sectors of the market afloat in the west.
I strongly suggest familiarizing yourself with the post-World War II golden age. The United States and practically the entire West experienced one of the largest economic booms in the twentieth century, instead of another Great Depression as you claim.
BigBoss said:
What are you talking about? He asked for a source, and I gave him one. If hes going to complain about the source I gave, well thats his right, but I'm not going to go digging around for his (or anyone elses) behalf.
*sigh*
A wiki is not an acceptable citation. It's not a primary or even a secondary source. It's a tertiary source, an amalgam of information that has no value of its own, unless it clearly shows the original source of the information claimed. Without proper citations and references, it's just baseless speculation.
If you wanted to provide a source, you'd cite a character or a holodisc from the game, or even a developer. But linking to a page with no references? That's worthless.
To illustrate my point:
This is a good article. Information is accurately sourced and referenced, with no speculation. You can clearly identify where it comes from and confirm facts for yourself.
This earlier version of the same article is horrible. There's no citations, no references, and overall, it lacks credibility. Anyone can insert their own little fan fiction and make it stick, precisely because no one scrutinized the article in an academic fashion.
Get the point?
See? Tech superiority gets balanced by stupidity and the war is won! 