Donward

So this is what I've done so far... 
 
Tank Infantry Communication: They couldn’t at first.

 
M4 tanks, and US Armor in General couldn’t talk to the infantry they were tasked to support. When I first read about the communication problems between tankers, and the ‘doughs’ they were fighting with I was surprised. It’s hard to believe in today’s world; talking to people inside a vehicle right next to you would be a problem, like send a text right bro? Well not back in the forties, they did have two way radios, but the technology used vacuum tubes, because transistors had not been invented, and they were not very reliable, and had a limited number of radio frequencies they could talk on. They also had the problem that tank radios, and infantry radios did not share frequencies.
So Shermans would be sent to support Infantry, usually say a separate tank battalion would send a platoon over to regiment of infantry, often the battalion would be assigned to the same infantry division for a long period of time so they could get used to working with the same people. This helped, but in combat they still had real communication problems, no matter how long they had worked together. This problem didn’t really come to top, until after D-Day when the Sherman was supporting infantry in the bocage country. A platoon could be broken down further to support smaller units as well, and it wasn’t unheard of for a single tank to support a company, though they really tried to at least keep tanks paired up.
Things would normally go well communication wise before the shooting started; at least the tank commander would be riding with his head stuck out; so he could talk to the infantry riding on his tank or walking around it. A savvy infantry officer may be up on the tank talking to the commander. Once the tank started taking enough fire for the crew to close those hatches, everything changed. No amount of yelling or even banging on the tank would get the crews attention. Since the tanks and infantry were not on the same radio nets, if they wanted to get orders to the tank through the radio, they had to radio up to battalion or regiment level, get someone to find the tank battalion Commander, or someone who could talk to the tank on the radio, and then hope, they could get that actual tank on the net during the firefight. This did not work well. Often it took a man standing in front of the tank and waving his arms to get them to open up, this clearly was not an ideal solution either, and even when the commander did pop his head out, he had a very hard time hearing anything with his helmet on.
If the tank unit and infantry units got to train together, and had been working together for a long time, this was less of a problem than a tank battalion assigned to a new infantry division with no combat time and little tank/infantry training. This became a clear and prominent problem in the bocage fighting in Normandy, when infantry wouldn’t be able to warn the tank they were working with of an imminent threat in a timely manner.
Various solutions were improvised in the field, they tried using the Infantry’s Handy Talky from inside the tank, but the tanks electrical system caused to much interference. They also tried giving company level infantry headquarters spare tank radios, mounted to a back board, but they were really to heavy to be practical, and not common enough to be all that useful. Some smart GI figured out if you poked the Handy Talkie’s antennae out of the hatch, it worked, and that was the best solution for a little while. They also tried rigging up field telephones, with spools on the back of the tanks to let out the phone wire as they advanced, but the wire broke easily and restricted how the tank could move.
The best solution was worked out by Operation Cobra, and many tanks went into combat sporting it. The fix was mounting an EE-8 field telephone in a .30 caliber ammo box on the back of the tank. This phone was wired into the tanks intercom so anyone could walk up and say, “Hey! You blind Sonsobitches!! Shoot the machine gun nest over to the right, that house you’re shooting up is empty, you stupid bastards!!”  or something to that effect. This of course could get the infantry guy, who wanted to talk to the tank shot, since he had to stand up behind the tank, but they still haven’t come up with something better, and M1A2 Abrams tanks are getting infantry phones installed on them.
The Marines came up with this solution as well, but faster, since they used the M4 for much less time than the Army. They did come up with it around the same time as well, in July of 44. They found it essential for working in close with the fellow marines. The Japanese at this point were using man powered shaped charges on a pole, or magnetic mines, and the tanks really depended on the infantry around them to be their eyes. Marine tanks operated buttoned up once the shooting started, without the phone, they were much less effective.  

So. I am currently in the middle of a classic Ward Brother adventure with my lil bro the details of which may or may not be revealed later.
Currently I am at his house in Roy, WA adjacent to Fort Lewis (Joint Base Lewis McChord) and listening to the serenade of 155mm Howitzers firing from a distance and landing at a MUCH closer distance. The sound and feel of the over pressure waves and explosions even from a couple miles away is fucking incredible. It's been awhile since I've had a chance to experience it. And I certainly would not want to be any closer to those shells going off.

So. I am currently in the middle of a classic Ward Brother adventure with my lil bro the details of which may or may not be revealed later.
Currently I am at his house in Roy, WA adjacent to Fort Lewis (Joint Base Lewis McChord) and listening to the serenade of 155mm Howitzers firing from a distance and landing at a MUCH closer distance. The sound and feel of the over pressure waves and explosions even from a couple miles away is fucking incredible. It's been awhile since I've had a chance to experience it. And I certainly would not want to be any closer to those shells going off.

Speaking of the fragile and transitory nature of humor, I just found out yesterday that Dugan Ashley of CarniK Con infamy announced a month ago that he would no longer be producing any new CarniK Con videos. 
 
Why this decision had to be made by Dugan  and why a loving God that supposedly cares for his Children allows this to be is outside of my ability to comprehend. Instead, all I can do is watch my favorite CarniK Con skits.
 

 

 

For those of you seeking dating advice, it seems the US Navy has just what you need.
 

I have a hunch it has already been done...

The best reading bar none is to keep up with the Janes series of publication.  Defense weekly is a boring read for many, because it has lots of gossipy sounding tittle in the form of articles about this or that contract being cancelled or defunded, but it is the weathervane that everyone in the world literally picks at,
 
Defense News is another one, and it has Gannet backing it up.  It is on my weekly reading list and along with Janes I keep them both in my tracking files.  You would be surprised at how a few sentence summary of a seemingly boring article on a new logistics data project offering to change software capabilities for a minor NATO country can mean big information when compared with other stories rather than trying to digest the information alone.
 
Breaking Defense is one I have just in the past year started reading.  This one seems to get a LOT of information from horny congressional aids - or so I think, because otherwise I have no idea how they get some of the committee insider stuff.  I do know that a majority of leaks on military capabilities come from young congressional staffers who wander into bars in DC looking to impress everyone at how much in the loop they are.  As someone who is so far out of the loop as to require Hubble telescope to see the edges of known space where the loop exists, I cannot possibly know what it is like to be a hugely knowledgeable congressional staffer working for a guy whose primary skill set that got him elected was hair that stays reasonable in place, but this sort of data is priceless in understanding the modern defense world.  
 
The major way to understand defense is to realize that no one sums things up, they provide very close analysis of the type of bark in the trees nearest them, but few people truly synthesize - so the articles that seem boring, like a contract moving 6 RoRo ships from one part of the civilian fleet to another, may actually be a piece of evidence that indicates a return of significant REFORGER capability to the US infrastructure.  You then need to see an article on the US military spending millions on constant humidity warehouses, and another about the movement of some obscure logistics units before you have multiple opposing evidence chains that lets you say - years before any announces it to the press, that the US is coming back to Europe.
 
And be careful of general and open discussion sites on the web.  This group in this little haven are pretty smart and knowledgeable, but in the general Internet you have lot of, "I heard the post office is buying 7.5 billion rounds of hollow points, that means mailmen are coming to take our guns!!!" political nonsense.  For example purchase of halal rations by the Army, which was touted in many chat groups as proof that Obama was going to require the Army to adopt sharia law, was actually a bit of evidence of something much more mundane, but in the light of day, something much more important about Army planning.  There are articles here and there about those halal rations that never mention why they are being bought, but do give us hints of why they are needed (and the real answer is not a conspiracy, just common sense.)

You and your fancy European bayonets. Real Americans grab the barrel of their squirrel gun and swing it like a club!

Oh, hey! The Mauler M.B.T. was actually based on something real after all. 

Upon further reflection, I have found the perfect candidate.
 
When was the last time the Germans won a major war?
 
What was the rifle that they armed the main body of their troops with?
 
Was this weapon used successfully despite being outclassed by a technologically superior weapon?
 
Will this weapon still be outclassed by any potential opponent faced by the Germans?
 
With all of that in mind, clearly the best option for a united Germany is the Dreyse needle-gun!
 

Wakes up in the morning, grabs a fresh cup of joe brewed in the French press and notices the "Why Do A-Rabs Lose Wars Thread" has become a NIN and music thread.
 
Excellent. *finger twiddle*
 

 
And since I'm on the subject, I'll just leave this offering from The Clash as well.
 

 
Hey. It's nice to see that Austin, Texas is a suitable stand-in for a stereotypical Middle East theocracy!

Nah, the GI Joe team were true American capitalists.  We know this because they occasionally fought their Soviet equivalent, the Oktober Guard.  Typically, they start out fighting each other but then have to team up to defeat Cobra.  Kinda like WW2 I guess.  
 

 
When I was a kid I always wanted more Oktober Guard appearances in the GI Joe comic.  Unfortunately, they didn't make Oktober guard figures until I was too old to play with toys anymore.  

Upon further reflection, I have found the perfect candidate.
 
When was the last time the Germans won a major war?
 
What was the rifle that they armed the main body of their troops with?
 
Was this weapon used successfully despite being outclassed by a technologically superior weapon?
 
Will this weapon still be outclassed by any potential opponent faced by the Germans?
 
With all of that in mind, clearly the best option for a united Germany is the Dreyse needle-gun!
 

I've mentioned this before and elsewhere and will add it here again. They hey day of the AK-47 in popular consciousness was certainly the 1970s and 1980s in terms of mystique and notoriety. I like to look at things from a pop culture perspective since I feel that does provide a useful  insight on how John Q Public views a topic. And when it comes to pop culture and Hollywood in particular, the "AK-47" as a catch-all term doesn't really feature in any Hollywood movie or television show of note until 1977 with the Israeli-based action movie Operation Thunderbolt featuring the Raid at Entebbe. Apocalypse Now was the first American film in 1979 to portray the Viet Cong/NVA using them in the Vietnam War although there is an Australian movie The Odd Angry Shot that apparently beat Francis Ford Coppola to the punch. (At any rate it probably wasn't a long and contrived pile of yack like Apocalypse...)
 
The Internet Movie Firearms Database is usually my go-to source in terms of finding info about guns in movies.
 
Edit: A slight correction. The first 'Nam movie that features an "AK-47" might be 1978's The Deer Hunter with the Norinco Type 56 playing a supporting role. Although Colt and Smith & Wesson revolvers were obviously the star of the movie. I guess that's if you really consider The Deer Hunter to be a Vietnam War movie and not simply a device to allow Christopher Walken to chew threw the scenery.

Generally, when America looses a conflict it is due to lack of political will to do what is necessary to win.  Not a military failure.

The issue with concealed versus open carry to me seems to hinge on whether you expect potential attackers to behave in a sane and rationale manner. As an example (and I very much don't want this to be political) we have individuals who will attack an armed police officer who is in uniform. Will that same sort of individual really be intimidated by your rather expensive and valuable handgun that he now knows you have? Also, there are individuals of a certain mindset who will go out of their way to fuck with you if you are openly displaying a weapon knowing that you won't be able to do anything about it. There are crazy mofos out there.
To me, your body language and how you survey your surroundings is the best defense against trouble. I'm fortunate being six-foot-two and in relatively good shape. But I also use my "Don't fuck with me face and walk" when out and about while scanning everything. That's a better deterrent IMHO than any piece of hardware. Keep the gun for when you really need it.

Wow. I didn't know the Remington Model 8 could generate that sort of antipathy. What did they think he should have used instead? A Tommy gun? Don't tell them that Texas Ranger Frank Hamer used one to blow Clyde Barrow's brains out in 1934 or that 45 ACP was routinely found to be deficient in terms of penetrating power, particularly in regards to puncturing the sheet metal in cars built during the period. Which - as we all know - is why the .38 Super and .357 Magnum rounds were developed.
 
Obviously dated compared to modern weapons, the Model 8 that I've handled and owned by a family member seems balanced and fairly ergonomic. I haven't had a chance to fire one, apparently the recoil is horrendous, but the 35 Remington is a more than capable hunting round at modest ranges.
 
The obvious advantage in pistols is that you can have one on you always and that they can be concealed so folks don't know you are armed. And - repeating what everyone here has said - if you're having to rely on a pistol in an extended firefight, with multiple tactical reloads, it means you have either found yourself in a very bad neighborhood or have made a series of unfortunate lifestyle choices in your soon to be ended life.

.35 Remington too weak? Yeah, sure, 180gr at 2,200 ft/s is just pissant stuff. I would only use that for varminting.   

I hate to say it, but Americans - generally speaking - don't understand terminal ballistics and have a giant collective confirmation bias in favor of larger calibers. I get criticized a lot for recommending calibers that are "too weak" for the job. Using .223 Remington (actually, 5.56x45, the distinction being actually pretty important performance-wise) from a 16" carbine-length AR-15 for whitetail usually comes with cries of "that's inhumane!" or "I hope you can shoot".

Here are the freakin' facts, Jack:

1. Velocity is number one for shock effect. If you want the animal to "quit", the ideal round will have more than 2,000 ft/s velocity. The reason for this is, I will admit, beyond my expertise, but it seems to be very true from an empirical standpoint.

2. Energy takes a backseat to shot placement. Even cutting the energy in half doesn't reduce the temporary cavity by very much from a dimensional perspective, so even stepping down from a .308 to a 5.56 incurs a much smaller penalty that you'd expect based on their energy levels:

.308 Winchester soft point producing 3,420 J:




.223 Remington copper expanding bullet producing 1,525 J:



.40 S&W JHP producing 660 J:



Note how, even though energy is more than halved each time, the width of the cavity does not halve. So even cartridges with wildly different energy levels will produce cavities that are not that different from one another. Therefore, I wouldn't worry too much about the energy level a given round is producing; more important is velocity and...

3. Sectional density and bullet toughness are critical for affecting thicker targets. This is where the .22 caliber got its reputation as being inadequate for deer. We'll go back to the 1930s, just as the .220 Swift was being introduced and the .22-250 was just being developed, what .224" caliber centerfire rounds were available at the time?

.22 Hornet. That was the most powerful round commonly available at the time in that caliber; a round that from a 24" barrel will produce about 2,700 ft/s with 50gr bullets.

Suddenly, the .22-250 and .220 Swift are introduced, and they are loaded with the same bullets - which were designed for the < 2,700 ft/s velocity range - but pushing them to over 4,000 ft/s. Hunters achieve spectacular results from these loads at first, but quickly find that they're unreliable. Without a clean profile shot, the round disintegrates too quickly and may leave the animal maimed.

Laws are quickly passed by Sensible People banning the use of .22 caliber rounds for hunting medium game, and the caliber has been stamped with a label of Inadequacy ever since. Meanwhile, hunters 'round the world happily took deer with even more impotent .32-40 and later .357 Magnum rifles.

So what's The Deal? Well, the 50gr bullets were pushed far beyond their design parameters, and lacked both sectional density and toughness. However, .30, .32, and .357 caliber bullets had plenty of sectional density, and were heavy enough that pushing them as fast was difficult.

Now, today, this problem does not exist. A multitude of excellent, tough bullets exist for the .22 caliber bore that offer enough sectional density and integrity to humanely take medium game. Bullets in the 62-77gr range fired from 5.56mm rifles allow reliable harvesting of whitetail all day long. The results I have gotten from ammunition like Mk. 318 against whiletail speak to this. Here's another guy who is quite happy with the performance of the modern .22 caliber:


 It is of course important to make sure that the animal is in profile to you, to minimize the amount of tissue the round has to go through, and to shoot straight. All of this is true, regardless of caliber. The result of people in America thinking that caliber can compensate for these two factors has resulted in deer wounded by even such ridiculous calibers as .300 Winchester Magnum.

I wish it still existed because it was a classic case of circular arguments.  One group advocated the lawman of the 1920s arming themselves with Tommy guns as you say, but my uncle purchased his own model 8 for 25 bucks - a Tommy gun costs something like 300 with magazines back then (which spawned a new argument about it being idiotic to count pennies when it is your life.)  There was a large group that advocated a cut-down, short barreled Colt Monitor because 30-06 is the "baseline cartridge" a term I have never heard of before or since.  There was a lot of talk of bolt action versus semi-auto, and I think most of the fan base wanted larger rounds.
 
I thought back to my own days in blue and I had a carbine in my car, and once in a while I would throw a personal rifle in when I was doing a stint in the back country.  I was never scared that the carbine was a bad choice since I did not have one (a choice), and the main reason it was issued was for active shooter in schools (later most people got M16A1s).  
 
My service weapon was a Glock 23 - the department only issued 15 round mags so I carried two 15 round mags plus a 13 in the gun.  I also carried a titanium 38 revolver made by Taurus.  On forums when I revealed what I carried it would always cause a lot of posting - lots of digital ink on my choice of a Glock 23 exists because apparently those last two rounds are life or death.  Two mags backup?  That discussion lit off a lot of discussions on how many pistol rounds do you need and the pundits wanted hundreds.  Heck, even when I grabbed my vest and my carbine at most I would have 114 rounds on my body by people who never leave the house without a hundred rounds in their pocket.  I figure I am just lazy.
 
The point is I do not think the Remington 8 generated that much antipathy, it was the fact I posted a memory that allowed the arm chair quarterbacks to jump into the game.  A couple were long, drawn out, and interesting posts that I read with interest. 

I have been drilling down on posts and I found this one because it is so true.  My great uncle carried a Model 8 Remington Rifle as a deputy.  He also had a pistol but he rarely used it - he claimed when the world went sideways only an idiots stood around with a pistol in their hands.  
 
I made the mistake of posting a picture of Uncle Walter with his model 8 on a forum about five years ago and triggered a firestorm of criticism.  The pundits told me that the 35 Remington was a toy rifle, it didn't have the stopping power to use for law enforcement, it had too little ammunition in it (my Uncle had a 10 round magazine but only loaded 8 rounds in it) and that the only LEO who had one would be a dead LEO.  The thread ended up with like 10,000 posts, only my 49/56 post did more furor.  
 
The only reason I ever posted that was that for 1923 my Uncle made an educated choice of weapons that served him for two decades.  The hundreds of posts that analyzed how bad the 35 Remington is/was failed to recognize the issue was about rejecting pistols for most work when a rifle is available.

My wife's Terry Pratchett collection was an important dowry item.

The 6.8 SPC article has officially broken my comment record, set by "A Dissection Of (Yet) An(other) M4 Hit Piece" at 586 comments:

The medium of web comics and grapefruit has crossed again.
 
http://www.qwantz.com/index.php
 
Sadly T-Rex doesn't weigh in on the heretics who peel and masticate their grapefruit.

The intersection of the ACW and capitalism;
 

My town has an M48, but down the road there is a rather fine aviation museum.