tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1488085377271880492024-03-04T23:29:30.707-08:00Kesler12kesler12http://www.blogger.com/profile/06730943788519488679noreply@blogger.comBlogger87125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-148808537727188049.post-9679277079804052772020-04-07T09:19:00.006-07:002020-04-07T09:19:47.259-07:00America Will Collapse In 2020Within the next few weeks, he U.S. stock market will crash and bring down the entire economy with it. Theres nothing we can do to stop it. The only thing to do is prepare for a revolution afterwards. <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/TjnU8iA1U0CI/">The Alt-Right has a crucial role to play in this</a>. We can be powerful leaders, if we adopt the right strategy.kesler12http://www.blogger.com/profile/06730943788519488679noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-148808537727188049.post-54202354650248380032020-03-18T09:56:00.001-07:002020-03-18T10:09:43.892-07:00Americas next depressionThe coronavirus is turning out to be the black swan event of 2020. Thanks to the regular international flights that are a staple of globalisation, the virus was able to spread outside of China and become a global pandemic that threatens to kill millions of people. The death toll rises steadily each and every day, as the number of infected continue to climb. The West was extremely reluctant to close their borders and shut down international flights, due to the negative impact it would have on trade and tourism. They were more worried about the economy than their own people, in a perfect snapshot of our amoral cultural values. This gave the coronavirus a window of opportunity to pass into Europe and North America, gaining a presence in both continents. By the time Western leaders finally decided to bite the bullet and shut down the borders, it was already too late. The only course of action left was to order people to self-isolate, in the hopes that the rate of infection could be slowed down.<br />
<br />
<br />
As long as the number of victims doesn't exceed the capacity of hospitals to treat, then the death toll can be kept from spiraling out of control. But the obvious consequence of a quarantine is that the crisis will now last much longer than Western governments had anticipated. With millions of people stuck at home, their economys are slowly coming to a standstill. The growth in GDP that they care so much for has now been thrown to the wayside. And that isn't the only problem. In America, a crisis is now taking place in the stock and bond market as investors liquidate their assets and pull their money out of the system. The losses that have taken place this week are historic in every sense of the word. This is portent of untold disaster. In the last few years, American corporations have taken advantage of very-low interest loans from the Federal Reserve, and used the money to increase the value of their stocks. <a href="http://kesler12-jamesrocket.blogspot.com/2019/04/americas-next-financial-crisis.html">They have racked up a record amount of debt</a> in the process, creating a bubble-type situation in a frightening repeat of the 2008 crash.<br />
<br />
<br />
Wall Street has clearly shown that they have learned nothing from that episode, which bankrupted millions of people and threw the entire country into a prolonged recession. If things do not change course quickly, then there is every possibility that another financial crash will happen this year. Americas economy was already in a weakened position due to decades of bad monetary policy, combined with profligate spending on social programs, the military, and imperialistic wars. The fear and uncertainty spread by the coronavirus may very well prove to be the straw that broke the camels back. The Federal Reserve is largely responsible for creating this crisis, due to its constant monetary intervention that keeps the market addicted to ultra-low interest loans. They and Wall Street are partners in crime that are putting the entire country at risk.kesler12http://www.blogger.com/profile/06730943788519488679noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-148808537727188049.post-65544719905511833372020-01-20T03:58:00.003-08:002020-01-20T04:09:44.865-08:00Virginia gun rights rallyVirginia has been the focal point for alot of tensions in the past month. In December, a bill that would outlaw the possession of semi-automatic weapons was passed. The bill was sponsored by governor Ralph Northam, among others. This action infuriated gun owners throughout Virginia. In response, over 75 counties announced that they would not comply with the gun ban. Supporters of the bill did not care about the opposition of local Sheriffs. They simply warned that <a href="https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/the-law-is-the-law-dems-threaten-to-deploy-military-after-cops-refuse-to-enforce-gun-laws/">the National Guard would be mobilised</a> if the Police refused to enforce the ban. Things have only gotten worse since then.<br />
<br />
Today, a rally is scheduled to take place in the capital of Virginia. It will be attended by thousands of gun owners who are angered by the infringement of their rights. Some of the protestors are from out of state. The media has <a href="https://www.thestar.com/news/world/us/2020/01/16/fbi-arrests-3-white-supremacists-ahead-of-pro-gun-rally.html">attempted to stir controversy</a> by hyping storys about a group of white supremacists who planned to attend the rally. They are clearly trying to depict all supporters of the 2nd amendment as racists. The governor tried to forestall the protests by declaring a state of emergency.<br />
<br />
There are worrying signs that the the rally could turn violent. <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/antifa-group-to-join-pro-gun-rally-at-virginia-capitol">Antifa was planning to infiltrate the protests</a>, undoubtedly in the hopes that they could cause trouble and make the gun rights supporters look bad. There were also mysterious advertisements by another group, who were looking for 'crisis actors' in the Virginia area. Apparently, there are alot of people who would love to see the protests devolve into chaos.kesler12http://www.blogger.com/profile/06730943788519488679noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-148808537727188049.post-11417198133722173682020-01-01T17:55:00.001-08:002020-01-06T10:32:55.786-08:00The Misandry BubbleOn this day exactly ten years ago, one of the most important articles ever written about the sexual marketplace was published. <a href="https://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html">The Misandry Bubble</a> diagnosed many of the dysfunctions that have been (and still are) plaguing Western society. Most of these diseases can be traced back to the sexual revolution of the 1960s, which fundamentally changed an ancient human tradition. Feminism led to large numbers of women joining the work force, and putting careers before marriage or family. This resulted in a decline in the marriage rate and fertility rate, among other things. No fault divorce and alimony led to the devaluation of marriage itself, as ex-wives selfishly used it to enrich themselves at the expense of their ex-husbands. Widespread contraception made it possible for women to become more promiscuous than ever, which consequently impaired their ability to pair-bond and remain faithful. This explains why most marriages don't last beyond 5 years, as divorce is usually initiated by a bored wife. (An astute observer may notice how these forces tend to amplify each other in a reinforcing loop) All of these dysfunctions have led to the grotesque warping of the sexual marketplace into its current state.<br />
<br />
The Misandry Bubble goes into great detail about how important the institution of marriage is to the fabric of society. Marriage is a very old tradition, dating back to the Sumerians of 5000 years ago. In a very real sense, it is a pre-requisite for civilisation itself. Without a marriage culture, there is no way that humans of different ages, genders, and social status can cohesively work together. Without it, there is no incentive for lower status beta males to work hard and contribute to society as a whole. Traditionally, the only reliable way to motivate men to be economically productive was to promise them a young, chaste wife to marry and support. But this contract was destroyed in the aftermath of the sexual revolution. Most men at the time didn't understand that the rules had fundamentally changed. They upheld their traditional obligations even while women flagrantly ignored their obligations. This led to the formation of a cargo cult, where beta males continued to work long and hard in the (invalid) expectation that they would eventually find a good woman to marry. The good men were never told the truth by society, <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1025894203368">much less by dishonest women</a>.<br />
<br />
But over the past decade, legions of men have slowly been waking up to the racket they have been suckered into. They have realised that it is not necessary to spend large sums of money on a ring or a wedding. They have understood that they are better off not entering into a marriage contract at all, lest they run the risk of losing everything in a divorce. (Or having their reputation destroyed by false accusations) Even more importantly, men have realised that they do not need to earn a high income in order to attract women. By learning the art of attraction, they can easily get by on a lower income. This explains why so many <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-02/millennial-men-leave-perplexing-hole-in-a-hot-u-s-labor-market?srnd=premium">young men are economically disengaged</a>. They are becoming aware just how deeply they were lied to about everything. As the blogger Roissy said, the goal of feminism is to maximize the number of restrictions on men and to minimize the number of restrictions on women. This gradual shift in perception will have huge implications in the near future.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhZvyFgPLDpcdO723S9cfXPK7KxSsDZi_WFpc0-XBOUTpFRUjmClFXEYLHDujGXCMB_ztN8c1uNVMP9ILRROrfbplIJCBVbMul-LaszN7g4CI4eMFzKv_JfbTONUVsHVy36PC3hmoxKGg/s1600/bubble+burst.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="922" data-original-width="1600" height="184" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhZvyFgPLDpcdO723S9cfXPK7KxSsDZi_WFpc0-XBOUTpFRUjmClFXEYLHDujGXCMB_ztN8c1uNVMP9ILRROrfbplIJCBVbMul-LaszN7g4CI4eMFzKv_JfbTONUVsHVy36PC3hmoxKGg/s320/bubble+burst.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Its going to be Biblical</div>
<br />
<br />
<b>Addendum</b><br />
<br />
The Misandry Bubble has created an environment which is very hostile to young, low status men. They are devalued and mistreated by an uncaring society, and given no incentive whatsoever to become economically productive. (The severe shortage of marriable women only worsens this phenomenon) Large numbers of men have thus become ghosts, playing no active role in society. This results in a gradual weakening of the entire civilised world, particularly in North America and Europe. Civilisation thus becomes more vulnerable to <a href="https://kesler12-jamesrocket.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-convergence-existential-threats-to.html">the convergence of existential threats</a>.kesler12http://www.blogger.com/profile/06730943788519488679noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-148808537727188049.post-79090002370691186012019-12-29T17:05:00.003-08:002019-12-30T09:21:25.342-08:00Sven Ortmann goes full retardAfter years of leaning indecisively on the fence, the German military blogger finally decided to get onboard with the far left. Herr Ortmann displays all the signs of <a href="https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Trump%20Derangement%20Syndrome">Trump derangement syndrome</a> in a psychotic rant on his blog. He blames the political divide in America entirely on the Republicans, and completely absolves the Democrats of any wrongdoing. He willfully ignores the fact that most media corporations in America are run by liberals. Herr Ortmann also criticises the Republican party for being 'overwhelmingly white', which makes it absolutely clear he is drinking the SJW coolaid.<br />
<br />
<br />
He asserts that America is not a Western country: It is in fact a Fascist Dictatorship, and a threat to the entire world. <a href="https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2019/12/lets-open-our-eyes-to-ugly-reality-as.html">At the end of his deranged post,</a> the military blogger than announces that it is time for all of Europe to band together against America and prepare for a potential war in the near future. This is perhaps the most outrageous comment that he has ever made in his career. No response can adequately address such lunacy.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is a shame to see a once great man fall to such depths. I had deep respect for him in the past, and considered him to be a military genius without equal. But unfortunately, his politics were always totally off the deep end. He and I had a falling out over the muslim refugee crisis, where we both said things that can never be taken back. I used to call him Sven, almost like a friend. But now, I will only call him Herr Ortmann.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
P.S. If you are by chance reading this, then I wish you all the best in your deranged crusade against America. But take caution, for you may end up creating the very thing you wish to destroy. <i>Men often meet their fate on the road they took to avoid it</i>.kesler12http://www.blogger.com/profile/06730943788519488679noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-148808537727188049.post-83142253632194310282019-11-14T19:50:00.002-08:002019-11-14T19:51:51.200-08:00Canadian immigrationCanada is a nation that is sorely lacking in common sense. This deficiency was highlighted by the controversy over Don Cherrys remarks on Remembrance day, about the lack of respect shown by new immigrants. The fact that there was any controversy at all about this shows precisely what is wrong with Canada today. The loathsome fog of multi-culturalism has blinded people, preventing them from seeing the obvious. When it comes to the preservation of society, people seem to have adopted the belief that all citizens have an equal amount of skin in the game. This is nonsense. A family that only recently immigrated to Canada has much less stake in its well being than a family that has lived there for generations. <b>That is common sense</b>. The new immigrants have contributed nothing to society, so they have no real stake in it. This is doubly true if they are not of European ancestry. They don't know or care about the World Wars. Their ancestors never fought in WW1 or WW2, so it means nothing to them. The fact that they don't show respect on Remembrance day is completely unsurprising.<br />
<br />
<br />
They didn't invest either sweat or blood in Canada. They didn't help to build the country, they simply migrated to it and indulged in its prosperity. Mass immigration from continents other than Europe are fraught with problems such as these. The absence of a shared history is a difficult problem to overcome, especially when society is so blind that it can't even see the problem. No action will be taken to fix this disconnect, and so it will inevitably become worse over time. Canadians have no one but themselves to blame for this situation. They were responsible for the astounding display of stupidity during the elections, when they voted Justin Trudeau into office for a second term. They forfeited their right to prosperity when they voted for a traitorous criminal who vowed to flood the country with more immigrants from the 3rd world. That means there will be more people who have a disconnect with Canada, people who don't know the meaning of Remembrance day.kesler12http://www.blogger.com/profile/06730943788519488679noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-148808537727188049.post-4498377323678637142019-09-01T14:35:00.001-07:002019-09-12T03:17:45.798-07:0080th anniversary: World War 2Today marks the 80th anniversary since the beginning of World War 2, when the simmering tensions between Germany and Poland boiled over into war. The true nature of these tensions remain unclear to the wider public, shrouded in mystery. To be sure, the two countrys have a <i>long history</i> of antagonism and mistrust that always made diplomacy difficult. During the 1700s, Polands territory was gradually partitioned up by the Russian, Prussian, and Austrian empires. By 1795, all of their territory had been annexed, and they no longer existed as a sovereign state. The Poles spent the next 123 years living as subjects of other nations, which made them deeply resentful (particularly towards the Germans). When Poland regained statehood in 1918, they had developed a xenophobic and jingoistic mindset. The people wanted to get medievil and settle old scores with their neighbors. Fortunately, they were led by a capable statesman in the form of Jozef Pilsudski, who was able to reign in his peoples aggression and maintain cordial relations with Germany. When Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933, the two countrys actually signed a non-aggression pact, and things seemed to be moving in a peaceful direction. Unfortunately, these developments were undone by Pilsudksis death in 1935, and his replacement by the virulent nationalist, Edward Rydz-Smigly. His mindset was more representative of the average Pole, favoring an aggressive approach towards Germany. Bombastic speechs and hateful propaganda became common in Poland.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/wrsynopsis.html</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
http://www.weeklyuniverse.com/2003/poland.htm</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
https://carolynyeager.net/hitlers-final-offer-polands-josef-beck</div>
</div>
kesler12http://www.blogger.com/profile/06730943788519488679noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-148808537727188049.post-29557577530596736822019-04-30T23:10:00.003-07:002019-04-30T23:10:53.287-07:00Americas next financial crisisAnyone who knows about the practises of the federal reserve (which includes fractional reserve banking, the creation of fiat currency, etc) knows that Americans entire financial system is fundamentally unstable. This fraudulent banking institute had its genesis in 1913, and is controlled by private interests (not the government). Since then, they have systemically undermined the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar through incessant inflation. More importantly, the system through which the federal reserve monetises debt -through the purchase of treasury bills- has led to the explosive increase of Americas national debt. It is mathematically impossible to repay this debt, and will eventually cause an catastrophic economic collapse. The 'easy money' that became available with the advent of quantitative easing has encouraged many corporations in America to make reckless financial decisions, all in the interest of short term profit. This has made the entire nations economy volatile and unstable. A bubble waiting to burst.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/RUKxjvmOAzU/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RUKxjvmOAzU?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Which Sector Is The Pin That Pricks The Everything Bubble?</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/p2yKyC8wVt8/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/p2yKyC8wVt8?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Dystopia California: Window to Americas Future</div>
kesler12http://www.blogger.com/profile/06730943788519488679noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-148808537727188049.post-56881294145611520522019-01-23T23:54:00.003-08:002020-11-12T20:50:12.901-08:00RE: On German tank armorThis is the third and final response that will be made to the gaming blog, For The Record. They have written alot of misleading articles on the subject of WW2, so its only natural that they are made the target of a thorough debunking. FTR has been used as a platform to spread revisionist history to unsuspecting readers. One of the main culprits is the individual known as EnsignExpendible. He is a Russian emigre who owns the Red Army themed blog, TankArchives. In theory, the website is supposed to be a neutral resource that translates Soviet reports from WW2. In practise, however, these memos are often selectively filtered and interpreted, and are accompanied with unnecessary opinions from the author. TankArchives consistently exaggerates the performance of the Red Army during 'the great patriotic war', while deflating the performance of the Heer it fought against. This theme is present in nearly every single article featured on the website. When expounding his propaganda on FTR, EnsignExpendible makes extensive usage of his own blog to buttress his faulty arguments. He misrepresents the war on the eastern front to such an extent that it no longer bears any resemblance to reality.<br />
<br />
Moreover, he has repeatedly been shown to be dishonest, mendacious, and exceptionally ignorant on certain subjects. In his <a href="http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/06/on-german-armour/">whopper of an article</a>, the Ensign seeks nothing less than to single handedly rewrite the entire historical consensus about Germanys tanks. His thesis is that from the beginning of the war to the end, the Reich was consistently churning out tanks with substandard armor. He rejects the mainstream theory that their armor quality only declined late in the war. TankArchives theory is that -get this- it was of low quality right from the start. How he came to this preposterous conclusion is anyones guess. In any event, his thesis is built on a mountain of stupidity, ignorance, and hasty generalisations. His poor understanding of metallurgy and ballistics has been demonstrated before, and this article will prove to be no exception. TankArchives has created a Potemkin village that gives off the illusion of strength and soundness where there is none. Much like the Soviet Union itself, it is a colossus that will shatter under the weight of its own inconsistencys.<br />
<div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtN-vW2ocDoce_WLjVVWiBq0axfBESz1Rk-sAKF_J9QkKgGElna48RuAC0y5JX3RmB39q_xuWCOrJHC4v602btxFRgegcA4r5rOyL1dH5IwT5jiYm-GV-z8Ght7lwe24_54HtcuWH1bBw/s1600/Potemkin+villages.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="238" data-original-width="203" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtN-vW2ocDoce_WLjVVWiBq0axfBESz1Rk-sAKF_J9QkKgGElna48RuAC0y5JX3RmB39q_xuWCOrJHC4v602btxFRgegcA4r5rOyL1dH5IwT5jiYm-GV-z8Ght7lwe24_54HtcuWH1bBw/s1600/Potemkin+villages.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">TankArchives and his Soviet </span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">propaganda victory</span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<b>The stupendous claim</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Within his article, TankArchives summarises a number of Allied studys conducted on German tank armor. He cites two American metallurgical reports on the Panther, and three Soviet ballistics tests on the Tiger II, Tiger I, Panzer IV and Panzer III. In this way, he attempts to provide a sortof chronology on the quality of their armor, and determine whether or not there was a difference in the early and late war plates. His theory that German armor was of consistently low quality throughout WW2 is put to the test. He quotes a number of passages from the reports in question, showing the substandard and deficient nature of the sampled armor. To an uninformed observer who doesn't know better, TankArchives seems to successfully make his case. But his victorys is entirely illusory, and can only be maintained through the false consensus he builds. A closer examination of the relevant facts causes his entire theory to implode in on itself like a house of cards. To refute it is actually remarkably easy. All we need to do is look through the metallurgical reports that TankArchives cites as evidence, and see whether or their explanation for the flawed armor matchs up with his theory.<br />
<br />
The first report he cites is <a href="http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a954940.pdf">Metallurgical Examination of Armor and Welded Joints from the Side of a German PzKw (Panther) Tank</a>. Heres what it has to say: ''<i>The extremely poor shock properties are traceable to the nonmartensitic microstructure resulting from hardenability inadequate to permit full hardening upon quenching. The steel has been heat treated to a tempered bainitic microstructure containing banded segregates rich in ferrite</i>.'' It also says this: '<i>'Inferior toughness as evidenced by brittle fractures and low impact resistance has been reported in several investigations of German armor that were 2"1 and greater in thickness. The inferior toughness was traced in some instances to an inadequate hardening treatment, and in others to temper brittleness combined with incomplete quench hardening</i>.''<br />
<br />
The second report he cites is <a href="http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a954952.pdf">Metallurgical Examination of a 3-1/4″ Thick armor Plate from a German PzKw V (Panther) Tank</a>. Heres what it has to say: ''<i>However it exhibited extremely low toughness (as indicated by the fracture and Charpy tests) making it susceptible to shattering under a shock type ballistic test. The inferior toughness was attributed to a combination of incomplete transformation to martensite upon quenching and temper embrittlement</i>...'' It also says this: ''<i>It will be shown that the extremely low toughness in the plate under investigation is a result, in part, of temper embrittlement, a factor which may have been partly responsible for the inferior toughness in the German armor previously investigated</i>.''<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>The logical rebuttal</b><br />
<br />
Theres alot of jargon being thrown around here, but the conclusions are damning. Both reports state unequivocally that the brittleness of the tanks armor was caused by improper heat treatment and quenching. The steel mills were unable to achieve consistent quality control with their armor, and were unintentionally churning out many flawed plates. Why does this matter? Because these issues have been explicitly documented to only have occurred from early 1944 onward. This fact by itself completely disproves TankArchives theory that Germany was churning out flawed armor plates from the beginning of the war to the end! This is the key point. Before 1944, there was no evidence whatsoever of problems with armor quality. Whereas after 1944, it has been well documented that steel mills were unable to maintain quality control of their armor. And we know precisely what caused this decline, too.<br />
<br />
''By 1944-45 the precarious supply situation of critical alloy materials facing Germany resulted in a program of intentional systematic reduction of nickel, tungsten and molybdenum in the composition of armor steel... Throughout the entire thickness range (the upper limits of which remained conformal with the ever increasing anti-armor calibers and shell types to a maximum of 250mm) first nickel-free and then low alloy steels were introduced in compliance with carefully determined heat treating methods in the smelting of this "standard" steel for all plants.'' [1]<br />
<br />
''Improvisations by the German armor industry in the face of declining alloy content included multiple time quenching of plates in order to provide control over heat treatment, a process which must be conducted with care and precision to be successful. Times for immersing and removing steel from quench baths was specified to the second. Given the size and weight of plates such as the Panther glacis, inconsistency from one part of a plate to another would be a natural consequence. As alloy content dwindled, the margin for error in armor heat treatment narrowed.'' [2]<br />
<br />
''As the war progressed, Germany was forced to curtail the use of certain critical alloys in the production of armour plate, such as nickel, tungsten, molybdenum, and manganese. The loss of these alloys resulted in substantially reduced impact resistance levels compared to earlier armour... The loss of molybdenum, and its replacement with other substitutes to maintain hardness, as well as a general loss of quality control, resulted in an increased brittleness in German armour plate, which developed a tendency to fracture when struck with a shell.'' [3]<br />
<br />
The facts really do speak for themselves. They reveal that from 1944 onward, the Germans suffered shortages of alloying elements that forced them to use a different method of heat treatment for their armor plates. In theory, this interrupted quench technique would enable them to produce armor of the same quality as what they'd had before the crisis. But in practise, this technique was temperamental and finicky. Some mills were unable to maintain quality control, and churned out flawed armor as a result. This is what led to the armor of some German tanks suffering catastrophic failures in battle. It didn't affect all of the panzers made at that time, but it affected them frequently enough to be noticed by the Allys. And since this phenomenon only occurred in early 1944, <i>TankArchives entire thesis is invalidated from the outset</i>. His belief of German inferiority was a product of his own ignorance, bias, and poor research. But the story doesn't end here... There are still loose ends that remain to be tied up. Before this 'hypothesis' can be considered truly debunked, we will need to go one step further and look at the Soviet tests that he falsely cited as proof of substandard armor.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJj0OFPQHfYBmXPrzD5AIm2z1Rz6YNN9mjeUIwUtMS6wHjpLU60tT6WYmYqOKNAccfVhmwv6QH2Jc44_-uzMYYExFNWq3zfs1Smt4ZrGvEVzjbmeN5f4Lz__5PcT_A2FN4iB-cUQ_3Kyo/s1600/tank+comic.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="482" data-original-width="720" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJj0OFPQHfYBmXPrzD5AIm2z1Rz6YNN9mjeUIwUtMS6wHjpLU60tT6WYmYqOKNAccfVhmwv6QH2Jc44_-uzMYYExFNWq3zfs1Smt4ZrGvEVzjbmeN5f4Lz__5PcT_A2FN4iB-cUQ_3Kyo/s320/tank+comic.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Tiger II destroyed by Russian</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">women with bazookas</span></div>
<br />
<br />
<b>Tiger II armor</b><br />
<br />
TankArchives mentions a Soviet test involving the Tiger II tank, which was fired on by a variety of different weapons. He criticises how its armor held up. ''<i>The front plates of the hull and turret, as demonstrated in the trials, are low quality. When the armour was not penetrated, the armour formed large cracks, and large fragments broke off the rear side</i>.'' There are <a href="https://kesler12-jamesrocket.blogspot.com/2018/01/tankarchives-122mm-gun-vs-tiger-ii.html">alot of problems</a> with this statement. One issue is that the tests were conducted in November 1944. The temperatures on that day were -10 celsius, which may have adversely effected the ductility of the armor. Another issue is, of course, that the Soviets were only able to pierce the tanks glacis with the most powerful gun in their arsenal, the 122mm A-19 gun. And even then, it could only achieve penetations from 500 meters. The 100mm BS-3 gun only managed to penetrate when it hit weakened portions of the glacis, or the connections between the upper and lower front plates. The 152mm ML-20 gun didn't manage to penetrate the glacis at all, and some of the shells actually bounced off it! To be fair, the Tiger II did experience burst weld seams and spalling of the armor. But given the caliber of the shells being fired at it, this is hardly surprising.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Tiger I armor</b><br />
<br />
TankArchives mentions a test involving the Tiger I tank, which was fired on by a variety of different weapons. He criticises how its armor held up. ''<i>As a result of hits from 57, 85, and 122 mm guns, the armour cracks and fragments break off... The welding seams are very fragile, and are destroyed when the armour is hit by armour piercing shells</i>.'' Again, there are <a href="https://kesler12-jamesrocket.blogspot.com/2018/12/tankarchives-85mm-gun-vs-tiger-i.html">alot of problems</a> with this statement. One issue is that the Soviets were only able to pierce the tanks glacis with the 85mm S-53 and 122mm A-19 gun. The 85mm gun penetrated the armor from 1000 meters, but only caused cracks when it hear near the edge of the plate (and next to a previous shot). The 122mm gun penetrated the armor from 1500 meters, and caused cracks from the sheer force of impact. However, every other weapon that was fired against the tanks front armor failed. The 57mm Zis-2 gun didn't penetrate, and neither did the 76mm F-34 gun. Regular APBC and APHE shells failed, and so did the special HVAP ammunition! This was a very discouraging result for the Soviet testers. It revealed that the T-34 tanks main gun was completely helpless against the Tigers front armor... The issue of burst weld seams and spalling of the armor was less pronounced than in the Tiger II tests. There is no indication of brittleness in the plates.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<br />
<b>Panzer III and Panzer IV armor</b><br />
<br />
TankArchives mentions a test involving the Soviet 45mm anti-tank gun, which was used against three vehicles: The Stug III, the Panzer III, and the Panzer IV. He has no scorn for how the Stug IIIs armor performed, but is quite disparaging of the other two tanks. <i>''Then the PzIII is swapped in, and the performance is absolutely abysmal. Huge cracks from the same anaemic 45 mm peashooter, the front armour plate falls off, breaches up to 120 mm in size form... The PzIV doesn’t do much better.''</i> Lets take a look at the <a href="http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2013/06/soviet-45-mm-at-guns.html">article in question</a> and see whether he is giving an accurate description.<br />
<br />
-The Panzer III being tested is an Ausf. H, which has 30mm applique armor on top of its 30mm base armor. Two shots against the front failed to penetrate, but do knock the applique armor loose. Afterwards, more shots are fired against the turret and hull side. One of them penetrates the turret hatch, opening a crack in the armor. Two of them penetrate into the hull, striking near the turret platform and opening another crack in the armor. On its face, this seems to prove TankArchives assertion that the armor was brittle.<br />
<br />
-The Panzer IV being tested is an Ausf. H, which has 20mm applique armor on top of its 30mm base armor. Three shots against the front fail to penetrate, but do open up cracks on the back side of the armor. Afterwards, more shots are fired against the turret side. Several penetrations are scored, but there is no cracking. Repeated hits knock the applique armor loose. Overall, these results seems to validate TankArchives belief that the the Panzer IVs armor wasn't much better than the Panzer III. But these are only first impressions!<br />
<br />
In order to determine whether or not the plates were acting in a brittle or ductile manner, we need to know something about <a href="https://kesler12-jamesrocket.blogspot.com/2019/01/world-war-2-tank-armor.html">armor failure modes</a>. This is a complicated subject that is also influenced by the type of projectile that strikes the armor. (In this instance, the 45mm anti-tank gun fired uncapped, blunt nosed shells) What will a deeper examination of these test results show?<br />
<br />
First, lets look at the hits against the Panzer IV. The claim that cracking on the back face of the armor indicates brittleness is not true. What we're actually seeing is evidence of something called a star crack. These are associated with the initial stages of a ductile failure mode, either ductile hole growth or petaling. But in this incident, the 45mm shells ran out of energy before they could penetrate. This is not a sign that the Panzer IVs armor was brittle.<br />
<br />
Next, lets look at the hits against the Panzer III. The claim that the front armor had fallen off is misleading, as this was merely the applique armor being knocked loose. And as for the cracking of the side armor, its interesting to note where these cracks occurred. The shells struck near stress points like the turret hatch and the turret platform. Hatchs are known to act as stress concentrators that allow cracks to propagate unimpeded for large distances. This is not a sign that the Panzer IIIs armor itself was brittle.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEic8nYdQggLDJGRYH1Ph6OJ3lFf4u8XtBLm9b4Zs5IRROISyCHZs8w5KIa3wQd4a8G4S7CIty6twfuNQANp2Ul7ELWjDZy7hoWT-SdFL5DmwafK48CkPXugQgXhHVGXrUUxg-br603BGCQ/s603/stress-concentrator.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="333" data-original-width="603" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEic8nYdQggLDJGRYH1Ph6OJ3lFf4u8XtBLm9b4Zs5IRROISyCHZs8w5KIa3wQd4a8G4S7CIty6twfuNQANp2Ul7ELWjDZy7hoWT-SdFL5DmwafK48CkPXugQgXhHVGXrUUxg-br603BGCQ/s320/stress-concentrator.png"/></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Holes in a metal plate act </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">as a stress concentrator</span></div>
<br />
<br />
<b>Quotes from Heinz Guderian</b><br />
<br />
In a final bid to solidify his theory, TankArchives attempts to show his readers that German armor was running into quality problems even in late 1941. He provides a quote from Heinz Guderians book to prove this: ''<i>Frontline officers suggested that we should build tanks exactly like the T-34 in order to correct the unpleasant position of our armoured forces, but this position did not receive support from the engineers... Additionally, our hardened steel, whose quality was dropping due to a lack of natural resources, was inferior to the Russians' hardened steel</i>.'' That almost sounds convincing... However, its important to keep in mind that this quote comes from a Russian translation of the book.<br />
<br />
In the German and English translation of his book, Guderian didn't say anything about the quality of German armor deteriorating. What he actually says is this: ''<i>The officers at the front were of the opinion that the T34 should simply be copied, since this would be the quickest way to put to rights the most unhappy situation of the German panzer troop: but the designers could not agree to this... Also, as far as steel alloys went, we were at a disadvantage compared to the Russians owing to our shortage of raw materials</i>.'' [4] In his own words, therefore, Guderian believed that resource shortages made it impractical to copy the armor composition of the T-34 tank.<br />
<br />
So really, his comment has nothing to do with the 'inferiority' of German armor. Guderians concern lay with the perceived superiority of Soviet armor. The T-34 tank used an MZ-2 steel alloyed with lots of rare elements, which was only practical because of all the USSRs natural resources. At the time, the Germans were quite envious of this type of armor. MZ-2 steel could be heat treated to very high hardness levels without a loss of toughness. [5] This gave it the ability to shatter the uncapped Pzgr shells that were used in 1941, thus rendering excellent protection. However, this situation quickly changed after the Germans introduced the improved Pzgr 39 shell. This was a capped projectile with a hardened nose, which could easily penetrate the high hardness armor of the T-34. This type of plate was so ineffective against Pzgr 39, in fact, that it <a href="https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=216079">provided less protection</a> than rolled homogenous armor. In retrospect, it can be seen that the Soviets relied on an innovation that quickly became obsolete.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Sources</b><br />
<br />
[1] The Panther & Its Variants, by Walter Spielburger. (Page 82)<br />
<br />
[2] World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery, by Robert D. Livingston. (Page 8)<br />
<br />
[3] Eastern Front: Encirclement and Escape by German Forces, by Bob Carruthers.<br />
<br />
[4] Panzer Leader, by Heinz Guderian.<br />
<br />
[5] WAL Report: Review of Soviet Ordnance Metallurgy. (Page 4-5)</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
kesler12http://www.blogger.com/profile/06730943788519488679noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-148808537727188049.post-23766140185745356952019-01-11T15:25:00.001-08:002019-02-14T19:32:32.002-08:00World war 2 tank armor<b>Introduction</b><br />
<br />
This article will give a brief overview of the types of armor plate used on tanks during WW2, and examine some of the different ways it could fail when struck by an armor piercing shell. Different types of projectiles can cause the same plate to fail in different ways, so we'll also need to go into detail about that. Then we'll go over the importance of thickness/diameter ratios, how they influence the effect of armor sloping, and how shell normalisation actually works. Finally, we'll look at manufacturing defects that can compromise the quality of an armor plate. The field of armor and ballistics is complicated, but not so much that a basic understanding can't be gleaned.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Types of tank armor</b><br />
<br />
Generally, there are two different types of armor that were used on tanks and AFVs during WW2. The first type of steel armor was heated until the point it was red hot, and was then forged into the required shape. This is rolled homogeneous armor. The second type of steel armor was heated until the point it melted, and was then poured into the required shape. This is cast armor. Both types of armor had to be heat treated and tempered until they gained the desired metallurgical propertys, such as tensile strength, hardness, etc. The alloying elements introduced into the steel -such as manganese, tungsten, nickel, chrome, vanadium- would influence its final form. Rolled homogeneous armor (RHA) had a uniform level of hardness throughout the plate, usually about 250-350 BHN, depending on how thick it is. Face hardened armor (FHA) had two different hardness levels in the plate: The surface was about 450-650 BHN, while the rest was about 250-350 BHN.<br />
<br />
FHA is useful against projectiles with a diameter smaller than the plate thickness, I.E., an undermatching shell. It also has the ability to shatter uncapped projectiles and defeat them. However, FHA has the disadvantage that it is more prone to cracking, which gives it lower multi hit protection than RHA. Moreover, FHA plates offers inferior protection to an equivalent RHA plate when hit by capped shells. Another type of tank armor is the so called high-hardness armor. This is similar to FHA, except the hardening extends through <i>the entire depth</i> of the plate, and not just the surface of it. It has a uniformly high level of hardness throughout the plate. For the most part, only the Soviet Union used this type of armor during the war. It had the same strengths and weakness' as FHA did, but taken to the extreme. High hardness armor was only useful against undermatching or uncapped shells. Interestingly enough, cast armor could also be heat treated to achieve the same levels of hardness.<br />
<br />
<b><br /></b><b>Modes of armor failure</b><br />
<br />
What are some of the different ways that armor plate can fail? The first thing to keep in mind is the difference between penetration vs perforation. When a shell perforates, it passes completely through the armor plate and flys into the vehicle itself. When a shell merely penetrates, however, it does not pass through the plate: It produces a crater and knocks off pieces from the back side of the plate. This effect is known as scabbing or spalling. This is a less serious mode of failure.<br />
<br />
In instances when a shell actually perforates the armor, you have to distinguish between ductile and brittle modes of failure. This is absolutely essential. Brittle failures are more dangerous than ductile failures. We'll detail some of the different categorys below. Please note, however, that the type of projectile which strikes an armor plate will strongly influence the manner in which it fails. A shell with an armor piercing cap will usually cause ductile failures in the plate, while uncapped shells will usually cause brittle failures in the plate.<br />
<br />
-For <i>ductile failures</i>, there are three different categorys. Plugging, ductile hole growth, and petaling. Ductile hole growth is when the plate (at the impact site) is holed from front to back. Petaling is when the back of the plate folds out. Plugging is when the back of the plate is ejected into the vehicle, along with the projectile.<br />
<br />
-For <i>brittle failures</i>, there are two different categorys: Brittle fractures, and brittle plugging. Brittle fractures is when the plate (at the impact site) is shattered from front to back. Brittle plugging is when the back of the plate is shattered and ejected into the vehicle, along with the projectile.<br />
<br />
Note: With ductile types of plugging, the shell is still intact and exhibits little or no change of shape. With brittle plugging, the shell is not intact and exhibits a major change of shape. The size of the plugs knocked off the backside of the armor are also larger.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitsYuYdbg32R2c-zA7CrXVyFw4VRV7pCBFDgwc5yLIuSSDx78viPWRaaf-JyYD5d5sVmzyJ5GX3zeGDQqXfOUNxws9pkMjigFj4HPTlcvhPQg7DQp6_5grUYEv3OjxIQiHDGR0xcRjHOU/s1600/failure+modes%2527.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="700" data-original-width="515" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitsYuYdbg32R2c-zA7CrXVyFw4VRV7pCBFDgwc5yLIuSSDx78viPWRaaf-JyYD5d5sVmzyJ5GX3zeGDQqXfOUNxws9pkMjigFj4HPTlcvhPQg7DQp6_5grUYEv3OjxIQiHDGR0xcRjHOU/s320/failure+modes%2527.jpg" width="235" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Modes of armor failure</div>
<br />
<br />
<b>Types of armor piercing shells</b><br />
<br />
There are a few different types of projectile designs, which have different advantages and disadvantages. There is the standard armor piercing (AP) shell. And the armor piercing capped (APC) shell. This is an AP projectile fitted with a cap that prevents it from shattering. There is also armor piercing ballistic capped (APBC). This is an AP shell fitted with an aerodynamic windscreen to improve its ballistic coefficient, but does not prevent it from shattering. Then there is an AP shell fitted with both types of caps (APCBC). This not only enhances its ballistic coefficient but also prevents it from shattering.<br />
<br />
Note that most of these designs have a tiny cavity at their base, which is filled with explosive. This works to burst the shell behind the armor plate, increasing the damage it does. The other type of shell is armor piercing high explosive (APHE). This is a regular AP shell, but with a larger explosive filling. Then there is armor piercing composite rigid (APCR). These types of projectiles have a dense tungsten core and an aluminum body. They have excellent penetration, but poor aerodynamics.<br />
<br />
As a general rule, projectiles <i>without an armor piercing cap</i> tend to defeat armor through brittle fractures and brittle plugging. When they do succeed in punching through an armor plate, they leave jagged holes wider than the caliber of the shell. Projectiles <i>with an armor piercing cap</i> tend to defeat armor through ductile hole growth, petaling, or plugging. When they punch through an armor plate, they leave neat holes that are the same width as the shells caliber. Keep in mind that these distinctions are not absolute, and there are instances when capped and uncapped shells can defeat armor in different ways than this.<br />
<br />
Its also important to note that the nose shape of the projectile can also have an influence on how it interacts with the target plate. Blunt nosed projectiles have an increased tendency towards plugging (of both the brittle and ductile variety). Sharp nosed projectiles have an increased tendency towards petaling and ductile hole growth. [1] The difference in nose shape also influences their effect on unsloped vs sloped armor. Blunt nosed projectiles are superior against sloped armor plates, whereas sharp nosed projectiles are superior against unsloped armor plates.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpaWHHeD2vEumsrI9b1MJkkhBr4WNB1mJz_0jezcF4r504Yl6OZDPVeCvfXEkd3kqqKRLjKtM87HhPm6DGekHcp1G9HkyEV_Xcgf3uQBxqlF8FD4I6LD6CeztFf26LcDtAl9eqZO3QtJU/s1600/ap+shells3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="453" data-original-width="716" height="202" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpaWHHeD2vEumsrI9b1MJkkhBr4WNB1mJz_0jezcF4r504Yl6OZDPVeCvfXEkd3kqqKRLjKtM87HhPm6DGekHcp1G9HkyEV_Xcgf3uQBxqlF8FD4I6LD6CeztFf26LcDtAl9eqZO3QtJU/s320/ap+shells3.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Types of armor piercing shells</div>
<br />
<br />
<b>T/D ratio and sloping</b><br />
<br />
Failure mechanisms for armor are largely dictated by the T/D ratio, where T is the armor thickness and D is projectile diameter. (Simply divide the former by the latter) The T/D ratio dictates that the more the thickness of the armor plate e<i>xceeds the diameter of the projectile</i>, the harder it is for the incoming shell to achieve a penetration. The converse is also true of course, and the more the diameter of the projectile <i>exceeds the thickness of the plate</i>, the easier it is for the shell to achieve penetration. To put it simply, larger shells have an advantage over relatively thinner plates. Whats more interesting is that T/D ratio can also determine whether or not the degree of sloping in an armor plate is effective or not.<br />
<br />
One way to demonstrate this is by looking at the hull front of a Sherman tank. Early models had a 51mm thick glacis sloped at 56 degrees, for an LOS thickness of 91mm. Later models had a 63mm thick glacis sloped at 47 degrees, for an LOS thickness of 92mm. Even though there was practically no difference in either plates line of sight (LOS) thickness, the later model of Sherman actually offered <i>superior resistance</i>. Because of the more favorable T/D ratio, they had a higher chance of withstanding hits from 75mm APCBC projectiles. The 51mm thick glacis was equal to 98mm of RHA, while the 63mm thick glacis was equal to 118mm of RHA. (Assuming there were no flaws in the armor itself) [2]<br />
<br />
Another important phenomenon to understand is shell normalisation. There is a popular misconception that when a shell hits an inclined armor plate, it will turn by a few degrees before digging into the armor, thus reducing the acute angle it has to negotiate. Such that a 50 degree slope becomes a more manageable 45 degree slope, or some other such reduction. In fact, this is not what actually happens. Normalisation only occurs <i>after</i> the shell has dug into the armor, <i>not before</i>. So when a projectile hits an inclined armor plate, the net result is that it ends up making an S-shaped hole. The difference in the angle of the entrance and exit hole is what leads people to believe that 'normalisation' has taken place.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicSOEupcI_vl9ClNNui01kjSOtjU2V57xH-06_T9FjoiAPR2F6ldJcCGFSLt_UzSA7SqRj1-dlFXO2PUYicdvyYIfsaZwKnzLDhauhwN-yy3R81XPMq1xnoGoJsVZaXQrkYA5pg9R5b4c/s1600/shell+normal.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="174" data-original-width="326" height="170" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicSOEupcI_vl9ClNNui01kjSOtjU2V57xH-06_T9FjoiAPR2F6ldJcCGFSLt_UzSA7SqRj1-dlFXO2PUYicdvyYIfsaZwKnzLDhauhwN-yy3R81XPMq1xnoGoJsVZaXQrkYA5pg9R5b4c/s320/shell+normal.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
This is <i>not</i> how normalisation works!</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Manufacturing defects</b><br />
<br />
The last factor we'll examine are manufacturing defects that occur at the mill where armor plates are heat treated and tempered at. These mechanical flaws in the structure of the armor will reduce its resistance to impacting projectiles, sometimes by a small amount, sometimes by a severe amount. There are a number of different factors that can lead to substandard armor plate being produced. Early in the war, the U.S. experienced problems with manufacturing defects. The Sherman tank made extensive use of cast armor, not only in the turret but in the hull as well. These armor castings frequently suffered from hot tears and shrinkage cracks. [3] RHA plates were not without problems either, and were sometimes found to be riddled with stringers and laminations. These problems stemmed mainly from the huge expansion of the U.S. tank industry, which went from producing over 300 tanks in 1940, to over 23,000 tanks in 1942. The sheer quantity of armor plate required meant a decline in quality control.<br />
<br />
Later in the war, the Germans also had their fare share of trouble with manufacturing defects. By early 1944, they were suffering from a shortage of alloying elements like nickel, tungsten, molybdenum, and manganese. This forced them to reduce the quantitys of these critical alloys, or to find substitute alloys. In order to ensure that their armor plates did not suffer from brittleness or flaws, a different method of heat treatment also had to be utilised. The Germans eventually settled on the so-called interrupted quench process. [4] This required great precision in the tempering of the plate, and if the timing was not within a certain margin, the plate would be mechanically flawed. It was not always possible to detect armor with defects. The steel mills were unable to achieve consistent quality control, and were unintentionally churning out many flawed plates.<br />
<br />
The Soviet Union experienced some notable problems with manufacturing defects, as well. These issues weren't as ubiquitous as those plaguing the Sherman tanks, but they still cropped up relatively often. The Americans noted their presence in a number of different metallurgical reports. Some of these difficultys can be linked to the fact that much of the USSRs industry had to be hastily evacuated to the Urals in 1941, in order to avoid being captured by the invading German army. The rest can be linked to the fact that Russia was technologically less advanced than the other great powers. Armor castings (especially on the KV-1 tank) tended to have issues with hot tears and shrinkage cracks. RHA plates were sometimes not adequately cross-rolled, and were incompletely quench hardened. [5] This resulted in uneven hardness levels in an armor plate, an undesirable feature. The high hardness armor of the T-34 was noted for its tendency to create spall.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Sources</b><br />
<br />
[1] World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery, by Robert D. Livingston. (Page 15 and 16)<br />
<br />
[2] World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery, by Robert D. Livingston. (Page 28)<br />
<br />
[3] World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery, by Robert D. Livingston. (Page 6 and 7)<br />
<br />
[4] World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery, by Robert D. Livingston. (Page 8 and 9)<br />
<br />
[5] Metallurgical Examination of Armor and Weld Joint Samples from Russian Medium Tank T-34 and Heavy Tank KV-1. (Page 1 and 9)kesler12http://www.blogger.com/profile/06730943788519488679noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-148808537727188049.post-11300298989268862162018-12-15T23:28:00.000-08:002019-01-23T22:26:16.879-08:00TankArchives: 85mm gun vs Tiger I <b>Introduction</b><br />
<br />
This article will examine the Soviet tests on the Tiger I tank. Or more specifically, <a href="http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/03/soviet-85-mm-guns-vs-tigers.html">how it was portrayed</a> by a spin doctor named TankArchives. This notorious individual has made a career out of interpreting Soviet military reports and memorandums dating from World War 2. He has a long track record of distorting evidence and making dishonest claims, as part of an agenda to change public perception of the Nazi-Soviet war. As per his blog name, he fancys himself as an expert on all things related to armored vehicles. TankArchives also has a major problem with objectivity. When translating these wartime reports, he just can't help but insert his own dialogue into the middle, drawing his own facile conclusions about what was going on. This habit becomes most jarring whenever he translates Soviet reports on German vehicles. TankArchives never hesitates to use this as an opportunity to 'bash' them for 'design flaws.' His antics were the subject of a <a href="https://kesler12-jamesrocket.blogspot.com/2018/01/tankarchives-122mm-gun-vs-tiger-ii.html">thorough rebuttal</a> a few months back.<br />
<br />
In that instance, he was making biased, incorrect, and subjective interpretations about the kubinka test on the Tiger II. He tried to mislead his audience into thinking the tanks armor was suffering catastrophic failures, when in fact this was simply not the case. TankArchives omitted to show the photographs that depicted what was really going on. He also grossly exaggerated the effects of the hits and marginalised German armor quality. This article is no exception. As before, we'll look at the exact same report as TankArchives and examine whether or not his claims misrepresent it. The format of this article will be somewhat different from the last rebuttal. Previously, we focused solely on the results of the 122mm test, mainly because it was the first weapon used. That approach wouldn't work here, though, because the 85mm was one of the last weapons tested. Therefore, we'll have to do an overview of the other guns that were fired in the trials. This is actually a crucial piece of context that undermines some of TankArchives conclusions about the Tiger I.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJM4ZZ9rsGjOnNkNpf4cvkRPSm3dZVSuq2K0Xl6X7hIsu3yJAMhB7pvJzx6ly1Rphaj9Y48ZI3m7oTOlTBn2PhjliJQIfW86W1c_pxSk2haapNBylqTrVRK86uSOp-D0OmBZMOKVyk2p8/s1600/imageedit_4_7465306445.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="240" data-original-width="329" height="233" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJM4ZZ9rsGjOnNkNpf4cvkRPSm3dZVSuq2K0Xl6X7hIsu3yJAMhB7pvJzx6ly1Rphaj9Y48ZI3m7oTOlTBn2PhjliJQIfW86W1c_pxSk2haapNBylqTrVRK86uSOp-D0OmBZMOKVyk2p8/s320/imageedit_4_7465306445.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">The Tiger I after being fired at by the </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">85mm S-53 and 122mm A-19 gun</span></div>
<br />
<br />
<b>The firing tests, part one</b><br />
<br />
In this part of the trials, the Soviets fire three different weapons against the Tiger tank. The 45mm L46 and 45mm L66 gun guns were tested against the sides, while the 57mm L73 gun was tested against the side turret and front hull. Although the side armor was pierced numerous times, it did not crack at any point. There were no penetrations of the front armor.<br />
<br />
45mm L46 gun: Five shots were fired against the side of the turret, from a range of 200 to 500 meters. Two of them penetrated.<br />
<br />
45mm L66 gun: Nine shots were fired against the side of the turret and side of the hull, from a range of 100 to 500 meters. Six of them penetrated.<br />
<br />
57mm L73 gun: A total of ten shots were fired against the side and front of the hull. Three of them managed to penetrate. We'll examine these in more detail.<br />
<br />
-Shot #1 was fired from 800 meters against the hull side: It penetrated.<br />
<br />
-Shot #2 was fired from 1000 meters against the cupola: It penetrated.<br />
<br />
-Shot #3 and #4 were fired from 1000 meters against the hull side: One shell penetrated, and one shell left a dent.<br />
<br />
-Shot # 5, #6, and #7 were fired from 1450 meters against the turret side. None of the shells penetrated, and instead left only dents.<br />
<br />
-Shots #8, #9, and #10 were fired from 500 meters against the hull front. None of the shells penetrated, and instead left only dents. A weld seam is also burst.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixMl9xCVSESy8TKYbV33LdbK0fXGJAgyWDYa8b4-Sh29MZVRpksU9J8tdgYqRVw8bwWVrrpa966LpvRy2Xl_wVRFUzxyek667mO1coJ7JxHcQoKFFtRCTzL4TAoe2NIgwM3tNZxq3xILc/s1600/kubinkas5.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="582" data-original-width="870" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixMl9xCVSESy8TKYbV33LdbK0fXGJAgyWDYa8b4-Sh29MZVRpksU9J8tdgYqRVw8bwWVrrpa966LpvRy2Xl_wVRFUzxyek667mO1coJ7JxHcQoKFFtRCTzL4TAoe2NIgwM3tNZxq3xILc/s320/kubinkas5.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
57mm AP to upper front plate</div>
<br />
<br />
<b>The firing tests, part two</b><br />
<br />
In this part of the trials, the Soviets fire three different weapons against the Tiger tank, including a British and American gun. The 57mm Mk IV and 75mm M3 gun were tested against the sides, while the 76mm L42 gun was tested against the side turret and the front hull. Although the side armor was pierced numerous times, it did not crack at any point. There were no penetrations of the front armor.<br />
<br />
57mm Mk IV gun: Six shots were fired against the side of the turret and side of the hull, from a range of 625 to 1000 meters. Three of the shots penetrated.<br />
<br />
75mm M3 gun: Seven shots were fired against the side of the turret and side of the hull, from a range of 400 to 650 meters. Five of the shots penetrated.<br />
<br />
76mm L42 gun: A total of eleven shots were fired against the side and front of the hull. Regular AP shells were used, in addition to HVAP shells. Astonishingly, <i>none of them managed to penetrate</i> (!). We'll examine these in more detail.<br />
<br />
-Shot #1 and #2 were fired from 650 and 400 meters against the hull side and turret side. Both failed to penetrate.<br />
<br />
-Shots #3 and #4 were fired from 200 and 500 meters against the turret side and hull side. Both failed to penetrate.<br />
<br />
-Shots #5, #6, and #7 were fired from 500 meters against the hull front. All three failed to penetrate, and left only dents.<br />
<br />
-Shots #8 and #9 were fired from 300 and 200 meters against the hull front. Both failed to penetrate.<br />
<br />
-Shots #10 and #11 were fired from 400 and 200 meters against the hull side. Both failed to penetrate.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXfzTzwGsLsNyVf_FwpYipUiUpMycpFMy3ufo9WIHGW8p_z8LdKH8m9r2rspbXrHeLmiNMJLfSdSOPSozZm2ZBR13N5ipJkB5CX72IP0g7B4dni8us6LM1IVB4r3ombKUNrnHecssfUMU/s1600/kubinkas4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="524" data-original-width="647" height="259" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXfzTzwGsLsNyVf_FwpYipUiUpMycpFMy3ufo9WIHGW8p_z8LdKH8m9r2rspbXrHeLmiNMJLfSdSOPSozZm2ZBR13N5ipJkB5CX72IP0g7B4dni8us6LM1IVB4r3ombKUNrnHecssfUMU/s320/kubinkas4.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
76mm HVAP to upper front plate</div>
<br />
<br />
<b>The firing tests, part 3</b><br />
<br />
In this part of the trials, the Soviets fire two different weapons against the Tiger tank. The 75mm L55 gun, and the 85mm L55 gun. We've finally gotten to the main event, the entire point of this article. The Tiger I has been quite badly shot up by this point, but has held up quite well to the abuse. This part of the test is when the frontal armor is finally penetrated.<br />
<br />
76mm L55 gun: Six shots were fired against the side of the turret and side of the hull, from a range of 500 to 1450 meters. Only one of the shots penetrated.<br />
<br />
85mm L55 gun: This is the more interesting part of the trials. A total of six shots were fired at the side of the turret and front of the hull.<br />
<br />
-Shot #1 was fired from 800 meters against the turret side: It penetrated.<br />
<br />
-Shot #2 and #3 were fired from 1450 meters against the turret side: It penetrated.<br />
<br />
-Shot #4 was fired from 1000 meters against the lower front plate: It penetrated.<br />
<br />
-Shot #5 was fired from 1500 meters against the upper front plate: It left a large dent, but did not penetrate.<br />
<br />
-Shot #6 was fired from 1500 meters against the lower front plate: It hit next to the previous shot and broke a piece of armor loose.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW4eRJ2EpYCP5KHkxDrgypQuKpXZ_CGwA_N4mW2dzDiB3zNr8CFDwdNyD9eeV-JpsTyzNHK-BmAg8fZc55I903Pf7_XRhVb1krGt25d9R2nmiTPdAo9RT3Vl-bidBAsB9UmE29RD-ayOg/s1600/kubinkas1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="205" data-original-width="256" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW4eRJ2EpYCP5KHkxDrgypQuKpXZ_CGwA_N4mW2dzDiB3zNr8CFDwdNyD9eeV-JpsTyzNHK-BmAg8fZc55I903Pf7_XRhVb1krGt25d9R2nmiTPdAo9RT3Vl-bidBAsB9UmE29RD-ayOg/s1600/kubinkas1.png" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
85mm AP to lower front plate</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjo1Xj3AOHTUp7XOcDsr0CgWnev2FH6tP66VmwADqHpAmV4frIW91hi0B5bNsuUOA0aadOYiceiFAsZ3ub-CPN-e6UvOVyQPBquzSKEpLSHpUqOONnCJMHK9LO0E2gQYGpH05WMJmC73b8/s1600/kubinkas2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="173" data-original-width="256" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjo1Xj3AOHTUp7XOcDsr0CgWnev2FH6tP66VmwADqHpAmV4frIW91hi0B5bNsuUOA0aadOYiceiFAsZ3ub-CPN-e6UvOVyQPBquzSKEpLSHpUqOONnCJMHK9LO0E2gQYGpH05WMJmC73b8/s1600/kubinkas2.png" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
85mm AP to upper front plate</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEin27kH5x9vAIGTRzVubfMMYDLe75zVsWsnpQIc81Ok69ToeWJvU-kNGIDjmRskAD9KRqXC5XIlQc8-q3FRHzVvokZIzQSuhZRBI3OIWI2DrNES5GEHv2mEkg6R3gIPhoW9b9d3Xpci4fA/s1600/kubinkas3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="179" data-original-width="256" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEin27kH5x9vAIGTRzVubfMMYDLe75zVsWsnpQIc81Ok69ToeWJvU-kNGIDjmRskAD9KRqXC5XIlQc8-q3FRHzVvokZIzQSuhZRBI3OIWI2DrNES5GEHv2mEkg6R3gIPhoW9b9d3Xpci4fA/s1600/kubinkas3.png" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
85mm AP to lower front plate</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusions about the firing test</b><br />
<br />
So, what can kindof conclusions we take away from the tests? Well to be frank, the methodology of the Soviets is bizarre. They used eight different weapons and fired a total of 60 shots at the Tiger I. * They even used guns from Britain and America, in a test of questionable relevance. They also showed a myopic focus on the side armor. They only tested three weapons against the frontal armor, and two of them (the 76mm guns) proved completely helpless. And yet, that didn't seem to alarm the Soviets at all.<br />
<br />
Rather than extensively test their most powerful weapon against this formidable tank, they were content to only fire three shots at the Tigers front! <i>It makes no sense</i>. They didn't even test the armor of the turret face! They merely fired at the upper and lower front plate. One can't help but get the feeling that they had tunnel vision. The Soviets didn't even bother to fire a second shot at the UFP, after the first shot failed. They did that for the LFP, but not the UFP! The entire trial was marked by a lack of curiosity bordering on negligence.<br />
<br />
The true effectiveness of the 85mm S53 gun is hard to determine. These tests show that it could penetrate the Tiger Is glacis from 1000 meters. However, subsequent tests showed that it was unable to penetrate the turret face from 400 meters. [1] While the gun was nearly as powerful as the vaunted 88mm L56, it had serious problems with ammunition quality. Wartime Soviet shells did not use armor piercing caps to soften the forces of impact on themselves. The projectiles also had a brittle and soft nose which gave them a bad tendency to shatter against armor at close range. [2] As a result, they had a rather narrow envelope from which they could effectively penetrate.<br />
<br />
The cracking of the Tigers LFP is an interesting effect. One of the weld seams had already been burst during the 57mm test. And once the 85mm was fired at it, this was the last straw that broke the plate. The location of the hit was likely a factor, too. Shot #6 not only landed next to shot #4, but it also hit near the edge of the plate. The vulnerability of the LFP became clear in previous tests with the 57mm gun, when the it was suffering greater damage than the UFP. This plate was a definite weakpoint, and was regarded as such by the Germans themselves. Thats why crews would insert pieces of track on top of it, in order to provide extra protection.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>TankArchives interpretation</b><br />
<br />
In the previous article, it was noted that TankArchives has a poor grasp of metallurgy and ballistics. He looks upon any instance of brittle behavior in the armor plate and chalks it up to nothing more than low quality. He didn't understand that the kind of ammunition being used will influence how the armor reacts. British, American, and German weapons all used capped shells which defeat armor through ductile hole growth. Soviet weapons used uncapped shells which can only defeat armor through brittle fractures. TankArchives has consistently ignored how differently the test vehicles will perform when fired at by different types of ammunition! **<br />
<br />
He trys to frame the 85mm gun as the achilles heel of the Tiger I, just as he framed the 122mm gun as the bane of the Tiger II. But the quality of these two tests are diametrically opposed. One of them is thorough and rigorous, while the other is not. In the 122mm test, there were a total of eleven shots against the front armor: Seven against the glacis, and four against the turret. In the 85mm test, there were a total of three shots against the front armor: Three against the hull, and none against the turret. Its hard to draw many conclusions from this, especially when the results conflict with other tests. [1]<br />
<br />
Another thing that must be mentioned is the dishonest manner in which TankArchives presents these tests. At no point in his article does he tell the audience that the Tiger <i>had already been shot at dozens of times</i> by a bunch of different weapons, and had held up to the punishment remarkably well. In fact, its much worse than this: He actually hides the results of some of the trials! He wrote at least five articles covering the tests on the Tiger I, and not one of those articles mention the tests involving the 76mm L42 or 76mm L55 gun. Thats his dirty little secret. The main weapon used on the T-34\76 tank, and the main field gun of the Red Army, was completely useless against the front armor of this tank.<br />
<br />
This is a shocking omission that really throws his objectivity into question. When covering these ballistics tests, he only reported on the guns that managed to successfully pierce the tanks armor. In trials where the gun failed to make a significant impression, he simply refused to report on them at all! TankArchives is clearly a biased author who has an agenda of making German tanks look as bad as possible, while making Soviet weapons look better than they really were. His work is marred by dishonesty, exaggeration, and outright lies.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Notes</b><br />
<br />
*And thats not counting the huge 122mm L46 gun used at the very end of the test!<br />
<br />
**In the Tiger II tests, the tanks armor stopped acting brittle when it was fired upon by German 75mm and 88mm guns. In the Tiger I tests, the tanks armor stopped acting brittle when it was fired upon by the British 57mm and American 75mm guns. What an astonishing coincidence!<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Sources</b><br />
<br />
[1] Demolishing the Myth: The Tank Battle at Prokhorovka, Kursk, by Valeriy Zamulin. (Page 433)<br />
<br />
[2] World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery, by Robert D. Livingston. (Page 11)kesler12http://www.blogger.com/profile/06730943788519488679noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-148808537727188049.post-38359485901222467702018-11-11T18:09:00.002-08:002018-11-11T18:09:14.698-08:00No glory in war: the end of WW1Today marks the 100th year anniversary of the end of world war 1. It was a conflict that did not end in victory for any one nation, but defeat for all. Every country that participated lost more than they gained. Men were sent to war on a lie, giving everything they had in the belief that it was the right thing to do. After the stalemate dragged on for years and became intolerable, backroom deals were worked out to undermine the central powers and force them to surrender. It brought the bloodshed to an end, but only in a way that left everyone worse off than they had before. This indecisive and unsatisfactory end would lay the seeds for another terrible war.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://noglory.org/index.php/articles/619-what-we-should-really-remember-about-armistice-day-100-years-ago-and-the-war-they-said-would-end-all-war">What should we really remember about armistice day</a>?kesler12http://www.blogger.com/profile/06730943788519488679noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-148808537727188049.post-74266430500569725602018-10-31T22:10:00.000-07:002019-03-26T21:32:31.951-07:00RE: The 5 Shermans = 1 Panther “myth” This is yet another response to the war of tanks themed blog, For The Record. The site has a bad habit of posting misleading articles which are full of faulty conclusions. <a href="http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/07/28/please-dont-use-the-5-m4s-1-panther-myth/">This article</a> is no exception. It attempts to discredit the notion that German tanks such as the Tiger or Panther could achieve significantly higher kill ratios against American tanks like the Sherman. The author in question (Priory of Sion) asserts that technical characteristics and crew training were, in fact, not the determining factor in this. He argues that whichever side spotted the enemy first was the one that held the upper hand, and would obtain the higher kill ratio. Since the attackers had to expose themselves, they were usually spotted by the defenders first. There is certainly some truth to this argument, but he makes the error of assuming that this was <i>the most important factor</i> of all in a tank vs tank engagement. Priory of Sion seems to believe that the Panther tank had some deficiency in fire control that made it inferior to the Sherman. He comes to this conclusion by relying on a single questionable source: The infamous BRL memorandum No. 798. As we shall see, these mistakes will serve to largely invalidate his article.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTYTBrio8kLc18Lfl2ZSEBoaNm34EbAkoxSYHphmooahM_WHyGWKlkFaISb1sJ-QUbcvZnNYYUVSjxmkfWlnXj4_-L5GVKxK8mEPW5wkO9p5IsEmy1G6Ya2UzatClDb-EAQVrwD7JNx6E/s1600/Sherman+vs+Tiger.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="640" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTYTBrio8kLc18Lfl2ZSEBoaNm34EbAkoxSYHphmooahM_WHyGWKlkFaISb1sJ-QUbcvZnNYYUVSjxmkfWlnXj4_-L5GVKxK8mEPW5wkO9p5IsEmy1G6Ya2UzatClDb-EAQVrwD7JNx6E/s320/Sherman+vs+Tiger.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>The classic David vs Goliath battle</b></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<b>Origins of the legend</b><br />
<br />
The post starts out with an examination of the notorious dictum that it took four or five Shermans to defeat one Tiger (or Panther) tank. To be sure, the 'Tiger legend' can be found in the memoirs of many WW2 veterans. The tank had a fearsome reputation all out of proportion to the small numbers that were produced. It gave Allied tankers an inferiority complex about their Shermans, and led to many instances of tank terror among the infantry. Many soldiers eventually came to the conclusion that the only way the lumbering beasts could be defeated was to send an entire platoon after just one tank. The TV show, <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1827723/">Greatest Military Clashs</a>, even did an episode on the Tiger myth. Annoyed with all the undeserved praise being heaped on the German 'cats', Priory of Sion decides to track down the origin of the 'five vs one' rumor. His investigation (which probably involved no more than a 5 minute google search) leads him to conclude that the legend originated with Belton Cooper. A veteran of the 3rd armored division, who authored the 1998 book called Death Traps. This memoir is particularly hated by teaboos and freeaboos, due to its unflattering depiction of the Sherman tank. Priory of Sion (who we'll call POS for now) throws the blame for the 'five vs one' legend squarely at the feet of Belton Cooper, and asserts that it is a dictum with little supporting evidence.<br />
<br />
In fact, a closer look at the historical records show that the Panther\Tiger myth <i>pre-dates Coopers book by several decades</i>. Even if we assume that it didn't actually originate in the Second World War itself, it must have arisen very soon after. More importantly, the legend was echoed by authors with higher academic standing than old man Cooper. In Janusz Piekalkiewicz' 1986 book, he states: "According to U.S. Army statistics, it cost five Shermans or some nine T-34s to destroy one Panther." [1] That pushs back the date established by POS by 12 years. In his 1975 book, Bruce Culver claims: ''An unofficial rule of thumb in the U.S. Army was that it took five Shermans to knock out a single Panther.'' [2] That pushs back the date by 23 years. But the real nail in the coffin is when you read the memoirs of Henry Giles, who firmly states that: “It took four of our Shermans to equal one of their Panthers and about eight to equal one of their Tigers.” [3] His book was published in 1965. Thats a full 33 years before Death Traps hit the book shelves. When taking that all into consideration, its becomes clear just how far off the mark POS and his conclusions are. The five to one legend wasn't something that Belton Cooper just pulled out of his ass sometime in the 90s: <i>It was already a well established myth by that point</i>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Overclaiming by the 3rd and 4th armored</b><br />
<br />
In order to disprove the notion that the Panther was superior to the Sherman, Priory of Sion proceeds to bring out his trump card: BRL memorandum No. 798. The sacred document held in reverence by all <a href="https://i.redd.it/wh4zj8cz9nm01.png">freeaboos</a> and <a href="https://img.fireden.net/vg/image/1430/25/1430253285006.png">teaboos</a>. This report summarises numerous tank engagements on the western front during the 1944 period. To come to their conclusions, the BRL used after-action reports from the 3rd and 4th armored divisions. These were the most successful formations in the U.S. army, and were not really representative of the army as a whole. The 3rd AD entered into combat on July 9, while the 4th AD entered into combat on July 17. When the war was finished, and they turned in their unit diaries, researchers were startled at what they read. The 4th armored claimed to have made 847 tank kills, while the 3rd armored claimed to have made 1023 tank kills! That is a combined total of <a href="https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/forum/historical-events-eras/world-war-ii/160219-combat-tactics-east-west-front/page13">1870 kills</a>, a really incredible number that stretchs credibility to the utmost. Because the BRL memorandum is based on these kill claims, it is important to explore whether or not they are realistic. <u>BRL memo no. 798 covers a period of August to December 1944</u>. In the interest of fairness, we should assume that the 3rd and 4th armored scored only half their kills during this time frame.<br />
<br />
But even with this generous assumption, the American claims still don't add up with the losses actually recorded by the Germans. They wrote off a total of 4973 AFVs on all fronts, a number that includes 2861 tanks. [4] Those are the losses that were sustained by dozens of panzer and panzergrenadier divisions that were fighting in four different theaters: The eastern front, the western front, the Italian front, and the Balkan front. If the BRL memorandum is correct, then it means that fully 18.8% of their AFV losses in that period (935 tanks) were from these two armored divisions! Thats completely absurd. And just to put things into even starker contrast, consider this. Many of the 4th armored divisions claims were made during the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arracourt">battle of Arracourt</a>. They reported the destruction of at least 285 German tanks and SPGs during the battle. [5] But there is a glaring error with this claim... And that is because <i>the Germans didn't even deploy that many tanks during the battle</i>! They only fielded 262 tanks and SPGs at Arracourt, and of that number, only 86 of them were destroyed beyond repair (I.E., write offs). [6] This shows how idiotic it is to make conclusions based solely on unit diarys. Without further verification, they are completely unreliable and misleading. It is now clear that the U.S. army routinely overclaimed the number of tanks they destroyed.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaqJxqTklvrRDjTeQT6QahPZYzjDnnhcB8sFtZ0_dg0uHeLLyUS6yYEBbS91EorUvyotNaf8JAxIKyYj0VdwLRrvL6zxc9RBd2SUAi3UlBL18doQ9bKFIASSblCfGjM47T9cQVamGMI7g/s1600/BRL+memo.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="539" data-original-width="603" height="286" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaqJxqTklvrRDjTeQT6QahPZYzjDnnhcB8sFtZ0_dg0uHeLLyUS6yYEBbS91EorUvyotNaf8JAxIKyYj0VdwLRrvL6zxc9RBd2SUAi3UlBL18doQ9bKFIASSblCfGjM47T9cQVamGMI7g/s320/BRL+memo.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">The first six lines cover Sherman </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">vs Panther engagements</span></div>
<br />
<b>Unverified claims by the BRL</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Out of the 86 tank engagements recorded by the two armored divisions from August to December, there were 30 encounters between the Sherman and the Panther. In these battles, the Americans lost 21 tanks, while the Germans lost 72 tanks. Thats a loss exchange ratio of 3.4 to 1. The Shermans were on the defense in 20 of these encounters, while the Panthers were on the defense in 10 encounters. There were also 14 engagements between tank destroyers (TDs) and Panthers. In these battles, the Americans lost 3 tank destroyers, while the Germans lost 26 tanks. These facts by themselves should tell us that something is wrong. In the month of September alone, the 4th armored divisions lost 41 Sherman tanks and more than a dozen tank destroyers. [6] Many of these losses came during the battle of Arracourt, when they faced off against waves of unsupported Panthers. This allows us to make a simple conclusion: <i>The BRL was not recording every single engagement that the two divisions participated in</i>. They pre-selected engagements for their study and cherry picked their data. This observation becomes hard to deny once you understand that they studied a total of 86 engagements, in which only 158 enemy weapons (including 105 Panthers) were claimed as killed. In that same period, however, the 3rd and 4th armored divisions probably made half of their 1870 kill claims.<br />
<br />
The BRL was using a form of statistical misrepresentation, because they screened out some of the battles these formations participated in. They only looked at those encounters for which there was firm and reliable data. A valid excuse, perhaps, but one that skews the results. The end result is that it paints the U.S. army in a better light, making them look like some real monsters. So when we examine the table for memorandum no. 798, we have to realise that<i> this is not what the typical outcome of a battle was</i>. It doesn't even make sense that the American tanks could have such a massive advantage simply by being on the defensive. POS seems to rationalise this as a result of the Sherman having far better optics than the Panther, but when you <a href="http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/265163-german-optics/">look at the respective telescopes</a>, its obvious that this can't be the case. So how do we explain such an absurd disparity in effectiveness between the vehicles? Simply put, we can't. The only sane conclusion to make is that the 3rd and 4th armored divisions were exaggerating their kill claims, and the BRL was cherry picking what battles they studied. For this reason, the memorandum no. 798s claim that the Sherman was x times more effective than the Panther can be dismissed as uncorroborated nonsense.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Sources</b><br />
<br />
[1] Tank War 1939-1945, by Janusz Piekalkiewicz. (Page 254)<br />
<br />
[2] Panther in Action, by Bruce Culver. (Page 4)<br />
<br />
[3] The G.I. Journal of Sergeant Giles, by Henry Giles.<br />
<br />
[4] Armored Champion: The Top Tanks of World War II, by Steven Zaloga. (Page 223)<br />
<br />
[5] The Lorraine Campaign: An Overview, September-December 1944, by Dr. Christopher R. Gabel. (Page 17)<br />
<br />
[6] Armored Thunderbolt: The U.S. Army Sherman in World War II, by Steven Zaloga. (Page 192)kesler12http://www.blogger.com/profile/06730943788519488679noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-148808537727188049.post-91491836761994365682018-03-23T23:56:00.001-07:002018-03-31T00:35:15.691-07:00No country for white men: South africaSomething terrible happened a few weeks ago. In south africa, the parliament voted to confiscate property from white citizens <i>without compensation</i>. Land that has been passed down from one generation to the next for over 200 years, in some cases. This was part of an agenda to punish them for the sins of their colonist ancestors, and to appease the angry blacks who make up most of the population. The greed factor is undeniable, too. With this policy, the bureaucrats can acquire prime real estate for pennys on the pound. The black south africans have taken the racist sentiments of its government as free license to persecute the whites. Street violence has increased, and so has mob attacks on farms. This is not a new trend: Its been going on ever since Nelson Mandela took office in 1994. His presidency proved to be a disaster for the country, which has become poorer and poorer over time, while violence has skyrocketed. According to one estimate, there were over <span class="st">445,000 murders between april 1994 and march 2016.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoXZdDHRR-BGIc1RmxZdlIPs3cV4yRbxtGRE4jF1mffouXNLyge9rqzgSbEDQqhDBwPJ-6JIw4wJhoxEQzYqxlb44ko94257B_ECtJfau9lEwOAfmgY-_NpJeBXXq8YQGDPyI-xv4oMLk/s1600/africa+mobs.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="400" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoXZdDHRR-BGIc1RmxZdlIPs3cV4yRbxtGRE4jF1mffouXNLyge9rqzgSbEDQqhDBwPJ-6JIw4wJhoxEQzYqxlb44ko94257B_ECtJfau9lEwOAfmgY-_NpJeBXXq8YQGDPyI-xv4oMLk/s320/africa+mobs.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span class="st"> <span style="font-size: x-small;">Mobs of angry blacks</span></span></div>
<br />
The annual murder rate certainly hasn't abated since then, as the government seeks to maintain its popularity by engaging in more and more flagrant acts of discrimination against the white minority. These absurdly unfair land grabs will leave the people destitute and vulnerable. Its entirely possible that this scenario could morph into full on genocide. The people are stripped of their rights more and more every year, and are in fear for their lives. If a wave of mass murders sweeps the country, then the white south africans have limited options to flee. Tragically, most western nations will refuse to accept them as refugees. This is due largely to self imposed political correctness, and the belief that only 'dark skinned peoples' can be the victims of racism and prejudice. European liberals would much rather virtue signal to each other, and continue bringing in muslims by the boat and plane load. The only 1st world country that seems ready to accept them as refugees is australia.kesler12http://www.blogger.com/profile/06730943788519488679noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-148808537727188049.post-25379375577580036442018-02-20T23:56:00.002-08:002018-02-21T00:15:00.751-08:00Refugee crisis: GermanyEver since angela merkel opened germanys borders to hundreds of
thousands of muslim refugees in 2015, the political elites and corporate media
have been doing their best to stifle all criticism of this policy, and conceal the negative consequences from the public. This pattern has been observed in numerous european countrys affected by the migrant crisis. (Sweden was the worst offender of this, with their special '291' code used to <a href="https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261679/swedish-cops-had-special-code-291-cover-migrant-daniel-greenfield">cover up crimes</a> by refugees) But the costs of multi culturalism are proving so onerous that the mainstream german media can't keep it under wraps any more. Its now admitted that crimes
rates have <a href="http://www.dw.com/en/german-study-links-increased-crime-rate-to-migrant-arrivals/a-42006484">increased significantly</a>
with the arrival of the third worlders. Constant fights, muggings,
beatings, and unruliness have turned some areas into no-go-zones. Sexual
assaults and rapes have increased so much that german women are now buying <a href="http://m.bild.de/regional/berlin/sexuelle-noetigung/sporthose-schafft-sicherheit-fuer-frauen-54662438.bildMobile.html">anti-rape pants</a>, and are trying to raise
awareness about their peril. Unfortunately, theres not very much that
the average man can do about it.<br />
<br />
The CDU and other partys are ardent opponents of nationalism, and don't want people interfering with their multi-cultural agenda. If a white german were to beat up a dark
skinned muslim, then he would no doubt be crucified by the leftist run media, and charged with fictitious '<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/germany-springs-to-action-over-hate-speech-against-migrants/2016/01/06/6031218e-b315-11e5-8abc-d09392edc612_story.html?utm_term=.ecd25eaff3e5">hate crimes</a>'. Political elites are purposely ignoring the problems that arise when introducing millions of people into a country with a different race, religion, and culture. And in fact, they are inflaming those problems by telling the public that they must submit to the foreigners! Television networks seem to be in cohoots with them, by running <b>propaganda</b> that normalises islam. This is very problematic in a country like germany, because the people are more gullible by nature, and have few tools to attack authority figures with. Their criticisms can easily be shut down with ad hominem attacks like 'racist' or 'conspiracy theorist.' The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window">overton window</a> is extremely narrow in that country, largely due to the efforts of the leftist bullys who run the show.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/kYmTFL9nbRQ/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kYmTFL9nbRQ?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> The Mass Brainwashing of Germany</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/RJxU8iiyOS0/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RJxU8iiyOS0?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">German women rise up! #120</span></span></div>
<br />
This all lends a rather depressing view of the future, but there have been some positive developments as of late. The far right AfD party got a huge boost in the elections last year, and is trying to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/24/europe/afd-germany-parliament-first-day/index.html">fight back</a> against the islamisation of europe. These election gains caused leftists to lose faith in merkel, who spent months vainly trying to form a coalition government. She was (correctly) blamed for the victorys of the far right, and there were even calls for her to step down. The trecherous leader barely managed to avert disaster when the SPD kooks offered her a coalition deal. With no rest for the wicked, though, merkel then attended a conference where she was subjected to a <a href="https://sg.news.yahoo.com/merkel-kurz-clash-over-migrant-quota-150939626.html">barrage of criticism</a> by the austrian chancellor. Sebastian kurz told her flat out that his country is under no obligation to accept refugees from the third world, and is firmly supportive of the czech, hungarian, and polish decision to opt out of any migrant quotas. Without question, european nationalism is on the rise again. What was once controversial before the migrant crisis of 2015, is now snowballing into a trend. <a href="https://squawker.org/world/greekpride/">Huge demonstrations</a> were held in greece last month, embarrassing its 'progressive' government. They tried to censor the event from the media, but to little effect. Some of the demonstrators used the event to settle a score with antifa, by torching a building that belonged to one of their chapters.kesler12http://www.blogger.com/profile/06730943788519488679noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-148808537727188049.post-86835464709730500272018-01-12T23:53:00.000-08:002019-02-11T15:25:04.281-08:00TankArchives: 122mm gun vs Tiger II<b>Introduction</b><br />
<br />
This article will examine the Soviet tests on the Tiger II tank. Or more specifically, <a href="http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2013/03/is-2-vs-german-big-cats.html">how it was portrayed</a> by a spin doctor named TankArchives. This notorious individual has made a career out of interpreting Soviet military reports and memorandums dating from world war 2. He has a long track record of distorting evidence and making dishonest claims, as part of an agenda to change public perception of the Nazi-Soviet war. As per his blog name, he fancys himself as an expert on all things related to armored vehicles. TankArchives also has a major problem with objectivity. When translating these wartime reports, he just can't help but insert his own dialogue into the middle, drawing his own facile conclusions about what was going on. This habit becomes most jarring whenever he translates Soviet reports on German vehicles. TankArchives never hesitates to use this as an opportunity to 'bash' them for 'design flaws.'<br />
<br />
The Soviet tests were conducted at kubinka, in November 1944. The temperatures on that day were -10 celsius, which may have adversely effected the ductility of the armor. This must be kept in mind when examining how the armor reacted to these strikes. In this article, we'll look at the exact same report as TankArchives and examine whether or not his claims misrepresent it. We'll also look at some photographs that were provided in the report and make conclusions based on what they show. This will provide a contrast to the one sided reporting of TankArchives. An example of this is how, at the start of his article, he throws objectivity out the window and presents a picture of the Tiger II tank from after the trials were over... <i>After it had been fired on by 122mm, 100mm, 152mm, and 85mm guns</i>. An intelligent and objective reader immediately gets put off by this.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeRAM_d5QRcBOYOpiSmJm8cSQsaoFobsolOG54YCEwlI7e9zFWRXCtd40ToRKHUI4N1VbgD-OkfJiijvMjsfDLqC4tMvGj2SD3T6o3Z2nOlhayIybBFJNtKyZ3Rj_nko0wi1ry__zkPKo/s1600/kubinka8.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="240" data-original-width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeRAM_d5QRcBOYOpiSmJm8cSQsaoFobsolOG54YCEwlI7e9zFWRXCtd40ToRKHUI4N1VbgD-OkfJiijvMjsfDLqC4tMvGj2SD3T6o3Z2nOlhayIybBFJNtKyZ3Rj_nko0wi1ry__zkPKo/s1600/kubinka8.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">The Tiger II after being fired at by the </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">122mm </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">A-19 and 100mm BS-3 gun</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b><br /></b>
<b>Specifications of the armor and gun</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
The Tiger II was without a doubt the best armored tank of the second world war, the culmination in a long line of progressively heavier 'breakthrough tanks.' Its frontal armor is especially impressive. The upper front plate (UFP) is 150mm thick and sloped at 50 degrees from the vertical. The lower front plate (LFP) is 100mm thick and sloped at 55 degrees. The turret face is 180mm thick and sloped at 10 degrees. We can use this information to determine what the line of sight (LOS) thickness of these armor plates were. The Tigers upper front plate had an LOS thickness of 233mm, while the lower front plate had an LOS thickness of 174mm.<br />
<br />
The 122mm gun came in two different models, the A-19 which has an L/46 barrel, and the D-25T which has an L/43 barrel. The former was a field gun, the latter was used by tanks and assault guns. The A-19 model had slightly higher performance, and was the variant used in this test. According to the 50% criteria, it could pierce 212mm of armor at 100 meters, 200mm at 500 meters, and 182mm at 1000 meters. [1] This was when using the BR-471B shell, which had a ballistic cap (basically, a windscreen that improved its aerodynamics). The regular BR-471 shell had no cap, and somewhat lower penetration.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
<b>The firing tests, part one</b><br />
<br />
In this test, five shots are directed against the upper front plate (UFP).<br />
<br />
Shot #1 is an HE shell against the UFP, from 100 meters. The only damage is a shallow scuff mark, and burst weld seams. There was some spalling as well. TankArchives crows about the results, saying the shell has literally torn the tank apart. Which is utter nonsense, as the glacis itself is clearly still intact.<br />
<br />
Shot #2 is an AP shell against the UFP, from 2700 meters. The impact left a shallow scuff mark, but did no damage. TankArchives is disappointed by the result and has little to say.<br />
<br />
Shot #3 is an AP shell against the UFP, from 500 meters. The impact left a deep scuff mark and caused spalling. TankArchives crows about the results, lecturing about the perils of 'overhardened armor.'<br />
<br />
Shot #4 is an APBC shell against the UFP, from 600 meters. The impact actually makes a clean penetration. TankArchives crows about the results, saying the 'low quality' of the armor has let the crew down.<br />
<br />
Shot #5 is an APBC shell against the UFP, from 700 meters. The only damage is a shallow scuff mark, and burst weld seams. TankArchives crows about the results, lecturing about the perils of 'overhardened armor.'<br />
<br />
<br />
Whats interesting about the original five shots against the glacis plate is that <i>only one of them</i> (shot #4) actually managed to penetrate. All the others failed to do so and only caused secondary damage through spalling or whatnot. Shot #4 and #5 used a brand-new APBC shell, called the <a href="http://www.panzer-war.com/Pdf/CPVSPP.pdf">BR-471B</a>, which has superior performance to regular AP. And yet, there are oddities in the results that TankArchives pays no heed to.<br />
<br />
Does he notice that while shot #3 pierces the armor, the shell doesn't actually pass into the tank? Nope. Does he notice that the 100 meter range difference between shot #3 and #4 was enough to render the APBC shells ineffective? Nope. Hes is clueless and ignorant as ever. Despite claims to the contrary, it seems that the Tiger IIs glacis plate is actually very tough, and holding up quite well to the abuse.<br />
<br />
Also, do you see the boisterous manner in which TankArchives reports on these firing tests? He isn't conveying them in an impartial or unbiased tone. Hes literally cheering from the sidelines like a drunken football fan, ranting about the 'inferior' German tanks and their 'brittle' armor. And he wonders why people don't take him seriously, or dismiss his work as propaganda? It would be funny if it wasn't so ridiculous.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9T5IOMbGVyL_rCjL5_i2RK6BI2fsxbK4GjT1v11jlySokq-JJQO_uE-c5uD3teor_HlNXfkI067BWhEqaie7Lk3dVgIwLpNEd-tIs1FmLfMgwiw5idKFbEAvOBVOzcjGcLdhmI38Vf38/s1600/kubinka3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="392" data-original-width="498" height="156" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9T5IOMbGVyL_rCjL5_i2RK6BI2fsxbK4GjT1v11jlySokq-JJQO_uE-c5uD3teor_HlNXfkI067BWhEqaie7Lk3dVgIwLpNEd-tIs1FmLfMgwiw5idKFbEAvOBVOzcjGcLdhmI38Vf38/s200/kubinka3.png" width="200" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Shot #1</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjL-11ZdIQ2O6jjEKWYSdksaTvBaTbt6S6mjZF9fovApuo-0fYbhRwaHCphIJM1_0tpQ4wD5vD-cCFQQWCRV6bUmsLmJKGGnK7B7MdYUp8bGfHY8N-6gGEt4vfwN07JfNDIYi72NqIBtPY/s1600/kubinka4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="401" data-original-width="508" height="157" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjL-11ZdIQ2O6jjEKWYSdksaTvBaTbt6S6mjZF9fovApuo-0fYbhRwaHCphIJM1_0tpQ4wD5vD-cCFQQWCRV6bUmsLmJKGGnK7B7MdYUp8bGfHY8N-6gGEt4vfwN07JfNDIYi72NqIBtPY/s200/kubinka4.png" width="200" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Shot #2</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDbpuXYjkbySSE0ZhBNBX92ANvnUyRlZ3M98yK4PC0a0CzDyeo-jNoyBOkarMJfki5A7JvyzPtFqx0Ms2lH1XSL102sWDY3xLBBOGlTaf2XI-9fbfkd3pSAcQ7SdMzEg5LiqHKPZKNf00/s1600/kubinka5.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="423" data-original-width="498" height="169" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDbpuXYjkbySSE0ZhBNBX92ANvnUyRlZ3M98yK4PC0a0CzDyeo-jNoyBOkarMJfki5A7JvyzPtFqx0Ms2lH1XSL102sWDY3xLBBOGlTaf2XI-9fbfkd3pSAcQ7SdMzEg5LiqHKPZKNf00/s200/kubinka5.png" width="200" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Shot #3</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmps9RMSQ4vo4hZB-UWH1xTU8ZWSDoxQDTno_QN_rISYM3LWljUjy5mh0JFUMYUwGhmApoxdCo9hXJmsvMaQYt7a1hVeGTHt2fsAQ5KUQkpeSQ7EZqfNdALpr2CF3-rTahsw-GiZ4lkis/s1600/kubinka6.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="392" data-original-width="374" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmps9RMSQ4vo4hZB-UWH1xTU8ZWSDoxQDTno_QN_rISYM3LWljUjy5mh0JFUMYUwGhmApoxdCo9hXJmsvMaQYt7a1hVeGTHt2fsAQ5KUQkpeSQ7EZqfNdALpr2CF3-rTahsw-GiZ4lkis/s200/kubinka6.png" width="190" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Shot #4</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGHgkaaVqn3LbzmV0H7VrjBevhfBTgl_psXBhAAK7Fw7xHKomtQXgi1RoKIOD-bQyFpXHi5pItx-UHWHC7lYv_C9AbmshkiM2K92UQiix5mRSHo7xiiEDI_U-xvS1f_tdxd423QOE5L1Q/s1600/kubinka7.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="384" data-original-width="488" height="156" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGHgkaaVqn3LbzmV0H7VrjBevhfBTgl_psXBhAAK7Fw7xHKomtQXgi1RoKIOD-bQyFpXHi5pItx-UHWHC7lYv_C9AbmshkiM2K92UQiix5mRSHo7xiiEDI_U-xvS1f_tdxd423QOE5L1Q/s200/kubinka7.png" width="200" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Shot #5</div>
<br />
<b> </b><br />
<b>The firing tests, part two</b><br />
<br />
In this test, two shots are against the lower front plate (LFP), and two are against the turret face.<br />
<br />
Shot #6 is an AP shell against the LFP, from 2500 meters. The impact left a shallow scuff mark, but did no damage. TankArchives is disappointed by the result and has little to say.<br />
<br />
Shot #7 is an AP shell against the LFP, from 600 meters. The impact left a shallow scuff mark, but did no damage. TankArchives is disappointed by the result and has little to say.<br />
<br />
(After this, there is a big gap, as the Soviet testers switched to other guns and fired at the tank. They used 100mm, 152mm, and 85mm guns. Testing then resumes with the 122mm against the Tiger IIs turret, which is already damaged from prior impacts)<br />
<br />
Shot #34 is an AP shell against the turret face, from 2500 meters. The shell hit next to a previous shot and knocked a piece of armor loose. TankArchives crows about the results, lecturing about the perils of 'overhardened armor.'<br />
<br />
Shot #35 is an AP shell against the turret face, from 3400 meters. The shell cracked the armor, but otherwise did no damage. TankArchives is disappointed by the result and has little to say.<br />
<br />
<br />
In this firing sequence as well, there are certain oddities. The 122mm gun actually made <i>four shots</i> against the turret face (#32, #33, #34, #35), but TankArchives chooses to only report on <i>two of them</i> (#34, #35). Who knows what his reason for doing this are? The true value of this sequence is questionable, anyway, since the turret has already been damaged by previous shots.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusions about the firing tests</b><br />
<br />
So, what can kindof conclusions we take away from the kubinka tests with the 122mm gun on the Tiger II? First, the regular HE and AP shells cannot pierce the glacis plate, they can only cause spalling or whatnot. Second, the brand-new APBC shells can only pierce the glacis plate from relatively short range (600 meters and under). Third, all the shells mentioned will perform better against the thinner armor of the turret face.<br />
<br />
The 122mm A-19 struggles to defeat this beast of a tank, and its literally the best gun in the entire Soviet arsenal! Its performance is actually quite comparable to the 88mm kwk 43 gun used by the Tiger II itself. We can measure their power by using the 50 percent criteria. When firing APBC shells, the 122mm could pierce 212mm of armor at 100 meters. [1] When firing APCBC shells, the 88mm could pierce 232mm of armor at 100 meters. [2] This was against an unsloped armor plate.<br />
<br />
But when tested against an armor plate sloped at 50 degrees, the results are quite different. At 100 meters distance, the 88mm APCBC can only pierce 106mm of armor, while the 122mm APBC can only pierce 120mm of armor. For some reason, the Soviet shell performs better against highly sloped armor than the German shell. This is likely due to the T\D ratio, the thickness of the plate compared to the diameter of the shell.<br />
<br />
As for the behavior of the armor plates themselves. The fact that they suffered from spalling and burst weld seems is not completely surprising, given the size of the impacting shells. Another factor is that Soviet ammunition did not use an armor piercing cap to soften the forces of impact on themselves. [3] For this reason, they can usually achieve penetration only by exceeding the shear strength of the plate itself. They defeat armor by brittle fractures, rather than ductile hole growth.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjB8a_nFpRXXvOCy_oMic9Lrjl3w7FC4sH4SEOgWxkQsk_NQm4_tdk3N-tF-0LVekMg6qsIxC9kN725LrxE96rWtcPkNiXr-s4OJvWAcTIi7dtpJUS2wDydZih5mMJntLBu2-60SJSUCXs/s1600/Armor+failure+mode.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="484" data-original-width="700" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjB8a_nFpRXXvOCy_oMic9Lrjl3w7FC4sH4SEOgWxkQsk_NQm4_tdk3N-tF-0LVekMg6qsIxC9kN725LrxE96rWtcPkNiXr-s4OJvWAcTIi7dtpJUS2wDydZih5mMJntLBu2-60SJSUCXs/s320/Armor+failure+mode.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">The damage caused by uncapped vs capped </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">ammunition is starkly apparent in this image</span></div>
<br />
<br />
<b>TankArchives interpretation</b><br />
<br />
There are a number of problems that loom over all the articles written by TankArchives. One of them is that he is clueless about metallurgy and ballistics. He seems to labor under the delusion that any time the armor doesn't reject the shell with zero damage to itself, that this is somehow indicative of low quality! This is complete nonsense because even high quality armor can fail when subjected to powerful enough attack. He doesn't understand that just because the armor suffers a brittle fracture doesn't automatically mean that its defective.<br />
<br />
Another thing that escapes his notice is how differently the Tiger IIs armor behaves when attacked by German and Soviet shells. In addition to the 152mm, 122mm, 100mm, and 85mm guns, the kubinka tests also featured the <a href="http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/04/axis-guns-vs-german-tanks.html">88mm and 75mm</a> guns. When fired on by the latter two weapons, the 'brittle' plates suddenly don't act brittle. They experience ductile failure modes, because they are being hit with capped ammunition. TankArchives has complete tunnel vision: He cannot fathom the idea that the impacting shell also influences how the plate behaves!<br />
<br />
Another problem is the tone in which he interprets these test results. It is clearly done in the style of someone who is an ultra-nationalist and historical revisionist: Someone who has no interest whatsoever in impartiality. TankArchives comments are reminiscent of the dialogue box in <a href="http://godofwar.wikia.com/wiki/Combos">God of War</a>, when you score points from racking up combos. "Vicious!" "Sadistic!" "Savage!"; "Inhuman!"; "Bloodthirsty!"; "Relentless!"; "Merciless!" He isn't even analysing the results, hes just turned himself into a human laugh track. <br />
<br />
He presents his claims in such an absurd manner that an intelligent and objective readers simply shake their head in disgust and stops reading... Which leaves only the unintelligent or subjective readers remaining. Exactly the kindof audience TankArchives wants! Its a brilliant example of nigerian phishing. As wikipedia points out in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance-fee_scam">this article</a>: "By sending an email that repels all but the most gullible, the scammer gets the most promising marks to self-select." You have to give him credit for that, at least: He knows the market.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/iYVO5bUFww0/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iYVO5bUFww0?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
The laugh track<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>Sources</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
[1] World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery, by Robert D. Livingston. (Page 50)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
[2] World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery, by Robert D. Livingston. (Page 61)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
[3] Soviet Armed Forces Review Annual - Volume 14, by David R. Jones. (Page 260)</div>
</div>
kesler12http://www.blogger.com/profile/06730943788519488679noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-148808537727188049.post-90740655083036691092017-12-26T15:33:00.000-08:002018-01-03T14:53:33.261-08:00Who is behind the fake refugee crisis?Who is behind the fake refugee crisis? Its a simple question that doesn't have an easy answer. We know that most of the people flooding into europe aren't actually syrians. They are from other parts of the middle east and north africa. These muslims aren't fleeing from a war, they're just looking for a welfare check from dumb liberals. And to start riots, rob people, and cause havoc... Moreover, we also know that normal border contingencys were de-activated by angela merkel and francois holland. They had no qualms at all about letting the foxes into the hen house. The following videos go into some detail on how this artificial crisis was set into motion.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/1BLTDD30KZ0/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1BLTDD30KZ0?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
The REAL reason for Europes influx</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
of migrants!!! WikiLeaks founder</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/DTJc9pN29A4/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DTJc9pN29A4?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Nikolai Starikov explains Europe's refugee crisis</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /><iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/AfG1myglfhY/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AfG1myglfhY?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
The Truth About 'Refugees'</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
To my credit, <a href="http://kesler12-jamesrocket.blogspot.ca/2015/10/zionists-behind-migrant-crisis.html">I suspected foul play</a> behind the refugee crisis almost as soon as it unfolded. The involvement of israeli and U.S. intelligence agencys is unsurprising. Zionist elements in both countrys want to weaken europe and divide them on ethnic and religious grounds. That will prevent them from becoming an economic competitor. Unfortuntely, the influx of hostile islamists isn't just weakening countrys like germany and france: Its slowly destroying them. If something is not done soon, it may end up setting off a humanitarian crisis in europe.</div>
kesler12http://www.blogger.com/profile/06730943788519488679noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-148808537727188049.post-32501906840215732702017-11-30T10:29:00.000-08:002019-01-31T20:46:48.624-08:00RE: Common Myths About WWIIThis is a response to a <a href="http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/09/05/common-myths-about-wwii/">popular article</a> that was posted a few years ago on the blog, For The Record. FTR is a site associated with the online game war of tanks. They make frequent posts that circle around the game and its setting: Tank combat during the 30s to 60s. The quality of these articles vary wildly depending on the topic in question. They are of respectable quality until it comes to WW2, in which case FTR delves into full on historical revisionism. Among other things, they are strongly opposed to the theory that the German army was a uniquely powerful and competent military force. Any individual who makes that claim is shouted down and decried as a Wehraboo. Unfortunately for FTR, this theory happens to be supported by all the known facts about the Heers organisation, and from their performance against opposing armys during WW2. The usual consensus among historians is that the Germans were simply overwhelmed by the burden of fighting against three huge empires, and the superior industrial resources they could muster. One of the authors at the blog (EnsignExpendible) decided that he'd finally had enough with this theory. He proceeded to write a misleading article that trys to dispute the Heers superiority in weaponry and tactics. This is the post that we will dismantle today.<br />
<br />
In keeping with the 'war of tanks' theme, the author has most of his criticisms focused on armored warfare. The Ensign was wise to choose a narrow subject that played to his strengths, but even then, he falls well short of managing to do a proper debunking. Normally, this kind of biased opinion piece wouldn't even warrant a response. But since it is being promoted on revisionist forums like <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitWehraboosSay/">ShitWehraboosSay</a>, it has now become a worthwhile effort to debunk this article. To be sure, the Ensign is clearly a lightweight without much understanding of warfare in general. Most of his points are forced, and rely on pairwise comparisons of equipment (17 pounder guns vs Tiger tanks, for example). Worse yet, he relys very heavily on websites like TankArchives for sources. The site in question is run by a Russian blogger who makes a career out of translating Soviet field reports from the war, and using them to make deceptive claims... Much like EnsignExpendible himself does. Could there be a connection between these two individuals?<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0CRdfXk7lm0174P2omcddX477nt5WRudqASGnhQRToDMW1KGzrqd1EhkQkvugtupy1hqqie1U8QkcK-a_gsRhaZkTBrfG5hAG63VHLBJaz8ZazehrTouLlTBNiHfolXDXbOzwo7Yu6NA/s1600/wehraboo.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1380" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0CRdfXk7lm0174P2omcddX477nt5WRudqASGnhQRToDMW1KGzrqd1EhkQkvugtupy1hqqie1U8QkcK-a_gsRhaZkTBrfG5hAG63VHLBJaz8ZazehrTouLlTBNiHfolXDXbOzwo7Yu6NA/s200/wehraboo.png" width="172" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">These are the kindof stupid memes </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">that get promoted on the FTR blog</span></div>
<br />
<b> </b><br />
<b>Fact: Shermans were not especially fire-prone (consider
German tanks that also used gasoline engines, but avoid this
reputation). Fires were caused by improper storage of ammunition, when
it was literally stuffed everywhere inside the tank it could fit. The
end of this practice drastically reduced the number of Sherman fires </b><br />
<br />
Heres another fun<b> </b>fact: In order for a tank to catch fire, its armor has to actually be pierced. Its true that the Shermans weren't any more fire-prone than the German tanks they faced. But the problem is, its armor was pierced <i>much more frequently</i> than the opposition. In one study, 95% of Shermans hit by 75mm or 88mm guns were penetrated, and of those tanks, 65% were burned out. [1] We can safely conclude that its armor was too thin to keep out enemy shells, therefore. Thats one of the reasons why the Sherman acquired a bad reputation after the war. On the other hand, the crews had a pretty good chance of escaping their vehicle alive if it was struck. <span class="st">The roomy interior, spring loaded hatches, ductile armor, and (later) wet ammo stowage were responsible for this.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Fact: The Ronson nickname is attributed to the slogan “lights every time”. The
slogan was launched post-war, and thus could not influence the
nickname.</b><br />
<br />
Are you seriously claiming that the Ronson nickname was a postwar fiction? On what grounds are you dismissing the memoirs of veterans like David Holbrook and Steel Brownlie, who disparagingly compared the Sherman tanks to a lighter? Why do you dismiss Ian Hogg, who noted in his 1977 book that ''the Germans nicknamed them Ronsons because of their tendency to burst into flames when hit''? Its true that all these books weren't published until after the end of WW2. However, there are online images which show the slogan in use years before the war. <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg8a9LfzEGY0aiV4pGSdK2PBVKik4qntQRq1OL2TItB6tZ7VIvnMkDQXtPCTeWACbflLpDiZyUn5OS8U3Ul4Y_eESW1BR-oOWYMLeQAoRHhgcX2-U4hhdCP5MFX8T46PQGQE8JYeKHoBY/s1600/Ronson+lights+every+time.jpg">This ad poster</a> is dated from 1929, and it already has the theme: ''A Ronson lights every time.''<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Myth: German tanks in general, and Tigers in particular, were impervious to Allied guns.</b><br />
<b>Fact: Tigers were vulnerable to even Shermans armed with 75 mm guns. The longer 76 mm gun (superior in AP performance to the Soviet 85 mm gun, which could handle Tigers just fine) had no problem with Tigers or Panthers. </b><br />
<br />
Thats nonsense. The 75mm M3 gun used by the Sherman was completely useless against the Tigers frontal armor, and was unable to penetrate it even from point blank range. This is made clear from the data about the armor and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/75_mm_Gun_M2/M3/M6#M3">gun in question</a>, and is also borne out by countless testimonys from veterans and field reports. In combat, the Shermans 75mm gun was only useful against the Tigers side armor. As for the 76mm M1 gun, while this was certainly a better weapon, it was far from ideal. With standard ammunition, it could only penetrate the Tigers mantlet from 100 meters, and the glacis from 400 meters. [2] The 76mm gun was unable to pierce the Panthers glacis from any range at all, and could only penetrate the mantlet from about 200 meters. [3] So where do you get off saying that the 76mm gun had no problem with the German 'cats'? The enemy tanks were able to knock them out from much longer range than vice versa!<br />
<br />
Your claims about Soviet tank guns are equally facile. While the theoretical performance of the 85mm S53 gun was at least equal to the 76mm gun, in practise, it was hampered by the choice of ammunition. Like most Soviet guns, they used uncapped shells with a soft and brittle nose. As a result, they had a bad tendency to break up against tank armor. German tests reveal that the 85mm guns could only pierce the Tigers turret (not mantlet) from 500 meters, and the glacis from 300 meters. [4] In contrast, the 88mm KWK 36 gun could pierce the T-34/85s armor from a much longer range. So really, your examples only confirm how much of a disadvantage the allies were at in these tank on tank duels. There was obviously a reason why they needed numerical superiority to win battles.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Myth: German tanks and crews were superior to anything the Allies had,
and achieved an X:1 kill to death ratio (the number varies greatly).</b><br />
<b>Fact: The flaws of German kill counts are covered in detail here and here.</b><br />
<br />
The first source you listed is a rant about nothing. Since when does a different method of counting losses qualify as 'flawed' or 'cheating'? A German panzer unit would keep damaged vehicles on the unit list and
report a reduced operational readiness rate. An American or British tank unit would have damaged vehicles stricken from the unit list and replaced with new vehicles. So the only real difference here is that the Nazis were simply less willing to send damaged vehicles back to army level workshops. As one source put it:“German commanders were loath to write off panzers and instead carried them on their books ad infinitum, wary of sending them back to the homeland for fear they would never be replaced. As a result, dead vehicles would be dragged forward during an attack, and dragged backward during a retreat.” [5] And with regards to the panzers overclaiming the number of kills they scored, this is hardly something unique to the Germans. This was observed in all armies of the period, including the Americans, British, and Soviets. The reason is simple: Not all tanks that were hit or even knocked out were so badly damaged that they had to be written off. Some of them could be repaired, and returned to service.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Myth: Soviet optics were abysmal, and their guns inaccurate, to the point where they could not engage enemy targets at more than a few hundred meters.</b><br />
<b>Fact: Soviet guns do not lack mechanical accuracy, and are occasionally more accurate than
their German counterparts. As for optics, Americans praised them at the
Aberdeen trials: “Consensus: the gun sights are the best in the world.
Incomparable to any currently known worldwide or currently developed in
America.”</b><br />
<br />
The 'great Soviet optics' claim was made by U.S. army personnel that were used to dealing with crappy American scopes. They weren't comparing it to German stuff <i>because they had none to test</i>. As a matter of fact, the M38 telescopic sight used by the Sherman tank was so bad that the U.S. army was demanding a replacement by early 1943. ''We must have a better optic for our guns, something with a four power to six telescopic power and something focusable. The sight should have a larger reticle and it must be illuminated for night fighting. This is extremely important; it should be changed immediately.'' [6] So while its true that Soviet scopes were better than the American designs, this is damning with faint praise. German crews who rode in captured T-34 tanks <a href="http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.ca/2013/01/german-evaluation-of-captured-soviet.html">were disappointed</a> with the optical suite, saying ''the gun sights in Russian tanks are far behind the German designs.''<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWNFMqLZGoVjosRaTAKZFCP8v1HjB0uEOXy_iUuVuh-7vO0pe0Rwa5OVHp72kVc28hocF2HFAf_iBiTt85HKd8yZy-Io0HzixhMOfKOmGEcUcVAqqE-yrHWauCOUlmu_PLcVLCAnqA740/s1600/optics.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="402" data-original-width="406" height="197" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWNFMqLZGoVjosRaTAKZFCP8v1HjB0uEOXy_iUuVuh-7vO0pe0Rwa5OVHp72kVc28hocF2HFAf_iBiTt85HKd8yZy-Io0HzixhMOfKOmGEcUcVAqqE-yrHWauCOUlmu_PLcVLCAnqA740/s200/optics.gif" width="200" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> Gunsight of the Tiger I tank</span></div>
<br />
<b> </b><br />
<b>Myth: The T-34 was a very unreliable tank, as proven by trials at Aberdeen.</b><br />
<b>Fact: While trials at Aberdeen uncovered some flaws in
early T-34 tanks, the tank sent to them was an obsolete model that went
through major refurbishment. Furthermore, American testing was flawed
(for example, they failed to oil up the air filter). Read more details
here and here.</b><br />
<br />
Thats only half true, Ensign. From all indications, the tank tested at Aberdeen in 1942 was ''<a href="http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1103864">specially prepared</a> using the highest quality parts at the Ural Tank Factory (UTZ), which at that time produced the best T-34s in Russia.'' So any automotive flaws encountered with the vehicle are inherent to its very design. We know that the early T-34 tanks had major problems with their transmissions and final drives. <a href="http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.ca/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html">One source</a> states that they would require maintenance after a journey of 50 to 80 kilometers. <a href="http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000044.html">Another</a> claims that the T-34 could not travel more than 200 kilometers without an overhaul. A disappointing performance, to be sure. According to the Aberdeen report: ''On the T-34 the transmission is also very poor. When it was being operated, the cogs completely fell to pieces. A chemical analysis of the cogs on the cogwheels showed that their thermal treatment is very poor and does not in any way meet American standards for such mechanisms.'' These reliability problems were not fixed until 1943, when the tanks received a better clutch and transmission. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Myth: The King Tiger could not be penetrated by any tank gun.</b><br />
<b>Fact: The Tiger II was penetrated many times by various weapons in trials. Even the meek 85 mm gun on the T-34-85 was capable of dealing a fatal blow to
it at 300 meters. </b><br />
<br />
You know what the difference between trials and combat is? The difference is, the 'target' isn't moving around and shooting back at you. The kubinka test you're so eager to mention involved the vehicle being fired at (in sequence) by 122mm guns, 152mm guns, 100mm guns, and 85mm guns. The armor package was already compromised by the time the 85mm gun got its turn, so that part of the test is invalid. Just look at the firing tests against the glacis plate! The first sequence was done with the 122mm <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122_mm_gun_M1931/37_(A-19)">A-19 gun</a>. Most of the shells fired at the Tiger II failed to pierce the glacis plate: They only caused spalling and burst weld seams. The second sequence was done with the 152mm <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/152_mm_howitzer-gun_M1937_(ML-20)">ML-20 gun</a>. None of the shells fired at the Tiger II managed to pierce the glacis plate. Even from 100 meters, they could only burst weld seams and spall the armor. The third sequence was done with the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_mm_field_gun_M1944_(BS-3)">BS-3 gun</a>. The 100mm shells only managed to penetrate when they hit weakened portions of the glacis, or the connections between the upper and lower front plates.<br />
<br />
This is a trial weighted heavily in favor of the Soviet guns, and they aren't even doing that good of a job. Out of those three guns, the only one that could make a clean penetration was the 122mm A-19, and only when using a specially designed shell that came into service in 1945! It pierced the glacis at 600 meters, but only made a dent at 700 meters. Smaller caliber guns had no hope of dealing with the vehicle from a frontal aspect. Think about it, Ensign. The 85mm gun struggled to knock out even the Tiger I. When firing from an angle of 30 degrees, it could only penetrate the Tiger Is turret from 500 meters, and the glacis plate from 300 meters. [4] So what could <i>possibly</i> lead you to believe that this same gun could pierce the much thicker armor of the Tiger II from the same range? They were the heaviest, best armored tanks ever to enter service during world war 2. The kubinka test bears this out in full.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Myth: Germans had the best optics in the entire war.</b><br />
<b>Fact: Not really, just some minor advantages in sight form factors (and not
glass quality, like is often said). Daigensui explores the topic here. </b><br />
<br />
Minor advantages? Your own link acknowledges that the German optics have a wider field of view (FOV) than American optics of the same magnification. The TZF 5f sight used by the Panzer IV had a 25 degree FOV at 2.5x power, while the TZF 9c used by the Tiger had a 28 degree FOV at 2.5x power. In contrast, the sight used by the Sherman had only a 13 degree FOV at 3x power. Thats a fairly substantial difference, Ensign. The telescopic sights on the Tiger or Panther tanks also had adjustable magnifications, meaning they could go from 2.5x power to 5x power. This, along with their stadiametric notches, gave the Germans a notable edge in long range gunnery. Don't forget, the tank that strikes its target first will usually win the engagement! And despite your claims to the contrary, the panzer optics did indeed posses higher glass quality. A <a href="https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieftain/chieftains-hatch-french-panthers/">French army report</a> stated: ''The clarity and ranging reticles of the periscope gun sight was excellent and more effective than of the allied counterpart, the Sherman.'' During the interwar years, Zeiss had developed a coating method that enabled a higher level of optical clarity than any other manufacturer.<br />
<br />
<b><br />Myth: Germans could knock out Allied tanks at great ranges, and routinely did so from distances as great as 2 kilometers or even greater.<br />Fact: Research indicates that the average engagement range was only several hundred meters. Shots from over 1 kilometer were either rarely taken, or rarely reached their target.</b><br />
<br />
The article you link to mentions a study by P. S. Igumnov. This survey was about Soviet tanks destroyed on the eastern front, where the line of sight (LOS) is longer than anywhere in europe. But the article doesn't elaborate on what year this study was conducted, or what the sample size was. Did Igumnov survey 200 Soviet tanks, or 2000 of them? These questions matter. Your own table states that the 88mm guns were scoring kills at longer range than the 75mm guns. The 88s were getting 31.2% of their hits at 600-800 meters, and 13.5% of their hits at 800-1000 meters. The 75s were getting 33.5% of their hits at 400-600 meters, and 14.5% of their hits at 600-800 meters. Anyway, its a well known fact that German guns COULD knock out Soviet tanks from great ranges. The T-34s were shockingly vulnerable to the 88mm flak gun, which was later adapted for use in the Tiger I. In October 1943, a tank commander named <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Knispel">Kurt Knispel</a> knocked out a T-34 tank from 3000 meters, the longest range tank kill of the war. But of course, these kinds of shots were the exception rather than the rule. Even in the steppes of russia and the ukraine, most kills were made at considerably shorter range.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Myth: The Panther was a great tank that could have turned the tide of the war if only _________.<br />Fact: Panthers, even the latest models, were full of
mechanical issues, such as final drives that lasted 150 kilometers.
The_Chieftain goes over them here. Additionally, the armour was of exceptionally poor quality, cracking after non-penetrating hits. </b><br />
<br />
Gee, do you think? World war 2 was the largest conflict in human history. The chain of events were <i>far too complex</i> to be decided by a single line of vehicles, no matter how impressive their performance may appear to be. While its true that the Panthers had issue with their final drives (as the early models of T-34 did), the sheer extent of this problem has often been exaggerated. The french experience of the tanks only going 150 km before a break down needs to be tempered with the reality that those crews <i>weren't trained</i> to properly operate the Panther. They had a bad habit of keeping the tank in 3rd gear during long marchs, and then controlling the speed using only the accelerator rather than shifting to the higher gears. This is something that German crews had been explicitly warned not to do, as it would lead to premature stripping of the cogs. [7] The 3rd gear was <a href="https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/02/08/from-the-editor-panther-reliability/">under-designed</a> because it wasn't meant to spend much time in that position: It was only meant to be a transition to the higher gears. But even so, the notion of the Panthers final drives having a 'fatigue life of only 150 km' is bizarre and anomalous. The German manuals don't say anything about them having such a short time between overhauls.<br />
<br />
And in fact, there are numerous incidents where this figure was exceeded by a long shot. The 11th panzer division was engaged in heavy fighting from August 1944 onward. * They attempted to contain the allied landing in southern France, and conducted several long road marchs. By regulation, the Panther tanks required an overhaul after 800 km. But due to the frantic combat and constant retreats, the 11th panzer division was unable to stick to regulations. By the time September 1944 rolled around, some of the Panthers had over 1500 km on their odometers! [8] They operated over a distance <i>ten times greater</i> than the French claimed was possible. And that isn't all. The British actually did tests on a <a href="https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/10/02/from-the-vault-british-report-on-captured-panther-tank/">captured Panther</a> tank which had 500 miles (800 km) on it. The vehicle was worn out, and needed repairs to the engine and steering. Afterwards, however, it was able to successfully pass an obstacle course that both the Sherman and Cromwell failed. It was then put through two additional trials, which is when the transmission finally broke down. That means it traveled <i>five times further</i> than the French claimed was possible. This is not to say that the final drives were not a weak point, its just that the problem has been blown completely out of proportion.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Sources</b><br />
<br />
[1] British Armour in the Normandy Campaign, by John Buckley. (Page 125)<br />
<br />
[2] M26/M46 Pershing Tank 1943–53, by Steven J. Zaloga. (Page 10)<br />
<br />
[3] Panther vs Sherman: Battle of the Bulge 1944, by Steven J. Zaloga. (Page 25)<br />
<br />
[4] Tiger 1: Heavy Tank: 1942-45, by Thomas Jentz. (Page 20)<br />
<br />
[5] Repairing the Panzers: German Tank Maintenance in World War, by Lukas Friedli.<br />
<br />
[6] <span class="st">M4 Sherman at War, by<i> </i>Michael Green. (Page 85)</span><br />
<br />
<span class="st">[7] Panzers at War, by Michael Green. (Page 87)</span><br />
<span class="st"><br /></span>
<span class="st">[8] Ghost Division: The 11th "Gespenster" Panzer Division and the German Armored Force in World War II, by Harding Ganz. (Page 266)</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Notes</b><br />
<b> </b><br />
<span class="st">*The 11th </span>Panzer division would have had 79 Panthers and 81 Panzer IVs, for a total establishment of 160 tanks.kesler12http://www.blogger.com/profile/06730943788519488679noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-148808537727188049.post-10745722068649943822017-10-31T22:47:00.001-07:002017-10-31T22:58:03.749-07:00The military is no place for transgendersTheres been alot of biased media coverage on the issue of transgender soldiers in the military. The articles published on this topic have ranged from mediocre to pathetic. One of the more groan worthy examples was released by <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/01/would-transgender-troops-harm-military-effectiveness-heres-what-the-research-says/?utm_term=.f06a6514a0a6">the Washington post</a>, which took issue with Donald Trumps claim that the acceptance of LBGT troops would harm social cohesion in the military. The hack writers were so confidant about the validity of their position that they actually had the gall to begin lecturing readers about 'myths' that supported Trumps positions. Its pretty astonishing that journalists think they can jump into this realm and begin throwing around their opinions as facts, while demonstrating that they have no grasp whatsoever of military affairs.<br />
<br />
So what exactly did they say? Heres a quote: ''But these statements rely on two myths: that diversity
reduces unit cohesion, and that unit cohesion enhances military
effectiveness. In fact, there is little evidence for either.'' Haha. So right from the outset, the Washington post goons commit themselves to a 2 pronged attack that has no hope of succeeding. They could have went about their rebuttal of Trumps in any number of easier ways. They could have accused the president of being biased or prejudiced, but instead, they decided to attack a well supported theory that Trump leans on for support. The things that these writers denounce as 'myths' are actually nothing of the sort. Lets take a look at their attempted refutation.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBN1_zD-SmAjt7ey2e_2f9qw7N3OgF7yettVuESl4ndveeizkUX_3quchTpu6Tb491A1vMtGJHo1KtDZHia4xb9f29TGJivkc4gNl9a7ofrd1ApT0Ba5rdQwJMXrkR8GvIfzmCInQa6yI/s1600/transgender+freaks.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="379" data-original-width="670" height="181" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBN1_zD-SmAjt7ey2e_2f9qw7N3OgF7yettVuESl4ndveeizkUX_3quchTpu6Tb491A1vMtGJHo1KtDZHia4xb9f29TGJivkc4gNl9a7ofrd1ApT0Ba5rdQwJMXrkR8GvIfzmCInQa6yI/s320/transgender+freaks.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">This was the only tolerable and professional choice</span></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Experience and research debunk the claim that uniformity among members is required for cohesive groups to form.</b><br />
<br />
You're spouting utter nonsense. The most exhaustive works we have on the subject of primary groups all conclude that 'diversity' among primary groups is harmful to their cohesion. According to authors like <a href="http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ndu/cohesion/ch05.pdf">William Henderson</a>, the soldiers in a unit must have a common race, religion, language, and culture in order to co-operate with high degrees of efficiency. Uniformity is therefore very much required.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>A post-World War II Army survey
about the experience of units that received black infantry replacements
after D-Day found 80 percent of white officers and 96 percent of white
NCOs stated that black and white soldiers had gotten along very well or
fairly well.</b><br />
<br />
So what? Black and white soldiers being nice to each other when off duty or in non-combat situations is all well and good. But it doesn't give much indication of how well these soldiers would function together as a unit when placed in an intense, stressful battle. It is an empirical fact that mixed-race units tend to 'fracture' in combat more quickly than a same-race unit. The 'survey' you cited doesn't refute this consensus.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>The reason is simple: The heterogeneity of a group’s members is unrelated to its cohesiveness. </b><br />
<br />
Thats completely untrue, because studys have shown that there is a major correlation between heterogeneity and low unit cohesion. The correlation becomes even stronger when you introduce greater levels of heterogeneity. To put it simply, if the unit contains soldiers of a different race, then cohesion will inherently decrease as a result. If the soldiers are of a different religion and culture, on top of that, then cohesion will decrease even further.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>The argument that cohesion is crucial to a combat unit’s performance has its roots in an article<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null"> </a>written shortly after World War II by two University of Chicago sociologists, Edward Shils and Morris Janowitz.</b><br />
<br />
Yes, they were both early advocates on the theory of primary groups. But their work has been improved upon by a number of different writers, including William Henderson. So try not to fall into the same trap that creationists do. Namely, their belief that nitpicking and 'disproving' Charles Darwin is a substitute for a refutation of the theory of evolution. This is a fallacious approach because scientific theorys tend to branch out and expand with time.<br />
<br />
<b>Furthermore, as the historian Omer Bartov has shown, German casualties were so massive that combat units were quickly annihilated, meaning that primary groups hardly had time to form, much less motivate men to fight.</b><br />
<br />
Are you trying to imply that because the soldiers in questions didn't train together, that they were unnable to form primary groups? If so, then you're wrong. These units were all composed of soldiers from the same
military district (wehrkreise). They hence had a common race, religion,
language, and culture. You have no basis to suggest that they had low cohesion. Even if the men hadn't trained together, they had the homogeneity needed to form a primary group. <br />
<br />
<b>None of this scholarship supports the contention that small-unit cohesion improves battlefield performance. </b><br />
<br />
You are mixing apples and oranges here. There are a wide variety of human factors that contribute to a units effectiveness in battle. There is cohesion, nationalism, discipline, rewards, punishment, etc. Even the type of war being fought can influence a soldiers state of mind. How did you come to the conclusion that these other factors are of such pivotal importance that they make the subject of cohesion irrelevant?kesler12http://www.blogger.com/profile/06730943788519488679noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-148808537727188049.post-22095509625717034552017-10-02T18:02:00.002-07:002017-10-02T18:02:38.668-07:00Las vegas shooting(Article under construction)<br />
<br />
Hours after the mass shooting in las vegas, when many facts are still unknown, we can already notice a narrative beginning to take shape in the leftist media. There are energetic and widespread calls for gun control. As always, the liberals are using tragedy to push their anti-gun agenda. They never grasp the fact that this is a <b>settled question</b> in the united states: Regardless of how many mass shootings take place, they do not invalidate the 2nd amendment. We already learned the folly of trading freedom for security after the september 11 attacks and the patriot act. The liberals are attempting ram their policys through while the public is still in a state of shock and unable to respond logically. They push the idea that more gun laws would have prevented the atrocity, even though the shooter must have violated dozens of laws to carry out his vile deed. We need to keep an eye out for politicians who act too quickly in the wake of this mass shooting. There are treacherous elements within america who want to see the country turned into an anologue of europe: A dumbed down populace infiltrated by muslims and communists, that has been disarmed mentally and physically.<br />
<br />
The timing of this event is certainly unfortunate, as it comes at a time when the fake 'refugee crisis' was showing signs of beginning to unravel. The narrative was crumbling under sustained attack from independent media, who were able to prove that non-government organisations (NGOs) like <a href="https://www.savethechildren.net/about-us">Save The Children</a> and <a href="https://www.supportrefugees.org.uk/about-2/about/">Support Refugees</a> were engaged in illegal human trafficking. For obvious reasons, mass immigration of 3rd worlders is a bigger threat to civilisation than a few mass shootings. We have to remember to keep our eye on the ball and not get distracted by sensational tragedys. The most important thing to do at this point is to compile video archives of the event and compare them all for mutual consistency. This will allow us to verify whether the shooting was indeed done by 'just a lone nut' (TM). It will also allow us to determine whether or not there are anomolous events which are being ignored by the mainstream media.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/02/las-vegas-shooting-hillary-clinton-leads-calls-tougher-gun-control/"><br /></a>
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/02/las-vegas-shooting-hillary-clinton-leads-calls-tougher-gun-control/">Las Vegas shooting: Hillary Clinton leads calls for tougher gun control </a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/angry-democrats-demand-action-guns-after-las-vegas-shooting-n806561">Sen. Murphy Tells Congress to ‘Get Off Its Ass’ on Gun Control</a><br />
<br /><a href="http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-las-vegas-shooting-live-updates-newsom-harris-call-for-increased-gun-1506963841-htmlstory.html">Newsom, Harris call for increased gun control in response to Las Vegas shooting </a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/las-vegas-shooting-celebrities-call-for-gun-control-w506609">Las Vegas Shooting: John Mayer, Lady Gaga, Other Celebs Call for Gun Control</a>kesler12http://www.blogger.com/profile/06730943788519488679noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-148808537727188049.post-17753083130770266012017-04-30T23:54:00.004-07:002019-10-09T22:36:37.774-07:00Myths about the german nuclear programWhen Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, the army ordnance office (HWA) devised a program to explore the possible development of nuclear weapons. The first meeting was organised by Kurt Diebner, a nuclear physicist who advised the HWA, and was held on September 16, 1939. The second meeting drew in major players like Klaus Clusius, Otto Hahn, Werner Heisenberg, and was held on September 26, 1939. Before the year was out, Diebner had assembled a fairly large team of scientists, formed a consensus on what goals they should pursue, and organised everyone into teams to carry out theoretical and applied research. Within Germany, the nuclear program was known as the Uranverein. They made alot of progress early on in the war, and were actually ahead of the British and Americans until early 1942 or so. From that point on, though, the Americans began to rapidly outpace them with the Manhattan project and the huge resources marshaled toward it. While Germany eventually lost the war and any hope of winning the nuclear race, the achievements made by their scientists were considerable. The scientists encountered numerous difficultys, most notable of which was when the HWA relinquished control of the project in July 1942. Almost as bad was when the allys began their strategic bombing campaign, which resulted in some of the laboratorys being destroyed. In spite of all this, the Germans dilligently continued their work and maintained a strong research program. This was especially true for the team run by Paul Harteck, as we will eventually see. At the time, there were known to be just two
approaches to weaponizing the strong nuclear force.<br />
<br />
The first method is to enrich
natural uranium by separating U-235 from U-238. The U-235 isotope is
<i>fissile</i>, but makes up only 0.72% of natural uranium by mass. If uranium
is to be used in a bomb, its U-235 concentration must be raised to 90%. The
second method is to bombard natural uranium with neutrons and transmute
it into plutonium. The U-238 isotope is <i>fertile</i>, and if it captures a
neutron, it will turn into U-239, which then decays into Pu-239. If plutonium is to be used in a bomb, its Pu-239 concentration must be raised to 93%. Uranium can be enriched to weapons grade by a variety of techniques, but uranium can only be transmuted into plutonium by a reactor. In hindsight, the German nuclear program made significant steps towards uranium enrichment, but were lagging in their efforts to make a reactor. The details of this subject are complicated and sometimes convoluted, since many historians have offered many appraisals that are mutually exclusive. Authors like Samuel Goudsmit (of ALSOS fame) have such a prejudice against the nazis that it interferes with their ability to even tell a coherent narrative. Other writers go in completely the opposite direction, and try to credit the Germans with all kinds of specious achievements. As always, though, only some of these appraisals can be corroborated. This article will focus on a number of myths about the German nuclear program and how it measured up to the Manhattan project.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEic1jyfZBi_SsKjZbDejTwF1BQlzjELuXjpFjb5i37cUJAZ3LHfFUwdgc3oKbVtb72phz4mewSlM_xq5mhMiygo1kPSenlQZ4QVdpWceQvfCqPUlE-wjVDaYSTXq8E5DfSLbeWe2RxM5Rg/s1600/nuclear+pile.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEic1jyfZBi_SsKjZbDejTwF1BQlzjELuXjpFjb5i37cUJAZ3LHfFUwdgc3oKbVtb72phz4mewSlM_xq5mhMiygo1kPSenlQZ4QVdpWceQvfCqPUlE-wjVDaYSTXq8E5DfSLbeWe2RxM5Rg/s320/nuclear+pile.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">The </span><span style="font-size: x-small;"> B-VIII pile uranium pile in Haigerloch</span></div>
<br />
<br />
<b>The Uranverein was never able to develop an effective means of enriching uranium to weapons grade.</b><br />
<br />
This is simply not true. Early in 1943, the research team under Paul Harteck had created a centrifuge of novel design, subdivided into multiple rotors and multiple chambers. This 'ultracentrifuge' was tested by separating isotopes of xenon gas, and then by separating uranium hexafluoride. This machine was able to enrich several grams of uranium to 7%, good enough to warrant funding from the Reich research council (RFR). More centrifuges were made, and the design was constantly tinkered with. By May of 1944, a company in Freiburg had built and successfully tested the MK III ultracentrifuge, which persuaded Harteck to move his laboratory there. The team set up a facility in the nearby town of Kandern, where a few centrifuges were assembled into a cascade. After a few months, however, allied bombings forced them to stop work and relocate to a town called Celle. Early in 1945, the facility only had 20 or so of these machines, but was still enriching 50 grams of uranium to 15% each day! The MK III ultracentrifuge was a technological marvel with a performance far exceeding the American centrifuges. [1] There were actually plans to put it into mass production, but the war ended before this could take place. Other research teams in Germany had experienced similar ups and downs. By June of 1943, Erich Bagge had created an 'isotope-sluice' machine that ran uranium hexafluoride through two shutters revolving at high speed, allowing the lighter U-235 to be separated. This was a totally novel approach which never occurred to the Americans, using a combination of electromagnetism, centrifugal force, and thermal diffusion.<br />
<br />
While his first two prototypes were destroyed by air raids, Bagge was able to relocate to Butzbach and set up another machine. By July of 1944, the 'isotope-sluice' had undergone an endurance test lasting 120 hours, yielding several grams of much enriched uranium. The models indicated its efficiency could be greatly increased. At around this same time, Manfred von Ardenne was testing a magnetic isotope separator, not unlike the calutrons used at the Y-12 plant at oak ridge. Both machines used magnetic fields to deflect charged particles and separate them based on differences in mass, but the German design used an <i>ion source</i> to sublimate the uranium. This greatly increased its enrichment capacity. Ardennes laboratory was located underground in his manor, which protected it from air raids. And since he was financially supported by the post office, work on it was able to continue unimpeded. Fortunately for the allies, however, only one of these machines were made during the war. Putting the technical details aside for now, it should be clear that the Uranverein had made major strides in their knowledge and ability to separate U-235 from U-238. The problem was that these efforts were all confined to laboratorys, and were never expanded to the industrial scale that was needed for an atom bomb. There were not enough scientists and engineers working on uranium enrichment, and there was not enough funding from the RFC to produce these machines in anywhere near the numbers required. The only team that came close was the one run by Harteck.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2ziU_yo_abnhWdyUDChMI7Yx76KMFmFVHDvKzqcyfomVlz1MPJzMo2LJaGrRzo3XY_tvavZt1WOLiB5lMBDrFjV1y0tb8bVGjNpbu5S1rqV3_GoVXzlxLnTSbfbBP0vgyZqbBpv53I_k/s1600/rsz_centrifuges_twin.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="230" data-original-width="230" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2ziU_yo_abnhWdyUDChMI7Yx76KMFmFVHDvKzqcyfomVlz1MPJzMo2LJaGrRzo3XY_tvavZt1WOLiB5lMBDrFjV1y0tb8bVGjNpbu5S1rqV3_GoVXzlxLnTSbfbBP0vgyZqbBpv53I_k/s1600/rsz_centrifuges_twin.png" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">The german ultracentrifuge, which was </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">superior to the american design</span> </div>
<br />
<br />
<b>German scientists were never able to achieve a self-sustaining nuclear reaction, much less a working reactor. </b><br />
<br />
This point requires some background. One of the things needed for a nuclear reactor is a substance which can act as a <i>neutron moderator</i>, and allow a chain reaction to continue unabated. During WW2 there were only two known substances that could fulfill this role: Graphite and heavy water. Allied and axis scientists investigated each of them. In January 1941, Walther Bothe had performed experiments on the purest graphite available, to see whether it could <span class="st">slow down the neutrons without absorbing them. Eventually, he determined that the capture cross-section of graphite was too large to make it an effective moderator. The Americans actually came to the same conclusion as him, but would quickly learn that this was due to trace amounts of boron, which could be <i>removed</i> by making the graphite out of petroleum instead of coke. The Germans never did this extra step, and were now totally dependent on a supply of heavy water, which was synthesized at only one location in all of Europe: The Norsk hydro plant. By May of 1942, enough heavy water had been assembled to make a uranium pile at Leipzig. The L-IV experiment by Werner Heisenberg yielded a neutron increase of 13 percent, meaning that the pile emitted more neutrons than what had been injected into it. This was a step in the right direction. [2] </span><span class="st"><span class="st">Unfortunately, the containment vessel exploded soon after the experiment, leaving them with a shortage of heavy water. </span> In April of 1943, Kurt Diebner performed an experiment of his own at a laboratory in Gottow. Rather than mix the uranium and heavy water together into an aluminum sphere, he had the uranium cast into cubes, and the heavy water frozen into ice. The G-II test ended with a neutron increase of 36 percent, 'an extremely favorable and unexpected result.' </span><br />
<br />
<span class="st">Diebner had proven that uranium cubes were superior to the plates that Heisenberg used, and that the aluminum containment vessels were completely unsuitable. While the basic research problems had been overcome, no new reactors could be built without an adequate supply of heavy water. Progress on this area stalled as a consequence, and results came at an agonisingly slow pace. Conditions were only worsened when the allys conducted raids against the Norsk hydro plant, interrupting the supply of heavy water. The months and years dragged on, and optimism soon gave way to pessimism. </span>By the spring of 1944, Heisenbergs team in Berlin finally went forward with the B-VI experiment, which had been delayed for roughly a year due to the bombings. After many months of testing and altering the layout of their uranium pile, they were unable to yield significantly higher results than Diebner. Thus, Heisenberg was forced to admit the inferiority of the plates, and to use a carbon reflector instead of light water. By the winter of 1944, they had no choice but to move their equipment to Haigerloch to avoid the relentless air raids. Diebners team had already evacuated from Gottow to Stadtilm for the same reason. By this time, they were carrying out the G-IV test which yielded the highest neutron increase of any German reactor. Diebner was elated with the results, later claiming that his pile had briefly went critical. In the spring of 1945, Heisenbergs team began their final experiment of the war. The B-VIII pile also obtained a high result: For every 100 neutrons injected into the pile, 670 neutrons were emitted at the surface. This was a very significant achievement, but it wasn't quite enough for a self sustaining reaction. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>The German reactors were very unsafe, basically an accident waiting to happen: They had no control rods, and no way to stop a meltdown from taking place.</b><br />
<br />
This criticism focuses on the final two 'reactors' created near the end of the war, which used uranium cubes and heavy water. The first was run by Kurt Diebners team at Stadtilm, while the second was run by Werner Heisenbergs team at Haigerloch. Both of these uranium piles were assembled under very difficult
circumstances. The scientists were on the run from allied armys, and had
to carry all the necessary supplys by truck. A containment vessel had
been built prior to their arrival: This was a simple cavity excavated
into the ground, and lined with carbon to act as a neutron reflector. When the experiments were actually ran, the Germans didn't use control rods: Their preparations were more haphazard. In the event of a dangerous thermal runaway, the scientists plan was to drop a lump of cadmium down the reactor chimney, which would smother the radium initiator. If this didn't shut the reaction down, their only option would be to open the cavity lid and remove the uranium cubes. This procedure could take up to 10 minutes. Most people therefore get the impression that the G-IV and B-VIII reactors were very dangerous, and could have undergone an explosive meltdown that would irradiate the entire area for centurys. This is completely false, however, because they are comparing a uranium pile to a full scale reactor. The one is related to the other by about the same amount that a toy truck is related to a caterpillar truck! A uranium pile operates at much lower power levels than a true reactor, and is physically incapable of 'melting down.' [3]<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgu10pYM5QR-86M3E9FqsO24LFbnMb3eyKO9p_qWaNdwTOTlU74oLXLTk9uz1FRtYCYtX4lwRkeGrvLJ8B-Z6MCOzYpOAzx6uSqmb1RSyJ6GxtU4pCMVJKSduwEc8g0CZQnn2jld6v9ey4/s1600/reactor_resized.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="796" data-original-width="600" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgu10pYM5QR-86M3E9FqsO24LFbnMb3eyKO9p_qWaNdwTOTlU74oLXLTk9uz1FRtYCYtX4lwRkeGrvLJ8B-Z6MCOzYpOAzx6uSqmb1RSyJ6GxtU4pCMVJKSduwEc8g0CZQnn2jld6v9ey4/s320/reactor_resized.jpg" width="241" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">The B-VIII uranium pile, in all its glory</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<b>The Uranverein never measured the fission cross section of
uranium-235: Hence, they were never able to properly estimate the
critical mass for an atomic bomb.</b><br />
<br />
That isn't supported by the facts. After the conquest of Denmark and France in mid 1940 (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Weserubung">among other</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France">unfortunate victims</a>
of the blitzkrieg), Germany had access to cyclotrons at Vienna, Copenhagen, and Paris. These are a type of particle accelerator that can
generate 'fast neutrons', and thus allow scientists to measure the
fission cross section of an element. Each of the laboratorys in Vienna, Copenhagen, and Paris were visited by German teams during the war. This
is unsurprising, because determining the critical mass of U-235 was a
key parameter for which much of their work would hinge on. The
scientists made fission cross section estimates at three points in the
war, each more accurate than the last. [4] In August of 1941, an
individual named Fritz Houtermanns (who was employed in the laboratory
of Manfred von Ardenne) wrote a paper which <span class="st">discussed runaway chain reactions and</span> the possibility of transmuting uranium into plutonium. This paper was
circulated among members of the uranverein, eliciting a flurry of
discussion. By February 1942, the HWA team had published a document
outlining the critical mass for a U-235 bomb: The estimate was 10 to 100
kilograms. This was comparable to the estimate made by the NAS team in
america, back in November of 1941. The baseless claims about the German scientists being unable to do these basic experiments were promulgated by authors like Samuel Goudsmit after the war, who despised the men for their deeds during the war.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>After the destruction of the Norsk hydro plant in 1943, the germans were unable to produce heavy water, and were forced to rely on their existing stocks.</b><br />
<br />
First off, the Norsk hydro plant was never fully destroyed. After the bomb raid of 1943, it was actually disassembled and shipped to Germany. Second, the scientists involved were always aware of the dangers of relying exclusively on one source of supply. That is why they set up <i>four different plants</i> over the course of the war. They even invented new hydrolytic techniques to produce more deuterium oxide at a lower price, which were eventually used in these facilitys. The first was the Leuna plant, south of Merseberg, which used the Harteck/Suess process (and was codenamed Stalins organ). The second was the Kiel plant using Dr Geibs <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girdler_sulfide_process">hydrogen sulphide exchange</a> process. Then the Hamburg plant, which used the Harteck low pressure distilation process. And finally, there was the Munich plant using the Clusius-Linde process. The west didn't learn about the existence of these facilitys until long after the wars end. The ALSOS mission by Samuel Goudsmit only ever knew about one of them: The Leuna plant run by IG farben, which was destroyed in a bomb raid on July 28, 1944. This was one of the reasons they underestimated the progress made by the uranverein.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Notes</b><br />
<br />
[1] Although to be fair, funding for the centrifuge research was cancelled in 1943. Its possible that the Americans <i>could have</i> come up with a design that was as good as that of the Germans, but they never got the opportunity to do so.<br />
<br />
[2] There were quite a few more tests after the L-IV experiment: There was the G-II to G-IV tests in Gottow, along with the B-VI to B-VIII in Berlin. Other teams may have carried out their own uranium pile experiments, as well.<br />
<br />
[3] In fact, the German reactors were more safe than the Chicago
pile tested by Enrico Fermi in 1942. The reason for this is that heavy
water is a more effective moderator than graphite, which means their
design used much less uranium to generate a chain reaction.<br />
<br />
[4] Fritz Houtermans used radium to make the 'slow
neutron' measurements in 1941. Walther Bothe used the Paris cyclotron to
do the fast neutron measurements in 1942. Jentschke and Lintner used
the Vienna cyclotron to do more fast neutron measurements in 1943.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Bibliography</b><br />
<br />
The Virus House: Nazi Germany's Atomic Research and the Allied Countermeasures, by David Irving.<br />
<br />
German National Socialism and the Quest for Nuclear Power: 1939-49, by Mark Walker.<br />
<br />
Heavy Water and the Wartime Race for Nuclear Energy, by Per F. Dahl.<br />
<br />
Hitler's Nuclear Weapons, by Geoffrey Brooks.kesler12http://www.blogger.com/profile/06730943788519488679noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-148808537727188049.post-91163627655678469602017-02-28T21:21:00.001-08:002017-03-29T23:22:28.258-07:00Animorphs FAQThis is another entry into what is quickly becoming a large catalogue of thoughts on the animorphs series. The first post was an overview of what the storys were about, how they set a high bar in childrens sci fi, and have never really been surpassed in terms of thematic content. I also offered some thoughts I had about certain dilemmas that had plagued readers of the series. The second post was an attempt to determine whether the animorphs hometown had a real world analogue. I was able to firmly prove that the descriptions of their city matched those of ventura, californa. This post will take more of a FAQ format, and answer some questions that were never addressed in the books. Mostly about those big, sciency questions that people tend to shy away from. Alot of this is about the yeerk species, and how they evolved in a biological and cultural manner. When K.A. applegate sat down to wrote the animorphs series, her aim was to provide the young heros with a unique race of aliens to fight against. At first glance, they are your standard group of evil alien parasites trying to enslave humanity, thus yielding the <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlackAndWhiteMorality">moral high ground</a> to the humans who were fighting in self defense. But as the series progresses, applegate presents the yeerks in an increasingly sympathetic light. Their natural bodies are so inadequate that they cannot see, hear, or do any of the things that humans take for granted. They are a race of cripples that have no choice but to enslave others.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjD9x2FnLCRGkrcZPr_BJA5MfsPzPicTHcHqNQTfC1pfDD2tSj6CdMsXj-N3iEZwfVQdq_bvQ88gK8z8ksGS5C8A4KCwde2LCoJvFJb5UQsiH2L5NAt0LSG5ws45yeYlakPwUJlfJr1fvs/s1600/Alien_Poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjD9x2FnLCRGkrcZPr_BJA5MfsPzPicTHcHqNQTfC1pfDD2tSj6CdMsXj-N3iEZwfVQdq_bvQ88gK8z8ksGS5C8A4KCwde2LCoJvFJb5UQsiH2L5NAt0LSG5ws45yeYlakPwUJlfJr1fvs/s320/Alien_Poster.jpg" width="205" /></a> </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Alien races from the series</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<b>How is it possible that a self aware race like the yeerks evolved to become parasites, and control the functions of another creatures brain? </b><br />
<br />
Were they parasites before they became sentient, or were they sentient before they became parasites? This is something that has always perplexed me. Yeerk nature is at the core of the animorphs series, the reason they came to earth and put humanity in their sights. Their parasitic nature is what compelled them to infest other self aware beings, denying them freedom so that they could be free themselves. I have a speculative theory on how this might have happened. While details from the book are scarce, what we do know is that they are hermaphrodites that reproduce through <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epitoky">epigamy</a>. Putting it simply, they only reach sexual maturity in very specific conditions, because the metamorphosis is irreversible and reproduction is fatal. During the spawning process, yeerks merge together and somehow 'fuse', and from them emerge juvenile 'grubs.' There appear to be both male and female yeerks, even though they carry both pairs of sex organs. Most importantly, they are an aquatic species that can move through an animals ear canal and into their actual skull, sinking into its every crevice. By <span class="st"> attaching their neurons to<i> </i>those of the hosts brain, the yeerks are able to take complete control over their bodys and use them as a puppet. Can natural selection provide a explanation for such a bizarre race? My answer is an emphatic yes. </span><br />
<br />
<span class="st">Before we go any further, though, I would like to posit two separate claims. 1) That the ancestors of yeerks had a 'neural patch' as part of their anatomy. 2) That these proto-yeerks could only reproduce by migrating to some ancestral spawning ground. If both these claims are true, then we can venture the following theory. Like salmon, the yeerks must travel from an ocean up into a river, and hence, swim against strong tides and up into waterfalls. I imagine this would require incredible exertion on their part, and that some of the yeerks wouldn't complete the journey back. If so, then the bottleneck for reproduction is limited to those who can succesfully migrate back to the spawning grounds. Maybe the yeerk ancestors faced a crisis at some point, something which caused the journey to become more dangerous and more difficult? If so, it would hardly be surprising if some of the yeerks managed to cheat and find another way to get upriver... Maybe they swam into the ear canal of some creatures (like the gedd) who were taking a drink, using their 'neural patch' to direct them towards the spawning ground? * This approach would have given the yeerks in question a major advantage over their peers who were trying to swim upriver the hard way. Perhaps it created a selection pressure great enough that the yeerk anatomy changed, so successive generations had a larger 'neural patch' that could take more and more control over the gedd brain? We have seen similar instances of parasitism here on earth.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Did the yeerk empire have conflicting needs when it came to the species they tried to conquer?</b><br />
<br />
Absolutely. After they set up their colony on the hork-bajir world, and their population grew to number in the billions, the yeerks faced a catch-22 situation with regards to their hosts. They have five different classifications for potential host species. Class 1 are those which are physically unfit for infestation. Class 2 are those which are fit for infestation, but suffer from severe drawbacks. Class 3 species are those that would make excellent hosts, but are few in number and can't be bred quickly. Class 4 are those that would make excellent hosts, but are too formidable to conquer. Class 5 are those fit for infestation, are large in numbers and able to breed quickly, and cannot fight back. The existential crisis plaguing the yeerks is that despite decades of searching, they had seen <i>no examples</i> of the desperately needed class 5 species. You see, it all comes down to agriculture. If a species doesn't have agriculture, then its population will number roughly the same as neolithic humans, I.E about 5 or 10 million. This is why the hork-bajir were rated as class 3. Their small numbers and lack of technology made them easy to conquer, but it also meant that they couldn't supply the full needs of the empire. But if a species did have agriculture, then its population would quickly explode in numbers, developing better technology and a state apparatus to manage them. (This usually implys a military) This is why humans were rated as class 5. They were harder to conquer than class 3 species, but also yielded a much greater payoff for the empire.<br />
<br />
The huge problem here is that within just a few centurys, a species can go from type 5 to type 4 status, just as the andalites did. <i>Technological evolution</i> would rapidly allow a type 5 species to leave its planet, build an armada of spaceships, and colonize other worlds, which means they are no longer type 5! The central paradox for the yeerks is that the type 5 species they coveted so badly were unstable and transitionary: They were nothing more than a brief period of adolescence that was eventually grown out of. Both the yeerks and andalites believed that humanity was nearing the end of its type 5 status, and would quickly mature into a type 4 species like them. This must have been <i>incredibly frustrating</i> to the yeerks. Even after they had picked a needle from a haystack and discovered earth, they would not get an effortless victory over mankind. Conquering them would require scarce resources that were needed elsewhere. And the situation wouldn't have been any better if they had somehow went back in time and discovered humanity back in the 1800s (when its population only numbered 1 billion). The yeerks would have an easier time conquering earth, yes, but the payoff in hosts would be smaller. It takes about 18-19 year for humans to grow to maturity, and they literally <i>didn't have the time</i> to wait that long. The empire had an immediate need for huge numbers of hosts to stem back the advancing tide of the andalite fleet. It was an unenviable situation for them.<br />
<br />
<br />
*In the movie avatar, the alien na'vi use a neural cord that can attach to those of other species and control their behaviour. Its an interesting analogue, if nothing else.kesler12http://www.blogger.com/profile/06730943788519488679noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-148808537727188049.post-19160484249083422172016-11-29T01:00:00.000-08:002017-11-20T19:34:08.755-08:00Radio jammingThis article aims to clear up some myths about electronic warfare (EW), particularly as it pertains to radio jamming. EW is a really complex subject which people have a bad habit of skipping over. They don't take the time to understand any of the details, but that doesn't step them from having all kinds of wildly unrealistic expectations. Military morons <i>love</i> to write breathless articles about radio jamming, and how it will allow 'our guys' to dominate the electronic battlefield. They like to bluster about how their cutting edge equipment will effectively neutralise the enemys ability to communicate by radio, without exception and without the possibility of counter-measure. Unfortunately, reality hardly ever bears out these flights of fancy. Before you can make any sortof predictions like that, you need to know the specifications of enemy radio sets, and the specifications of your own EW equipment. You also need to know the basics about radio engineering. First off, the range of an emitting radio depends on its frequency, power output, antenna type, and how clear its line of sight (LOS) to the receiver is. Second, these factors heavily influence your sides ability to actually detect the enemys comms and triangulate them. If they are using low power backpack sets in the confines of a forest, and your receivers are located miles away on top of a mountain thats getting alot of interference, then you're not even going to be aware of their presence.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtCMOxHc6bcfWm-SoX_djGcbpeeoelGLyOh6nXMwwuDO8I99aPB5nSW98yp7FcwKCxOhASdOJmn_YLUtj8DbHx-o2WBBFl7UK3k33j87ZnokfB0BE9uGAwXB1wIu_Zyl062-1B-nY4VRg/s1600/jamming5.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="108" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtCMOxHc6bcfWm-SoX_djGcbpeeoelGLyOh6nXMwwuDO8I99aPB5nSW98yp7FcwKCxOhASdOJmn_YLUtj8DbHx-o2WBBFl7UK3k33j87ZnokfB0BE9uGAwXB1wIu_Zyl062-1B-nY4VRg/s320/jamming5.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Line of sight (LOS) is a very important</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">factor in radio communications</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Lets use a less extreme scenario that puts you and the enemy on flat grassland, with a good LOS to each other. [1] They are carelessly using an omnidirectional antenna that your receivers can actually detect. What happens then? If you have something like a AN/TLQ-17 jammer, it can find the emitting radios position, match its emission frequency, and bathe the surrounding area in white noise. As a result, nearby radios will have their reception disturbed and won't be able to receive any signals. Does this mean that they are no longer able to communicate with each other? Not at all. If the enemy becomes aware of jamming, they can re-orient the antenna to try and lessen interference, and if that fails, switch to a backup frequency and issue a briefing message. [2] Both the emitter and receiver can then relocate to a different position, somewhere less prone to interference, to continue sending radio messages to each other. Keep in mind, this ignores the possibility that enemy radios may actually be able to defeat the jamming through brute force! They can do this by keeping the distances between emitter and receiver short, by using radio repeaters, or by cleverly using antenna masking. So even in ideal situations where you have flat terrain, good <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_by_five" target="_blank">signal to noise</a> ratio, and a high concentration of jammers, a competent enemy can bypass persistent attempts at jamming.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
That last point (about the number of jammers in an area) is quite important, because the enemy may have many different radio sets communicating on many different frequencys at once. Going after all of them presents a workload so high that impractical, broad spectrum jamming will be needed. [3] And if the enemy is a real jerk, he might develop a habit of triangulating your jammers, finding their position, and bombarding them with artillery. This would force you to keep them many miles behind friendly lines for safety, reducing their effective radiated power. Thats very undesirable when the enemy uses AM radios, which do not distinguish noise and interference from the true signal, and make the task of jamming them alot harder (since you need to completely saturate the receivers with white noise). At such a great distance, your jammers will have a reduced <a href="https://grandtrunkroad.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/myths-about-radio-jamming/" target="_blank">area of dominance</a>, and might not be able to reliably blot out their communications. So again, people need to realise that electronic warfare is a complicated endeavor whose success is dependent on many variables, including <i>how you and the enemy interact</i>. Despite what military morons claim, you can't just press a button at divisional HQ that blots out all their
comms on all frequencys. [4] Just like tanks or infantry units, your EW assets need to be deployed in the field in a manner that will enable them to succeed.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0x91WjL-IDozczNXsVrcZzSiBOpJi-dLFF0NVHHd_Y6XB8r9ZE11vOMKvtefBWviT4tUtk1rlgnWARkaSc71f7gdMcFXdbfvhbTM2P1477tSVX8UO5qAPn2HGLNlBC-K49qgQ3urvBWo/s1600/imageedit_2_6086580071.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="147" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0x91WjL-IDozczNXsVrcZzSiBOpJi-dLFF0NVHHd_Y6XB8r9ZE11vOMKvtefBWviT4tUtk1rlgnWARkaSc71f7gdMcFXdbfvhbTM2P1477tSVX8UO5qAPn2HGLNlBC-K49qgQ3urvBWo/s320/imageedit_2_6086580071.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> Antenna masking is useful for evading</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">enemy receivers and jammers </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>Notes</b><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
[1] This ignores situations where the enemy needs to send only a single report over radio, as the messages brevity makes it impossible to stop. Instead, we'll focuses on the steady flow of radio traffic, and how well it can be disrupted.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
[2] Thus enabling them to temporarily bypass the jammer, which needs a few seconds to analyse and match the new radio frequency being used.<br />
<br />
[3] Broad spectrum jamming is best done with multiple jammers, rather than one by itself. After all, the larger the spectrum being jammed, the less power is available to create noise.<br />
<br />
[4] Even with a high concentration of radio
jammers, the enemy have ways of getting around this!<br />
<br />
Note: Because of the length of their transmissions, the peculiarity of their signal, and power output, jammers are easily located and identified as targets for attack by suppressive fires.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Sources</b><br />
<br />
The Infantry Battalion (Infantry, Airborne, Air Assault, Ranger)<br />
<br />Threat Handbook: Battlefield Survival and Radioelectronic Combat<br />
<br />Operator's and Organizational Maintenance Manual: Radio Set AN/GRC-143</div>
</div>
kesler12http://www.blogger.com/profile/06730943788519488679noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-148808537727188049.post-72307319055169206592016-11-09T00:40:00.001-08:002016-11-09T01:56:13.401-08:00Donald trump victorious!A phenomenal victory for donald trump, and a spectacular defeat for hillary clinton! Trump fought against washington, fought against the media, fought against all the naysayers who said he had no chance, and he won the election fair and square. Democrats (and some republicans) used every under-handed and manipulative trick they had to marginalize trump and boost hillary. They created false dilemmas, engaged in <a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/10/18/hillary-superpac-coordination/">illegal campaign co-ordination</a>, instigated violence at political rallys, and coerced dozens of celebritys to support hillary, and they still couldn't win! Their decision to nominate and support clinton was a collossal error in judgement, as was their immense overconfidence in victory in the weeks leading up to this day. They counted their chickens before they had even hatched.<br />
<br />
The democratic party has now suffered a major setback and loss of credibility, and they have NO ONE to blame but themselves. Trump and pence did a phenomenal job on the ground of convincing ordinary americans to vote for them, while clinton and caine <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/10/31/can-hillary-clinton-buy-2016-election.html">bought their votes</a> through proxies and committees. So disingenous... In any case, america has taken a major step in the right direction. Disaster was certainly averted, but the battle is not yet over! The fact that hillary clinton was able to embark on a presidential race, much less come <i>close to winning at one point</i>, is an alarming sign of how much corruption there is in america. The mainstream media needs to be punished for their absurdly biased reporting that verged on propaganda. Hillary clinton needs to go to prison for all the laws she broke in aiding her globalist friends. Its time to drain the swamp!<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/3HUWUtTZvK4/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3HUWUtTZvK4?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Onward to victory!</span></div>
kesler12http://www.blogger.com/profile/06730943788519488679noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-148808537727188049.post-53268404071313114742016-10-31T23:52:00.000-07:002017-01-23T20:31:28.845-08:00Science fiction plausibilityThis post will examine numerous works of science fiction, and determine where they rank in terms of accuracy. The entrys herein will involve movies and games rather than books. About 15 years back, alan kazlev published <a href="http://www.kheper.net/topics/scifi/grading.html">an excellent guide</a> to this subject on his personal website. The chart uses multiple criteria in order to come to a rating, so even if the story is accurate in terms of physical laws (no superluminal travel without time travel), it can still run afoul of other blunders (like a galaxy full of alien civilizations). The scale is balanced in a way that penalizes the more speculative technologys and phenomenon, resulting in an inherently lower score: Anything involving femtotech, time travel, or the like will qualify for this penalty. Consequently, futuristic space operas get lower ratings than techno-thrillers because more ambition equals a greater amount of risk taking WRT accuracy! Of course, just because a film is set in the current day doesn't mean it can't get a very low rating. For instance, armageddon has a plausible set up involving astronauts sent to destroy an asteroid heading for a collision with earth, but makes so many mistakes and errors along the way that it devolves into sheer absurdity. Scientific accuracy is not as simple as it might seem at first. While the guide is very good at establishing its criteria, there are a few headscratchers present. For instance, kazlev says that plausibly hard sci fi should have <i>no unobtainium</i>, but then goes on to place reactionless drives in the plausibly hard category... Even though they require exotic matter (unobtainium) to work. *<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Ultra hard</b><br />
<br />
Metal gear solid. Why does it qualify for this ranking? MGS1 has crude nanomachines used for communication and medicine, genetically engineered viruses that can select targets based on their DNA (!), and walking battle tanks that can launch nuclear ordnance. MGS2 has sentient artificial intelligence, 4th generation nuclear weapons, and virtual reality simulation. That last point is especially relevant, if you subscribe to <a href="http://metagearsolid.org/reports_vr_theory_1.html">the VR theory</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>Plausibly hard</b><br />
<br />
The 6th day. Why does it qualify? This is a typical spy thriller with the usual near-future setup, I.E, self-piloting cars, affordable VTOL craft, energy weapons, holograms. What sets it apart from others is the weird, pseudo-cloning technology that features prominently in the story. An individuals DNA is implanted into an adult sized 'embryo', which rapidly grows into an exact duplicate of them. This would probably require nanotechnology rather than mere biotechnology.<br />
<br />
<b>Firm</b><br />
<br />
Avatar. Why does it qualify? Avatar posits outrageous growth of the economy by 2154, such that a fleet of interstellar ships like the ISV venture star can be supported. While the ship doesn't violate relativity by traveling FTL (faster than light), it does handwave away <a href="http://kesler12-jamesrocket.blogspot.ca/2014/10/bantokfomoki-in-space-part-1.html">problems with waste heat</a>. The alien na'vi are also very human like in their appearance, despite the astronomical unlikelihood of evolution following such similar paths. There are also minor problems like the floating mountains of unobtainium, the mental link between avatar and human, etc.<br />
<br />
<b>Medium</b><br />
<br />
Alien. Why does it qualify? Alien is the prototypical space horror film starring a very realistic alien species. The xenomorphs are different enough that they obviously don't originate from earth, but not so different that they are morphologically and biochemically impossible, either. (Hence, they manage to stay within <a href="http://xenomorphology.blogspot.ca/2016/01/how-alien-is-alien.html">the golden middle</a>) The story <i>would</i> get a higher rating, were it not for the non-explained FTL travel, and rapid technology development early in the 21st century.<br />
<br />
<b>Soft</b><br />
<br />
Soldier. Why does it qualify? The society in question develops very advanced technology early in the 21st century (including FTL travel), uses a planet many light years
away for a rubbish dump, and posses fridge-sized bombs that can destroy an entire planet! Even star wars managed to be more realistic in this regard, since it took a battlestation the size of a small moon to do that. However, their depiction of superhuman soldiers was both realistic and disturbing.<br />
<br />
<br />
* Case in point: Objects that have a negative mass are just as absurd as objects with a tensile strength equal to<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringworld#Scrith"> the strong nuclear force</a>. Nevertheless, larry nivens ringworld gets a lower rating than stephen baxters xeelee sequence.kesler12http://www.blogger.com/profile/06730943788519488679noreply@blogger.com0