Wear and Tear (or Overuse It and You Might Lose It)
A lot of good points have been raised so far. Another factor to consider is how much, or how little, certain weapon systems are used in field training. Some armies can afford to do a relatively large amount of training, so their equipment sees a lot of use- this produces wear and tear that, in the short-term, requires routine maintenance, and in the long term requires replacement of parts and other more involved work. A lot of armies in the developing world (and some of the poorer Warsaw Pact nations during the Cold War) can't afford to conduct a lot of realistic field training, so their tanks and whatnot spend all but a couple of days a year in depot, not accumulating wear and tear*. So, it might be the case that at the beginning of the Twilight War, a T-34 that's been sitting in a depot for 360 days a year for decades (assuming it receives a modicum of TLC during that time) might be in better working condition than a 10-year old M1 that's been in and out of the shop half-a-dozen times because it's in the field on maneuvers or on the range (or whatever) at least 180 days a year.
*Disparities in training and their impact on operational readiness and battlefield performance is a topic for another thread.
-
Last edited by Raellus; 06-08-2021 at 10:42 AM.
|