Clue to Current State of CMN and Release Date

NUTTERNAME

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
41
Location
N
Country
llVietnam
I suppose that it is a form of trolling to say that you will put someone on 'ignore', and suggest others do so (why do that I have no idea), and yet still read that person's posts?

Maybe its some other problem. But I think if someone puts another person on 'ignore', then it should be an irreversible decision. This 'self-moderation' needs to come at a price. Especially if someone goes out of thier way to try to influence other members to do the same.

thank you
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
I thought a few months back you said you were putting a couple of us on ignore. At least you threatened to.
 

dalem

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
62
Location
Columbia Heights, MN
Country
llUnited States
I had Lewis on Ignore for awhile, then I thought he was banned so I unignored him because I didn't have any new crap to worry about. Now he's going back on ignore.

-dale
 

Elvis

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
2,918
Reaction score
14
Location
Pennsylvania
Country
llUnited States
I thought a few months back you said you were putting a couple of us on ignore. At least you threatened to.
Pretty sure he wasn't putting anyone on ignore. Just people putting him on ignore...or saying that they had.
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
It might have been PoS I was thinking of. Seem to be cut from the same mold.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,517
Reaction score
2,390
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
[hirr]Leto;1269609 said:
Jeez, Mike. Dontcha think this comment would have been better left out?
Wasn't trying to be contentious. I posted two photos of Soviet M3 tanks, clearly showing the small turret with commander's cupola. In the west, this was known as the "Lee." The links Lewis provided show the British Grants with larger turret (expanded to include room for the radios) with deleted commander's cupola. As noted, the Soviets never used the latter - so I'm curious why he would ask "Also, did Lee tanks ever go to the Soviets...Most pictures show Grants." We haven't seen a single photograph in this entire discussion of a Soviet Grant. It just seems like an odd question to ask since right after the posting of three different Lees in Soviet service, he asks if the Soviets ever used them. I would have to conclude he didn't realize the tanks in the photos here were in fact what he was asking about - Lees.
 

NUTTERNAME

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
41
Location
N
Country
llVietnam
Pretty sure he wasn't putting anyone on ignore. Just people putting him on ignore...or saying that they had.
I have never put anyone on ignore. That is correct. But Dorosh said he was going to put me on 'ignore', advised others to do the same, and then gets caught reading my posts. Its that simple.
 

NUTTERNAME

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
41
Location
N
Country
llVietnam
I had Lewis on Ignore for awhile, then I thought he was banned so I unignored him because I didn't have any new crap to worry about. Now he's going back on ignore.

-dale
So, then you won't have to read that I find your post childish.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,517
Reaction score
2,390
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Seems even some of the guys who used them couldn't keep them straight either. :)
Great info, thanks for the link. I can certainly understand the confusion among World War II veterans.

I always found it interesting to note that during the war, the term "Jeep" was sometimes applied to the 1/2 ton truck, while the 1/4 ton truck was a "peep" in some units. Willy's-Overland pushed a pretty aggressive marketing campaign once it became apparent the 1/4 ton 4x4 might be popular on the civilian market, and the name "Jeep" stuck - eventually trademarked. But during the war, not so at all.
 

dalem

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
62
Location
Columbia Heights, MN
Country
llUnited States
Great info, thanks for the link. I can certainly understand the confusion among World War II veterans.

I always found it interesting to note that during the war, the term "Jeep" was sometimes applied to the 1/2 ton truck, while the 1/4 ton truck was a "peep" in some units. Willy's-Overland pushed a pretty aggressive marketing campaign once it became apparent the 1/4 ton 4x4 might be popular on the civilian market, and the name "Jeep" stuck - eventually trademarked. But during the war, not so at all.
Don't the ASL Chapter H notes say it was called a "peep" during the war?

-dale
 

NUTTERNAME

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
41
Location
N
Country
llVietnam
http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&category_id=21&flypage=shop.flypage_bfc&product_id=82&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=26&vmcchk=1&Itemid=26

The extent of Lend Lease influence on the front-line Soviet forces has only recently started to be recognized, both in Russian and Western publications. First, in vehicles themselves: the M4A2 Sherman equipped three guards mechanized corps and a guards tank corps by the end of the war, and the Valentine Mk VIII and Mk IX were the only light tanks still used by the Red Army after the end of 1943. Earlier in the war, in 1942, two of the first dozen tank corps were equipped with Matilda IIs in place of T-34s, and M3 ("Grant" and" Lee") medium, M3A1 light ("Stuart"), Valentine Mk III and Matildas equipped a large proportion of the independent tank brigades formed that year. More importantly, though. Lend Lease provided a huge quantity of radio equipment, which went into Soviet armoured vehicles (and aircraft), and specialized armoured vehicles that the Soviets were not manufacturing at all for themselves: armoured personnel carriers and self-propelled light antiaircraft weapons.
This is at least one 'source' that claims both types were sent.
 
Last edited:

Palantir

Member #86
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
4,877
Reaction score
1,706
Location
The Heartland
Country
llUnited States
Can anyone say if sending all those UK/US tanks to Russian was a better help to them or, if the UK/US had kept them if they would have been more help to the Western Allies?
 

NUTTERNAME

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
41
Location
N
Country
llVietnam
I would think the early shipments did help since the Soviets clearly were rocking on thier heels and needed whatever support they could get. My grandfather, by the way, took supplies to the Soviets in WWII and they would strip things off the ship that weren't exactly cargo. They certainly needed everything they could take.

Later on, the Soviets certainly liked to keep pressure up and they went through AFVs quickly as the war went on. There may be some doubt about the fighting value of some AFV, but having any tank in a battle, when the enemy does not, has an advantage. So a 'Lee' or even a 'stuart' might make a difference. It was a big front and the Germans could not be everywhere.

But could the USA and Allies have used these masses of Shermans/M10s/etc to better effect in 1942-43? Many people think it should have been done while the Germans were reeling themselves at that time. The Sherman was an excellent tank early in the war.

But by 1944, there were more AFV than the allies could use. I believe certain weapon systems were halted from production because the manufacture of them had to fit through a 'pipeline'. The troops in the field were picky also and wanted the latest versions of Shermans (Ford V8s). I would certainly like to know the number of 'landed' Sherman tanks that actually went into France and Italy, etc. I think its not nearly as large as the production by a long shot.

The Soviets certainly saw merit in the Sherman as a automotive vehicle that could outrun German Tanks and Soviet tanks as far as reliability. A natural choice of AFV for use once a breakthrough was achieved. They also liked the British tank for recon (?name) as well as USA recon vehciles/trucks/etc.

If a convoy was sent, certain cargo was priority. Certainly high octane aviation fuel, trucks and food and other precious items were valued.
 
Last edited:

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
44
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
The thing that really helped the Soviets was trucks. They mattered more than tanks in their particular case.
 

Mad Russian

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
1,372
Reaction score
188
Location
texas
Country
llUnited States
They had a huge impact on the war in the east. Nowhere else could they have had the same impact on the outcome in the war.

Trucks were extremely important but they didn't keep the Germans out of the Caucasus and other areas.

LL tanks were MOSTLY used in the south and they provided the Soviets with tanks when they are in the shortest supply during the war. The longer we go since the end of the war the more importance gets placed on LL tanks from the Soviet side.

Good Hunting.

MR
 

dalem

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
62
Location
Columbia Heights, MN
Country
llUnited States
To address the other part of the question: whether the Soviets needed LL tanks or not, we certainly didn't. I don't think there was ever a time where anyone in logistics felt the pipeline was running thin on Shermans except maybe briefly during the winter of 44/45. Maybe the Brits felt differently about the Crusaders and Churchills they sent.

-dale
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,517
Reaction score
2,390
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
To address the other part of the question: whether the Soviets needed LL tanks or not, we certainly didn't. I don't think there was ever a time where anyone in logistics felt the pipeline was running thin on Shermans except maybe briefly during the winter of 44/45. Maybe the Brits felt differently about the Crusaders and Churchills they sent.

-dale
The Commonwealth sent Valentines specifically because we probably really didn't need them very much. :)

The common "export" models of the Sherman were the M4A2 (diesel) and the M4A4 (lengthened M4 with Chyrsler Multibank engine). The Russians received M4A2s, which the U.S. Army never used itself. The M4A4 was also a "foreign" design in that U.S. troops didn't use it.
 

Tanker

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2004
Messages
702
Reaction score
4
Location
New Hampshire
Country
llUnited States
Can anyone say if sending all those UK/US tanks to Russian was a better help to them or, if the UK/US had kept them if they would have been more help to the Western Allies?
I'd say it was probably better to have Russians killing Germans than having to do it ourselves.
 
Top