T___A

On 1/28/2018 at 7:45 PM, T___A said:

TIL one of my ancestors was taken prisoners by the Confederates at Chickamauga.

I learned today he was interned at andersonville

Afghanistan

Yessss

https://www.clickhole.com/incredible-bethesda-revealed-that-fallout-76-will-sh-1826545754?utm_content=Main&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=SF&utm_source=Twitter

L M A O

M

A

O

I can't believe that I forgot that HRC was not the first person to force their nomination on the Democratic Party thereby causing their defeat to a Republican candidate:

Not one but two Clintons have said they could've pardon themselves!

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/1998/12/can_president_clinton_pardon_himself.html

3 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

I would like to see a citation please.

Texas v. White:

 The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/74/700

12 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

clearly does not.  This issue was settled pretty conclusively in 1865

The civil war was not about revolution; It was about secession.*

12 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

You have no right to overthrow the government.  That's called treason.

This is not true. The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that there is a right to revolution. Even in the Supreme Court case that ruled on secession. 

You're presuming that the right to revolution and the right for the government to preserve itself are incompatible and cannot exist simultaneously. The jurisprudence on this subject has generally disagreed. 

*I should clarify that slavery was the main motivation for secession. 

Anti-Trump or Pro-Trump? You decide!

Chelyabinsk, spring 1947:

4 hours ago, Scolopax said:

I'm curious why you think that way about the IS-3.  I'm used to it receiving (uneducated) acclaim at best and being called a pig at worst.  If anything, it's the IS-4 I see put down. I've not read too much into either one myself. 

I get the impression that the sentiment you're echoing is mostly a western thing. Every contemporary source I've seen on the IS-3 has been negative. They just didn't like it. For good reason: There was just a lot of problems with it. At one point they had to return literally every IS-3 to the factory to fix the welding which was falling apart. Notice that their response  to the IS-3's problem wasn't "wait for the IS-7" it was "oh my god resurrect that heavy tank program we canceled years ago and get it ASAP". The IS-3 was that bad. The problem with the IS-4 was just weight, otherwise they were enthused with it. To the point that when the designing of the T-10 was ordered the government demanded IS-3 shape and size but with IS-4 technology. And I would say the result was pretty good.

4 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

Do you have any idea why the Object 777 went nowhere despite development being largely done before the stupid bulk cancellation of Khrushchev? That seems to be IMHO, the best overall of the soviet heavy tank designs, and was worked on for quite some time.

Politics mainly. The Object 277/8 and Object 770 were designed on the orders of the Sovet Ministrov so every other design was unsolicited and for some reason the Soviets had weird hangups about unsolicited designs. Also the Object 777 only had a manually loaded M-62 which was not gonna fly. The Soviets right after the war decided  that the next generation of heavy tanks was going to a use an auto-loaded 130mm. The only reason the IS-4 and T-10 didn't get the 130mm was they were meant to be quick and easy replacements for the disaster that was the IS-3

Just now, Lord_James said:

 

Would have been interesting to see what they did with their heavy tanks once composite armor made the scene. I wonder if they would have used the same steel / STEF / steel array in the hull and cast turret with insert like the T-64s. 

IIRC they actually already had paper designs using composite armor in '60. They're just buried in the archives somewhere; we'll see if Pavlov and Pavlov dig it up.

3 hours ago, That_Baka said:

@T___A Do you think that Khrushchev was right when cancelling heavy tank development?

If Khrushchev was right it wasn't because of any foresight on his part. The man clearly had no aptitude and knowledge for both armored warfare and tank design. I'm not sure if you're familiar with why the T-62 has the 115 but he was involved and the whole affair was dumb.

If they weren't canceled either the Object 277/8 Object 770 or would've been produced*. Probably with the 140mm smoothbore. Maybe the Object 292 would also be produced as a hold over until 277/8 or 770 gets rolling. After that its impossible to say the if the later designs would be worthwhile. I think pure institutional inertia from the SA would keep heavy tanks going at least until the collapse of the USSR. Again I don't know if  the later designs would be good and therefore worthwhile. All the heavy tanks designers threw in the towel after the decision but I don't know what happened to their protégés after the infamous order. So I don't know if they were any good. I presume they kept working in the industry. 

*Probably with the name T-11 since it would've been the 11th heavy tank produced by the Soviet Union. 

Object 770:

I''m a Trump supporter and I live in a right wing state, particularly in a district which Trump won 57-36. So I feel I also buck the trend.

Nope, it's supposed to be a standard German tank. 

Rip London:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-murder-rate-overtakes-new-york-for-first-time-ever-after-spate-of-fatal-stabbings-and-a3803566.html

Baseball is Back!

5 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

What's the cross-section like on Object 260?  Did they come to their senses and realize that in order for a tank to work, it needs space inside of it for the crew?

The IS-7's ergonomics got rave reviews from the testers, especially with the good autoloader. Anyway, here's the cross section of the 1946 and 1948 model:

Comparison of the IS-7's (Object 257) side armor with other soviet tanks: