Is it time for bold changes to weapon systems? Lessons from Germany’s WWII experience

The success of the Nazi drive across Europe proved what the military of other nations had long suspected: that the complete disarmament of Germany after World War I had given her the opportunity to design and build modern equipment. In rearming, she had developed weapons vastly superior to those of the rest of the world. Speaking to a committee of Congress on April 30, 1940, before the Germans had entered France, Gen. George C. Marshall said:

 

“… No nation had ever before so completely rearmed as did Germany. Changes in armament had always been accomplished gradually, for evident financial reasons.”

 

… It was estimated that the German Luftwaffe was composed of some 25,000 planes; the United States Army Air Corps, in the spring of 1940, had 2,605 planes on hand, and a total of 5,500 ordered for delivery by June 30, 1941.

That was from “Industrial Mobilization For War,” HISTORY OF THE WAR PRODUCTION BOARD AND PREDECESSOR AGENCIES 1940 • 1945. Volume I PROGRAM AND ADMINISTRATION. BUREAU OF DEMOBILIZATION, CIVILIAN PRODUCTION ADMINISTRATION.

General Marshall is correct in observing that the financial burdens of supporting legacy weapon systems usually takes precedence over wholesale reevaluation and modernization. In the United States, we have pretty good evidence of the same phenomenon with the interwar Navy, where limited budgets and force structure due to international treaties caused self-reflection and experimentation in the General Board.

It would be interesting if there were a conscious effort to self-impose disarmament of legacy systems in the 21st century in order to spur revolutionary weapons innovation. With COVID-19 impacts likely leading to reduced defense budgets in future years, evaluations of priorities is already in the offing.

Since China is saying they’re aiming for a “world-class” military by 2035, there is no better time than now for the U.S. to divest from major legacy platform concepts and start experimenting at scale with new concepts. The longer the United States waits to make bold moves for the 21st century, the harder it will be to make the argument.