Announcement

Collapse

New Site - PLEASE READ

Hello All,
My name is Ashley and I am the one that moved the forum to its new hosting location. This was done for security reasons and try to keep the forum from going down every other day. I understand that the new forum looks very different from the old one but I promise almost everything you had before you still have it might just be in a different place.

Items that are gone due to a limitation of the new hosting/ forum update:
- Awards
- Flags

As I was going thought your posts I was able to fix a lot fo the issues you were listing. Below is kind of a running list of issues an what is fixed and what I am still working on.

Items that I have fixed from your comments:
- Smilie are now working.
- Color/Theme changes
- Signature are now showing up. (Here is how to edit them https://screencast.com/t/OJHzzhiV1)
- Ranking is now showing up.
- Private messaging is now working.

Some issues I am still working on are:
- Missing items from the Calendar
- Like button the posts is giving an error.

One other note I have seen a lot is theme/color related items. I know this is important to all of you but at the moment the most important thing was getting you back a functioning forum with as many features I can get you back from before.

Theme/color is something we can change but it the moment I do not have the time and resources to fix all of the issue and design the site. I did do some theme updates yesterday but it is very time consuming. Please just be patient with the forum as we get it back to as close as I can to what you had before.

If anyone has any issues that they are running in to please let me know in the post below. Please give me as much detail as possible .
https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/forum/world-history-group-welcomes-you/armchair-general-magazine/5034776-new-site-please-read
See more
See less

For Want of a Gun

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index...1619&p=1236872


    text of linked post:



    Christian M. DeJohn, Appellant, v. Department of the Army, Agency. September 11, 2007

    http://www.mspb.gov/netsearch/viewdo...cation=ACROBAT

    DeJOHN v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY

    http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/22563613...4500088c65.pdf

    Notice how it says that he completed all required credits towards a Masters at Temple rather than saying that he has a Masters degree? Seems he had issues with the professors judging his thesis and said there was a basis against his conservative political views. The case was trumpted by some of the conservative groups that monitor such things as an example of censored political speech on campuses.

    His complaint against the University:

    DeJohn’s complaint charged that Temple’s sexual harassment policy (which, for example, prohibited “generalized sexist remarks”) violated his First Amendment right to free expression. DeJohn asserted that he felt inhibited from discussing his views on the role of women in the military, among other issues, and worried that he could be punished under Temple’s policy for expressing his opinions...................DeJohn argued that the policy made him feel “inhibited in expressing his opinions in class concerning women in combat and women in the military.”



    https://www.insidehighered.com/views...t-got-it-right


    His original complaint stated :

    With this suit, Plaintiff Christian M. DeJohn seeks compensatory and punitive damages for Defendants’ actions of retaliation, discrimination, breach of contract and tortious interference with contract.


    And his award:


    The district court later awarded DeJohn $1.00 in nominal damages


    http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-conte...university.pdf
    Last edited by m kenny; 23 Jun 16, 06:18.

    Comment


    • #17
      This is really not my cup of tea.
      Michele

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
        John, can't believe you're wasting your hard-earned cash on that piece of folded arse-paper.
        Apparently I'm not getting about enough. I know nothing about the author or book (ex ept what I've learned of late here) and am certainly too cheap to pay that price. Thanks for the heads up, I'll keep it in mind when the book is available.
        John

        Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

        Comment


        • #19
          Minds are like parachutes - they have to be open in order to work.

          Posters here have already agreed that the Sherman was a compromise design to meet weight criteria for shipping, and that means it was not the best design and never was.

          It was the best compromise available, with a lot of shortcomings. History has already amply demonstrated those shortcomings, and no amount of forum revisionism is going to change that.

          The 75mm medium velocity gun was upgraded to the 76mm higher velocity gun - proof that the designers recognized that shortcoming even if no one here does. The British refitted theirs - with considerable technical difficulties - with a 17 pdr, proof that they got the message, too. Even America got into the game with applique` armor over the worst weak spots, and the crews piled on improvised armor at every opportunity. Under armored and under gunned are two adjectives that must always be used in conjunction with the Sherman.

          American went through several generations of warships, submarines, fighters and bombers during the short period of WWII, but only one generation of tanks. Logic alone dictates that we recognize that particular shortcoming for what it was and stop trying to whitewash history.

          The terms the tankers on all sides applied to the Sherman - "Tommy Cooker" and "Zippo" - did not just appear for no reason at all.
          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            it was not the best design and never was.
            It all depends on what it was designed to do. If it was designed to fight toe -to-toe with a 60 ton tank then it would have been a failure. It was not though. It was designed as an all-round one-size-fits-all multi-purpose tank and as such was a success. The comparisons of the Sherman to a Panther or Tiger are completely bogus and are a blatant attempts to skew the rules in order reach the preordained conclusion that the German designs were better.
            The people who constantly downplay the contribution the M4 made to winning WW2 seem completely unable to think outside the world that declares a heavy tank prone to breakdowns and mobility issues to be 'the' pinnacle of tank design. By these very same strict definitions every other German tank in WW2 was 'a failure'
            Blinkered minds are indeed at work..................




            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

            The terms the tankers on all sides applied to the Sherman - "Tommy Cooker" and "Zippo" - did not just appear for no reason at all.
            I wonder why the nick-name for the Pz IV was ''Rotbart der hauchdünne"?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              . Even America got into the game with applique` armor over the worst weak spots, and the crews piled on improvised armor at every opportunity.
              They may as well have covered their tanks in cotton wool.
              No tank in 1945 was penetration proof. The cost-benefit calculation for doubling the thickness of the front of the Sherman (which still would not make it invulnerable-see The Jumbo) calculated a 15% reduction (at most) on penetrations and a huge reduction in both mobility of the ADs and availability of tanks.
              If you want to counter with 'no price was too much to pay to save crew lives' then what was not every Infantryman provided with a suit of bullet -proof armour?
              Why are submarines not given 18 inch thick hulls to stop depth charges crushing their hulls?
              Why aren't aircraft given 5 inch thick skins to keep out 88 mm shrapnel?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                Posters here have already agreed that the Sherman was a compromise design to meet weight criteria for shipping, and that means it was not the best design and never was.

                It was the best compromise available, with a lot of shortcomings. History has already amply demonstrated those shortcomings, and no amount of forum revisionism is going to change that.

                The 75mm medium velocity gun was upgraded to the 76mm higher velocity gun - proof that the designers recognized that shortcoming even if no one here does. The British refitted theirs - with considerable technical difficulties - with a 17 pdr, proof that they got the message, too. Even America got into the game with applique` armor over the worst weak spots, and the crews piled on improvised armor at every opportunity. Under armored and under gunned are two adjectives that must always be used in conjunction with the Sherman.

                American went through several generations of warships, submarines, fighters and bombers during the short period of WWII, but only one generation of tanks. Logic alone dictates that we recognize that particular shortcoming for what it was and stop trying to whitewash history.

                The terms the tankers on all sides applied to the Sherman - "Tommy Cooker" and "Zippo" - did not just appear for no reason at all.
                Don't forget 'ronson', after the popular lighters.

                MM has the truth of it. The Sherman was based on a pre-war compromise design, and what it accomplished is due to sheer weight of numbers and the courage of the crews.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                  Don't forget 'ronson', after the popular lighters.

                  MM has the truth of it. The Sherman was based on a pre-war compromise design, and what it accomplished is due to sheer weight of numbers and the courage of the crews.
                  It had the same type of wheels as a pre-war design. Nothing else.
                  The Sherman performed perfectly well and the first complaints were in Normandy in June 1944. By wars end the solution to those complaints was issued and in action. That is about the norm for measure/counter-measure. See the Foke-Wulf gap (Aug 1941-Nov 1942)for a brief period when the FW 190 was supreme. Perhaps we should be complaining the Spitfire 'was crap; because the FW 190 was so superior?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by m kenny View Post
                    It had the same type of wheels as a pre-war design. Nothing else.
                    The Sherman performed perfectly well and the first complaints were in Normandy in June 1944. By wars end the solution to those complaints was issued and in action. That is about the norm for measure/counter-measure. See the Foke-Wulf gap (Aug 1941-Nov 1942)for a brief period when the FW 190 was supreme. Perhaps we should be complaining the Spitfire 'was crap; because the FW 190 was so superior?
                    There were complaints in North Africa and Italy, which were not dealt with.

                    While the 'Easy Eight' E8 did finally address the issues, but it only served in small numbers during WW2.

                    As MM noted, the Brits went to considerable trouble to replace the crappy cannon.

                    The Sherman was on the winning side, but was not the reason that side won.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by m kenny View Post
                      Look into his case and see he won on a indirectly linked issue. Nothing about his thesis. He also pursued a case against Carlisle saying that they were biased against veterans (they would not employ him-he lost) and tried to link the two issues in some big conspiracy theory. He tried to blackmail the University to get his grade and failed.
                      He posts like a child with claims like 'lots of photos of tanks. Tigers, Panthers and Elefants'. I have had PMs from him so I am pretty confident I have the measure of the man.
                      I don't know what you mean by "indirectly linked issue." He initiated a law suit against Temple for violation of his free speech rights which were being violated in his history classes. By what I've read he completed his course work for the masters with a 3.2 GPA yet could not get a review of his thesis. Would it be a surprise to you that a student that sued a university might not get fair treatment from the faculty of this university, especially from the department he was singling out in his lawsuit. According to what I've read progress on his masters course were complete but came to a halt when the lawsuit was filed. It doesn't sound like he was treated fairly and I believe you should have mentioned this when you posted the quotes, quotes which (among others) seem inappropriate for a scholastic environment.

                      I don't doubt you feel you have the measure of the man, I was calling for a little fairness. I would take a guess that DeJohn suffers from PTSD and for this reason in particular would hope that he receive some consideration.
                      John

                      Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post


                        American went through several generations of warships, submarines, fighters and bombers during the short period of WWII, b
                        Not really correct - for example there was no fighter that was in US service in May 1945 for which design and development had not started before the USA entered the war. Indeed only the Hellcat had been initiated after 1940 and most were started even before WW2 had started. Several generations is an exaggeration. It takes time to develop a sophisticated weapon of war.
                        Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                        Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          " ... American went through several generations of warships, submarines, fighters and bombers during the short period of WWII, but only one generation of tanks. ... "
                          Depends exactly what you mean by "generations" in the context of tanks but the USA did start out with the M3 Medium, quickly transitioning to the M4, which might count as two "generations"? If we throw in the M26 for the closing months of WW2, that could make it three (by a whisker).
                          That said, the M4 continued in US use until at least the Korean War so there is quite a bit of generational overlap in service.
                          "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                            There were complaints in North Africa and Italy, which were not dealt with.

                            Then post them.



                            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                            While the 'Easy Eight' E8 did finally address the issues, but it only served in small numbers during WW2.
                            Depends how you define small. Even then commanders did not want to get rid of the 75mm tanks.

                            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                            As MM noted, the Brits went to considerable trouble to replace the crappy cannon.
                            'The 75mm was not crappy and it is juvenile to try and say it was. What you mean to say it was not a great hole puncher. Given that hole punching was a small part of the M4s task then this was not an insurmountable issue.

                            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                            The Sherman was on the winning side, but was not the reason that side won.
                            No one is saying it was so keep tilting at your windmill. The Sherman was part of an Allied strategy to attrite and destroy all the individually crafted German tanks by being on every part of the battlefield in great numbers and not poncing about looking for single Tigers to engage in one-on-one-jousts. The Sherman was able to provide every Allied Inf Unit with its own supporting tanks. I can well imagine the 80 year old Germans puffing about in 1945 on a bicycle trying to save their city from the invaders comforting themselves with the knowledge a single Tiger knock out the whole armoured division coming their way-but sadly they did not have even that one single Tiger.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Thankfully the Western Allies, with the significant exception of North Africa were not too often tasked with having to face 88s at long ranges with 75s. They also by 1944 had many other assets, such as massive overall superiority in artillery and air power.

                              As for the Korean War, the Brits had gone over to Comets and Centurions.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by OpanaPointer View Post
                                Amazon does allow people to review books.
                                Only if you are a signed up member. I tried it last night while searching for some older books I wanted to read, and I already own a Kindle.
                                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X