Sometimes stupid loses

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Bowser, Mar 23, 2011.

  1. Bowser

    John Turco Guest

    Neil Ellwood is correct, Peter.

    Moreover, just having tracks (e.g., as a bulldozer does), hardly makes
    anything a "tank," automatcally.
    John Turco, May 12, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bowser

    John Turco Guest


    In WWII, the U.S. Army was able to greatly extend the lives of its metal
    tank tracks, by having them rubber-coated. The "3M Company" (better known
    as "Scotch") was responsible for this breakthrough.

    Naturally, such bonding technology was well within 3M's area of expertise.
    The firm had already established itself, by introducing sandpaper and the
    ubiquitous brand of Scotch clear adhesive tape.
    John Turco, May 12, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bowser

    John Turco Guest

    All very true.
    Affirmative, mon amigo...armor alone, does not a tank make.
    In U.S. Army parlance, "tank destroyer" referred to a vehicle's >role<.
    A TD might've been a half-track, a towed cannon, an M36 "Jackson" (or
    even, a tank-busting P-47 "Thunderbolt" fighter-bomber).

    "GMC" ("Gun Motor Carriage") was the official designation, for the M18,
    M36 and other such fully-tracked specimens. They differed from tanks, in
    that they featured open turrets, and were sometimes less heavily armored.

    Indeed, the M18 sacrificed protection for speed! This "little" 18-ton
    killer could attain a top speed of 55 mph...thereby making it the WWII
    equivalent of today's virtually invincible M1 "Abrams," in terms of
    sheer automotive performance.
    Herr Schicklegrubber became far too enamored (and/or "enarmored") of
    the "bigger is better" concept, apparently. He never realized that he
    needed >more< tanks and TD's (not larger ones), in order to stem the
    tides of M4 "Shermans" pouring through his ranks.

    At times, the GMC's "direct fire" capabilities were of greater value,
    than the U.S. artillery's awesome "TOT" ("Time On Target") barrages.

    In any case, the M36's 90mm "high velocity" cannon would easily turn
    the aforementioned "Panzerjager Tiger" behemoth, into a giant slag
    heap. "MAD" ("Mutual Assured Destruction") had already arrived, on
    the battlefield.
    John Turco, May 12, 2011
  4. Bowser

    John Turco Guest

    Nader is such a fake and a hypocrite! If the Chevrolet "Corvair" was
    inherently dangerous (because of its rear-engine design), why didn't
    he attack the Volkswagen "Beetle" on the same grounds?

    I'll answer my own question: In the 1960's, General Motors was the
    biggest and most enticing target, by far, in the entire automobile
    industry...and VW was just a punk, in comparison.

    (How times have changed -- with VW having overtaken GM, a few years
    John Turco, May 12, 2011
  5. Bowser

    John Turco Guest

    Plus, even if they were capable of successfully invading the U.S.A.,
    how were the Japanese going to >garrison< a nation of such vast size?

    Most likely, they would've needed to import countless Chinese slave
    laborers...who were already needed, to garrison >China<, itself!
    John Turco, May 12, 2011
  6. Bowser

    John Turco Guest

    PeterN wrote:

    That's right; still, the U.S. Navy did go on to sink several Japanese
    battleships, later in the war.
    John Turco, May 12, 2011
  7. Bowser

    John Turco Guest

    Savageduck wrote:

    Those "Iowa" boats were the best battleships, ever built; it's too
    bad, they arrived too late, to be of any particular significance.
    John Turco, May 12, 2011
  8. Bowser

    John Turco Guest

    Savageduck wrote:

    Eventually, atomic submarines - equipped with nuclear missles - would
    become the greatest and most sinister menaces, of all.
    John Turco, May 12, 2011
  9. Bowser

    John Turco Guest

    Allen wrote:

    Whew! That might've been a bigger "broadcast" than the Super Bowl and
    World Series, combined.
    John Turco, May 12, 2011
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.