Moderator: Soñadora
SloopJonB wrote:What surprises me is that Putin manages to survive - he's just a gangster thug and even Mafia heads get assassinated.
Does he pay off the military biggies to keep him safe?
Orestes Munn wrote:SloopJonB wrote:What surprises me is that Putin manages to survive - he's just a gangster thug and even Mafia heads get assassinated.
Does he pay off the military biggies to keep him safe?
I'm barely informed on the subject, but I think Putin plays well to the fears and prejudices of his population and the military there has been pretty docile since the days of the Streltsy. I'm sure Putin pays well...until he doesn't.
SemiSalt wrote:BeauV wrote:FWIW, I'm a fore-reach in a storm sort of guy. But, I don't like using a jib alone. Most boats won't head up in a big puff with only a jib flying. This is a BIG deal. I prefer a storm trysail or heavily reefed main so the boat will round up in the big puffs or (and this is really important) if the sails get filled with solid water. SAGA would round up nicely when a big wall of water hit her heavily reefed main. She'd bear off if it hit the storm staysail and lay on her side.
Beau, he would stick with a third or fourth reef in the main as long as possible.
I also wonder about a 100 sq ft of sail in a 47+ ft boat with a tall mast, etc. It is not much sail for the windage, but never been there, never done that.
cap10ed wrote:Summer 2016 is almost here and I need some new book listings for those off watch spells. What have you read that has left you with a notion this book needs to be shared. Fiction or non fiction.
BeauV wrote:Napoleon was a much better general than Hitler.
Tim Ford wrote:Don't tell me, yet another preacher involved in some sordid affair?
I thought the whole clan were abolitionists?
BeauV wrote:I've been reading a book called "GRUNT: The Curious Science Of Humans At War" by Mary Roach. I think OM would be particularly interested in this. It's a science look at what we do to protect, equip, and generally bother our troops; with nothing but the best of intentions. The chapter on "filth flies", a technical term from the military, and the use of their larva (maggots) is fascinating.
https://www.amazon.com/Grunt-Curious-Science-Humans-War/dp/0393245446
BeauV wrote:OM,
The descriptions of debriding with maggots are amazing. I hadn't realized that it started in the Civil War and has continued ever since. It makes a lot of sense, except that some in the world can't deal with the "yuck factor". What I was amazed by was that when there is a land mine or IED, they typically drive a great deal of soil, clothing and other crap into the wound. The maggots are perfectly happy to crawl into all the cracks and openings and eat the dead tissue. They appear to have no desire to eat live tissue if there is dead stuff around. They clean wounds better than anything yet found and don't mind eating antibiotic resistant bugs either. Really an interesting book.
Beau
Orestes Munn wrote:BeauV wrote:OM,
The descriptions of debriding with maggots are amazing. I hadn't realized that it started in the Civil War and has continued ever since. It makes a lot of sense, except that some in the world can't deal with the "yuck factor". What I was amazed by was that when there is a land mine or IED, they typically drive a great deal of soil, clothing and other crap into the wound. The maggots are perfectly happy to crawl into all the cracks and openings and eat the dead tissue. They appear to have no desire to eat live tissue if there is dead stuff around. They clean wounds better than anything yet found and don't mind eating antibiotic resistant bugs either. Really an interesting book.
Beau
I think it goes back to the inception of dirty wounds and flies. Was the Civil War when military surgeons started using them? ERs see the occasional street person with a naturally maggoty leg ulcer.
War wounds are intentionally nasty, not lethal. A lethal wound takes one combatant out. A non-lethal one takes out three.
LarryHoward wrote:Generally, soldiers point and spray. It's one reason that snipers are so feared. They aim carefully and generally hit their targets. Ordinary soldiers not so much. It's actually pretty impressive how low the bullet fired to target hit ratio is.
Full auto from the hip looks good in movies but generally doesn't hit many targets.
BeauV wrote:LarryHoward wrote:Generally, soldiers point and spray. It's one reason that snipers are so feared. They aim carefully and generally hit their targets. Ordinary soldiers not so much. It's actually pretty impressive how low the bullet fired to target hit ratio is.
Full auto from the hip looks good in movies but generally doesn't hit many targets.
My Marine son says that their rifles do not have full-auto anymore, they haven't had it for a long time. The Marines use semi-automatic weapons, exactly like the ones you can purchase at your local gun shop. In addition, he says that they regularly do training with folks firing life rounds over your head, air spray popping out of the dirt around you so you believe that there are rounds landing nearby, all while you are to squeeze off one shot at a time at targets. As son John says: "When you're carrying every single round for miles across the desert, you shoot them one at a time. We grunts are trained to hit the other guy with the first shot. Even if he shoots a dozen shots at you in full auto you'll get him every time while he's waving his gun around like some guy in a TV show."
Someplace I've got a video of a comparison between Iraqi soldiers and US soldiers firing their weapons. I can't find it at the moment. The Iraqi ally is holding his weapon over a wall and spraying bullets all over the place, the US soldier puts his head up with his weapon and fires shots one or two at a time. The video claimed that the hill ratio was about 30:1 in favor of the US soldier. I'll keep looking for the video, it's a training bit done by the US Army.
Orestes Munn wrote:BeauV wrote:LarryHoward wrote:Generally, soldiers point and spray. It's one reason that snipers are so feared. They aim carefully and generally hit their targets. Ordinary soldiers not so much. It's actually pretty impressive how low the bullet fired to target hit ratio is.
Full auto from the hip looks good in movies but generally doesn't hit many targets.
My Marine son says that their rifles do not have full-auto anymore, they haven't had it for a long time. The Marines use semi-automatic weapons, exactly like the ones you can purchase at your local gun shop. In addition, he says that they regularly do training with folks firing life rounds over your head, air spray popping out of the dirt around you so you believe that there are rounds landing nearby, all while you are to squeeze off one shot at a time at targets. As son John says: "When you're carrying every single round for miles across the desert, you shoot them one at a time. We grunts are trained to hit the other guy with the first shot. Even if he shoots a dozen shots at you in full auto you'll get him every time while he's waving his gun around like some guy in a TV show."
Someplace I've got a video of a comparison between Iraqi soldiers and US soldiers firing their weapons. I can't find it at the moment. The Iraqi ally is holding his weapon over a wall and spraying bullets all over the place, the US soldier puts his head up with his weapon and fires shots one or two at a time. The video claimed that the hill ratio was about 30:1 in favor of the US soldier. I'll keep looking for the video, it's a training bit done by the US Army.
Sounds like what my father was taught in 1942 or 3.
Orestes Munn wrote:Tim Ford wrote:Don't tell me, yet another preacher involved in some sordid affair?
I thought the whole clan were abolitionists?
They were. It wasn't just an affair, it was a series of sexual relationships with female parishioners, which he hid with icky histrionics, perjury, blackmail, financial manipulation, bullying, and explicit collusion with the male members of the congregation, including the women's husbands.
Jamie wrote:I just finished Bruce Catton's trilogy on the Civil War. All I can ask is how did I miss this?
Worth a re-read in these days of much talk about divided America. US politicians have not changed that much - nor has our (mis?) management of our armed forces.
cap10ed wrote:Jamie wrote:I just finished Bruce Catton's trilogy on the Civil War. All I can ask is how did I miss this?
Worth a re-read in these days of much talk about divided America. US politicians have not changed that much - nor has our (mis?) management of our armed forces.
Jamie "The Coming Fury" is book one of 3 what are the other titles. Looking at Kindle and it shows volume one. Thx for the lead. ed