Reply To: A Couple of Questions About National Characteristics

[Not Connard Sage]

All of that from Bob and Sam reinforces what I wrote in my first post

 

Not Connard Sage wrote:

I suggest any serious history that proclaims ‘national characteristics’ play an important part in warfare isn’t very serious. Different methods of training between nations may be important, so may previous experience – in the earlier part of WWII Luftwaffe pilots benefited from having flown in the Spanish Civil War and from the combined arms doctrine of Blitzkrieg. On the other hand, arguing that they were ‘better’ merely because they were German is very shaky ground. Leadership, at all levels, is more important IMO than any imaginary inate martial prowess ascribed to an accident of birth. All of the above is based on your post, I haven’t read the book.

but it doesn’t seem to address what Storr actually wrote. There is no mention of doctrine, training or equipment in this quote, from which I assume Tempest framed his enquiry.

residual variation in combat effectiveness which cannot be ascribed to any cause other than nationality

 

 

 

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.