The simple answer that once it had already got in to mass production and they realized errors in the design or ways it could be improved, they didn't want to go back and change everything. Sometimes they just didn't even think about it or realize what was the best option until the end of the war. If you look at the Israelis who did use a lot of American equipment after WWII, they made several notable improvements, such as with the halftrack vehicles being fully armored over most of the body and using a more powerful 20mm gun, which was only slightly larger than a .50 caliber but capable of destroying a larger array of vehicles, or the sherman where they added a bigger gun. So, again, why not do this? The reality is military design, like all things designed by humans, is never perfect and subject to constant improvement. In Vietnam the U.S. used M60 machine guns that had insanely heavy bipods attached to the barrels, and by the time they realized how heavy and awkward it was to carry multiple spare barrels with bipods attached and how attaching it to the receiver of the gun, they had already made thousands of them and replacing them would be too expensive. With the M16, when they realized switching to a dirtier form of ammunition effect it's performance too late, that the plastic was insanely weak, that the gun wasn't sealed off well enough and that the magazines were unreliable, only after it had been fielded. When they realize that the M14 couldn't replace the BAR and every gun an infantry soldier would need, was this due to the fact the military was perfect? Well, no. Often times the better option is just simply not used becuase they didn't think of it first. It's why there are winners and losers in war, why the losing side incorporates techniques, ideas or equipment from the enemy (the M60 based partially on the FG42, which was based partially on the American lewis machine gun, that they rarely used), why technology evolves over time. It's a simple common sense thing.
So, as to why I think the lobster armor or other forms of armor could be improved, go ahead and take your guess as to why. xP It's not as if this stuff is the end all be all of existence, and new equipment isn't designed all the time. Also if you are the type who is confused about why I am talking about the Sherman, then this is going ot go right over your head. Basically, it's an example, to metaphorically illustrate the basic fundamental concept of why things aren't done might not be because it was bad, but just some other extenuating circumstance. The U.S. doesn't use the Ak-47, while Russia largely doesn't use the M4 carbine. Now, if they switched, would this have drastically altered the course of history; was it just, that the Ak-47 was so bad America couldn't use it for some reason, but everyone else did? Well, no. Plenty of pieces of equipment are serviceable in the same position, which is why every country tends to have their own main rifle, cartridge, gun and so on, and did for quite some time, without much issue. There's no reason why a 7.8mm or 7.5mm or 7.2mm round couldn't have been used over the 7.62mm, or 8mm or and so on and so forth. The reason is it just wasn't. It would be perfectly serviceable for some things that were never widely used, to be used, and this applies to a broad range of things. So in a create your own everything thread, if I decided to go with a 7.32mm round, there's no obvious reason why this would be impossible or even a bad idea, in the same way that better armor wouldn't automatically be bad. So, that's the reasons for the many examples and comparisons, to look back at various points in history. A country having a particular fighting style, caliber choice, piece of equipment etc. isn't due to one being automatically better than another per se. The Spartans were great at what they did, but could have used bows and arrows and cavalry to make themselves more effective, and they just didn't. There's a lot of variables to consider beyond what's best, or what was used, and there's no reason to automatically assume that something would be bad just because it wasn't widely used. The FG42, STG44 and M1941 Johnson machine gun were not that widely used in the war, but were highly influential on gun designs later on. The best weapon's tended not to be the one's that were mass produced, but the obscure one's people didn't go back and analyze until after the war. At the very least, that's my philosophy behind analyzing "what-if" scenarios, to look at other historical examples.
Example of Sherman with spaced armor
![([url=https://i.imgur.com/wnW1GAsl.png]Image](https://i.imgur.com/wnW1GAs.png){kind=link}
