What are the best and worst tanks of WWII in each of these categories?
>Cost-To-Effectiveness Ratio
>Reliability and Maintainability
>Technical Specs
Please explain and defend your answers.
I know not very much on this so any experts please feel free to knock me down
I would probably say the most cost effective would have been some variant of the Sherman or perhaps a StuG, the worst well that would surely be some strange prototype made by one of the forces
Reliability I think would also go to a late war Sherman as well, least would probably be an early Panzer IV or one of the heavy German tanks when they started to fuck around with them
Technical specs really you need to consider the time period, so say a the T34 or KV-1 had such thick armor that a lot of Axis anti-tank weaponry struggled to penetrate it, similar thing with the Churchill tank in North Africa. Remember that there were also a lot of really shitty tanks made throughout the war too
>>1034128
>>Cost-To-Effectiveness Ratio
Sherman or T-34
>>Reliability and Maintainability
dunno, some russkie tanks found 40 years later in a ditch still worked so
>>Technical Specs
like what, speed, armament, armor?
Aru of duh Japanese tanku are da superior in evewy category ohohoho
Why are IRA propaganda songs so goddamn catchy?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORifieiZiP4
>>1050316
Terrorists make good music.
Look at ISIS.
>>1050316
Because its propaganda?
I hate when someone brings up a history figure as a "great person of history", and by all reasonable scales he's right, the achievements of this person is amazing
but then some guy shows up and is like
>b-But he did [Comparably minor bad thing]
We're not arguing over whether the person is Jesus or not, we're not idolizing him, but you act like you have some huge invalidation of the idea he did a good thing over something that minor?
The worst thing is when a person known for introducing more modernized ideas of morality, is hated on for not having modern morality in one single thing. AKA a lot of founding fathers of the US and slavery.
Just a pet peeve.
thats just 4chan being contrarian mayne
>>1048131
>"great person of history"
>we're not idolizing him
Uhh...
>whether the person is Jesus or no
>not a great person in history
>not idolized
Uhhhhh...
>but you act like you have some huge invalidation of the idea he did a good thing over something that minor
Did someone rustle your Jimmies kiddo? Just because you want to idolize a great man and gloss over his faults doesn't mean other people don't actually want to examine the person, and compare their great achievements in reference with the negative things.
Yes, glossing over the bad parts of someone and calling them great is idolizing. If you were actually open to the facts and history, you would look at the good and the bad and the historical context.
So you prefer your biography to be hagiography? where's the line between 'comparatively minor' and 'not fit for the great person of history list'?
I'd rather someone professing to be some sort of historian/a serious hobbyist be a bit of a nitpicker than a bootlicker.
Sorry your preferred historial figure(s) were criticized here and whoever did it failed to preface their argument with 'but overall blah blah great person'.
I'm not trying to be a huge dick here but this is a good example of being unironically 'triggered' in an academic context. Your feelings on the subject aren't supposed to enter into other peoples opinions on the subject.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Tate:_An_American_Artist_1928%E2%80%931960
>>1048101
This made me sad
>via 9gag.com
>>1048101
>the hoax was made more believable by Gore Vidal's endorsement on the book's dust cover.
holy shit, Will Buckley must have been laughing his goddamn ass off.
Why should I believe in God?
Should I just have faith or do I need to be convinced by the arguments of Descartes and Aquinas?
>>1041522
You should just have faith. No point in anything otherwise. Besides, all arguments are insufficient, as God cannot be "proven" rationally.
t. le existential Dane
according to christians?
fear of hell is a good reason
>>1041522
I'll prove it.
Have a look at history: christians were persecuted in Rome, but strangely enough it was alleged "devil" worshippers the ones persecuted in witch hunts and so on, and in the modern age we have "insane" people.
I'm sure you have noticed now that jesus is the antichrist and you shouldn't trust the bible a single bit, and you should hate your enemies, as most people in the world are actually devils -and this is still in the bible-, why love them? why be humble? why serve them? are you retarded?
And who told you that sex is bad if not the guy that wants to ruin mankind, the devil? Didn't GOD place lust for anal sex and a prostate in your butt? And then place a desire for it in there? Well? Isn't it HIS will then? Didn't HE made you so? How it is not HIS desire?
And notice how the faggots that pretend to be devil worshippers in here will take good care to defend that piece of shit jesus. Don't they claim to be wizards and pagans and shit? What fellowship would they have with jesus? And in a place with cp occasionally of all websites.
And you're now in kinda the good path, since God gives freedom, and you would not know the true commandments not the true name of the Christ.
Call HIM.
Have there ever been any leaders who were legitimately mentally ill? Like, who had a psychiatric condition that would be diagnosable by today's standards.
Pic unrelated
Hitler was pretty cray by the end.
"As president, his eccentric behaviour caused some consternation; on one occasion, after a delegation of schoolgirls had presented him with a bouquet, he tossed the flowers back at them one by one. On another occasion he received the British Ambassador to France wearing only the ceremonial decorations of his office.[3] It all culminated when, late one night, 24 May 1920, he fell out of a large window of the presidential train near Montargis after taking some sleeping pills and was found wandering in his nightshirt by a platelayer, who took him to the nearest level-crossing keeper's cottage. Soon afterwards, Deschanel walked out of a state meeting, straight into a lake, fully clothed. His resignation was offered on 21 September 1920, and he was placed in an institution. Nevertheless, he was narrowly elected to the senate in January 1921, serving until his death."
>>1038732
Could it be because of all the amphetamines that he took?
Hey /his/ is there any interesting points in history that haven't been made into a movie yet?
>>1048532
kettle war
>>1048532
I haven't seen any realistic movies set in the stone age.
How come pagan invaders like Anglo-Saxons and Danes all eventually caved to Christianity? Seems strange that conquerors would readily accept the religion of their enemies. Especially since Germanic paganism was a much more suitable ideology for a warrior culture.
Because Christianity = civilization back then.
>>1046954
Because Christianity was politically convenient and it promised that the good guys would win unlike Germanic mythology which is very melancholy.
Why did the Ptolemies start fucking their siblings, calling themselves Pharaoh and put make up on?
Sometimes the conquered culture is strong enough to influence the conquerors.
So I watched the Revenant a while back ago, it was bretty gud but I felt like a couple of things were off historically.
I also realized that we Americans don't really talk about that time in our history when the movie takes place (1823). Who I felt was really out of place was Fitzgerald, his accent, being a Texan, his father being a Texas tanger etc.
So my questions for you /his/torians are:
1.When did we develop an "American" accent? Particularly the southern/midwest one you hear in the movie
2. Were there Texas rangers in the late 1700s?
3. What was going on in the US during the 1810s-1830s?
Everything in that movie was off historically btw
>>1043070
How so?
I'm genuinely interested, this is a period in US history that is barely talked about.
>>1043052
>What was going on in the US during the 1810s-1830s?
War with Britain, shitflinging between slave states and free states, saber-rattling itching to go to war with Mexico.
What artefacts do you find the most fascinating?
pic related, bones of Jesus's brother
This thing fell out of another dimension or something.
>>1039725
Why can't people accept this as the scribbling's of a retard
>>1039725
>it spells fudd
Voynich manuscript confirmed for hating casual gun owners
What barbarian tribe gave the Romans biggest trouble?
Jews
The Huns.
Batavians
Hero or Villain?
B E A D Y
E
A
D
Y
BEADY
E
A
D
Y
>>1037219
Anelbasterd
So can someone explain the Second Boer War, and just why Britain felt the need for concentration camps?
Britain wanted to conquer the Boer states to gain the gold mines
Britain used concentration camps because the Boers were excellent guerilla fighters that knew the terrain, so Herbert Kitchener decided to round up all the civilians and burn their farms to force the Boers to surrender.
>>1046791
>Britain wanted to conquer the Boer states to gain the gold mines
This. Prior to the abolition of the gold standard this was pretty much the goal of British foreign policy everywhere, if I'm not mistaken.
>>1047018
The entire British empire was based on getting gold, since in the coal age gold lined up with the power of the state.
The most powerful states were those who could dig more rocks out of the ground, since that allowed the state to access more energy which would fuel industrialism.
Do you think excessive pride and nationalism over one's country is stupid? I mean, don't get me wrong, if some dipshit other country invaded mine I'd volunteer for the military immediately and defend my home. But for someone to say I am proud to be American, British, Canadian, whatever just feels really stupid to me. To get upset if someone criticizes my country seems stupid to me. The fact that a lot of people find the burning of their country flag one of the most offensive things ever seems stupid to me.
Maybe I'm autistic. In today's modern world, does nationalism have a place?
>>1045077
>Execesive to the point of fanaticism
Yes, absolutely.
>Having pride in your naionality
No, not at all, it's just tribal mentality that manifests itself in different forms, it's completely natural.
>>1045085
>Unironically using black and white fallacy
>>1045085
>Nationalism has never caused rape
>>1045077
nationalism is inherently stupid and reserved only for feeble minds.
nationalism had its place in history. some of the greatest people to ever be born were incredibly passionate about their country, their ethnicity, their traditions, their culture et cetera.
but in this world we live in, in the second decade of the 21st century, all borders are completely arbitrary, all cultures are more linked and intertwined when they have ever been and being born somewhere does necessarily not mean you'll spend the majority of your life there.
though in my personal opinion nationalism has always been stupid. I could never take pride in something that was not at least done by someone very close to me. even then, I have a hard time being proud of others, pride is really something reserved for one's own achievements.
![JamesOssuary[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/3O59xVq.jpg "JamesOssuary[1]")
