T110's Zen-like Inner Core.

The_Chieftain:   The cupola is actually not excessively tall, though it looks it. Rita took a measuring tape to the prototype, and I used the in-house measuring tool to check the 3D model compared with her photos. The difference in height was less than an inch. You can expect that the cupola will shrink a bit in the next revision, but I also expect that there will still be complaints that it is still too tall. The cause of the perception issue? I have no clue.   I am not sure about your statement as to the armored bins. They don't look armored to me. http://i.imgur.com/vX4ajN8.jpg   Also not sure which bits you suggest are missing on the side skirts.  

The_Chieftain:   LiB, I'm holding this to the same standards I hold everything else. You want to disprove something, you need to actually prove it is not true. Anything else is suspicion. Note I have never said that I believe you are wrong. Indeed, on balance you are probably right, but there is no proof that you are. Indeed, the only argument which I think is truly valid is that of the engine deck, and even at that, I have no evidence to show that there are no other possible engine configurations which would fit within the standard engine deck. I have no evidence to show that the French prototype was not, in fact, powered by a Cummins. The HVSS argument simply isn't solid. Where did the Israelis get their M51s from? Were they former M1s which were never upgraded to M50 standard? Were they some of the early M50s which came with the Continentals? After all, the M50 had been using Cummins for some time, why wouldn't they have installed it into M51 to begin with? Were they former French stocks of M4A(X)Ts? What is your evidence that the bogies shown in that M51 upgrade photograph were installed as part of the M51 upgrade and they didn't already all have HVSS beforehand?   You say I'm ignoring Hunnicutt in favour of an unsourced website. Where in Hunnicutt does it contradict the website on this issue? It says "the old power plants were replaced with Cummins". It does not say that the Israelis came up with the idea, or that they were the first to do it. (Worse, two pages earlier, Hunnicutt says that the installation of the AMX-13's 75mm was an "Israeli Modification". Was it? Or was it a French modification as per the 'unsourced website' which then the Israelis procured and implemented, which seems to match Givati's book)   Over the four years I've been doing this job, I have always drawn a distinction between conclusion and demonstrable fact. I will either say "This is wrong, and here's the document specifically showing why", or I will say "There is some question as to whether or not this is the case." You want me to confuse the two. I will not do so. I will not stand up and say to Chars Francais or anyone else "You are categorically wrong, but I have no primary evidence to the contrary, and only limited secondary evidence." I am happy enough to accept that there is question. I am not happy to denounce the work of others without solid evidence, much as I do not like when others denounce my work without solid evidence. Until such evidence is shown, or at least a convincing argument is made that the French Cummins cannot have happened (Such as "Cummins released their engine in 1954, the French prototype was made 1952&quot, I must assume that chars-francais has information I do not have.    Dai, your argument about "Why would the French be considering a Diesel" doesn't really prove much either. Given that Sherman's days in French service was being numbered anyway with the influx of more modern American vehicles, why would the French not be looking at the export market as the -primary- purchaser of the upgrades, and not the French military? In such a case, why concern oneself with what the French military was doing? There is plenty of similar precedent.  

The_Chieftain:   It still takes a minute or two for the police to show up once called. That's assuming one has time to make the call in the first place. A lot can happen in a minute or two.  

The_Chieftain:   Some things never change, or shall I say are always repeated?   Nice find.  

The_Chieftain:   They did already. It's on the US DD line.  

The_Chieftain:   During the Heller case, one of the briefs came from a military group. (Mainly retired generals, I think, I don't believe the military itself should have gotten involved). They pointed out that experience showed, reasonably enough, that recruits who came into the military already familiar with firearms were more proficient and faster to train. Given that the federal militia exists for the sake of rapid expansion in time of need, that's actually a pretty good argument in terms of national security for people having their own firearms.