Ordnance vs AGF: Pershing Part 2
Дата: 05.06.2014 04:22:18
Dad_is_bad, on Jun 05 2014 - 01:36, said: Re-evaluate everything. First rule is to always consider the source
of information, I genuinely believe the Americans went out of their
way to find negative results for the 17 pounder , the link from
Generals to contracts existed long before the war.The weapons early
batches of rounds didn't help the cause either. . I absolutely
detest the wiki but like you my info is manuals, reports, testing
and other info from the war most have never seen that's cost me a
fortune over 40+ years and it's not going on wiki . and it's
NFP.The_Chieftain: Forgive me, NFP? i would consider the concept that
someone had a quiet word with a captain or lt running tests on 17pr
to encourage him to find the negatives to be a little unlikely. And
it seems that the US's conclusions on the system, in terms of
objective assessment, were not particularly divorced from British
results. The US seemed to give credit to the weapon's good points
(namely serviceable accuracy with base ammo, and penetration) and
detracted from its poor points (size, weight, accuracy with sabot).
What examples have you to indicate selective or manipulated test
results?
Ordnance vs AGF: Pershing Part 2