Реклама | Adv
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
Сообщения форума
Реклама | Adv

Rants and Death Traps

Дата: 22.10.2014 01:30:10
View PostAzyur, on Oct 21 2014 - 20:58, said: Another nicely written editorial which conveys your current thoughts on the issue. Having read your previous articles on the subject of the US versus German armor, it was good to see you clarify your opinions. I will note, however, that previously, you have cited memoirs to support your opinions. It seems, unfortunate, that you would suggest that some  published works should be dismissed, while others should be accepted, seemingly, based upon its alignment with a particular point of view.

The_Chieftain:  

View PostJwilson7020, on Oct 21 2014 - 20:45, said: This was an interesting post, and it merely reinforces the points I made in a paper submitted for my completion of CGSC concerning the evolution of tank and tank doctrine (which I'd be happy to share as a post if so invited)
  While Major Elston's observations were generally correct given the data he had available, they do not tell the full story. And discounting Cooper's Death Traps (written by the Maintenance LNO who saw every -- or nearly every -- damaged/destroyed tank in the 3rd Armored Division...as well as what killed it) in favor of a one sided memorandum penned by an officer who was not on the front lines, reading filtered after action reports is patently unfair. 

The_Chieftain:   I evidently should have done a better job with the original article. They are actually two entirely unrelated sub-articles which I put into one post, mainly to make the one post a bit more meaty. I do not at any point attempt to discount Cooper's writings on the basis of what Maj Elston has to say. Cooper's writings fail on their own merits once they start delving into unsupported statement/one-sided analysis. It is also not incorrect to say that MAJ Elston also fails to argue convincingly due to his own one-sided analysis, though the difference between the two is that at least Elston has the objective backing of the fact that the US choices have resulted in winning, and that the TDs, presumably included in 'inferior US equipment' seemed to be doing quite well.

Реклама | Adv