Bullethead

I'll try, but it's difficult. I mean, she might be a bit lacking in cup size, but I think that's more than compensated for by her apparent lack of inhibitions. I'll have to look her up on my next leave . Dammit, even my attempts to muddy the waters after I'm gone have been outdone. I'm really feeling inadequate now But man, that is a GREAT scheme. Lou, I sincerely wish you an afterlife where you can knowingly watch, and take pride in, your grand jest as it unfolds.

My $0.02... The 1st series of bangs and dust clouds was the terrorist battery firing. So that's the target for the counterbattery. Shortly thereafter, you see a series of shells impacting the target area. The 1st round is slap on target, the rest are scattered all over the area. Note that there are obvious edits in the film, where 1 cloud of dust from a counterbattery round hasn't quite dissipated, and then the screen is suddenly clear and the next round comes in. This to me means you can't trust anything in what you hear, so it's hard to tell what to make out of it. So in what follows, I just say what the video shows, but the reality might well be different. For the counterbattery fire, you can hear the gun firing, then the shell approaching, then seen and hear the impact. The time of flight is no more than 2 seconds, so I'd assume the counterbattery guns were just across the valley on the opposite hill and using direct fire. I'd have to assume it was a single 155mm howitzer from the sound of the firing, the size of the shell bursts, the fact that you can hear them coming (assuming you can trust the audio), and the long time between shots. It was long enough for the dust to settle. If a full battery had been firing, it would have been multiple impacts all over the hillside simultaneously. Definitely not mortars, although incoming arty doesn't sound much like in this video. It's got way more chest-vibrating bass in it, but I'm willing to call that a limitation of Youtube. So, here are the obvious questions: Why was only the 1st round on target? That was the 1st shot, so the gunners knew where to shoot and could have hit it more often if they'd wanted to. What else were they shooting at? Especially given the long time between subsequent shots. And why was there a remote camera there at all? Sure, it picked up the terrorist battery (looked and sounded like rockets), but with direct fire, the counterbattery gun across the way could see all that for itself. As to what counterbattery fire really looks like from the enemy's POV, here are some examples from my personal scalp collection. These were of course team efforts, but I had a hand in them, so they're part of the karma I still have to work off. All 3 of these wrecks of 122mm 2S1 SP-howitzers of the same battalion, which were located SW of Al Jarah, the western Palestinian ghetto of Kuwait City. All were taken out by the same salvo of 155mm DPICM. The differing amounts of destruction is due to the amount of ammo they had inside when we hit them. #1 is still recognizable but obviously has a "gas bloating". #2 is opened up like a peeled banana. I still have some huge ball bearings out of this ones turret ring. #3 is totally blown to bits, leaving just the engine block and the bottoms of the tracks in place, with the rest strewn about 100m in all directions. Remember, this was counterbattery. They got the 1st shot (but didn't get a 2nd shot). In this context, note the angle of the gun tube in #1, back over its shoulder. This battery was facing WNW and we came at them from the SSE, essentially in their rear. But this didn't faze them--they shot at us from where they were. And here's the thing. Our initial salvo wiped out all 3 batteries of this battalion except for 1 gun. That crew drove out of their dug-in position and headed towards us about 1/2 mile, away from where they knew we'd hit, and started shooting at us again. So we had to smack them individually. Definitely some hardcore bastids there. I hope to drink with them all in Valhalla. Worthy foes

Yes, the underbrush surrounding Hangover Hall is liberally strewn with busted points hurled there in frustration. One of my fondest hopes is that centuries from now, these fragments will cause great consternation amongst future archaeologists. My little bit of vengeance from the grave

I believe Woody Allen said that if Jesus, Moses, and Mohammed came back and saw all that has been committed in their names, they would never stop vomiting. I'm not so sure, myself; I think the historical evidence makes them all pretty mean. Still, in today's context, it's a useful illustration of your point.

Thanks, but I really shouldn't have posted it. It was a "look what I can do" thing that our parents were supposed to have beaten out of us long since. And even though it's my best work so far, it's still not as good in the field of rock-bashing as these airplanes are in model-making. BTW, obsidian is pretty forgiving. It was a very popular material amongst Stone Age folks all over the world, because it flakes SO easily straight out of the ground (no heat-treating requied) that if you screw something up (in the early going, at least), you can fix is very easily (as compared to flint). Plus, it makes THE sharpest edge Man has every produced for practical applications, and it looks extremely Wicked no matter what color it is. The problem with obsidian is that the ease of flaking can get out of control as you approach the finished product. At this stage, it's rather easier to ruin than flint.

As it says in the "Whiskypalian's" Good Book, "When 3 or 4 or gathered together, there will be a 5th in the midst of them"

Does it come with a bunch of rope loops hanging from your plane and a whole gang of guys who run out on deck and pull you down by them as you more or less hover over the wind-over-deck?

Speaking as a fire fighter, chimney fires can be far from harmless. The draft up the flue spews flaming embers into the air, where they land on your roof or even a neighbors. While these might not be much threat depending on what your roof's covered with, this time of year most people have big piles of leaves and pine needles in the valleys and eaves troughs. If these catch fire, then the house can burn regardless of the type of roof covering. And the longer the chimney is on fire, the hotter it gets, so you can actually ignite the wood adjoining the chimney.

LOL!!! Good job putting out the chimney fire, BTW. Those things can be a total pain.

Nothing specific. I was just wondering if there were any museums, monuments, etc., around the place these days. I got the same impression at Daniel Boone's grave, and walking around Arlington National Cemetery.

I'm convinced that these guys have already gone further that this. They've all sold their souls in exchange for control over teams of tiny imp craftsmen. These imps do all the actual work, like weaving wicker seats, making itty bitty MGs, and fitting them all together, all with supernatural skill. I mean, even if a human could see well enough to make stuff that small, there's no way he could manipulate the parts that well. I submit that when these modelers complain of sore backs and eyes, it's from sitting naked in pentagrams all night in a room filled with smoke from burning brimstone and sacrificial victims

Thanks for sharing. While you were at it, did you see anything from the 2nd Boer War about "Mafeking" while you were there?

I can't model worth a darn. That's why this Paleolithic Man has gone back to bashing rocks. This is green obsidian that I got for Xmas. Amazingly, I didn't ruin it. This is a copy of a Teotihuacan atlatl dart point, made in their favorite material. It makes me feel like I got some manhood left after seeing Siggi's thread.

Oh, I did it. It's just that fires always put me in a good mood. That's why I got in the fire service

Damn you, Siggi! This made me pile up all my models, dump my paint, glue, and thinner over them, and set the whole mess on fire.

That's where I would disagree. Despite what liberals like to say, the military hates war more than they do, because soldiers know best what horrors it entails. Thus, those who've seen war would like to avoid it more than those who've never served at all. The real difference is in facing facts. Those in the service know that despite their best efforts, wars are inevitable. At best, a strong deterrent can limit the number and frequency of wars. Also, they know that the greatest horror of war (at least since the early 1800s) is losing, so once one starts, hit with all you've got and don't stop until the other guy taps out. OTOH, the pacifists can't shake the delusion that wars can be avoided, and in pursuit of that are willing to compromise everything, including inviting more wars due to being weak, and giving up on wars to avoid short-term bloodshed regardless of the long-term consequences. People with these delusions are a positive threat to the longevity of their tribe and as such should not be allowed any say in government. No matter how things are arranged, or how many people get killed in the process, there will always be at least 2 power-hungry bastards left. The greatest problem of humanity is that we breed a disappointingly high number of people who want nothing more than power over others. "There can be only one!" And so Caesar replaces the Senate, and then various would-be Caesars fight for supremacy, until the external threats reappear and eventually sweep all before them.

Yeah, I hope we never convince each other . So, to keep things in a state of conflict, let me say this.... I don't agree with the "same political units" thing. For instance, WW1's version of Germany was only a generation or 2 old, and a rather sudden and major change on what had always gone on before. Some of its parts weren't entirely happy with the situation, being joined largely by force or its threat. Remove that and perhaps they'd have gone their own way. In this way, the 1919 situation (however flawed elsewhere) might not have been far off. Likewise, the British Empire at least. It sure wasn't as united as it had been before. And don't forget the change in population. Much of the next generation had been blown to bits, many of its survivors were badly crippled up, and pretty much all of them had very different attitudes than they'd had before the war. IOW, they had a different set of priorities, different expectations of and demands on their governments, etc. This cannot but have produced fairly substantial policy changes.

It's been a long time since I read the book, but IIRC the only people who could vote or hold public office in that particular one of Heinlein's many hypothetical worlds were veterans. Not even current service members, just dischargees and retirees. IOW, you had to pay your dues in blood, sweat, and tears to have a say in how things were run, and that was completely voluntary because there was no conscription, but military service was open to all. Furthermore, IIRC there were constitutional protections that made all laws apply to everybody, veteran or not. Thus, those who didn't want to fight got all the benefits of the status quo, but couldn't change the status quo. I think this is a pretty admirable system, an improvement on fairly successful systems used throughout history in many cultures. I'm of the opinion that universal sufferage is a BAD IDEA, for a host of reasons, and Heinlein's system of limiting the franchise seems better than most. And a randy ol' bugger, too.

I like sports simulations. I hope they make one of this sport: http:// I can picture myself playing this one for hours

If you say WW2 didn't start until 1 Sep 39, then you don't see all the post-WW1 changes. Letting Hitler reassemble and take over much of the old Habsburg possessions undid much of the power restructuring after WW1. And this was allowed to happen because the UK and France were such shadows of their former selves. Also don't forget that when WW2 started, Germany and Russia were on the same side, and Italy was with them this time around. I also submit that it was much more than just changing names and governments. A great number of social institutions had either been swept away or modified out of all description, and mental attitudes and mindsets went with them. It was an entirely different world in 1930s than it had been in 1914. So while some of the prior names were still in use, that seems more as a result of occupying a place of that name on the map rather than being the same entities as before. To me, IOW, it seems like a new cast of characters, or at least very different actors playing traditional roles. They were reduced to the point of being unable to maintain them, however, without the willingness of the colonies to remain subservient. And that willingness was fading fast. The colonials weren't afraid of their masters any more and didn't want to get dragged into another European war they didn't think was their business. It was therefore just a matter of time before the empires fell apart. That's why I said these empires were mortally wounded.

WW1 didn't change the balance of power? Sir, it was the end of Western Civilization as it had existed for centuries before, and we have yet to reach an equiliibrium point since then. WW1 resulted in the complete and immediate dissolution of the Russian, Ottoman, Habsburg, and German Empires, along with the mortal wounding of the French and British Empires, which expired soon after. IOW, the entire established political structure of the Western World was swept away. Granted, the German Empire was new on the scene, but it had been around long enough by then to have gathered a little patina. The immediate result of WW1 was a complete power vacuum, which various opportunists have been trying to fill ever since. As to why WW1 was fought, it was just the next European war, which back then happened at least once each generation. The underlying reasons were the same as always. The only difference was, the Industrial Revolution had made possible armies orders of magnitude larger than those of the past, and had also produced technology that made war orders of magnitude more deadly. As to why WW1 continued so long, consider the situation on the Western Front on 1 Jan 1915. By then the Race to the Sea had run its course and set up the long-enduring stalemate. With hindsight focused only on the hideously costly, failed offensives of the coming years, you can ask, "why didn't they just call it quits there?" The answer is that the Germans, while failing in their main objective of crushing France at the get-go, had still achieved a position intolerable to France and Britain. The Germans occupied most of France's coal-producing regions, so effectively had the French economy by the short and curly hairs but for massive imports from Britain and Scandanavia. The Germans also occupied Belgium, which was completely intolerable to the Brits. Not that they cared so much about the Belgians per se, but because it had long been Brit policy that if they couldn't own Flanders, no continental power could, either, so it had to be a neutral buffer. Thus, while the Germans might have been willing to take what they'd gotten and be done, the Entente could not accept that as the new status quo, and as such were locked into trying to reverse the German gains no matter the cost. I'm not as familiar with the Eastern Front, but as I understand things, it was like this.... The Austro-Hungarians had been pretty well hammered by the Russians and Serbs, so Germany had to prop them up or face being overwhelmed. Besides, given enough gain in the east, they'd still have something to show for the war even if they ended up having to give most of their western gains back in the peace process. And given the unstable nature of the Russian regime, perhaps they could knock Russia out and then concentrate their full might on the western front, which wasn't going to go away for the reasons discussed above. That's pretty much what we've been doing, IMHO. Or did the world already forget 9/11?

War seems to be humanity's natural state and "peace" is the name we give to the rare, anomalous intervals when our own particular tribes aren't involved in a war. But there has never, ever, in the history of the world, a time of planet-wide peace, and it's highly unlikely that there ever will be. People are just too mean. My own tribe has been at war (cold or hot, limited or all-out) my entire life, from the early 1960s to the present. Some of my fellow tribe members delude themselves into thinking there have been intervals of "peace" along the way, just as they delude themselves into thinking we were at "peace" between WW1 and WW2. As long as there's no conscription, they seem to label it as "peace" regardless of how many small battles are fought. So IMHO, we're not better off than the so-called "noble savages". Archaeologists have shown that war was/is endemic for pre-state societies, and there's nothing in the historical record to suggest that things are otherwise for states. As a result, I think Keegan had it backwards--war drives culture. During intense periods of warfare, culture becomes centered on the warrior elite. During times of low-intensity warfare, no matter how fleeting, culture branches out into other areas. I submit that every so-called "Golden Age" of whatever culture only occurred because of, and happened immediately after, a long, bloody period of intense, often genocidal warfare. These wars either extermintated all external threats or so cowed and decimated them that they were in no position to affect things for several generations. Hand in hand with such external wars, or in the alternative, there was also usually some serious internal ethnic or at least idealogical cleansing going on, either voluntary or not. In either case, you ended up with a culturally homogenous population unlikely to cause internal trouble, combined with a lack of external threats. Thus, a "Golden Age" built on the bones of all who disagreed with the direction the culture was taking. In such a context, I'm sure Clauswitz got it right. And I really hope he did. Otherwise, war is even more horrible than it already is. Sorry to have missed that. The paintings totally rocked, but this being the Information Age, I naturally jumped to the conclusion that the text was what you were pointing out.

I dunno. IMHO, in the context of its time, WW1 is perfectly understandable. And it's equally understandable that those responsible for getting beaucoup guys killed for what in hindsight seems sheer stupidity (like Churchill and Gallipoli) would say something like they were caught up in the moment or, to use his words, "the world wanted to suffer". That's just trying to duck responsibility for what in hindsight seems onerous but at the time seemed perfectly natural. WW1 started out business as usual, but it became just the next periodic destruction of civilization that happens every 500 years or so. We're still in the ensuing Dark Ages, when various barbarian tribes fight over the choice bits of carcass. This will continue for another century or so until the next version of civilization arises. And then it will crash in its turn. And there is no new thing under the sun.

WM, I thought that you posted a pic a while back saying Reality was the worst game ever

What Rickity said: excellent pics and welcome aboard!