DogDodger

Figured that's what was meant, thanks for checking!

They had to remove the glacis (i.e., upper front hull), or the final drive and differential assembly? I'd be interested in more details if the former, thanks!

Congrats; how's it going? As someone who is still putting an embarrassing number of hours into that game, I approve.

In their January 2024 newletter they offhandedly mentioned that the 2023 event was the final open house they were going to have, and instead they were going to concentrate on donor-focused events to build funds for their building and site. Much of the Cors collection was auctioned off last year as well. Edit: Yes, we probably have crossed paths, then. I started going in 2012 and only missed I think 2 events besides the ones canceled due to COVID.

Nice video. And agree, their loss will be a shame. There was stuff on display and running there that you couldn't see anywhere else in the country. The announcement of their end occurred after their last event (i.e., there was no notice before the event that it would in fact be the last), so I was glad that @Walter_Sobchak and I got to attend the final one.

You may consider Taylor's Into the Vally.

A new gunner's telescope mount T173 was introduced on the M46 that could automatically account for 15 degrees of cant to either side, but that tank didn't take any steps toward rangefinding or have any type of ballistics drive or the like.

Sure, there are a bunch of counterexamples. @LeeWalls seemed to be asking if there were tanks that had their turret rings enlarged, though.

It depends. See T-34-85.

Definitely much-maligned. At least Telly Savalas respected it. Understandable with the model naming used.

Production of 76 mm gun Shermans began in January 1944. When are we asserting T-34-85 production began? The combination gun mount M78 in the M47 tank used a concentric hydrospring system.

You're currently 49th in my to-read stack.

Thanks, missed that video. Have you ever come across any proposed ammo stowage diagrams for an M4(90) with 70+ rounds? For example, with ammo stowage moved to the floor in late-production tanks, the batteries were moved to the left sponson, so that space would be lost if a similar scheme was used.

ETO refused to accept a tank that stowed less than 70 main gun rounds, which is a big part of the modifications involved going from T26E1 to T26E3. Wet stowage was even dropped. M36 only managed forty-seven 90 mm rounds. Despite the Armored Command's enthusiasm, a 90 mm medium tank based on the M4 was not going to happen.

I think you owe McNair an apology.