quote[Why did Germany beat France in 1940? It wasn't better tanks, it was better doctrine as much as anything, things quite aside from armor thickness and gun power. The better tank doesn't win, the better army wins, and in 1944/45 that was the one with control of the air and numerical and logistical superiority.]quote
The answer posed for why Germany beat France (and the Brits, Belgians, Dutch, Danes, and Norwegians, too...) in 1940 was indeed a pretty clear demonstration of "better". Those victories collectively demonstrated that the German Army was simply decidedly more effective at being an army - it had better training, skill-sets, leadership, and tactical doctrine than did its opponents, allowing victory despite German numbers being less, and most German equipment mostly no better (and in terms of armor, much was poorer) than those of their major opponents.
Having greater numbers on the field, command of the air, and better supply availability does not make an Army better. It may, as for the Allies in 1945, enable the larger force to be victorious. I doubt most folks would say that the Red Army had somehow become "better" than the German 6th Army just because that experienced and formerly hugely-victorious force became surrounded, vastly out-numbered, and cut off from ammo, food, and fuel at Stalingrad in 1942. I doubt that anyone claims that the Somali militia forces in Mogdishu were a "better army" than those few US Navy Seals... But they did win that affair - by sheer numbers and command of the local environment. I doubt that most folks would claim that the Red Chinese "Volunteers" at Chosin, Korea were the "better Army" then were the USMC caught up in the debacle around that reservoir. But those Chinese DID WIN, although perhaps 120,000 or more never got to join the victory parade after that fight. Numbers do count - but numbers do not well-define any version of being "better". Ask those Romans at Cannae, or the 50,000 who marched off into the Teutoburger Wald about 2000 years ago.
As for the OP's original "why" question...
Putting aside his perhaps unfortunate insertion of the opinion about Allied tanks being "obsolete" (a matter I certainly cannot claim any expertise about... and have virtually no interest in the debate around which was "better".
), the answer to "why" any army brings the equipment it does to a war is pretty simple: You always run what "you brung". That's the only stuff you have to bring. The Germans ran the near-useless Pz.I in France, 1940. Certainly a poor match against almost any French or Brit tank. But Pz. I is what they had. Perhaps some will forever continue the debate about "why" any given type of tank was designed and produced and issued - certainly there are lots of interesting stories behind those questions - but the fact remains that every army brings what it has. WHY it has whatever it has is really a separate question.
Bob
