Collimatrix

The person who drew that picture doesn't know how planform alignment or DSI works.

Needs moar hex wrenches and pictographs.

FSB spook with AK-105

Yep, it was pretty bizarre that it somehow got to Iraq.  The speculation was that a HSLD Russian dude had either lost the rifle or come to grief, and a Chechen fighter picked it up and took it as their trophy.
 
A lot of foreign fighters came to Iraq to fight for various factions there, including Chechens, so perhaps this fellow thought he'd teach the Iraqis the finer points of jihad, only to get whacked by the American infidels who could only puzzle over how on earth he'd gotten that rifle.

Part of it was entertainment value, no doubt.
But part of it was the simple acknowledgement that, even when intentionally speaking drivel, you still made a better argument than ISS and company. You beat them on form when they couldn't even dream of offering content.
Good show, in other words.

Also worth noting, most German half-tracks mechanically unusual.
 
In a full-tracked vehicle you only have two moving points of contact with the ground, as opposed to four for a wheeled vehicle.  On top of that, tracks are usually (some exceptions; tetrarch and universal carrier) laterally rigid.  That means that to steer, you've got to vary the power going to the tracks to steer.  This leads to some rather hideously complex transmissions.
 
In a half-track, you have four moving points of contact, and the front two are wheels.  Generally speaking, half-tracks are steered like wheeled vehicles with the attendant savings in transmission complexity.
 
Not in the German designs:
 

 
That's the final drive from an SDKFZ 251.  It's a Cletrac controlled differential steering unit.  German half tracks steer both by turning the front wheels and by varying track drive speeds.  For fine adjustment only the wheels are used, but for hard turns the Cletrac kicks in and starts diverting power to the outer track.
 
Oddly, the Cletrac controlled differential is a much more sophisticated steering system than the one used on Pz I-IV.

Indeed.
 
Part 1
 
Part 2
 
Part 3
 
Part 4
 
 
As much fun as I had writing these, it irritates me somewhat that I get far more upvotes for writing completely retarded shit like that than anything informed and useful.

That's not an over-complicated track link.  This is an overcomplicated track link:
 

 
This is the Zpw 5001/280/140 track from the SDKFZ 251.
 
Each track pin is packed in a sealed, lubricated container with needle bearings.

That's not an over-complicated track link.  This is an overcomplicated track link:
 

 
This is the Zpw 5001/280/140 track from the SDKFZ 251.
 
Each track pin is packed in a sealed, lubricated container with needle bearings.

No comment.

No comment.

One of my little historical myth buster dissertations over in the Paradox Forums...
 
Movies tend to depict cavalry as charging in massed formations. It looks cool especially if you add some orchestral music to it:
 

 
And it is especially sad when you gatling gun all the men and horses in slow motion:
 

 
To an extent, the reason for this is because most paintings of cavalry depict them in such poses, such as this painting from the Battle of Beersheeba in 1917:
 
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Palestine_Gallery_at_the_Australian_War_Memorial_(MG_9693).jpg
 
There's a little problem with this painting though. It was drawn during the age of photography, and as it turns out we have some actual photos of the battle:
 
http://www.rfd.org.au/site/beersheba.asp
 
And immediately we can go into mythbuster mode and make some key observations:
 
There are four photographs of the Australian Light Horse in the site, three of which depict the cavalry on the march and the fourth depicts them during the charge. The fourth is particularly significant - it might be the sole photograph of an actual cavalry charge ever taken. 
 
What's striking here is that the Beersheeba painting in fact bears most resemblance to the three photographs of the cavalry on the march - meaning they were in column, riding nearly knee to knee
 
Meanwhile, the "charge" photograph is very different - you can in fact see that rather than charging as a massed force, the cavalry had spread itself into three distinct waves - each of which is so sparsely manned that you can still make out individual riders on the most distant third wave. The spacing between each wave is also quite generous - several horse-lengths at least - at complete odds with the painting wherein the cavalry are basically charging as one huge column.
 
Why is the charge formation so different from the painting? Why is real war so different from Tom Cruise getting machinegunned? (No matter how amusing that may be).
 
And the answer, it turns out, is relatively simple: Cavalry charged in sparse waves for the same reason that automobile drivers maintain a minimum safe distance from the car ahead of them: In the event that the car ahead of you suddenly stopped, you want to have enough distance to either evade the car or brake yourself to a stop.
 
Cavalry were no different. If a cavalryman in the first wave got killed, then the troopers in the second wave want plenty of space to be able to avoid his corpse and that of his horse - not for sentimental reasons, but because failing to do so would likely cause your own horse to slip and lead you crashing into the ground.
 
The problem, as we know now from the history of cavalry paintings, is that most of these paintings were not drawn based on battlefield accounts. Instead, most of these paintings were drawn by artists witnessing parade-ground maneuvers (the famed painting "Scotland Forever" was drawn by someone who was not present at Waterloo, as an example) - hence the cavalry could safely gallop in massed columns due to the fact that it was unlikely anyone in the front was going to suddenly stop and cause the rest to pile up.
 
Additionally, painters tended to paint cavalry from the side view - as it seems to be a more impressive vantage point that maximizes the effect of a few horses. The painting at Bersheerba and the photographs on the march in fact seemed to have come from this school of thought.
 
Funnily, much as we want to make fun of The Last Samurai, they actually get this bit right when you look at 0:11 of this video:
 

 
Although the cavalry are charging towards the left (away from the guns and the guy we're supposed to hate), the line is actually only very sparse and contains only "our" brave white man, Ken Watanabe, and a few other extras. This gives each man plenty of space to pretend dying dramatically in slow motion without resulting in any unfortunate tramplings that could cause real injury.
 
That said, we then find out why the cavalry charged to the left and away from their intended target by 0:30 - That way we can now switch to side-view shots of the cavalry dying in slow motion, which again allows the filmmaker to maximize the impact of a handful of riders. There are perhaps just 10 guys in the scene at 0:30 - yet it seems a lot more since so much action is happening in the entire screen.
 
So there you have it, a fun little snarky piece on why people should never, ever believe pieces of Napoleonic "art" depicting cavalry drawn by artists commissioned by governments for the glorification of their armies - artists who by and large never witnessed combat. That last sentence in fact should have already been proof enough why paintings are such bad sources of historical truth, but one can never underestimate how stubbornly some people cling to what "military history" tells them.

Still not as manly as this:
 

 
Many horses died to bring you this movie.

If anything, the portrayal of Hitler in Downfall is too sane.

If anything, the portrayal of Hitler in Downfall is too sane.

OK, I think I found the answer to this.
 
A straight wing with an equal chord/height ratio would actually have a slightly better Mcrit than a comparable swept wing.
 
However, in supersonic flight a straight wing would stick out the sides of the mach cone created by the nose of the aircraft, while swept wings could fit inside.  Having your wings stick outside the mach cone is a PITA for various reasons.

Swing-wing aircraft are very efficient at a mid subsonic cruise, and Canada is really big.
 
Besides, Iran managed to operate swing-wing aircraft; in combat even.  I'm sure Canada could pull it off.

Oh yeah, I can see Gwar doing a really superb live show.
 
Out of respect for the next artist's litigious tendencies towards youtube videos, I will not be posting any audio/visual material.
 
In the 1970s there was a terrible threat to civilization and apple pie and freedom and life itself.  No, I'm not talking about punk rock or disco or Jimmy Carter's presidency, although those were all terrible mistakes.  I am of course referring to that great rainbow scourge, the gays.
 
The 1969 Stonewall riots began the campaign of gay imperialism.  Things that had been safely heterosexual suddenly, overnight, became gay.  The color purple.  The word "gay."  Song and dance numbers.  Nazi uniforms.  Tight pants.  Dressing well.  Reading books.
 
By the end of the decade, only men with disgusting walrus mustaches, poor personal hygiene and no words in their vocabulary over four syllables long were safely straight, and the gays were coming for the mustaches too.  Breeders were in retreat, and given that the gays had claimed grooming as part of their lebensraum, attracting a mate was getting pretty difficult.  The entire globe would be partitioned between celibate, culture-less morlocks and an expanding army of flouncing, hard-bodied interior decorators.  This is how the world ends; not with a bang, but a... a sound that is like a whimper, but gayer.
 
But then in the 1980s, God stopped the gays in their tracks.  The Moral Majority interpreted AIDS as God's judgment against the gays, but you shouldn't listen to them because they're retarded.  God's instrument against the gays in the 1980s was Prince.
 
Yes; Prince, who's early hits included "1999" and "Little Red Corvette," was in fact the defender of heterosexuality who allowed the next generation to be born (that generation would turn out to be the Millennials, but that's hardly his fault).  Yes, the man wore a lot of purple and lace, which at first glance seems dubious, but you've got to understand that he was making those things straight again.  Yes; Prince was the leader of the heterosexual reconquista.  Let that sink in; without Prince, straight people would have been wiped out by the mid 1990's.
 
Yes, the guy is a weirdo and a vegan, but I think that's entirely permissible in light of the fact that he saved humanity from extinction.

Walter posted this on the WOT forum:
 


    It occurred to me that a very probable origin for these ideas is Guderian's autobiography, Erinnerungen eines Soldaten, or Panzer Leader in the 1952 English-language edition.   Guderian mentions the failure to cut off the British at Dunkirk in some detail.  According to him, the order to stop came from up high; he was all for going in guns blazing.  He also mentions several generals, himself included, being shocked and concerned when Hitler initially unveiled plans to invade the USSR.  Finally, he criticizes the decision to turn south instead of attacking Moscow in no uncertain terms and characterizes it as, in the end, a capricious whim the Fuhrer seized upon.   I know that there has been a fair amount of critical scholarship looking into just how honest Guderian's description of his own conduct was.  Alas, I am not well versed in it.  What did strike me though, was the early date of publication of Guderian's memoirs in English.  I suspect that they were very influential in shaping Allied ideas about World War Two.  Possibly, in some cases, more influential than Allied sources.   Take the supposed failure to encircle the evacuating British forces at Dunkirk.  Given the information available to him at the time of his recollections, an attack might have seemed like a good idea.  There are substantial reasons for thinking that an attack at the time would have been costly for the Germans, however.  But perhaps budding historians simply found Guderian's account of the event so compelling that they repeated it without consulting other sources?

I am, I must admit, a complete dilettante when it comes to military history.  I know that there has been critical analysis of Guderian's autobiography, Erinnerungen eines Soldaten, or Panzer Leader in English, but other than that I am ignorant of it.  Still, I found the book an interesting read, and at times amusing.  Amusing, I think, for reasons old Heinz would not immediately have appreciated:
 
 
Production rationalization is haaarrrdd!  Also, Guderian didn't even play World of Tanks and he knew that the aufklärungspanzer panther was a stupid idea.
 
 
Hitler cannot into tank tactics.
 
 
But just think of how dead it would kill a tank if it did hit!
 
 

I had suggested that in the spirit of European colonial administration, where local minorities were often propped up to rule various territories because they would be dependent upon their overlords, that Iraq be reconstituted under Yezidi rule as the Empire of Satan.

I am, I must admit, a complete dilettante when it comes to military history.  I know that there has been critical analysis of Guderian's autobiography, Erinnerungen eines Soldaten, or Panzer Leader in English, but other than that I am ignorant of it.  Still, I found the book an interesting read, and at times amusing.  Amusing, I think, for reasons old Heinz would not immediately have appreciated:
 
 
Production rationalization is haaarrrdd!  Also, Guderian didn't even play World of Tanks and he knew that the aufklärungspanzer panther was a stupid idea.
 
 
Hitler cannot into tank tactics.
 
 
But just think of how dead it would kill a tank if it did hit!
 
 

Oh yeah, I can see Gwar doing a really superb live show.
 
Out of respect for the next artist's litigious tendencies towards youtube videos, I will not be posting any audio/visual material.
 
In the 1970s there was a terrible threat to civilization and apple pie and freedom and life itself.  No, I'm not talking about punk rock or disco or Jimmy Carter's presidency, although those were all terrible mistakes.  I am of course referring to that great rainbow scourge, the gays.
 
The 1969 Stonewall riots began the campaign of gay imperialism.  Things that had been safely heterosexual suddenly, overnight, became gay.  The color purple.  The word "gay."  Song and dance numbers.  Nazi uniforms.  Tight pants.  Dressing well.  Reading books.
 
By the end of the decade, only men with disgusting walrus mustaches, poor personal hygiene and no words in their vocabulary over four syllables long were safely straight, and the gays were coming for the mustaches too.  Breeders were in retreat, and given that the gays had claimed grooming as part of their lebensraum, attracting a mate was getting pretty difficult.  The entire globe would be partitioned between celibate, culture-less morlocks and an expanding army of flouncing, hard-bodied interior decorators.  This is how the world ends; not with a bang, but a... a sound that is like a whimper, but gayer.
 
But then in the 1980s, God stopped the gays in their tracks.  The Moral Majority interpreted AIDS as God's judgment against the gays, but you shouldn't listen to them because they're retarded.  God's instrument against the gays in the 1980s was Prince.
 
Yes; Prince, who's early hits included "1999" and "Little Red Corvette," was in fact the defender of heterosexuality who allowed the next generation to be born (that generation would turn out to be the Millennials, but that's hardly his fault).  Yes, the man wore a lot of purple and lace, which at first glance seems dubious, but you've got to understand that he was making those things straight again.  Yes; Prince was the leader of the heterosexual reconquista.  Let that sink in; without Prince, straight people would have been wiped out by the mid 1990's.
 
Yes, the guy is a weirdo and a vegan, but I think that's entirely permissible in light of the fact that he saved humanity from extinction.

I don't write parodies of damnyank music.
 
I do, however, listen to SWPL-approved music.  No, seriously, my music library is 100% SWPL-approved.
 
I also know what's best for poor people.  Flogging.  Flogging is what is best for poor people.
 

 
So, Pixies.  It had to happen eventually.
 
I was born too late for grunge to be a meaningful part of my identity.  Besides, during the time that grunge was a big thing I was in hippie indoctrination camp.
 
Grunge proper is about self-righteousness, seeking pity and refusal to ever grow up.  It's about status-jockeying, reveling in imaginary victimhood and looking slovenly while doing it.
 
A grunge rocker would take heroin, but only so they could check "junkie" off on the list of pity-deserving afflictions.  A grunge rocker would bang their groupies, but only because they were so damned self-centered that it would never occur to them *not* to do so.
 
Grunge is the pursuit of perfection by the death of the soul.
 
But Pixies are something different; they're the sound of grunge but not the soul.  They're a garage band with a lot of Neil Young and one good idea that they fed into their feed tray and then held down the trigger until there was nothing left.  The music is squealing and dissonant, loud then soft and the lyrics are about the Old Testament and incest and stuff.
 
It's perfect.    
 

 
Also, oh my God, Kim Deal circa 1992:
 

 
THAT SMILE