Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/05/2017 in all areas

  1. Are images like this of interest over here? I don't think big scans of these drawings are out on the net. These are all from the final Sherman powertrain.
    3 points
  2. Lots of new stuff over at the Sherman Tank site. I decided when I was having a hard time finding shit on the page, something had to be done. So I decided to do static pages for specific things, Now I have the Sherman tank Guns page. You can find all the Gun Data sheets I did here, along with a selection of pictures of the guns important parts from various manuals. Some of the pictures are good, some bad, but its just about all from the tanks manuals so its hard data. There is now a suspension page, with lots of interesting images and info on the suspension There is a Sherman engine page now, but I only have one motor data book done, so it doesn't have much going on. I also have a Sherman powertrain page, and a subpage for the Transmission, coming soon, sub pages for the final drives and differential, and by soon, I mean probably this weekend. I also broke down and put a page up for each Sherman sub model. I now only really need a good tech manual on the M4 or M4A1. Try as I might, I can't find a PDF for it anywhere, or a hard copy either, if anyone finds it on PDF please let me know where. The Databook for the GM 6046 has all the motor data in, I just have to populate it with interesting pictures. Many of the images in the new pages came from the two new manuals I scored, the TM9-7018, its the 1952 and final Sherman manual for the M4A3. I also got my hands on an Ord 9 SNL G-205. Some of the images come from manuals already on the site.
    3 points
  3. Since this is our random politics dump thread, I figured I'd throw this in here. I've been very interested in what Dilbertman has to say lately, but I think he's off the mark here. In fact, he's so off the mark that he makes me voice my latent concern that he's deliberately trying to convince people to be climate skeptics. (Which, I should note, is not something I'm against, but which runs counter to what he claims to be trying to do. More on that in a bit.) Tucker Carlson's game looks like this: Attack in whatever way he can, no matter how nonsensical, with the deliberate and calculated aim of getting his guest to flip out or otherwise discredit themselves. And if they don't, just say you've run out of time. That's his game, and as someone who argues like an intermediate level competitive chess player moves Queen to Bishop 6, I respect it for what it is. So I don't think Tucker induced cognitive dissonance in Bill Nye. I think Bill Nye got MAD. I would, too, in that situation. Carlson specializes in the kind of insane word games that make people like me go completely apeshit and want to start throwing things. Bill seemed to have reasonably simple answers to a simple question. Here's it boiled down to the essentials, without Tucker's asinine interruption tactic: Question: What would the climate be like if humans hadn't made it artificially warmer? Answer: It would be like 1750. You wouldn't be able to grow grapes in Britain, you'd still be able to open ski resorts in certain parts of Europe, and *some specific factoid about agricultural pests that I didn't quite get*. Sounds pretty straightforward to me! You can argue that it's right or wrong, but it is AN answer. The thing is, I am on pretty much the opposite side of the fence from Bill. I think he and his ilk are doing a disservice in the conversation about this subject, because he's contributing to an oppressive atmosphere that stops people from even asking questions. I don't know what the truth of climate science is, but I can see with my own eyes that the political situation in climate science is a fertile bed for exactly the sort of Inquisition-style witch-hunts and dissent suppression that you don't want in a scientific field. But I disagree with Dilbertman. Nye isn't experiencing cognitive dissonance - well, he is as part of the human condition, but not because he didn't have an answer to the question. Now, Scott Adams I think plays a deep game with his blogging. He's not always being truthful to you, and that's on purpose. I feel like his blogging is interactive, which is one reason I keep reading him. He's not just telling you about his theories of persuasion, he is actively using them on you. And regarding climate change, I think he's doing what he'd call "pacing and leading". He's pacing climate change believers by saying that he believes the scientific consensus, to try to build credibility. Then, he tries to lead them by expressing doubts about small areas in climate science. In a few months, I expect him to be an outright skeptic. That's what's so neat about his blog, you can actually test his persuasion theory as you read, because he is actively doing it to you.
    1 point
  4. Must have missed that one. Also, the YouTube link on your TFB article died.
    1 point
  5. It is indeed a rifle grenade sight. Not safe to use unless you have the gas cutoff hardware too though! Just because it has one in no way means it has the other. I use mine to launch DIY dummies and occasionally bust out the old adapter set that lets you launch army pineapples.
    1 point
  6. @Conner Webb Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the sight in question is for a grenade launcher.
    1 point
  7. I really feel like that is a sketch.
    1 point
  8. The DUKW now has a higher kill count then the Maus, The Panther II, the Lowe, and the E Series combined. What now shit Wehraboos? Duck Life.
    1 point
  9. Greenland was a Viking Age real estate scam.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...