Poorer nations could not afford a capitol ship and found a cheaper way to do war. Carrier warfare was in its infancy while battleships were a proven weapon and only the brightest in military strategy could see the usefulness of the new weapon to exploit the weakness of the capitol ships. The treaty of WWI limited the number and size of capitol ships but there was no restriction on aircraft carriers.
Actually, dead wrong there. There were restrictions even on aircraft carriers. And poor nations did not cultivate the aircraft carrier- rich nations that already had battleships were the pioneers.
By your logic as soon as an aircraft carrier was built the world powers should have scrapped the battleships and made the untried carrier the new capitol ship. When war broke out there was no time for anyone to make the change over. In fact we did not finish the change over until the Korean conflict 4 years later.
Wrong again my friend. Throughout the 1920's and 1930's the United States figured out that Carrier warfare was the future, particularly through the trials and tests of the various Panama Wargames. This is all well documented but a good summary can be found here;
http://www.history.navy.mil/download/car-5.pdf
In 1921 Admiral Sims proclaimed "The Battleship is dead" after watching a carrier-launched attack. This was two decades before the U.S got into WW2, and the U.S admiralty knew very well that the only thing that saved their bacon at pearl harbor was that the carriers were all out of port (and that the fuel tank farm didn't get hit)
With that said, and even with the benefits of the carrier made widely known, there were admirals in both the U.S and Japanese (and especially British) fleets who still stuck to doctrine of the biggest ship with the biggest guns as the primary tool, but by WW2 they were mostly sidelined.
This one is fun. The strategy was sound and the system was well designed, the problem was they did not extend the line around its entire border. Being friends with Belgium the French did not want to offend its friend so it only put up the line on the border with Germany. Poor execution of a good strategy.
Again, please go back to school. The Maginot line was an absolute disaster and never should have been built. Why?
1) Most of the gun emplacements only pointed in one direction. After the Germans went around the line, the French couldn't even turn most of their big guns on the Germans
2) Assuming that you can build an unasaillable wall across your ENTIRE border has always been foolhardy throughout history, and this illustrates' the French Army's lack of understanding of manoevre warfare. Even if the Germans had carried out a frontal assault, at some point they would have broken through a point in the wall and poured through, then encircled the forces at the front. The Germans did this to great effect throughout the war, time and again. The Russians, having been Blitzkrieged many times, learned how to thwart the Germans manoevers, but at very great cost (much greater than the French were willing to commit)
Kursk was a prime example of how to stop Blitzkrieg warfare, in which, the Russians essentially had a wall of forces that went back in depth almost endlessly. Line after line of forces, trench after trench, division after division and so on. Basically, when the Germans "broke through" a line at Kursk they found another line. Break through that, and another line, and another and so on and so on. To accomplish this, the Russians built defensive formations and obstacles that make the Maginot line look like child's play and much of the fortifications weren't big fancy concrete buildings because the Russian's knew that they would be bypassed anyway. And of course the fact that they were willing to sacrifice wave after wave of their own troops to bog down the Germans.
The French, on the other hand, while they had a very nice front line of fortifications, had very little depth to the Maginot line, only about 25 km.
3) Here's the real kicker. The French built the Maginot line expressly to discourage a direct frontal attack, and to encourage the Germans to attack Belgium instead. Contrary to popular belief the Germans didn't stun the French by "going around" the line, they did exactly what the French hoped for. The reasoning behind this was interesting; the French believed that attacking Belgium would take time for the German army to maneuver there, buying the French time to prepare. The French also believed that the German assault on Belgium would,at minimum, get bogged down and take a couple of weeks, thus buying even more time for the French to mobilize forces to send to the front.
Also, the myth that the Maginot line ended at the Belgian border is also FALSE. The Maginot line actually connected to extensive Belgian fortifications, essentially extending it.
What DID surprise the French was how quickly the Germans were able to get so many forces to Belgium, and how quickly the Germans were able to break through at the strongest fortified point in the Belgian system- Fort Eben-Emael.
The Germans took this fort through a unique assault that mostly went around the defenses of the fort- they flew troops in on gliders. Once they took the fort, this prevented the Belgians' from destroying two of three key bridges, and voilla, the Germans had bypassed the entire defensive capability of the Maginot line.
It is a great weapon, without it I would not be here to argue with you. It is at the end of its life and has been replaced. We could use it in Iraq and Afghanistan because they had Soviet weapons that are easy to defeat as long as we had control of the air. The Apache is the replacement for the Warthog. The A-10 was designed to do one thing and one thing only, cut Soviet tanks in half. We called it the Fairchild can opener. The apache does the same thing only different. It can hit a target without the target knowing it is being attacked until just before they die. The Apache is a better weapon but was untried until the gulf war.
Sorry, wrong again my friend. The Apache is -not- the replacement for the Warthog. The Apache is Army, the Warthog is Airforce. And, the Warthog just had a big upgrade and is scheduled to remain in service at least until the 2020's, at which point it is to be -theoretically- replaced by the F-35. The Apache, was never intended to replace the Warthog but to replace the Cobra.
Tanks were new just like aircraft carriers. In WWI when they were first used they were not that much help because they only traveled at a top speed on flat ground at 3 miles an hour, had to be completely still before they could fire and without infantry support they were in danger. It was not until the 70’s did anyone come up with an integrated strategy that worked using tanks and infantry, During the 6 day war Israel sent out tanks without infantry and the tanks were slaughtered with a new anti-tank weapon.
Yes, tanks were new but in the 20's and 30's the Germans learned all about their potential for maneuvering around enemy forces. Just like the U.S with carriers, the Germans had a good 15 or more years to really experiment and learn about a new style of warfare. The French and Brits, not wanting to deviate from standard dogma, still believed that tanks were meant solely to support infantry which is why in many cases, the Germans found French and English tanks that had run out of fuel- as both Armies only provided enough fuel for a tank to travel a few miles as they never imagined it would outstrip the infantry.
As to your quotes about the missile tests, please provide the data. I've seen news reports and press releases, but they've all been mostly stacked in favor of the interceptor or using missiles going in a nice straight line. The truth is, if they could shoot down a missile that's deviating in it's course, they would have trumpeted it to the world by now.