Michael Dorosh Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 Originally posted by gibsonm: Ah but US ranks always seem one lower than for others (PFC = trained soldier, US CPL = LCPL and US Buck Sergeant = SGT). I have a Warrant Officer Class Two being posted to the US and he is spitting chips because he will be in the Offrs' Mess instead of the Sgts'US Buck Sergeant = CPL you mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shosties Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 Originally posted by Michael emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by YankeeDog: Kind of ironic that they had different iterations of the same Tank named after them.Very much so. I always thought it was especially ironic that the American produced version should have been named after the Rebel leader. Michael</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: US Buck Sergeant = CPL you mean.Where ! (O the joys of revisionist editing - who said "1984" hasn't happened). Thanks for the pickup. [ August 15, 2002, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: gibsonm ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 double post. Or perhaps double plus good post? [ August 15, 2002, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: gibsonm ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 Originally posted by gibsonm: Ah but US ranks always seem one lower than for others (PFC = trained soldier, US CPL = LCPL and US Buck Sergeant = CPL).I'm not exactly sure how you figure this since the American soldiers' pay scale was noticeably higher than their Commonwealth equivalents, a source of some envy and friction I have read. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 Originally posted by Michael emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gibsonm: Ah but US ranks always seem one lower than for others (PFC = trained soldier, US CPL = LCPL and US Buck Sergeant = CPL).I'm not exactly sure how you figure this since the American soldiers' pay scale was noticeably higher than their Commonwealth equivalents, a source of some envy and friction I have read. Michael</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 Originally posted by Shosties4th: Along that line of thinking: Did we ourselves name the M36 after Stonewall Jackson??I don't know. Could as easily have been named after Andrew Jackson, I suppose. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: He is talking terms of responsibility not dinero. A section commander in the British Army is a corporal - he leads 10 men. In the US Army it was a sergeant who led a squad of 12 men. Besides, Canadians got twice the pay of the ****eaters, so you can't lump all Commonwealth troops into the same basket.Oh, okay. But that was a point that didn't require reiteration as it was already implicit in his first post. Therefore, I thought he was trying to make some other point. Never mind. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 Originally posted by Michael emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gibsonm: Ah but US ranks always seem one lower than for others (PFC = trained soldier, US CPL = LCPL and US Buck Sergeant = CPL).I'm not exactly sure how you figure this since the American soldiers' pay scale was noticeably higher than their Commonwealth equivalents, a source of some envy and friction I have read. Michael</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 Originally posted by gibsonm: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS: Notice that one of them has a counter-balance on the 75mm, the other doesn't.Well if the turret's missing I suspect they aren't worried about minor issues such as accounting for counter-weights </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 JonS, Without trying to encite a flame war, I'm aware that there were several different variants (rivetted Vs cast and counter weight versus none). It is interesting to see two variants presumably allocated to the one unit. I was try to add some gallows humour. Perhaps I've been exposed to my QM too much who complaints that a vehicle is missing a screw driver but doesn't notice that its tracks are off! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 Originally posted by JonS: The point I was making is that there are two diffeent models of Lee in that photo. As far as I can tell, the close one is either an M3 or M3A4, while the rear one is either an M3A1 or M3A3. Key visual points of difference are the rivetted vs cast hull, and the counter weight on the 75mm.I had a similar thought, but lacked the expertise to develop the subject and so didn't mention it. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 Originally posted by gibsonm: I can just imagine some poor British RAC soldier home on leave after potentially 4 yrs of action (1939 - late 43) trying to compete with newly arrived Americans flush with cigareetes, nylons and chocolate!I have heard stories, but not wishing to excite invidious nationalistic comparisons will refrain from reciting them here. But for those wishing to familiarise themselves with the subject, the novel Goodbye, Mickey Mouse by an author whose name I cannot presently recall [added: Len Deighton; thanks, JonS], is a fairly sensitive exploration. Michael [ August 16, 2002, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 Len Deighton. Gibsonm, I shoulda put a winky in mine too. Sorry 'boot that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aacooper Posted August 17, 2002 Share Posted August 17, 2002 Mr. Dorosh made a comment about how the USSR didn't give any of the Lend-Lease stuff back. I don't know the statistics, but at the end of "[the Soviet memoir about a tank officer who led a battalion of Shermans across Europe and Manchuria, can't remember the title]", the author cleans his "Emcha" (Sherman), they load it onto a US freighter, and the freighter then dumps all the Lend-Lease stuff into the ocean. So... it's possible no Lend-Lease stuff came back from Russia, but it's not because they didn't give any back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted August 17, 2002 Share Posted August 17, 2002 Originally posted by Determinant: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by YankeeDog: [snip] Kind of ironic that they had different iterations of the same Tank named after them.[snip]Well you have to be careful if you get tied into exclusively naming series of things after other series of things. We Brits get around this by not having a system and then failing to apply it consistently. But I suspect that the US Army is riding for a fall in this regard. For instance helicopters as indian tribes. Yes: Apache; Commanche; Chinook. Cool names - but what happens when only the really long unpronounceable and unspellable ones are left? Or consider - tanks as generals. Grant; Lee; Sherman; Abrams etc. All good stuff. But what happens when you're left with the M1A1 Arnold? We Brits would of course be pleased but there might be some internal dissent from those who failed to appreciate Gen Benedict Arnold for his bravery in making a difficult choice in a tough situation. I do sincerely hope though that the Lee/Grant makes it in. We demand freak tanks! Toodle pip![/QB]</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tools4fools Posted August 17, 2002 Share Posted August 17, 2002 Originally posted by Aacooper: [QB] the author cleans his "Emcha" (Sherman), they load it onto a US freighter, and the freighter then dumps all the Lend-Lease stuff into the ocean.QB]In the Philippines the Americans dumped Shermans in the ocean as well, rather than shipping them back after the war. Makes for a good scuba site today as the ocean isn't too deep there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 17, 2002 Share Posted August 17, 2002 Originally posted by SpaceHamster: But what happens when you're left with the M1A1 Arnold? We Brits would of course be pleased but there might be some internal dissent from those who failed to appreciate Gen Benedict Arnold for his bravery in making a difficult choice in a tough situation. Well, they can always say it was named afer General Hap Arnold of the USAAF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Determinant Posted August 18, 2002 Share Posted August 18, 2002 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: [QBWell, they can always say it was named afer General Hap Arnold of the USAAF.[/QB]A tank named after an Air Force General? I'm not sure. Despite the excellent example of the 'unitary' Canadian Defence Force so many countries seem to remain mired in inter-service rivalry. They'd probably prefer to name it after a traitor - at least he was in the right service. As an aside a world without an Army-Navy (insert contact sport) match must be a slightly sad one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted August 18, 2002 Share Posted August 18, 2002 Originally posted by Shosties4th: Along that line of thinking: Did we ourselves name the M36 after Stonewall Jackson??And isn't M3 Stuart named after James Ewell Brown Stuart? I suppose the southerners had some difficulties at coming along with a tank named after Sherman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 18, 2002 Share Posted August 18, 2002 Originally posted by Determinant: A tank named after an Air Force General? I'm not sure. Despite the excellent example of the 'unitary' Canadian Defence Force so many countries seem to remain mired in inter-service rivalry. They'd probably prefer to name it after a traitor - at least he was in the right service.Wasn't Hap in the US Army? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 18, 2002 Share Posted August 18, 2002 Originally posted by JonS: Wasn't Hap in the US Army?Yes, the Army Air Force. Even then there was a lot of mistrust and animosity between the flyboys and the groundpounders. The flyers thought they could win the war all by themselves (a delusion they still nurture) and that the grunts were a superfluous and expensive indulgence. There were occasional exceptions. General Quesada, commander of the 9th. AF, was acutely conscious of the synergistic possibilities of combined air/ground coöperation and made that clear to his subordinates. He also got sidelined once the war was over and the Air Force became an independent arm. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Determinant Posted August 18, 2002 Share Posted August 18, 2002 Originally posted by JonS: Wasn't Hap in the US Army?Well, gosh, I don't know Jon. I see from my micky mouse Who's Who that he was the father of the US Air Force. Obviously that meant that he had to be in the Army first. But doesn't the former cancel out the latter if you are going to apply some healthy inter-service prejudice? I pause only to remark that it will be a very sad day indeed when I join a thread knowing what it is I'm talking about. Call it my default 'extreme fog of war' setting. But I'm guessing that the 'AF' in USAAF cancels and trumps the first 'A' in USAAF. Sort of like the difference between living in relevant comfort on base in East Anglia and being on the Western Front in the poo. Just one man's view over a sunday can of beer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 18, 2002 Share Posted August 18, 2002 Originally posted by Determinant: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS: Wasn't Hap in the US Army?Well, gosh, I don't know Jon. I see from my micky mouse Who's Who that he was the father of the US Air Force... </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 19, 2002 Share Posted August 19, 2002 Originally posted by JonS: So the 'rivaly' becomes more akin to infantry v armour or artillery v. ordinqnce than army v. navy.I don't think so. I believe the antagonism went much deeper than that. Neither infantry, armor, artillery, nor ordnance (how did they get into this? they aren't a fighting arm) ever made the claim that they could win wars single-handedly. The theoreticians of strategic bombing did make that claim. After the bloodbath in the trenches of the First World War, a lot of people were searching for ways to avoid a repeat of the bloody stalemate. Strategic airpower was fantasized as a magic bullet, a way to avoid the whole thing entirely. It was imagined that by turning the third flank through the air, they made ground armies superluous. Airpower could carry the attack directly to the heartland of the enemy country, the thing that the army was supposed to protect. It was imagined that once the destruction of the enemy's industry began, his army would be useless and his will to resist would crumble. This was a much more grandiose claim than any other branch of the Army would have made. Michael [ August 18, 2002, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts