I was recently reading about various second generation tanks and I noticed that there seem to have been two different ideologies. The M60 and the the Chieftain both have extensive armor and have hundreds of millimeters of armor from the front. They were very heavy and relied upon their armor to survive. The AMX-30 and the Leopard 1 on the other hand seem to follow a different idea of being light and mobile to avoid being hit. They both are much lighter than the other two and have much weaker armor, from what I could find less than 100 millimeters frontally. So of these two ideologies, which was more effective? Did the technology of the day mean that tanks would be easier to destroy than to protect or was it worth it to be heavier and slower but have more armor? I know there wasn’t a full conflict to really show which worked better but I was hoping for information on the effectiveness of the opposing systems.

When i try to find information about Heinlein's political opinions i get all kinds of claims. Socialist, libertarian and fascist.

Is calling Heinlein fascist something that comes from Verhoeven's adaption only, or is the book itself considered to have fascistic traits?

[deleted]

Why is their such a huge range for the estimated population of Natives? What makes this so difficult to determine?

I'm writing an essay on the historiography of the Adventus Saxonum and how it affected English identity over time, but I'm having trouble finding sources on/from the early modern period (in this case I mean roughly 1500-1900). I'm specifically looking for works by English historians, but I'm willing to look further abroad if necessary. So far I have Macaulay's History of England, but I'm having trouble finding more.

I read the rules and I think this meets the homework criteria, but if it doesn't let me know and I'll edit/remove it. Also I've searched the reading list on the sub-reddit to no avail.

What was the motivation and reasoning behind the German Kriegsakademie in Berlin accepting American military personnel so close to the beginning of the 2nd World War?

General Wedemeyer supposedly was responsible for analyzing German strategy during the war, based on his studies at the German Academy he was invited to. This seems like a terrible oversight by the German Military leadership? Were there outside factors influencing this decision?

In the popular consciousness, the Victorian era seems to be thought to have retained a static social, political, and cultural life, despite its 64 long years of duration. This is obviously no less absurd than thinking that American culture and politics remained unchanged in the period from FDR's inauguration in 1933 to the end of Bill Clinton's first presidential term in 1997 (a period just as long as Queen Victoria's reign).

To represent the temporal distances between different parts of the Victorian era in another way, the culture that produced the final chapters of Dickens' Oliver Twist in 1839 was clearly not the same culture that produced Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897), just as the culture that produced MGM's The Wizard of Oz (1939) was clearly not the same culture that produced The Big Lebowski (1998).

Therefore, I am deeply interested in understanding the political, social, and cultural shifts that differentiate the various sub-periods of the Victorian era in the land where its namesake "reign[ed] but [did] not rule."

Viking funeral in this case refers to the practice of sending a boat full of possessions out to sea with the deceased and burning it.

Example, battle of Cannae.

I often hear this claim. But looking up the Jewish diaspora on Wikipedia, there was the claim that that the Ashkenazi Jews who live mostly in Christian societies made up 92% of the Jewish population worldwide in 1931. It seems really strange to me that both claims can be true.