>> ^Entropy001:
When in reality the Sherman tank was inferior to the German design.
Well, one could argue that it's more of a difference in the underlying philosophy than quality of engineering. German doctrin was based upon the use of what we now refer to as MBTs (Panzer I-V) while the Brits used infantry tanks (Mathilda, Valentine, Churchill, etc) and cruiser tanks (Cruiser, Crusader, Cromwell, etc), and the US troops deployed infantry tanks (Sherman) and TDs (M10, M18, M36). Once you split breakthrough and exploitation or infantry support and anti-tank warfare into separate vehicles, you're bound to end up with vastly different designs that might draw the short straw more often than not if not used properly.


If you include the lack of resources and manpower in particular, Wehrmacht tanks had to be superior individually, because they were doomed to be inferior numerically. Thus, the US could focus on easier and cheaper production. You don't need Zeiss optics and Krupp steel if you simply aim for number superiority. I'd say both design principles fulfilled their respective roles just fine, even though they could hardly have been more different. Simple, easy to maintain and reliable versus the latest in technology.

The Firefly was nice though, 17pdr was a beast.

Or maybe what I wrote is just a load of cockswallow and the German designs were, in fact, simply superior.

That said, this kitty was one hell of an engineering masterpiece. If they hadn't lost access to rare materials, even the transmission might have worked properly and those buggers wouldn't have broken down every 100km.

Still waiting to see the Panther at Koblenz again, last time was a blast.

there really is something special bout Cromwell.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Such a great movie. It was the first DVD I ever bought- and have since almost worn it out with the kids. Best role of James Cromwell- ever. (even beats 6 feet under)

For those that would like more insight to the myth of the liberal media, I present several books on the subject. there are of course books that look at it from the opposite angle (that the media really is liberal). I'll post about those books when the video comes up on VS.

Guardians of Power: The Myth of the Liberal Media
by David Edwards (Author), David Cromwell (Author), John Pilger (Foreword)

________________________________________________

The Myth of the Liberal Media: An Edward Herman Reader
by Edward S. Herman (Author)

Book Description
The Myth of the Liberal Media contends that the mainstream media are parts of a market system and that their performance is shaped primarily by proprietor/owner and advertiser interests. Using a propaganda model, it is argued that the commercial media protect and propagandize for the corporate system. Case studies of major media institutions?the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Philadelphia Inquirer?are supplemented by detailed analyses of "word tricks and propaganda" and the media's treatment of topics such as Third World elections, the Persian Gulf War, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the fall of Suharto, and corporate junk science.
"Edward Herman's invaluable studies of the media in market-oriented democracies find their natural place in the broader sweep of contemporary history. Herman quotes James Madison's observation in later life that 'a popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or tragedy, or perhaps both.' The observation is apt; formal guarantees of personal freedom do not suffice to prevent the farce or the tragedy, even if the guarantees are observed. These issues, explored and illuminated in (these) essays . . ., should be at the center of the concerns of those who seek to create a society that is more free and more just." From the Preface by Noam Chomsky

__________________________________________

What Liberal Media?: The Truth About Bias and the News (Paperback)
by Eric Alterman (Author)

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com
The incredulity begins with the title What Liberal Media?, journalist Eric Alterman's refutation of widely flung charges of left-wing bias, and never lets up. The book is unlikely to make many friends among conservative media talking heads. Alterman picks apart charges made by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, George Will, Sean Hannity, and others (even the subtitle refers to a popular book by former CBS producer Bernard Goldberg that argues a lefty slant in news coverage). But the perspectives of less-incendiary figures, including David Broder and Howard Kurtz, are also dissected in Alterman's quest to prove that not only do the media lack a liberal slant but that quite the opposite is true. Much of Alterman's argument comes down to this: the conservatives in the newspapers, television, talk radio, and the Republican party are lying about liberal bias and repeating the same lies long enough that they've taken on a patina of truth. Further, the perception of such a bias has cowed many media outlets into presenting more conservative opinions to counterbalance a bias, which does not, in fact, exist, says Alterman. In methodically shooting down conservative charges, Alterman employs extensive endnotes, all of which are referenced with superscript numbers throughout the body of the book. Those little numbers seem to say, "Look, I've done my homework." What Liberal Media? is a book very much of 2003 and will likely lose some relevance as political powers and media arrangements evolve. But it's likely to be a tonic for anyone who has suspected that in a media environment overflowing with conservatives, the charges of bias are hard to swallow. For liberals hoping someone will take off the gloves and mix it up with the verbal brawlers of the right, Eric Alterman is a champion.

I'm a big Ellroy fan and having read the Quartet I found this adaptation to be lacking on several levels. It's just too simplistic and lacks many of the subplots in the book. Saying this is pointless I know but books with dense subject matter don't make good films.
But I could take issue with the casting. I have never rated James Cromwell and he's thoroughly unfrightening as Dudley Smith, a man who is truly monstrous.

Also this film has the twattish Russell Crowe in it and I can't bear him.

Just registered for the sole purpose of voting this up.
Loved the Cromwell quote.