Businesses are built on relationships. What do you think this Essay

Businesses are built on relationships. What do you think this statement means What are the implications for managing th - Essay Example Moreover both the parties should let each other know what is their importance. The relationships in business may be of many types like buyer–seller, investors, distributors, middlemen, channel partners etc. Without any relationship in the business world it will become extremely difficult to expand and continue the business. It also depends upon the type of business you are in and upon the responsibilities you have. For instance, if your business is sales, marketing or any of such kind then building strong business relationships is a must. The external environment has a very strong impact on the businesses which may be directly interactive or indirectly interactive. Directly interactive, forces include owners, customers, employees, suppliers, competitors etc. The owners expect that the managers will work in the best interest of the firm and the customers expect that their demand is satisfied by the products they use. The suppliers require timely payments from the organization. The second is the indirectly interactive force which includes political, legal, technological, socio-cultural, changes. For instance, if a company deals in technology it will greatly be affected by the new softwares which are coming up then to a company which does not.

Principles of Accounting Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Principles of Accounting - Essay Example Whenever any individual wants to invest in any certain industry then he must research about the scope of the industry. Whether the industry is profitable or not, who are the giant players at this time in the market, how these giant players can restrict any new entrant in the market and all these type of questions must be answered initially before going for an investment. If the feasibility of any project is not completed before its start up then the chances of success are surely reduced. Another important consideration is to check one’s own interest towards the new venture. If the specific individual is not capable of grabbing that investment opportunity then he may not be able to take it successfully. The external factors play a very important role in the operations of a single firm. Therefore it is necessary to check these external factors not only their influence but also its intensity on the specific venture or the company which we are going to take on. Markets trends are very much important because they help to devise the strategies to operate in the market. Demand plays a very important role to boost up the profit margins of the company. It is important to check whether the products or the services which the specific company or we can say hotel in our case is offering, are fulfilling the public demands or not. Whether the company has good reputation in the customer’s minds or not? It is also a worth considerable point that either the firm is just covering its costs or also making profits. Whenever we are going to talk with the owner of the company which we are going to purchase, there are certain things which should be clarified before any further negotiation. We should ask the owner about the track record the hotel. Track record means the reputation of the hotel in the industry or we can say the market. The owner should be asked about the capability or in other words we can say

Human Resources & Organizational Effectiveness Essay Example for Free

Human Resources Organizational Effectiveness Essay Small scaled businesses are very important for developing countries and as well as developed countries. In a country like the China a small business can become success and it will play an important role in the economy of the country. Small businesses are growing in importance in the China; hundreds of small businesses are opened every month in the country, by people who have found themselves squeezed out of a corporation due to downsizing or who voluntarily leave the corporate world so that they can seek a slower pace and healthier balance between world and family life. Small businesses are mostly opened by women and minorities in the China. As the smallest businesses become increasingly complicated due to globalization, government regulations and customer demands for better quality at lower prices, managerial dexterity is very complex and it is very hard to become a success. (Szarka, 1990) Managers in small businesses tend to emphasize roles different from those managers in large companies. Managers in small companies often see their most important role as a spokesperson, because they need to promote the small, growing company to the outside world. The entrepreneur role in the small business is very important, because the managers must be very creative and help their company to develop new ideas so that they can be competitive with other companies. Small business managers tend to rate lower on the leader role and on information processing roles compared with counterparts in large companies. As the world of small organizations become increasingly complex, managers should carefully incorporate the 3 categories for roles. They must simultaneously mange by information; manage through people, and mange through action to keep their organizations healthy. (Szarka, 1990) Managing a Small Growing Business Once a business is set up and running, how does the owner manage it? Often the traits of self-confidence, creativity and internal locus of control lead to financial and personal grief as the company grows. A hands-on to the entrepreneur who gave birth to the small business or company, loves perfecting every ting detail of the company. But after the start-up, continued growth requires a shift in the management style. Those who fail to adjust to a growing business can be the cause of the problems rather than the solution for the company. A small business goes through distinct stages of growth; with each of the stage the company requires different management styles and skills. Intrapreneurship in a Small Business Intrapreneurship can be defined as a process which recognizes the need for innovation within the company, plus it helps with managing the company. The following rules help to develop the necessary environment which is required in the company, they are as follows: 1.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The employees should be encourages 2.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The management should use informal meeting whenever possible 3.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The company should learn to tolerate failure and learn from it 4.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The employees should be rewarded for their innovative ideas 5.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Teams should be formed Human Resource Practices The human resource practices in a small and medium business differ from large organizations. Planning In the early stage of existence, formal planning tends to be nonexistence except for the business plan. The business plan can be defined as a document which specifies the business detail of the company by the entrepreneur. The primary goal is to remain alive within the industry. As the company grows, formal kind of planning is not usually instituted until the company does not reach its success stage in the growth stages of the company. For example, records selling company in the China has defined a goal by carving out a niche in the volatile record industry by focusing only on roots music, which is an electric mix of soulful and down home sounds with country edge. This company is only one of the few surviving profitable companies in the country.   (Cameron Miller, 2008) Organizing In the 2 stages of company’s growth, the company’s organization structure is very informal, where all the employees are reporting to the owner of the company. By the third stage the functional managers are hired to take over the duties from the owner. A functional organization will be created and there will be changes in all the departments of the company. In this stage the managers will be able to learn how to delegate responsibilities to others. But these days most small companies in the China are limiting creating ways so that they can stay small but still grow. For example, Woodspirits, it a company that produces and distributes 300,000 soaps to its customers annually. It just employs 3 that work for the company. The company doesn’t want to lose its edge and flexibility; therefore the companies are willing to stay small. Leading Leading is considered to be the driving force in the development of the company, and it is one of the ways to manage a company. The vision along with the leader’s personality actually shapes the small company. With the help of leadership, it is able to point out cultural values, efficiency and ethics of the company. Leadership is also considered important because a great deal of small businesses usually have a hard time of employing qualified workers. There is always a labor shortage for a small company, and these shortages usually damage the company a great deal. Controlling It is also important that there is a financial control in the company. In the company’s starting days control was exercised by simple accounting records and through personal supervision. The control techniques usually become more sophisticated during the resource maturity of the company. For example, the Sock Shop was originally a hit in the US, but it failed due to a lack of control within the company. (Fullmer, 1983) Compensation Compensation of employees in a SME is mostly based on the jobs and its evaluations.   With job analysis information as a part of the department’s HR information system, compensation analysts have the minimum information needed to evaluate the work activities of their employees. Job evaluations are steps and procedures that help to identify the relative worth of jobs or work activities. There are different kinds of approaches to the evaluation of a job; these approaches consider the responsibility of the employee, skills that are needed for the job, efforts done by the employee and the working conditions related to the job. Without job evaluation the HR department would not be able to create a rational approach to pay. The most common methods for job evaluation that helps with a compensation plan are job ranking, job grading system where as in large organizations it is done through factor compensation and the point system.   But the best way the HR can compensate the employ ees is through job grading, why, because, it is the simplest way to classify a job and the companies don’t have to spend a great deal of money on it. (Werther Davis, 1996)

Concept Of Economic Base And Superstructure Sociology Essay

Concept Of Economic Base And Superstructure Sociology Essay In Marxist theory of history, existence of human life depends upon economic activity. This activity is determined by the combination of superstructure and substructure/base. The notion of Base-Superstructure is mainly concerned with the mode of production, forces of production, relations of production and social consciousness. It is situated on the scientific view that course of history socioeconomic formation can be predicted on the basis of material needs and conditions of a society. This scientific behavior of Marx economic theory distinguishes it from other theories. The object of this dichotomy is to explain the nature of economical production and human productive activity for survival. The distinction between them was initially stated in Part one of The German Ideology by Karl Marx and Engels in 1846. This economic theory of social system is so deterministic that limits and directs the human activity and ideology. In order to know the dialectical activity of superstructure and base, it is necessary to understand the disposition of base because of all human economic activity is founded on it. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979) states base as: The base of a society is the totality of the historically determined relations of production. Base is divided into two parts: forces of production and relations of production. Productive forces are characterized as those phenomena which influence the substructure or economical base. These phenomena are important for the stability of economic base and nature of base/substructure determines the superstructure. Thus both of these entities have dialectical character. This antagonistic relation between base and superstructure gives revolution an uplift. Individual becomes conscious when the other society fellows struggle frames the economic transformation with the corresponding changes in superstructure and base. So, changes in cultural institutions such as law, art, education, philosophy and religion correspond with the prior changes in the economic substructure. It is the ideology that designs changes in the behavior of workers. Conflicts in the productive forces and relations of production stimulate awareness in the owners of the laborers class. And due to this conflict a social transition results in a new form of society. Mode/Method of production quantitatively and qualitatively changes. In this developed form forces and relations of production fit precisely together unless working class becomes fully aware of the exploitation of their rights, laboring activity and extra working hours. Old superstructure collapses and transforms in relation to substructure making the antagonistic relationship between the employers and employee. The confrontation in the classes during the steadfast dialectical process in the history, arises the working class to take a stand against the ruling class, for example French Renaissance. Productive forces which have been changing technologically throughout the history. Beginning from the primitive communism to the present day era, handmade simple tools replaced by complicated machines. Modes of labor and skill also transformed. Man-power utilized in the mills instead of crops and fields from the first step of extracting crude material to the shaping and recycling, employers learned to manage the skillful and useful workers accordingly. This framed the society into different relations of production. Social formation is settled on how the forces and relations of production fit together. So every society has its own relations. More developed the society, more complex the relations are. Primitive society, concept of collective ownership prevailed. the concept of private property introduced class differences, class society into commanding masters and submissive slaves, In feudalism into feudal lords and serfs and in capitalism into bourgeoisie and proletariats. In all the se times producer has been used to produce capital goods which alienated him from his activity, production and surrounding. And the powerful gained control over the human laboring activity as well as the material goods. Though the dominant class is less in number than the dominated yet the money strengthens and legalize the authority of power-broker on police, media, law-abiding and other cultural institutions. This outspread mastery now rules the thoughts and beliefs of the citizenry. These beliefs are set by the ruling class according to their interests. The material base is headed by the ideological superstructure. These ideas cover political, theological, economical, legal, educational sides to justify divisions of class. It is the duty of the subordinates to serve the superior class though the workers are waged for their struggles. In order to legitimize their rule, they must seem as saviors who possess best managerial capabilities, which necessitate their existence to refrain the society from chaos. Unconsciously, in the most cases, people adopt the servile attitude and work for authorities willingly. Religion, in the course of human history, has been a key factor in making agreeable mindset in favor of the political parties, for example, geocentricism could not be criticized in the 17th century because of the church priests. Marx says religion as opiate of the class that dulls the mind. From early childhood schooling to the university level, this consistent indoctrination is tutored. This Engels called as false consciousness. The working class accepts the ideas as is, remains unaware of its interests thus suffers from alienation and exploitation. Conclusion They correlate when the productive activity is in interaction with needs. This means the mutual relations between the quantity and quality of the production. For example, in the industrial society, a huge man power working in the fields is replaced by the machines. Harvesters and tractors supersede the farmers. It made many skilful persons out-of-work. Their old knowledge does not correspond with the new technology. Quality of labor activity reduced and quantity of production increased. Now more food with better nutrition can be produced in lesser time. Skills of earlier stage of society do not coincide in their characteristics with skills of later stage. Society is administered by laws not based on laws. Its base is economy. People work and earn to live. Their interests and skills determine their choice of occupation. A single person cannot live without a society. He/she is an integral part of society, its norms, culture and attitude. People live together because it fulfils their needs too. Thus, livelihood is the key factor of social formation. Law, politics, norms, and others are second prior to economy. These are tied in by the material needs and prevailing productive techniques. This makes the whole mode of production. And consequently, change in the productive activity will precede an ideological change. Thus; this change in productive activity needs formulation of new laws or changes in prevalent legal commands of society to improve the status of life and agree with its requirements (cloth, food, dwellings). This is the classical example showing that superstructure reacts upon the change in the base. Intellectual ability, judgment, ideals and high level of cognition distinguishes humans form other beings in the nature. Their faculty of reason helps them to be habituated with the surrounding. They do not migrate to other lands just because of the intense weather or other usual changes in the environment as most birds do. Instead, they generate their ways of sustenance. Unlike animals, they develop their living standards. A human society is not just a mass of walking-talking bodies. They also have minds to think and evaluate with. Though they are combined in groups with common interests, it is natural that they develop a common understanding. Thinking is a subjective activity conditioned with biases and prior education. Being a part of a society, individuals think on different grounds. Every man is unique in his nature and builds his philosophy of life as he sees it. This philosophy is detrimental if imposed on others forcefully. Like elders in families, every society needs a body of leadership capable enough to maintain law and order. This part of society is called superstructure in historical materialism. Economic base is capped with the ideological superstructure. Forces of production regulate social relations of production not the other way around. These forces are

Female Genital Mutilation in Africa :: Genitals Reproduction Culture Essays

Female Genital Mutilation in Africa ital Mutilation in Sudan In the country of Sudan, in Northern Africa, there is a procedure that is tradition and is performed on most women called female genital mutilation, or FGM, which used to be known as female circumcision. It has been a normal practice for generations, but is now the subject for international controversy on the morality and safety of this procedure. It is now known that 82 percent of Sudanese woman have an extreme form of genital mutilation done on them, normally at a young age. This form of mutilation is called the Pharaonic form and includes the total removal of the clitoris and labia, and stitching together of the vulva, leaving only a small hole for urination and menstrual cycle. This is normally done without any type of anaesthetic or professional medical care. There is also a more moderate form of mutilation, called Sunni, where only the covering of the clitoris is removed. This practice started and became tradition in foreign countries in order to ensure that women practice chaste behavior, and to suppress female sexuality. It has also been attributed to religious beliefs of monogamy although most religions do not support this type of practice. In today's society it has become more of a traditional and social norm, and has less to do with religious beliefs. This problem is not only in Sudan; it is practiced in the majority of the continent of Africa as well as other coun tries. In other cultures, such as Australian aborigines, genital mutilation is a part of the rite of passage into maturation, and is done on both men and women (Bodley, p. 58). FGM has often been referred to as female circumcision and compared to male circumcision. However, such comparison is often misleading. Both practices include the removal of well- functioning parts of the genitalia and are quite unnecessary. However, FGM is far more drastic and damaging than male circumcision because it is extremely dangerous and painful. It is believed that two thirds of these procedures are done by untrained birth attendants, who have little knowledge of health. They are often unconcerned with hygiene, and many use instruments that are not cleaned or disinfected properly. Instruments such as razor blades, scissors, kitchen knives, and pieces of glass are commonly used. These instruments are frequently used on several girls in succession and are rarely cleaned, causing the transmission of a variety of viruses such as the HIV virus, and other infections.

Heaven and Hell Divided in C. S. Lewiss The Great Divorce :: Lewis Great Divorce

Heaven and Hell Divided in C. S. Lewis's The Great Divorce    C. S. Lewis is known throughout the world for his ability to tuck theology into fantasy. He's the author of many books such as the Chronicles of Narnia, The Screwtape Letters and Mere Christianity. One of his less popular books, but one that he considered among his favorites, was The Great Divorce. The title refers to the separation of Heaven and Hell.    Although a relatively thin book, it is packed with thought provoking questions concerning ones faith. In this story, the narrator and main character, embarks on a bus ride from the twilight of Hell to the outskirts of Heaven. Here he encounters many people, called ghosts, who have also been in Hell. The narrator observes their struggle with whether to stay in Heaven, or hold onto their petty sins and return to the lonely darkness of Hell. C. S. Lewis' descriptions and characters are what really make this story incredible.    The main character of the story never receives a name. This was done in order to make him seem less like another character, and more like a mirror image of oneself. He is the character that the reader seems to relate with the most. Not only does the audience relate to him but so do the other characters in the book. One such example of this is on Page 14, while the narrator is getting on the bus. "I thought you wouldn‚Äà ´t mind my tacking on to you . . . for I've noticed that you feel just as I do about the present company." This is interesting because the narrator has neither seen nor spoken to this character before. Another case is on page 29, "What's the sense of allowing all that riff-raff to float about here all day. Look at them." Here again, another ghost seems to be drawn to the narrator and speaks to him as if they had already met.    Those people who were already in Heaven the main character referred to as "solid people." He called them this because, unlike the ghosts, they were not transparent. The narrator‚Äà ´s solid person, or teacher as he calls him, is George MacDonald and is introduced at the beginning of chapter 9. George MacDonald is a famous writer and C. S. Lewis has never tried to hide the fact that he admires Mr.

Development of the Technology (Tank) From WWI through the Employment in WWII

A tank is a trail armored combat vehicle created to employ enemies face-to-face, via straight fire from a large caliber-gun and supporting fire from machine guns. Heavy armor on top a high extent of mobility confer it survival, as the tracks let it to cross even rough land at high speeds. The name tank first came to pass in British factories making the hulls of the first battle tanks: the workmen were given the notion they were making tracked water containers for the British Army, therefore keeping the assembly of a fighting vehicle secret.The process began in World War I. American tank doctrines from the beginning focused on direct support of the infantry. American Expeditionary Forces (AEF) planners paid little attention to futuristic ideas such as those of British Colonel J. F. C. Fuller for a campaign based on fast tanks in deep-penetration roles. With the end of the war, the embryonic Tank Corps was disbanded. Tank units were assigned to the infantry, whose experts increasingly warned against their excessive use as a potential handicap to the rifleman's â€Å"offensive spirit. â€Å"In 1921 the Army possessed about 1,000 copies of the light French Renault FT-17, and 100 or so British Mark VIII heavy tanks assembled at Rock Island Arsenal from parts made for a projected Anglo-American program that died with the Armistice. What the infantry wanted was a light tank of about 6 tons that could be transported on Army trucks and a medium tank of 15 tons, the weight limit of average highway and pontoon bridges. What it got by 1930 were a dozen or so prototypes of various kinds, all too far from meeting branch specifications to be considered for even limited production. Branch rivalry proved less intense than expected.While the cavalry stressed the importance of speed and range, in-house organs such as Infantry Journal published an increasing number of articles emphasizing the potential of tanks for independent missions, as well as in the branch-specific roles of leading and accompanying infantry. There was, however, simply not enough money to pursue separate design tracks of close support and long-range exploitation. Could one vehicle possibly perform both tasks? A potential solution emerged when the fast tank so often discussed in armor circles became reality in the designs of independent inventor J.Walter Christie. The few Christies actually purchased were divided between infantry and cavalry and earned mixed reviews. Their influence was nevertheless perceptible in the M2 light tank and its near sister the M1 combat car. More than 100 of these 7. 5-ton vehicles were acquired in the mid-1930s. The M1 carried only two . 30-caliber machine guns in a rotating turret; the M2 had the same armament in two fixed turrets–a characteristic that promptly earned it the nickname â€Å"Mae West† in honor of the buxom film siren.But the vehicles' reliability made them welcome in the infantry's tank battalions, and the cavalry found its new combat cars an answer to a branch's prayer. In 1932 a mechanized cavalry brigade was authorized for Fort Knox. When the dust raised by advocates of the horse settled, the new force emerged as cavalry yellow through and through. Its missions were defined in traditional cavalry terms: reconnaissance, pursuit and exploitation.Its limited maneuver experience generated little serious discussion of a U. S.  counterpart to the Panzerwaffe emerging in Adolph Hitler's Germany. As late as 1938 both infantry and cavalry remained committed to mobility and reliability, rather than armor and armament, as the fundamental desiderata for tank development. Neither the U. S. government nor the U. S. Army had any reason to believe substantial American forces would be deployed overseas in a high-tech, high-risk environment. Should such an expedition be necessary, shipping space would be at a premium, as would maintenance facilities on arrival.Even medium-weight tanks seemed a correspondingly risky in vestment. The same criteria applied in reverse to any possible invasion of the United States. No enemy in the Western Hemisphere had any tanks to speak of. Armored forces deployed from Europe were hardly likely to reach North America in strength. The United States, moreover, had nothing like the production facilities to introduce new tank designs on any scale. The government arsenal at Rock Island, Ill. , had been responsible for building the small numbers of light tanks authorized under various 1930s programs.Rock Island specialized in artillery. It lacked the room for large tank production lines except by converting from another vital need: guns. Instead, the Army proposed to increase its tank inventory by following plans developed in the 1920s–contracting tank construction to heavy engineering firms, locomotive factories and similar institutions with facilities and experience in heavy assembly work. The emerging doctrines of the new armored force combined domestic heritage and evaluation of foreign experience.Tanks were projected for use in masses, by divisions and in entire corps–as instruments of exploitation, as opposed to breakthrough. More important for operational considerations, both the M3 and its designated successor mounted main guns whose armor-piercing capacity ran a distant second to their ability to fire high-explosive shells. That fact reflected armored force doctrine emphasizing the medium tank's supporting mission. Production factors played a role as well. The projected mediums were complex, incorporating a substantial spectrum of new technologies.Firms were receiving contracts despite the fact that few in their work forces or on their technical staffs had even seen a tank, much less knew how to build one. Even a major company like Chrysler had to construct production facilities. The outstanding successes of those novices–Chrysler was able to deliver the first M3s less than a year after submitting its initial bid œwed not a little to the fact that in those early stages of industrial mobilization the best was not allowed to become the enemy of the good.The first Shermans rolled off newly constructed production lines in 1942 at the Lima Locomotive Works, the Pressed Steel Car Company and the Pacific Car and Foundry Company. By 1943 the Baldwin Locomotive Works, the American Locomotive Company and the Pullman Standard Car Company also were contributing to increasingly impressive production totals. The U. S. armored force had, however, another ace in the hole. None of Europe's armies intended to pit tanks against tanks as a matter of course. The favored counter was the antitank gun.High-velocity weapons, usually 37-50mm, with low silhouettes, shields for their crews and motor traction, they were intended to move quickly to threatened points, in company or battalion strength, and knock out tanks as they came into range. Antitank guns were cost-effective compared to tanks–so easy to mass pr oduce and so simple to operate they might well be considered expendable, and often were. The U. S. Army had added an entirely new version of the weapon to its order of battle. In 1940 the War Department accepted the position of General Andrew D.Bruce that attacking tanks were best countered not by mere battalions but by entire groups and brigades of high-velocity guns on self-propelled carriages. Bruce's long-term concept involved putting a modern 3-inch gun on a modified Sherman chassis. To emphasize their mission of seek, strike and destroy, the new units were called tank destroyers, or TDs. They received their own training center and what amounted to status as a separate arm that at peak strength had more than 100 battalions.The Army fielded no fewer than 15 armored divisions and 37 independent tank battalions in northern Europe. By D-Day, however, only a single armored division deployed in the theater had seen any action at all, and then only briefly. Inexperience, inadequate tr aining and problems of sharing experience, particularly among the constantly transferred independent battalions, took precedence over questions of materiel. For infantry support, machine guns were usually the tank's most important weapon, just as they had been in 1918.Armored divisions in the European Theater of Operations (ETO) were usually distributed among Army corps in a ratio of 1-to-2 or 1-to-3 infantry divisions, and in practice would perform much the same roles as their footslogging partners. The Army's new armored field manual, published in January 1944, neither suggested nor implied a need for new tanks in what was clearly a more modest role than originally envisaged. The question was not whether U. S. factories could retool to manufacture either the M6 or the T20. It was whether a changeover, or even an adjustment, represented the best use of material and technical resources.The M4 was not an optimal armored vehicle. The United States' factories could, however, produce it in numbers enough not only for American forces but also for the British, the Free French and, not least, the USSR, whose Lend-Lease Shermans formed a significant element of the Red Army's armored forces for much of the war. Two Shermans could be embarked for one M6–no bagatelle given the massive demands on Allied shipping in 1942 and 1943. The new M18 Hellcat, introduced in late 1943, could make the incredible top speed of 55 miles per hour, but had nearly no protection and carried the same 76mm gun that encumbered the Sherman.It was possible to maneuver, seeking more vulnerable sides and rears. There were enough German tanks in Normandy, however, relative to the space involved to provide higher and more consistent levels of mutual support than had been common in North Africa and Italy. American crew losses mounted, and crew morale declined. Omar Bradley and then Dwight Eisenhower were sufficiently disconcerted that the supreme commander contacted U. S. Army Chief of Staff G eorge Marshall, demanding that tanks and tank destroyers with 90mm guns be made available as soon as possible. The development of a tank with a 90mm gun followed a more tortuous path.The Ordnance Department had recommended as early as May 1943 that pilot models in the T20 series be tested not only with a heavier gun, but with thicker armor and wider treads than either the M4 or the T20 designs. The T20 series had been conceived as a medium tank. In that version, it offered no significant advantages over the Sherman. The 90mm configurations, the T25 and the T26, amounted to introducing a heavy tank through the back door. Weighing more than 45 tons, with 4. 5 inches of frontal armor, on paper at least they bode fair to compete with, if not match, the German Panthers and Tigers.Work on the new design did not receive high priority. Not until May 1944 was the original order of 50 completed. The first M26, chosen over the T25 for its greater reliability, was not standardized until March 1 945. It was not light tanks that were wanted for the close-gripped fighting of the northern Europe campaign. Even during the post-Operation Cobra days of breakout and pursuit in the summer of 1944, the Shermans' maneuverability and high rate of fire were at best stopgaps against German tanks and assault guns whose armor and firepower were ideally suited to the conditions of a fighting withdrawal.To speak of the failure of U. S. tank policy in World War II is nevertheless a crass overstatement, even if failure is defined in the narrow terms of tank versus tank. Interwar and early-war concepts favoring mobility and reliability, regarding tanks as best suited for exploitation rather than breakthrough and incorporating a counter to mass armor attacks, fitted both the United States' military requirements and most of the then-relevant European experience.The Sherman, its light tank stablemates and the tank destroyers supporting them were developed to fit parameters of doctrine and experie nce. They were also manufactured on a scale and at a pace no other power could hope to match. That process took time even once a doctrinal base existed: that is to say when the users had reasonably clear ideas of what they wanted. The Army's history of tank design and production possibilities reflects the strong elements of improvisation in the U. S. war effort.The German and Soviet doctrines and technologies against which American models are so often compared were products of processes begun in 1919. By 1939 the Wehrmacht and the Red Army both had tank inventories in the thousands. U. S. tanks were counted in three figures well after Pearl Harbor. Commanders, crews and tactics had to be introduced by forced draft, in hopes of high learning curves that were by no means always forthcoming. It made corresponding sense to standardize comprehensively, rather than keep tinkering with systems in search of an optimum.Not until early 1943 did American armor doctrine and equipment have even a limited base of direct experience–which by no means pointed in a single direction. Tunisia, Sicily and Italy offered limited opportunities for using armor on a large scale in exploitation roles. Northwest Europe seemed a different proposition. Force-to-space ratios in that theater were expected to allow the Shermans to maneuver as their design intended–if not quite on the scales envisioned in 1940–once the infantry and its supporting arms had broken German resistance.However, even if the Army and its tankers had been generally convinced by mid- 1943 of the absolute necessity to alter not merely priorities but attitudes and doctrines, bigger guns and heavier armor on new chassis were unlikely to have been in unit strength by D-Day in any number. The German Panther offers a useful benchmark. It was developed in response to the obvious challenge of the superb Soviet T-34 medium tank and the heavy Klimenti Voroshilov. It received as clear a priority as was possibl e in the convoluted administrative structure of the Third Reich.Yet it was 18 months before the first Panthers saw action, and another 10 before the tank was considered satisfactory. Even then Panthers continued to suffer serious problems with engines, suspensions and turret mechanisms. The M26, another wartime design, took a bit over a year to reach operational status, and its bugs were being discovered as late as the Korean War. In terms of doctrine, equipment and mentality, the American armored force of World War II was optimized to win and to defeat Operation Barbarossa.Until the war's final 10 months, its shortcomings nevertheless involved acceptable tradeoffs. Even after D-Day, deficiencies in American armor did not involve the kind of crisis the Germans faced in late 1941 on the Russian Front, when they found themselves drastically overmatched in both numbers and quality. Artillery and fighter-bombers, the superior training and improvisational skill of American tankers, and o verwhelming material imbalances in all categories of armored vehicles combined to maintain a pattern of being good enough. No more was needed. No more was done.