5 minute read

If you take a look back at late spring of 1940, you’ll see something strange. 

The French Army had more tanks than Germany, and a lot of those tanks had bigger guns and thicker armor. Technically, France was significantly stronger than Germany, but just 6 weeks later, it surrendered. Doesn’t seem to make sense, does it?

If you go to late WWII, you’ll see that, at that point, Germany was producing advanced jet fighters and heavy Tiger tanks. As armed as the Allies were, they were no match for what Germany had, and yet, Germany still lost.

But you don’t really need to go decades back. Just look at the Russia-Ukraine conflict? Russia is the 2nd most powerful army in the world. Yet, it couldn’t conquer one country? Something isn’t adding up.

So, what went wrong?

When Better Weapons Didn’t Make a Difference

If you’re shocked at the fact that a stronger gun doesn’t equal victory, then you’re looking at weapons wrong. 

Weapons are tools, nothing more. Is it better to have a stronger tool? Yes. 

Is that all you need to win? Heck, no.

Here are a few examples that prove just that.

France 1940 and How Not to Use Tanks

Back in 1940, France had Char B1 and Somua S35 tanks that were more than impressive. At the same time, Germany had Panzers, whose armor wasn’t as thick, and their guns couldn’t match what the French had. 

On paper, that is.

The French made a huge mistake in using their tanks: they spread them in small numbers so they could support their infantry, who were moving slowly. 

Germany did the opposite, and packed their tanks into fast Panzer divisions, and every tank had a radio so they could be coordinated in an instant. Along with Panzers, Germany also had Stuka dive bombers that worked as flying artillery and blasted every strongpoint that might have slowed them down.

It’s clear why Germany won – they had a single moving fist, while France was stuck with fingers flying all over the place.

Germany Late WWII and Its Overly Complicated Machines

In theory, Germany’s Tiger and Panther tanks were absolutely terrifying. 

Brutally thick arms and strong guns made the Allies’ weapons look almost like toys. But Germany’s tanks broke down all the time because they were insanely complicated.

Tigers had heavy transmissions that would fail so often it was tragic, and the Panther was infamous for its fragile final drive. 

Of course, you could repair them, but that took forever because repairing these tanks meant removing half of them to reach the broken part. Plus, this was late 1944, and fuel was pretty much impossible to find.

The Allies kept it all simple, with the Sherman and T-34 that had thinner armors and smaller guns, but you could fix them in a few hours with the most basic tools, and parts and tools were everywhere.

Iraq 1991 and Absence of Coordination

In 1991, Iraq had thousands of Soviet T-72 tanks, and you have to admit, that’s some pretty impressive army. The problem was that Iraqi crews had weak training, and communication between units was horrible. 

That means that they couldn’t have shared where the enemy was in real time with each other.

The Coalition did the exact opposite; they had tanks with digital maps and radios that showed everyone’s positions, friendly or otherwise, instantly. Pair that up with Apache helicopters and A-10 jets, and Iraqi crews didn’t stand a chance. They were hit before they even spotted the Coalition forces. 

And even when they did spot them, they couldn’t call for air support or shift their defenses, so they’d simply abandon their vehicles and run the other way.

What Actually Makes Weapons Effective

So, better guns and thicker armor aren’t a guaranteed victory. What is?

Well, it comes down to 4 things: doctrine, communication, logistics, and training.

Doctrine means you plan how you’ll use the equipment you have.

France, for example, had great tanks, but didn’t use them correctly. Germany, on the other hand, did, so you have the same hardware producing different results. Germany won, and all France did was waste truly tremendous potential.

Communication is a huge factor in this, as well, because the plan falls apart without it. 

A few minutes of delay doesn’t mean much in everyday life, but if you could go back to 1940 and ask the French, they’d tell you that reacting in minutes instead of seconds is the difference between life and death.

Logistics is fuel, ammo, and spare parts, so it’s not hard to tell why Germany struggled so much towards the end of WWII. And when it comes to training, well… Look no further than Iraq in 1991 to understand its importance.

Basically, weapons are part of a bigger system. 

They’re important, yes, but they’re not the only thing that’s important. Even civilian firearms work within bigger systems that need to be structured down to the very last detail. A gun store has to have a gun merchant account to process payments; they can’t just take cash. 

The same goes for armies: control, compliance, and infrastructure. It’s the system that makes the weapons work.

Conclusion

None of this should be taken as “Weapons don’t matter.” 

They absolutely do, but you have to look at them as part of the system. It’s that system that’s responsible for winning or losing a war, not tanks and guns. 

You could have the most advanced tanks in the world, and they still wouldn’t be more useful than lawn ornaments if there was no strategy behind the weapon.