Walter_Sobchak

Yep, Teledyne Continental developed the 908 HP version of the AVDS-1790 in the hopes that it would be included in the M60A3. They also developed their hydro suspension units as part of this upgrade. Ultimately, the Army decided that the M60A3 would not include any mobility upgrades, just improvements to the FC and thermal sights. Honestly, I think they were afraid that if they improved the M60A3 too much, it would endanger the XM1 program.

Because I am obligated by family pride and history, I have to defend the honor of the M60 by pointing out that it was effectively a much older design than the Leopard I. Whereas the Leo 1 was part of the second generation of the postwar tanks, M60 is essentially an improved version of the US first generation postwar tank, the M48. So to come in second in mobility while being older than its competitors (AMX-30, Chieftain, Leo I are all second gen tanks) is not bad at all. Oddly, while M60 was considered a bit of a stopgag when it came out, it soldered on as the main US tank for over 20 years. I also think it's interesting that the first generation of British postwar tanks, the Centurion, would go on to be one of the most successful tanks of the cold war, at least when upgraded with the M60 powertrain.

The absolute nuttiest candidate in the US has dropped out. independent candidate for Virginia's 10th Congressional District, Nathan Larson, announced he is ending his campaign. I guess not many people in Virginia supported his pro-pedophilia and incest platform.

Unfortunately the link is now dead, but a while back there was an interview of an Iranian tanker from the Iran/Iraq war. He served in both Chieftain and M60 tanks. When asked which he and his fellow soldiers preferred, he said M60 unequivocally. The reason was that the M60 was much more reliable.

Its a grand American tradition going back at least as far as Andrew Jackson.

Back to the topic of people running for office who really shouldn't, may I present the case of Bobby Wilson of Arizona who is running for the Arizona state senate? Some might find it odd that a man who was disbarred for running a forgery scam would run for public office. Even stranger is the fact that he killed his mother and sister and then burned the bodies when he was 18. Of course, he claims it was self-defense but his story is pretty far fetched. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/18/arizona-senate-candidate-who-fatally-shot-his-mom-decades-ago-argues-for-gun-rights-for-self-defense.html

Sounds about right. Anyhow, I think the M10 is a pretty underrated vehicle. It certainly had some flaws (no coax machine gun, manual turret traverse), but it was a pretty good can opener by the standards of 1943.

That would be my guess too. Although just to clarify, when you say TD people, that refers to the leadership. The guys actually driving these things around were quite happy to have whatever armor they could get. I think there was even a TD battalion that refused to switch from M10 TDs to M18 Hellcats because of how little armor they had. I'll have to look up where I read that.

It wasn't meant to be well armored. They wanted firepower and speed. Given the limitations of 1960's era armor technology and the strategic situation West Germany faced at the time, I think it was a pretty reasonable choice. I've always thought the Leopard I was a pretty good tank for it's time. I would have picked it over a Chieftain in most situations. Not sure I would have picked it over an M60 though.

That's what I was wondering.

She better make some money off that book because ain't no one gonna take her seriously anymore.

If Omarosa won't take the $15,000 a month deal to stop bad mouthing Trump, I'll take it! I mean, I have principles and all, but $15000 a month? That might convince me real quick to stop shit posting about Trump and say "no comment" real fast.

Maybe because i am trying to represent an alternate viewpoint here? And trust me, my opinions on the matter are not outliers, but shared by at least half the population. I mean, if you want this place to be an echo chamber, I can limit my posting to the AFV thread.

Based on my own experiences this description matches most organizations in general. I can think of several departments and people at my old workplace who nobody knew what they did or why they were there, but somehow, they were considered important. Or at least thought they were. Anyhow, it was pretty apparent from the last election that the Democratic party is not a well run machine. The fact that it represents a fairly large range of demographics and interest groups probably does not help either. Also, normal people don't choose a career in politics.

I meant 90 for the whole war, not just France. This is my episode list for the 1940 French campaign. As you can see, I have left out some of the less common French tanks. FT 17 R 35 H 35 FCM 36 Char D1,2 and 3 Char B1 bis Somua S 35 Panzer 35 & 38 Panzer III Panzer IV British Light tank Mk I-VI Mk I (A9) & Mk II (A10) Mk III (A13) & Mk IV (A13 Mk II) Matilda I Matilda II Stug III (short barrel)

Probably not, they will get mentioned in the episodes about the vehicle they are based on. Right now my current list of vehicles to cover is at about 90.

Honestly, I have not paid all that much attention to her until she was in the headlines. I'll take your word for it. I really need to stop arguing here at get back to researching WWII French armor for my next video.

That would perhaps be the weirdest canvassing job ever.

Again, you keep using Communism and Socialism interchangeably. I looked at the platform for Ocasio-Cortez, most of it is pretty much a continuation of New Deal style policy. I saw nothing about the liquidation of Kulaks, imposition of single party rule, or the collectivization of the means of production. And please, don't assume that I support her entire platform. Some of it sounds wildly impractical from a financial standpoint. That said, I don't think she is the second coming of Stalin, nor is it fair to compare her to some of the extreme right nutjobs that have surfaced on the Republican ticket in non-competitive districts. And yes, the Democratic establishment is not all that happy with her. For that fact alone, I am sort of happy she is around.

Yes, I to think it's a shame the Republican party threw away what remained of its values and dignity. Oh wait, you were talking about the Democrats? anyhow, enough snark. You say the economy is doing great. Yes, for corporations, who got the lions share of the tax cut. Wages for working people are stagnant, and the average US worker has nothing in savings. This is not a new trend, but Trump's "great" economy has done nothing to reverse this trend. And of course, while the corporate tax cuts are permanent, the ones for individuals end in ten years. I figure that's about when they will use the excuse that there is a huge hole in the federal budget (due to the Bush Jr and Trump tax cuts) to start seriously cutting entitlements. So, kiss your social security and medicaid goodbye by the time any of us need it. As to NATO, please stop using Trumps deliberately misleading rhetoric. No one "pays" anything. The issue is whether or not member states are "spending" enough on defense, not "paying" money to anyone. The 2% goal is not something Trump created, it actually is a long standing goal established by previous administrations. Trump's main "accomplishment" regarding NATO has been to cause our allies to have serious doubts as to the US willingness to actually Article 5 of the NATO treaty. On other foreign policy issues, he tore up the Iran deal, then said he would be willing to talk to the Iranians. Predictably, the Iranians were not in any hurry to talk to a leader who just arbitrarily withdrew from a treaty signed only a few years ago. By reimposing sanctions on Iran, Trump has created another dilemma regarding European relations, who have not disavowed the Iran deal. So far, negotiations with North Korea have gotten the return of US soldier remains, but as far as actual progress on the dismantling of NK's nuclear capability, recent reports claim that NK research and development is continuing. Actually, Mike Pompeo stated it himself last month. As to US - Russian relations, Trump went to meet with Putin in Helsinki, and the results were, shall we say, a little odd... One the international economic front, he seems to think tariffs are the magic bullet. Frankly, it's still probably too soon to tell exactly what impact these tariffs will have, although Trump already has had to bribe US farmers with $12 billion dollars to make up for their tariff related losses. If we are lucky, prices on consumer goods will not go up too dramatically as this trade war escalates. As to his skill as an executive leader, the Trump white house has been an absolute mess. Never before have we seen an administration with such a quick turnover of high ranking positions. Most of his cabinet heads seemed to have been picked based on their antipathy for the department they are supposed to head. His first EPA choice, Scott Pruitt, ended up in over a dozen ethics investigations. Zinke, the head of interior, has had a few ethical issues of his own. Betsy Devos, sec of Ed, went in front of congress and delivered one of the most embarrassing performances by a cabinet head ever. Tom Price, of Health and Human services had to resign over misuse of department money for travel. Ben Carson seems to like very expensive office furniture. As far as Trump's primary campaign promises, most are still unfulfilled. The Wall? Congress has not been able to come up with a new immigration bill, let alone funding for the wall. The idea that Mexico will pay for the wall seems to have been quietly abandoned. The only accomplishment by Trump on immigration so far has been to put children in cages. His other big promise, to repeal and replace Obamacare with something better has not materialized either. He's managed to cripple the AHCA to a certain extent, but the law still stands, and it is doubtful congress will take up the issue of repeal any time soon. And then there is the promise to "drain the swamp", whatever that means exactly. If it means getting rid of corruption, perhaps he should have started with his own campaign? Currently, we have Trump's former campaign manager on trail, the star witness being Trump's former deputy campaign manager. Both are accused of serious financial crimes. His commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross, has been accused of grifting $120 million dollars. His son and son in law are prime targets for the Mueller probe, and Trump himself has admitted that the two willing attended a meeting during the campaign with the goal of securing damaging information about Trump's opponent from agents of a foreign government. Meanwhile, a different legal case is proceeding regarding Trump's potential violations of the emoluments clause. Given that Trump refused to disclose his tax returns to the American public, or to effectively distance himself from his business empire while president, the notion that he is financially benefiting from his elected office is not all that far-fetched. Meanwhile, Trump's approval ratings have stayed fairly flat, hovering in the 40-45 % range. The republican establishment is scared as hell of November, knowing that Trump has alienated all but his base. Just look at all the high profile republicans who decided to retire to "spend more time with their families." Most of what Trump has accomplished so far has been done the same way his predecessor did it, with executive orders. And as we have seen, executive orders are not nearly as long lasting or as durable as actual laws. If Trump loses the congress in November, you can be guaranteed that the next two years of his presidency will be even less productive.

Be that as i may, I like evidence. All that was in those articles were the claims of one lawyer. And yes, I like freedom of speech just fine. I also think that Universities have gotten a bit silly in how much they coddle students these days. That said, it's fairly low on the list of my current concerns regarding the health of the nation.

Read the linked articles again. One is a blog post by the lawyer of someone who claims they were asked by a school administrator why they followed Alex Jones. Then there is another blog post repeating the lawyers blog post, and then an article repeating the story as well. The other link is a CNN article that does not mention Alex Jones at all, it just notes that college admissions officers are examining prospects social media history. So basically, we have one example of this supposed "political" censorship. Although, its not censorship since Harvard is a private institution. Just like a prospective employer might look at your social media presence to make sure they are not hiring a Nazi or a flat earther or whatever. If you follow the link provided in the one post giving examples of other times when an applicant was turned down because of their social media history, the examples cited were not political, but rather because people were posting pretty gross and stupid stuff. "In the group, students sent each other memes and other images mocking sexual assault, the Holocaust, and the deaths of children, according to screenshots of the chat obtained by The Crimson. Some of the messages joked that abusing children was sexually arousing, while others had punchlines directed at specific ethnic or racial groups. One called the hypothetical hanging of a Mexican child “piñata time.” After discovering the existence and contents of the chat, Harvard administrators revoked admissions offers to at least ten participants in mid-April, according to several members of the group. University officials have previously said that Harvard’s decision to rescind a student’s offer is final."

Pretty sure Harvard is a private university.