Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "The History Guy: History Deserves to Be Remembered"
channel.
-
61
-
51
-
44
-
38
-
11
-
I bought a used '74 Vega in the early '80s. Maybe it was the Herbie the Lovebug of Vegas, because it ran great. Previous owner treated it gently, as did I. I hate to say that I LIKED the car, in the context of this video, but the guy or gal before me babied it, as did I. In those days, people were used to great big, bulletproof V8s, which in those years were very forgiving of hard use and indifferent maintenance.
I liked the way it handled. I loved the fold-down rear seat. I slept in the back of my hatchback many a time. I don't even remember when I sold it or traded it in, but I pretty much went with pickups after that. Not as good to sleep in, but room for all my camping gear!
7
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I didn't know that wagons had to compete with passenger cars and mini-vans and SUVs came under different rules. They're still more efficient than vans and SUVs. I bet they'd still be selling big if they didn't artificially push people to buy SUVs and vans.
In the mid-70s, our family owned a '69 Buick Estate Wagon. When we first got it, I was small enough to fit in that little gap between the rear passenger seat and the rear-facing seats in the VERY back. I was a real runt, and it was GREAT to sit that high up, because I could see everything.
I've always preferred wagons or at least hatch-backs, because you could make a nice long bed in back by folding down the back seat.
That's too bad. A station wagon still makes sense. A couple I know have two Toyota station wagons. I think they're the last year Toyota made them. They get almost the same gas mileage as a Camry, only there's just WAY more room.
SUV's as a separate KIND of station wagon, stretch back a long time, too. Those old Chevy "Hi-Boys" with 4-wheel-drive, were basically the ultimate adventure wagon. Half way between a panel truck and a station wagon. Big, tall captain's seats (but fixed), and you could rig them up for camping. You had to bend at the waist, but you could stand and walk to the back.
Went on a geology field trip, and one of the guys drove one of those old 50s or 60s-vintage high boys, and I've always wanted one, since. You could haul just about anything you could put in a pickup, plus you had an extra-big cabin for road trips. He had everything he needed to go off-grid for weeks at a time, back in the '80s.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think tank-on-tank comparisons are overrated. I think it's more about logistics and combined arms, infantry, artillery and armor, but not so much tank-vs-tank, even though we hang on all accounts of such encounters. Air also matters, and in the early stages of Barbarossa, the Germans had total air superiority.
American industrial might was on full display, despite the head-to-head between tanks. The Allies could afford to take losses, and have as many or more armored units in the field, tomorrow as they had, today. The Soviets were also producing at a high rate, but in addition, already had divisions of armored and infantry divisions waiting on the Eastern side of the Urals. The Germans would defeat the Red Army and there'd be a whole 'nother Red Army opposing them at the NEXT river crossing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1