Jump to content


Historical Sch-lol-arship: T-34


  • Please log in to reply
189 replies to this topic

Wyvern2 #21 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 05:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 35914 battles
  • 3,114
  • [_D_] _D_
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011
hey, EE, i posted the link to this on his blog, we'll see if he responds, lol

rossmum #22 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 07:12

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 23188 battles
  • 4,998
  • [NDP] NDP
  • Member since:
    07-20-2010
Школололо???

MDATB #23 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 07:24

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 569 battles
  • 88
  • Member since:
    04-02-2013

View PostWyvern2, on Sep 17 2013 - 05:35, said:

hey, EE, i posted the link to this on his blog, we'll see if he responds, lol
He did already.

Zinegata #24 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 08:17

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9922 battles
  • 5,425
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010
Wow, what a childish response:

Quote

Thanks for wasting my time!
‘EE's occasionally crude humor, he is one of the better Soviet tank researchers online’
I guess that could be true but I can’t say I see any proof of that in what he wrote at that thread. He doesn’t even address the obvious issues reliability, survivability. He just repeats all the usual fairytales T-34 is best tank hoorah.
Some of the things he wrote are simply dumb. For example:
‘We already covered how the Soviets classified anything stuck in the mud as "lost’
‘We already covered how the Soviets classified anything stuck in the mud as "lost".
That's a pretty good figure’

Both Germans and Soviets counted destroyed tanks the same way. During a battle there are tanks that are knocked out and can be repaired but yearly statistics include vehicles that are completely destroyed.
I can’t go through every point but you get the idea. Most of his comments are either dumb or beside the point. In cases where statistics come up he doesn’t understand what they mean, which is something I’ve also seen in other internet forums.
Russia stroooooooong party you can do better than this!

Now, putting aside that the blogger makes the classic "McCarthy" defense (EE is a dirty commie! I WIN), he makes the ridiculous claim that the Germans and Soviets counted lost tanks the same way.

They did not. This has been established a long time ago - Germans only count total losses. Soviets count any tank that goes back to the factory as a loss.

But yeah, sure, let's all believe Chris instead because he accuses EE of being a commie.

Mechanize #25 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 09:00

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 1428 battles
  • 2,844
  • Member since:
    08-04-2010
In the comments by him.

"I should write something about the Bf-109 as its been misrepresented by Anglos (who hate it) and FW-190 fans (who feel the Butcherbird was the best). Are you referring to the Carson report? That was so ridiculous it has been debunked in several forums."

Oh god yes, I would love to see what a shit pile that wound end up being.

rossmum #26 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 09:12

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 23188 battles
  • 4,998
  • [NDP] NDP
  • Member since:
    07-20-2010
Hahahah wow, what a moron.

Mechanize #27 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 09:59

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 1428 battles
  • 2,844
  • Member since:
    08-04-2010

View PostDominatus, on Sep 17 2013 - 01:45, said:

Well, we lured Mike Sparks here once. That guy was bigger fish than this blogger.

Maybe we can get him and Mike sparks to come here do a duo article on how wrong the US was for not developing the M113 as every vehicle used by the Allies in WW2 and ranting about the Sherman and Armored Cars!

Toxn #28 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 10:01

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6131 battles
  • 1,718
  • Member since:
    10-25-2011
- Cynicism engaged -
Having read the post, I can confidently predict that we'll be seeing the points it lays out repeated endlessly: something that wrong and stupid never dies.
Hope everyone is ready for a million new posts showing how more T-34s were lost than produced...

View PostMechanize, on Sep 17 2013 - 09:00, said:

In the comments by him.

"I should write something about the Bf-109 as its been misrepresented by Anglos (who hate it) and FW-190 fans (who feel the Butcherbird was the best). Are you referring to the Carson report? That was so ridiculous it has been debunked in several forums."

Oh god yes, I would love to see what a shit pile that wound end up being.

Yeah, I'd love to see that one as well

Walter_Sobchak #29 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 14:00

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010
I read the original blog post and the comments.  Honestly, while I would take issue with some of the authors claims, I didn't think it was that bad.  Nor do I think picking every sentence apart, separating it from it's context and responding with a snarky comment is a particularly constructive form of criticism.  I also did not see where the author of the post referred to EE as "a dirty commie" in his response.  I certainly don't think this merits being compared to the idiocy that is Mike Sparks.  I think people are overreacting a bit on this one.

Meplat #30 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 15:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 6776 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Sep 17 2013 - 14:00, said:

I read the original blog post and the comments.  Honestly, while I would take issue with some of the authors claims, I didn't think it was that bad.  Nor do I think picking every sentence apart, separating it from it's context and responding with a snarky comment is a particularly constructive form of criticism.  I also did not see where the author of the post referred to EE as "a dirty commie" in his response.  I certainly don't think this merits being compared to the idiocy that is Mike Sparks.  I think people are overreacting a bit on this one.

I just found (and find) it to be nearly unreadable. the guy may be a good economist, but the way the article is written is simply not enjoyable to deal with.
He jumps around on subjects, instead of addressing a point and then moving on.
An example is the way he went from "Automotive performance" , then the gun, radio and visibility, before a section on "reliability" that really is mostly "automotive" in nature.

As an aside,
The "1942 Aberdeen Report" that keeps popping up, I still find a bit suspicious. it reads like it went through Google translate one too many times.

Walter_Sobchak #31 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 15:17

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View PostMeplat, on Sep 17 2013 - 15:04, said:

I just found (and find) it to be nearly unreadable. the guy may be a good economist, but the way the article is written is simply not enjoyable to deal with.
He jumps around on subjects, instead of addressing a point and then moving on.
An example is the way he went from "Automotive performance" , then the gun, radio and visibility, before a section on "reliability" that really is mostly "automotive" in nature.

As an aside,
The "1942 Aberdeen Report" that keeps popping up, I still find a bit suspicious. it reads like it went through Google translate one too many times.

I know what you mean regarding the Aberdeen Report.  I find it gets referenced quite a bit in this forum, often being treated as gospel.  While interesting, I think that a report based on one vehicle is of very limited value when making general statements regarding the entire wartime T-34 fleet.

EnsignExpendable #32 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 15:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 23762 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011
The real Aberdeen Report was never seen online. What is parroted online is what a GRU agent recalls overhearing at one point while hanging out at Aberdeen.

Also I'm glad he thinks archive sources are "usual fairy tales". I guess CAMD is powered by pixie dust.Maybe tthat's why the photocopier keeps jamming.

Meplat #33 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 15:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 6776 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Sep 17 2013 - 15:17, said:

I know what you mean regarding the Aberdeen Report.  I find it gets referenced quite a bit in this forum, often being treated as gospel.  While interesting, I think that a report based on one vehicle is of very limited value when making general statements regarding the entire wartime T-34 fleet.

I find it hard to believe that the Russians had trouble making an item as simple as an oil bath air filter, while simultaneously producing an item as complex as a 12 cylinder overhead cam direct injected Diesel engine.

Toxn #34 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 16:44

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6131 battles
  • 1,718
  • Member since:
    10-25-2011

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Sep 17 2013 - 14:00, said:

I read the original blog post and the comments.  Honestly, while I would take issue with some of the authors claims, I didn't think it was that bad.  Nor do I think picking every sentence apart, separating it from it's context and responding with a snarky comment is a particularly constructive form of criticism.  I also did not see where the author of the post referred to EE as "a dirty commie" in his response.  I certainly don't think this merits being compared to the idiocy that is Mike Sparks.  I think people are overreacting a bit on this one.

His comments regarding EE veered toward's ad-hom without engaging the actual rebuttal, with the 'dirty commie' bit being tacked on at the end as a joke.
My feeling is that this article has enough of a veneer of credibility to become widely quoted even though there isn't actually a hell of a lot of evidence behind the conclusions. Hence my cynical comment about how we'll never see the end of it.

EnsignExpendable #35 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 16:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 23762 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011
90% of the article is either a blatantly obvious generic statement, completely wrong, or points to a property of the T-34 that is shared by all tanks of the era and trumpets about how it's abysmal without bothering to do a proper comparison with its contemporaries.

Walter_Sobchak #36 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 17:38

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Sep 17 2013 - 01:41, said:

Hey EE, I was just curious what you thought of the book "T34 Mythical Weapon" by Robert Michulec.

Part of the reason I mention this book is that it appears to be the primary source that "Christos" uses in his analysis.  I have read this book, it's an interesting and rather detailed history, although the author has a rather odd writing style with an apparent bias.  This could be partially due to the translation, the book was originally written in Polish.  Christos' blog article is a somewhat clumsy summary of the Michulec book in many regards.  

I do find it funny that people on this forum seem surprised that Christos would be dismissive in his reply, although I still don't see where he uses the phrase "Dirty Commie."  Considering  that EE's post is rather sarcastic and mocking in tone, it's not surprising that Christos would respond in kind.

EnsignExpendable #37 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 17:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 23762 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011
Archive sources are primary sources. I doubt that the book uses a lot of them.

As for a mocking tone, my tone comes with real sources. His doesn't. He's just being butthurt because I called out his trash pile for what it really is.

EnsignExpendable #38 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 18:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 23762 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011
Also I don't care if every other paragraph condemns me for being literally Stalin, as long as the other paragraphs contain good evidence with proper citations to reputable sources. He seems to have a problem with those, though.

polarticus #39 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 18:08

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 5404 battles
  • 732
  • Member since:
    07-23-2011
Funny how much rage wehraboos garner  :trollface:  If you know their wrong, just ignore them.

Edited by polarticus, Sep 17 2013 - 18:10.


karnage666 #40 Posted Sep 17 2013 - 18:22

    Captain

  • Players
  • 25702 battles
  • 1,845
  • Member since:
    05-31-2012
Nice job .. That blog has been floating around for way too long , It gets a pretty high ranking on google .




6 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 6 guests, 0 anonymous users