The Germans had the technology to build superior assault rifles for many
years (fully auto weapons shooting cut-down rifle rounds, rather than pistol
rounds), but were hindered by objections from the top. Hitler objected
to development of the assault rifle because he thought it a waste of
resources, the designers proceeded anyway and hid it under the cover name MP44
(Machinepistol 44 or submachine gun 44). After development was completed
and Hitler shown the effectiveness of the weapon, he changed his mind and
allowed it to be put into production as the StG44 (Sturmgeweher 44 or 'storm'
or assault rifle 44). That design was the basis for the AK-47 which has
been in use for nearly 60 years.
So just because a country has the technology, industrial base,
intellectual capacity etc. to design, build and distribute a high-tech weapon
system doesn't mean that it will. Because of political or institutional
stubborness a highly-effective system can be hindered from deployment, or an
overly complicated, expensive system fielded despite its battlefield
performance.
--Binhan
I agree with your comments about Hitler
prohibiting the development of an assault rifle. The germans were not the only
ones to suffer polotical interference during the design of different
weapons.
Look at the NAC ships in FT.
Why do you go to the difficulty of supporting
ships with so many different weapon systems on the same ship? Having one pulse
torpedo can't make that much of a difference to the combat effectiveness of
the ship compared to the same mass in beams but must increase the support
costs a lot.
It seems likely that the politican on the arms
appropriation committee comes from a sector that makes pulse torpedos and
wants to benefit their constiuents and their own political career by getting
money spent in their electorate.