Christianmunich wrote: ↑
06 Mar 2019 01:49
Mr Anderson you again made outlandish claims and when pressed for evidence you responded with an empty post.
No. sorry Mr Troll, I made no claim, but I did challenge you to provide evidence for your outlandish claims, to whit:
You claimed that Harkness and Wright completed the "single best-conducted survey".
How do you know that when you obviously are unaware of other surveys?
Why was their earlier survey work deficient?
Why is that postwar survey the "single best-conducted survey", but other wartime and post-war surveys are not?
Show us the survey that is as detailed as the British sample. A simple request for proof. Prove your claim Mr Anderons, for once just prove your claim. I knew your post like many others was not based in evidence so I directly asked you to prove it and here we are. No proof.
Oh, so it is details that define the "single best-conducted survey"? Unfortunately, as has been pointed out a number of times, the "details" were concerned with the medical aspect of armored warfare and not the tank bits, which has already led you down the garden path.
Does the fact that it is only a small sample - in numbers and temporality - not count against it?
Does the fact that it does not include any late-war Sherman tanks not count against it?
Does the fact that it is a postwar compilation not count against it?
Now if you wanted to describe it as the "best-conducted survey of personnel losses in tanks by the British RAMC that postwar examined a small sample of tanks engaged in the last Commonwealth campaign of the war" then you might have gotten away with it. Might, since its just so much fun watching you circle the drain.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018