Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
 

Recommended Photo Store
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading? Click here to find out.
 
Make your Amazon purchases though this banner to support our blog:
(Click here if you don't see the Amazon banner.)
 
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Contributors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Lex's Tweets
  • Jonathan's Tweets
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • This Gendered Blog

    Posted by Ginny on November 23rd, 2008 (All posts by )

    I sometimes mention this blog in class.  Not wanting to indicate its politics, I never give them the name and when they ask about its nature, I say something like: “I don’t know why they let me write there. It’s full of guys who’d like a tank in their backyard.”  Last week, the two Corps guys in the front row started grinning – “Actually,” one said, “that would be pretty cool.” 

    Anyway, clearly the guys here “have a pair” as Brad Paisley would say.  The only one close to its 91% among Gateway’s examples is Vodkapundit’s 90%. (Maybe gender is defined by tanks & liquor)

     

    15 Responses to “This Gendered Blog”

    1. Dan from Madison Says:

      It has always been a dream of mine to own a tank. T34 variant.

    2. Mrs. Davis Says:

      92% verile

      That says something about what defines a real man.

    3. George Weinberg Says:

      Thomas Sowell came in at 92% also. I guess economists are a particularly manly bunch.

    4. Mrs. Davis Says:

      Must be. Barry Ritholtz got a 97!

    5. Lexington Green Says:

      “I don’t know why they let me write there.”

      Because your stuff is good.

      And you must write like a guy, since your prose did not dilute us down into the 80% range..

      And, really, you want a tank in your backyard, too. Admit it.

    6. Ginny Says:

      Actually, Lex, I was thinking of a couple of those mini-reactors to power my house. We’ve got two toolsheds now – we’d have room for a couple of nukes in concrete.

    7. Tatyana Says:

      Apparently, I’m a man, if of a lesser certainty (no tanks in my background).

    8. Tatyana Says:

      …but…how did they found out I have an engineering degree from a military-oriented university?

    9. John Jay Says:

      Dan – No thanks. That was the Russian version of the Sherman – cheap to make lots of, and lots of tanks win, even if individual tanks don’t make it. Especially the long-distance versions with exposed gas tanks on the back.

      If you are going WWII, give me a Tiger any day.

    10. Mitch Says:

      I thought T-34’s were diesel. Anyway, the Soviet tanks seemed to keep up with the Germans right up until Kursk, when the German guns and armor were demonstrably better. By that time, as you say, the advantage of numbers was overwhelming.

      Anyway, they probably got crappy mileage and fuel is expensive. Can I have a Stryker instead?

    11. rmark Says:

      A few WW2 M3’s are available

      http://www.jeeparts.nl/shop/N_frame.html?http://www.jeeparts.nl/shop/

    12. Tim Fowler Says:

      The T-34 wasn’t a Russian version of the Sherman tank, and while it could be, and was, produced in great numbers, manufacturability wasn’t its only strength. It was one of the best tanks in the world when it first came out (prototype 1940, general introduction to combat 1941). It didn’t have the firepower or the thickness of armor of the later heavy and rare super-heavy tanks, but it was well armored for a medium tank, could handle mud and snow better than most tanks, and fairly effective armament.

    13. Lexington Green Says:

      All versions of the T-34 were better than the Sherman. The later T-34 with 85mm gun was a very good tank.

      If I had to go into battle in a World War II tank, I would take a Stalin II over a Tiger.

      Best of all, I stay in my armchair with a book.

    14. renminbi Says:

      Lex-thanks for the link.

    15. Obloodyhell Says:

      > I thought T-34’s were diesel.

      They were. John Jay’s just being an American homer. By most assessments (Caveat: I’m quoting what I’ve read — no personal military knowledge) the Russian tanks during WWII were the world’s best at the time. They were indirectly based on designs by an American (so John can still be a homer), Walter Christie.

      They were among the first tanks to have diesel engines (of particular relevance under fire, as diesel doesn’t burn anywhere near as well as gasoline, and catching fire when sneezed directly at was a common problem with early tanks), and also were among the first to incorporate sloped armor all around, allowing the armor to deflect an impact rather than resist it.

      As I understand it, its gun was initially underpowered, but this problem was fixed later in the war.

      It says a lot when you realize it was produced by the Soviets from 1940 all the way through to 1958 (despite all the developments during WWII, it was still an effective design for many years later) and, according to the wiki entry, as of 1996, “the T-34 was still in service in at least twenty-seven countries”. Not bad for a sexagenarian (or nearly so) design…

      From what I understand, if the Russian tankmen had been as talented as the German tankmen, the Russians would have made short work of the Germans during Barbarossa. As it was, they were able to hold the line just barely, often just because of that tank, despite having tremendously incompetent tankmen early on. Supposedly, thanks to the sloped armor, the T-34 was able to shrug off direct hits by the German tanks initially used in Barbarossa (quickly fixed as the Germans added larger guns to them).

      Also, its weight was of particular value in Russia during the spring, when the gooey mud from the thaw was clogging the German tanks up and bogging them down (Russian spring mud is supposed to be some of the worst in the world). The T-34 had far fewer problems with this, IIRC, due to its lighter armor and wider-set tracks.