General Discussion

oneshooter

(8,614 posts)

130. The one advantage the Sherman had was speed.

Reply to gladium et scutum (Reply #126)

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 05:57 PM

Jun 2016

A top speed of 30mph meant that the Sherman could travel faster than the Tigers turret could traverse.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

135 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Don't call it an assault weapon. [View all] Jerry442 Jun 2016 OP

I overheard some idiots the other day tut-tutting The_Casual_Observer Jun 2016 #1

Recognize? Probably not. But MSM/Controllers can't do it days later in the bright of day... Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #19

How about we ban any magazine for any weapon with a capacity of over 6 shots. CanonRay Jun 2016 #76

That would be a defacto ban on 99.9% of semiautomatic pistols. As such, it would be unconstitional. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #79

Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't infringe on anyone's right to bear arms. CanonRay Jun 2016 #85

I don't think you know what "infringe" means. Straw Man Jun 2016 #98

Actually, I do CanonRay Jun 2016 #101

Yes, we can. Straw Man Jun 2016 #105

No. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #91

Fuck conciliatory. I've had 30 years of being conciliatory with these assholes CanonRay Jun 2016 #102

No "flame away." Just expect more of the same. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #103

I'm mostly against gun control... NaturalHigh Jun 2016 #123

You seem to be confusing "assault rifle" with "assault weapon". ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #2

So AWs are just fru-fru versions of plain old guns? Jerry442 Jun 2016 #4

Yep TeddyR Jun 2016 #6

What is a "plain old gun"? Straw Man Jun 2016 #9

So, what was the point of fighting tooth and nail to defeat the AW ban... Jerry442 Jun 2016 #14

The obvious point: The next move wil be more bans. Right? nt Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #21

And there it is. Jerry442 Jun 2016 #45

I'm more than willing to compromise and work together to lower gun violence TeddyR Jun 2016 #57

Apparently ... Straw Man Jun 2016 #63

There it is indeed, Jerry. Virtually every discussion here, and in the agitprop of banner groups... Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #90

And Di-Fi lancer78 Jun 2016 #128

Same thing happens lancer78 Jun 2016 #127

Because then we have to buy the top one instead of the bottom.. jmg257 Jun 2016 #37

Well, deaniac21 Jun 2016 #55

Because once that ban was in place ... Straw Man Jun 2016 #62

Fine, restrict hell out of both and anyone who tries to buy one, the ultimate catch-22 for gunners. Hoyt Jun 2016 #15

Well, at least that idea would be based on logic. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #16

Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2016 #27

Yes, the only difference is the looks. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #18

You can take a wooden-stocked mini-14, change the stock to a pistol gripped folding stock.. X_Digger Jun 2016 #36

Yes (nt) Recursion Jun 2016 #71

If you want to play semantic games ... Straw Man Jun 2016 #3

Not much different than this, you say. Jerry442 Jun 2016 #10

Very different from that. Straw Man Jun 2016 #12

By the same token . . . gratuitous Jun 2016 #5

Well, crap. Brickbat Jun 2016 #7

Yeah, forget it. For some, ignorance is a badge of honor. NT Adrahil Jun 2016 #34

It's frustrating. Ignorance leads to bad bills, which leads to Democrats losing elctions. Brickbat Jun 2016 #38

Always entertaining to pin down Gun Enthusiasts as to the Nazi origins of the terminology. (nt) Paladin Jun 2016 #8

What terminology? Straw Man Jun 2016 #11

Nice tap dance. (nt) Paladin Jun 2016 #13

Usually ... Straw Man Jun 2016 #61

The modern-day Bundeswehr just calls them "rifles" jmowreader Jun 2016 #116

Are we supposed to feel bad about that?nt hack89 Jun 2016 #28

Assault Rifles are capable of FULL-AUTO fire; the bowlderlized assault weapon is not. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #17

707 HP Hellcat Hemi says hello Aerows Jun 2016 #20

So, the Hellcat will be running the 400 next month? Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #23

Missed the point you wanted to miss. Aerows Jun 2016 #24

Ok, a spoiler on a Honda doesn't mean its an F-16 with an airfoil. Howzat? Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #87

The 707 HP Hellcat Hemi is also... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2016 #40

Is an M16 capable of full-auto fire? Is an AR15 capable of full auto fire? Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #88

You can use an AR15 as an assault weapon. Ergonomics plays a major role in how fast a Exilednight Jun 2016 #43

That doesn't fit the method. Aerows Jun 2016 #48

The Guardian TeddyR Jun 2016 #58

Actually, not so much. Straw Man Jun 2016 #66

Is the Assault Rifle the formal description of a full-auto weapon? Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #89

Depends on who you ask. Exilednight Jun 2016 #92

I was talking earlier with someone about cars. A Dodge. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #94

I don't get your point, if you're trying to make one. Exilednight Jun 2016 #104

Full-auto or burst mode is a requirement. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #96

Call it a semi-automatic rifle Matrosov Jun 2016 #22

Here's a video of a legal semi-automatic weapon Buzz cook Jun 2016 #25

Remember that bump-fire requires a special stock. Straw Man Jun 2016 #97

No it doesn't "require" a special stock Buzz cook Jun 2016 #111

You posted videos of bump-fire stocks. Straw Man Jun 2016 #112

I have read and heard the term used for both Buzz cook Jun 2016 #118

It's still wrong. Straw Man Jun 2016 #120

Actually, the Soviets with the PPSH-41 gladium et scutum Jun 2016 #26

Came up with a damn fine tank, too. tabasco Jun 2016 #30

Problem was not armor protection gladium et scutum Jun 2016 #44

The Sherman was never designed to fight other tanks oneshooter Jun 2016 #47

American tactical gladium et scutum Jun 2016 #53

Yeah, it was a problem. tabasco Jun 2016 #73

Not really gladium et scutum Jun 2016 #110

There's a lot of 3rd Armored Div. vets who disagree with you. tabasco Jun 2016 #119

The Tiger at 54 tons, out classed every Medium tank in the world gladium et scutum Jun 2016 #121

I'm sure the original M-16 has its defenders, as well tabasco Jun 2016 #122

Maybe your should read gladium et scutum Jun 2016 #126

The one advantage the Sherman had was speed. oneshooter Jun 2016 #130

Same with tohe Soviet built T-34 gladium et scutum Jun 2016 #131

Thanks for the info. tabasco Jun 2016 #132

I am sure these are kills claimed by gladium et scutum Jun 2016 #133

I'm not so sure tabasco Jun 2016 #134

Your are correct gladium et scutum Jun 2016 #135

The PPSH-41 was a submachinegun, not an assault rifle. Adrahil Jun 2016 #33

Thanks. gladium et scutum Jun 2016 #42

I guess it's a real pisser Aerows Jun 2016 #49

My interest in them is as historical artifacts. Adrahil Jun 2016 #51

Here we go. Aerows Jun 2016 #52

You missed the part where I said I don't want one. Adrahil Jun 2016 #54

You weren't the one complaining about it Aerows Jun 2016 #56

Thanks for the snark, much appreciated. Adrahil Jun 2016 #75

"I guess it's a real pisser that we can't strut around with UZI's" Actually you can... EX500rider Jun 2016 #106

A prototype assault rifle was the Russian Federov Automat of WW1. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #78

Interesting. The BAR was headed that way, but too big and heavy to be practical. NT Adrahil Jun 2016 #83

The BAR was an excellent light machine gun by WW1 standards, but it cane out too late Just reading posts Jun 2016 #93

Agree. Interesting history. NT Adrahil Jun 2016 #95

The BAR was developed for assulting fixed dug in positions. oneshooter Jun 2016 #107

I'm just pointing out that in WW2 there were LMGs that were arguably better. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #113

Marines hitting Tinian had a different opinion One_Life_To_Give Jun 2016 #109

Of course...that was what was available. But the Bren Gun and MG42 (just to name a couple) were Just reading posts Jun 2016 #114

there are two differences between the traditional "battle" rifle Angel Martin Jun 2016 #29

Which doesn't mean a damn thing Aerows Jun 2016 #50

So you also want to ban semi-auto pistols? TeddyR Jun 2016 #59

Oh for fuck's sake. Odin2005 Jun 2016 #31

Call it what? "BANGIE MCBANGBANG"???? longship Jun 2016 #32

CALL IT AN ASSAULT RIFLE. Paladin Jun 2016 #35

As long as you can describe it in legislation, they may be called whatever you like. jmg257 Jun 2016 #39

That brings you back to describing the rifle based on its looks. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #69

Actually not the point of this thread, or my post, so not addressed. jmg257 Jun 2016 #74

Post removed Post removed Jun 2016 #41

I'd love to see these folks show up at the NRA convention... Jerry442 Jun 2016 #46

Why? TeddyR Jun 2016 #60

If you believe the gun people posting here... Jerry442 Jun 2016 #65

gun humpers are not known for their intellect Skittles Jun 2016 #64

Banners see falsehoods as mere sport. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #99

I call them "weapons of mass destruction". Initech Jun 2016 #67

Actually ... Straw Man Jun 2016 #68

"50 people in 20 minutes" ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #70

1984 called, they want their newspeak back n/t Taitertots Jun 2016 #72

A simple solution to the mass fire weapons. -none Jun 2016 #77

And what about the (roughly) 200 million semautomatic weapons already in circulation, Just reading posts Jun 2016 #81

Any used illegally, destroy. -none Jun 2016 #82

**Fist bump** NT Jerry442 Jun 2016 #84

If you only destroy the tiny fraction of the billions of magazines used in crimes, they'll be here Just reading posts Jun 2016 #115

Oh swell, another thread full of gun porn. Piss on guns. hunter Jun 2016 #80

I believe the OP supports gun control. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #100

Gun control wont happen until it's made socially unacceptable like smoking or drunk driving. hunter Jun 2016 #108

When looking for enemies, things can get confusing. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #124

I'm not confused in the least. Piss on guns. hunter Jun 2016 #125

Yes NT Jerry442 Jun 2016 #117

Post removed Post removed Jun 2016 #86

Call them "weapons of war", or "military weapons". backscatter712 Jun 2016 #129