Leornardo DiCaprio as General Grant

[rommel222]

Greeting to All,
Meeting Grant's great grandson:
https://emergingcivilwar.com/2015/09/01 ... -grandson/

Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy0xmmPcisI

Family Tree: wife & children)
https://libguides.css.edu/usgrant/home/family

Family Tree extended:
http://www.thomaslegion.net/ulyssessgra ... lyman.html

[Challerain]

Grant

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

They worked great for awhile in the Western Desert, then they worked great in Burma. But riveting armour is not a good idea.

I am not sure I understand your point here. Are you saying that something is better than nothing?

The Mark I tank is sure proof that something is indeed better than nothing...

[TDefender]

... just to remember to everyone that Di Caprio has proved so many times to be an excellent and extremly flexible actor. He won't fail us.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

They worked great for awhile in the Western Desert, then they worked great in Burma. But riveting armour is not a good idea.

I am not sure I understand your point here. Are you saying that something is better than nothing?

The Mark I tank is sure proof that something is indeed better than nothing...

Yes, something is usually better than nothing. But if a tank with riveted armour get hit by a shell and even if the armour is not penetrated, then the rivets could fly at high speed inside the tank. That could ruin the whole day of a crew member inside that tank.

BTW, that looks like a Female tank.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

They worked great for awhile in the Western Desert, then they worked great in Burma. But riveting armour is not a good idea.

I am not sure I understand your point here. Are you saying that something is better than nothing?

The Mark I tank is sure proof that something is indeed better than nothing...

Yes, something is usually better than nothing. But if a tank with riveted armour get hit by a shell and even if the armour is not penetrated, then the rivets could fly at high speed inside the tank. That could ruin the whole day of a crew member inside that tank.

BTW, that looks like a Female tank.

The British in North Africa liked them despite their drawbacks. Rommel noted "our tanks had in general been superior in quality to the corresponding British types. This was now no longer true, at least not to the same extent." when surprised by the appearance of the M3 at Gazala. They could out range any of the German tanks with the 75mm gun. Still there were the 88s.

So it wasn't all bad. Certainly wasn't all good but the Brits needed tanks badly and they were a stop gap until the M4 could reach them.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Orm



I am not sure I understand your point here. Are you saying that something is better than nothing?

The Mark I tank is sure proof that something is indeed better than nothing...

Yes, something is usually better than nothing. But if a tank with riveted armour get hit by a shell and even if the armour is not penetrated, then the rivets could fly at high speed inside the tank. That could ruin the whole day of a crew member inside that tank.

BTW, that looks like a Female tank.

The British in North Africa liked them despite their drawbacks. Rommel noted "our tanks had in general been superior in quality to the corresponding British types. This was now no longer true, at least not to the same extent." when surprised by the appearance of the M3 at Gazala. They could out range any of the German tanks with the 75mm gun. Still there were the 88s.

So it wasn't all bad. Certainly wasn't all good but the Brits needed tanks badly and they were a stop gap until the M4 could reach them.

The 37mm gun as also effective at the time. Plus it could fire HE which the British 2 pounder did not.

[ezzler]

If your choice was a Crusader II. Which was under armoured, under powered, under gunned and unreliable. Or a Matilda II, Which was well armoured. but under powered. Under gunned.
Or a valentine II which was the same. You were probably better off in a Daimler or Humber scout car. In a Daimler you had the same armament. And although your armour was negligible. The others weren't going to stop an 88, or Pak 50 round, either. And at least you could flee the DAK at speed.

The Grant was bad. But it was the very best of the bad, for quite a while.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

So it wasn't all bad. Certainly wasn't all good but the Brits needed tanks badly and they were a stop gap until the M4 could reach them.

Was Vickers still making light tanks (this one) for other countries which UK Army had rejected?

[rommel222]

Greetings to All,
Came upon a humorous find by accident while googling Grant tank.
Can you spot the "pretty in pink Grant tank?
Girls und Panzers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAAnUqhKWZI

[Jason96]

Di Caprio is one of my favorite actors, but I'll hold my judgement whether this one is going to a success.
Anyway, this documentary will get people know General Grant at the deepest level than ever before. I' looking forward to it.

[RangerJoe]

I want to know his brand of whiskey, just like Lincoln did.

[Simulacra53]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

They worked great for awhile in the Western Desert, then they worked great in Burma. But riveting armour is not a good idea.

This.
The Afrika Korps thought they worked too well...

[Simulacra53]

Yeah, kinda like DiCaprio who’s gone a long way from child actor via teenage heartthrob to a pretty solid actor.
He’s acted some of the more memorable roles of the last couple of decades.

...as for Russel Crowe, as much as I likes him as his star rose quickly, it sort of dropped as he gained weight.
Now I am not fat shaming, let the guy enjoy life as he wants to enjoy it, but his roles just did not improve - not saying that there weren’t enjoyable movies between them - kinda liked Nice Guys.