(September 2, 2017 at 3:47 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: The T34 is my favorite tank of all time

When I was younger I did see weapons as works of art. Like the f-14 Tomcat and the WW2 "W" winged Corsair. But now, I see them as symbols of our species failure to exhaust diplomacy. A necessary evil but I no longer see weapons as art. 

I find no beauty in weapons, not guns, not tanks not jets and especially not nukes. Yes, we need them because evolution produces conflict between groups, but they are not art, they are weapons designed to end life.

(September 2, 2017 at 4:13 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: But it did have for the most part ease of construction and robust field performance. The wide tracks meant fewer were abandoned during raspusitsa, the sloped armor allowed for lighter weight on those track and the rest of the chassis.

The 500-hp aluminum-block engine was the single best armored powerplant of its era. It burned diesel, reducing flammability, and that aluminum block meant a weight-to-HP unbeat for a long time to come -- especially when you consider that it wasn't lugged into a monster. Thought the 88 could penetrate the T-34's frontal armor at 100 meters or more, the fact is that speed is sometimes armor -- especially on the offensive, as they were after 1943.

It did, though, have weaknesses. But I'm willing to bet we all understand the armored tripod of firepower, armor, and mobility, and without a doubt the T-34 maximized the balance of those factors, while at the same time being much simpler to build than a Panther, more reliable than a Tiger or a Panther, and easily able to defeat a PzKpfw IV.

I guess I'm saying that you two both have fair points.

What is more, the best features of the best German tank designs of the war, features which were emulated in all successful post war tanks, including sloped armor, wide tracks, huge suspension travel, high velocity gun, were all copied from the T-34.  More specifically German features of the best German tanks, such as overlapping interleaved road wheels and split transmission front engine rear drive train, all turn out to be dead ends in evolution of the tanks, and discarded as cumbersome or suboptimal in all post war designs.

Only in ergonomics, including 3 men turret and commander copula with all round vision, were Germans initially ahead, but t-34 fully closed these gap by 1944.

The layout of the t-34 in 1940 was already almost the same as full post WWII tank design.  By 1944 model year the t-34 was effectively indistinguishable from modern post WWII tank in feature, layout and design.

Not so with German designs.  Even the Last German wartime tank design still had some important obsolete basic design features that would never be repeated in post war tank designs.

So it is clear the t-34 was really a extremely balanced, well thought out and forward thinking design with great development potential.  The much heralded German big cats were nothing more than knee jerk reactions to the amazingly superior design from the communistic Slavic untermensch, and although these managed surpass some specs of the T-34 through brute strength - which Germany could ill afford to lavish on individual tanks given its inferior production potential - didn't come close to replicating its holistic forward thinking,

---

(September 2, 2017 at 4:34 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(September 2, 2017 at 3:47 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: The T34 is my favorite tank of all time

When I was younger I did see weapons as works of art. Like the f-14 Tomcat and the WW2 "W" winged Corsair. But now, I see them as symbols of our species failure to exhaust diplomacy. A necessary evil but I no longer see weapons as art. 

I find no beauty in weapons, not guns, not tanks not jets and especially not nukes. Yes, we need them because evolution produces conflict between groups, but they are not art, they are weapons designed to end life.

Exhausting diplomacy may in many cases be the clear locally optimal solution, but globally sub-optimal.

If our species always found solution in diplomacy we would likely not have ever progressed very far into the Bronze Age.    The need to be able to deal violent dispossession or death in order to not be killed or dispossessed violently was the strongest underlying motivation for so much of our race's social, scientific and technological progress. Even much of proudest peaceful accomplishement still had at their very core the motivation to stay ahead so as not to be seen as being behind, which may lead to eventually being dispossessed or killed violently.

I see beauty in man's designs no matter the intent. A Monet is a thing of beauty. So is a P-51.

(September 2, 2017 at 6:55 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I see beauty in man's designs no matter the intent. A Monet is a thing of beauty. So is a P-51.

The wing planform is too brutal. The pregnant belly oil cooler spoils the profile.

Always thought the earlier marks of Spitfire, before it became nose heavy with oversized prop and griffon engine, was prettier.

(September 2, 2017 at 6:59 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(September 2, 2017 at 6:55 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I see beauty in man's designs no matter the intent. A Monet is a thing of beauty. So is a P-51.

The wing planform is too brutal.  The pregnant belly oil cooler spoils the profile.

Always thought the earlier marks of Spitfire, before it became nose heavy with oversized prop and griffon engine, was prettier.

Meh. You probably like Van der Meer too.

(September 2, 2017 at 6:17 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(September 2, 2017 at 4:13 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: But it did have for the most part ease of construction and robust field performance. The wide tracks meant fewer were abandoned during raspusitsa, the sloped armor allowed for lighter weight on those track and the rest of the chassis.

The 500-hp aluminum-block engine was the single best armored powerplant of its era. It burned diesel, reducing flammability, and that aluminum block meant a weight-to-HP unbeat for a long time to come -- especially when you consider that it wasn't lugged into a monster. Thought the 88 could penetrate the T-34's frontal armor at 100 meters or more, the fact is that speed is sometimes armor -- especially on the offensive, as they were after 1943.

It did, though, have weaknesses. But I'm willing to bet we all understand the armored tripod of firepower, armor, and mobility, and without a doubt the T-34 maximized the balance of those factors, while at the same time being much simpler to build than a Panther, more reliable than a Tiger or a Panther, and easily able to defeat a PzKpfw IV.

I guess I'm saying that you two both have fair points.

What is more, the best features of the best German tank designs of the war, features which were emulated in all successful post war tanks, including sloped armor, wide tracks, huge suspension travel, high velocity gun, were all copied from the T-34.  More specifically German features of the best German tanks, such as overlapping interleaved road wheels and split transmission front engine rear drive train, all turn out to be dead ends in evolution of the tanks, and discarded as cumbersome or suboptimal in all post war designs.

Only in ergonomics, including 3 men turret and commander copula with all round vision, were Germans initially ahead, but t-34 fully closed these gap by 1944.

The layout of the t-34 in 1940 was already almost the same as full post WWII tank design.  By 1944 model year the t-34 was effectively indistinguishable from modern post WWII tank in feature, layout and design.

Not so with German designs.  Even the Last German wartime tank design still had some important obsolete basic design features that would never be repeated in post war tank designs.

So it is clear the t-34 was really a extremely balanced, well thought out and forward thinking design with great development potential.  The much heralded German big cats were nothing more than knee jerk reactions to the amazingly superior design from the communistic Slavic untermensch, and although these managed surpass some specs of the T-34 through brute strength - which Germany could ill afford to lavish on individual tanks given its inferior production potential - didn't come close to replicating its holistic forward thinking,

---

(September 2, 2017 at 4:34 pm)Brian37 Wrote: When I was younger I did see weapons as works of art. Like the f-14 Tomcat and the WW2 "W" winged Corsair. But now, I see them as symbols of our species failure to exhaust diplomacy. A necessary evil but I no longer see weapons as art. 

I find no beauty in weapons, not guns, not tanks not jets and especially not nukes. Yes, we need them because evolution produces conflict between groups, but they are not art, they are weapons designed to end life.

Exhausting diplomacy may in many cases be the clear locally optimal solution, but globally sub-optimal.

If our species always found solution in diplomacy we would likely not have ever progressed very far into the Bronze Age.    The need to be able to deal violent dispossession or death in order to not be killed or dispossessed violently was the strongest underlying motivation for so much of our race's social, scientific and technological progress.   Even much of proudest peaceful accomplishement still had at their very core the motivation to stay ahead so as not to be seen as being behind, which may lead to eventually being dispossessed or killed violently.

No sorry, that is the easy way out. Of course our species does not default to diplomacy. This really sounds nothing more than "might makes right". 

I'd only agree that evolution does not care if force or cooperation work. But that does not mean force and cruelty have to be the go to default. Nor does it mean war should be glorified.

"Kill or be killed" is an unfortunate part of evolution, but avoiding conflict and empathy work too, so the reality is what humans choose. 

Weapons exist because humans have conflicts, I accept that reality, but it is nothing to glorify.

Hear brother Nathanael's powerful testimony about how he left the Jewish religion and became a Christian!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGTp1Q162Gw

(September 2, 2017 at 9:21 pm)CatholicDefender Wrote: Hear brother Nathanael's powerful testimony about how he left the Jewish religion and became a Christian!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGTp1Q162Gw

You know this is the atheist forum, right?

---

(September 2, 2017 at 8:44 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(September 2, 2017 at 6:17 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: What is more, the best features of the best German tank designs of the war, features which were emulated in all successful post war tanks, including sloped armor, wide tracks, huge suspension travel, high velocity gun, were all copied from the T-34.  More specifically German features of the best German tanks, such as overlapping interleaved road wheels and split transmission front engine rear drive train, all turn out to be dead ends in evolution of the tanks, and discarded as cumbersome or suboptimal in all post war designs.

Only in ergonomics, including 3 men turret and commander copula with all round vision, were Germans initially ahead, but t-34 fully closed these gap by 1944.

The layout of the t-34 in 1940 was already almost the same as full post WWII tank design.  By 1944 model year the t-34 was effectively indistinguishable from modern post WWII tank in feature, layout and design.

Not so with German designs.  Even the Last German wartime tank design still had some important obsolete basic design features that would never be repeated in post war tank designs.

So it is clear the t-34 was really a extremely balanced, well thought out and forward thinking design with great development potential.  The much heralded German big cats were nothing more than knee jerk reactions to the amazingly superior design from the communistic Slavic untermensch, and although these managed surpass some specs of the T-34 through brute strength - which Germany could ill afford to lavish on individual tanks given its inferior production potential - didn't come close to replicating its holistic forward thinking,

---

Exhausting diplomacy may in many cases be the clear locally optimal solution, but globally sub-optimal.

If our species always found solution in diplomacy we would likely not have ever progressed very far into the Bronze Age.    The need to be able to deal violent dispossession or death in order to not be killed or dispossessed violently was the strongest underlying motivation for so much of our race's social, scientific and technological progress.   Even much of proudest peaceful accomplishement still had at their very core the motivation to stay ahead so as not to be seen as being behind, which may lead to eventually being dispossessed or killed violently.

No sorry, that is the easy way out. Of course our species does not default to diplomacy. This really sounds nothing more than "might makes right". 

I'd only agree that evolution does not care if force or cooperation work. But that does not mean force and cruelty have to be the go to default. Nor does it mean war should be glorified.

"Kill or be killed" is an unfortunate part of evolution, but avoiding conflict and empathy work too, so the reality is what humans choose. 

Weapons exist because humans have conflicts, I accept that reality, but it is nothing to glorify.

Glorification of war has the benefit of promoting preparedness for war, and the drawback of promoting war as solution to problems not best solved by war.

Societies that does not glorify war at all tend to be less prepared for war and more likely to lose wars and go extinct.  The trick is to glorify war enough to Increase the chance of winning unavoidable or reasonable amount of judiciously chosen wars, but not glorify war so much that one rushes head long into unnecessary or unwinnable wars in response to the siren song of war.

Whats worse than holocaust denial?
holocaust committing.

Someone please restrain Trump.

I think I've finally realized why the Holocaust is so much widely commemorated.

It really is sort of bizarre and shocking even as far as genocides go, and as far as I know the only one where industrialized, planned out mass murder was used.

Stalin and Mao, the two "Evil Atheists" my fellow Christians always go to were mostly terribly callous and indifferent toward the suffering their policies caused, as opposed to deliberately wishing to exterminate a certain ethnic group.

The Holocaust, especially how it started out is every progressive's worst nightmare and every suburban republicans denied and suppressed fantasy.

The Holocaust did not start out as mass murder and extermination of the Jews. Rather it started out as a firm "cleansing" of German society of it's undesirables, the original reason the concentration camps were started.

Hitler was hardly original in his ideas, he just went after the people most people did not like or had little regard for .

Apart from Jews (many of whom left Germany before things really went to shit!), Prostitutes, Gays,Gypsies, drunks, drug addicts, chronically unemployed people, Lefties of all stripes (not just commies) and religious dissidents (Jehovah's witnesses, mouth priest and pastors) were basically rounded up and sent to the concentration camps to disappear from society. No gassings happened in pre war Nazi Germany (except to the retarded) but it was understood people who slowly be worked or starved to death.

Isn't like a Republican's distopyian dream? A pure and "final" solution to "those" people once and for all.

Since many Jewish people lived in this country, and progressivism is the predominant religion, it only makes sense that a large portion of time would be devoted to studying this.