re: Would the Allies have won WWII without America getting involved?

quote:

---

Not to mention locomotives, clothing, ammo of all kinds and even Sherman tanks. The Russians downplay all of this. Their supply system, like the Germans, was very short of motorized vehicles.

---

Not to steer this too far afield, but the purpose of these threads is to build evidence we need a Military/History board, right?

Anyway, Darth and Wolfhound probably know this but do some of you other guys know why the U.S. was so far ahead of most countries from a motorization standpoint?

The U.S. Army Reserve. Why? After WWI when we had the formal set up - similar to what we have today - with reservists (and guardsmen, for that matter) - showing up for duty (we call it "Battle Assembly" - the Guard typically calls is "Drill") at irregular intervals posed some problems. Even with the growth of combat vehicles - the embryonic tank, most armies still relied largely on horses as prime movers for personnel and commodities from railhead to assembly areas (and often, beyond).

Well - horses have to be fed, watered and groomed all the time. In theory, trucks and cars only need fuel and maintenance when they're actually used - on a per hour or per mile basis.

Plus we had Detroit, which was all too happy to have a huge new rich fleet customer. Boom. The more you know.