A valid e-mail address must be provided. (This is not
optional)
Images must be posted at low resolution (72 dpi) and no
larger than 760 pixels wide, and copyright/trade mark
owners must be credited whenever reasonably possible.
Posts that violate the guidelines or Terms and conditions of
Use of the Missing-lynx.com discussion groups will be
erased, and repeated violation of this policy may result in
termination of the violator's account.
You seem to be open-minded on the issue (if that's the word), so I'll just mention that any discussion such as this is probably a much more complex one than merely one manufacturing process vs. another. For instance, the whole first-in-first-out (US) vs. first-in-last-out (German) approaches were SO different in every way, the German method being decidedly inferior and of course resulting in bottlenecks, plus their difficulties with materials and slave-labour resulting in substandard results latewar. One only needs to look at 40,00 Shermans vs. 6,000 Tigers and Panthers to see the American system produced more tanks. But better tanks? I don't think many US tank crews would agree the Sherman was a better tank than the Panther. Even the Pershing wasn't as good. More is not better.
I am merely trying to illustrate the prewar industrial backcloth of German industrial design and process had led to them taking path A rather than path B, rather than any particular right or wrong way.
