The Sherman Tank what an amazing vehicle!!

I'm a bit puzzled, can the claimants point out exactly where I've been talking rubbish and have been shown to be doing so? A bit of a LOL about the inferred 'I have access to secret squirrel documents and you don't' line, must try that one some time.

As far as my profession goes, or went before I retired, a part of my daily work that I was well paid for was to examine and advise on evidence. This was real world stuff, not airy fairy academic pretend, if I was wrong then it would become obvious in the most personal and obvious way to my detriment. That sort of advice involves examining and evaluating everything relevant which is what I try to bring here. As far as WW1/2 goes, it's been a hobby for 20 odd years, it's absolutely facinating and there is still heaps I have to learn so step up guys and contribute.

Apparently it needs saying, surprisingly, but when trying to establish facts those who saw/experienced what occurred should always be considered the most reliable, unless it can be established otherwise. Hearsay is often valueless, something in writing where the author cannot be questioned is similarly of little value unless what has been said can be otherwise supported. This is all pretty basic stuff to be applied when trying to establish what really happened, except on a lot of internet forums and video outlets apparently.

 

When you talk about interpreting evidence, are you sure you don't mean 'inverting'?

They're called 'public records' for a reason...

 

There's some 'rubbish' right here. Nobody said they have access to 'secret' documents. It appears you don't understand the qualitative difference between:

i) archival records, which can be both primary and secondary sources, and which may or may not be secret, in which case nobody here on this forum is likely to either have access to them, or if they do, divulge information from them
ii) Secondary sources such as books
iii) primary sources such as veteran recollections, be they in book form or not.

Thank you for this invaluable advice, that was really needed given how clueless we all are. I look forward to seeing how you will now teach Granny how to suck eggs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_grandmother_to_suck_eggs

All the best

Andreas

 

Holy ****

Kev

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfl6Lu3xQW0

(Is there a version of this in German?)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266738/Censorship-row-BBC-cuts-racist-lines-classic-Fawlty-Towers-episode.html

"a character we’re clearly supposed to laugh at rather than with."

 

Myths of American Armor. TankFest Northwest 2015: An address on some of the common misconceptions about American armor in WW2

(The Chieftain (Real name Nicholas Moran) is Wargaming America's resident tanker and amateur historian. In addition to doing research for the tanks in the game).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

 

Huge ammount of content on UTube from wargamming supporting their research for world of tanks. But the highlight is the fantastic series below for anyone who hasnt taken the time to watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oLY4FOrnjc&list=PLEAEU2gs2Nz-aSi3PpjNI9Q4klDGi421D

If I remember right the age old M4 debate is mentioned and virtually laughed off.

Kev

 

The problem with Moran, or one of them, is that he is American. I don't mean that disrespectfully but over the years I've noticed that Americans almost without exception allow this inbuilt American thing that I crudely express as 'Murrica yeah' to influence their perspective, one example of which is that they tend to accept American sources that favour their point of view without question. This often happens with German sources too which they also tend to accept without question, particularly if in some way such sources suit American opinion. The rest don't seem to matter much which is interesting because the rest had built up considerable WW2 experience before the US even started and some would say had terminally damaged German ability prior to that time too.

I could go on and spend a hour or two on beginning to counter Moran but obviously there is no point doing so here. A pity from the point of view of trying to establish something like the truth but that's the way it is, the truth is subjective.

Oh and A, your partonising personal attitude is tedious, the subject of correct research procedures was actually one of the many subjects I qualified in at a professional level. It's a subject I did well at professionally, in the real world.

 

It doesn't show, so maybe you should wonder why that is?

All the best

Andreas

 

1) Okay.
2) So wherever you qualified at professional level, it was taught to you to dismiss expertise on the basis of the passport the expert holds.
3) I sincerely hope you never worked in nuclear or airline safety.

All the best

Andreas

 

Personal attacks shouldn't work - if it's an aim at an idea - it's a missed shot.

From his accent alone Moran wasn't giving away that he was American, though he does mention it occasionally. (Which is confusing, given his accent to those that don't know who he is - or take the time to look up ) Worth doing so.

Re... the video at : http://ww2talk.com/forums/topic/5081-the-sherman-tank-what-an-amazing-vehicle/page-25#entry700758

As regards him using only American sources - that seems like a rather odd thing to suggest as he was quoting from a range, and much of it British I might add. including lots of info and talks with experts at museums etc.

The Ronson quote (from the 50's), the fact that many tanks were fired on whilst empty of crew - as the "enemy" objective was to prevent its recovery and repair, hence saying tanks routinely burned out due to "petrol engine" fire was spurious etc. especially much of the damage was due to the ammunition etc.

And all the rest etc. etc. worth waiting till the very end tho. when he says that the US armoured force was "a victim of bad press", the tank was a piece of a huge war machine - it wasn't "just all about the tank" - Sherman was a good tank - that tended to rarely meet a Panther - Shermans were "a very good piece of equipment" - pretty "amazing" - given what they were up against ?!

Wasn't 100% sure about his assessment of the Firefly though... though please that assessment maybe (???) belongs to a whole other thread....

Ps. Post #755 - was a good read! - thanks Swiper.

Rm.

 

Penned something on this a while ago.

Historiography of the campaign is rather colourful.

http://www.jonathanhware.com/flip-reverse-it.html

 

Most, if not all, of the members here arguing the merits of the M4 are Limeys.

Best I can deduce from his many previous posts, one of the M4 proponents here is not necessarily fond of 'Mercans.

 

I'm German, actually.

All the best

Andreas

 

Perhaps Moran as a New American is trying too hard to be a genuine American and give his American audience what they want to hear but anyway he simply cherry picks to suit his obvious agenda. Further he makes absolutely no attempt to present any balance in his presentation, that by itself should be warning enough. Whatever, most people believe what they want to believe.

 

This ^ post will do to try to get to the bottom of what seems to be a common research problem, A did a similar one too which is just as problematical.

The biggest problem arises from the categorisation of "books" as a secondary source which is vague and pedantic and at times simply wrong. The term "books" goes more to form than content when it's only content we should be interested in. Publishing content in the form of a book has absolutely nothing to do with content and it's veracity, take for example the diary of Anne Frank. Should we think less of the content because it's in a book? Of course not, the concept is ridiculous.

The next problem follows on from the first. It is institutionally recognised that to find the truth different weights should be accorded to the circumstances in which a statement is made. The most reliable source is the content of contemporaneous notes and diaries, Anne Frank again. The reason for this should be obvious, people are most likely to speak honestly and accurately immediately after an event, before memory starts to slide and the subject has second thoughts on what he/she should say.

There is a lot more and I'm not going to go on forever but documents other than from the above may be subject to all sorts of agendas and influences. From arse covering to self promotion eg Rommel. So while such documents may be 'primary sources' they by their very nature must be critically exami ned and considered for such truth reducing influences. That's the hard bit which depends so much upon whoever is doing the examining and their own personal influences, agendas etc eg Moran.

This has not been an easy post to compose but I'm happy (at the moment) that professionally recognised and accepted rules and principles have been correctly interpreted and applied to suit the subject matters of this forum.

 

I'm afraid that Anne Frank is pretty irrelevant in the context we are talking about.

Belton Cooper can of course talk authoritatively about anything he personally experienced. In that regard he is a primary source. But that's not how his statements are being used, and its not what he restricted himself to. So once you leave the personal experience space, you are in secondary source land, and worst of all, most probably hearsay territory. It's also not a contemporary source, since it was written after the war. Unlike, oh, things such as war diaries and OR reports.

http://tankandafvnews.com/2015/01/29/debunking-deathtraps-part-1/

All the best

Andreas