daily ad

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

3 in 1 fun


THREE IN ONE FUN
*
note: take a poll, give us an idea of the average standing for frugal preppers.  I didn't put this up, a loyal minion did.  So if any thing is his fault...  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/FBNFH6N
*
I simply adore the misinformed and/or moronic of the world.  Without them I wouldn’t have much to write about.  And talk about using resources and wasting oxygen, right?  I am a chronicler of idiocy, which is basically my main claim to fame and about my only skill set.  I could claim analytical thinking but that might both be pushing the bounds of possibility and proclaiming an occupation no one has need for any longer.  Thinking is the enemy of emotion and not needed when everyone only wants to feel good whilst awaiting the icy cold water of the north Atlantic creeping up the deck of the Titanic.  The band played on for very good reason-it calmed the doomed who craved the opiate.  I know after the collapse I have zero skills, thinkers and writers not needed,  and have no choice but to be a better killer than the other uninitiated, or my place at the dinner table is jeopardized ( not a better equipped soldier, just a better one, which starts with getting your mind right now, accepting the historical necessity.  Don’t listen to all that liberal bullpiss on how males are gentle caring creatures and killing is foreign to us and how it will haunt our dreams-that is propaganda to the submissive serfs.  And, yes, I’m aware I made a poor LEO.  But soldiers don’t need to be hampered by being blocked by over-thinking any situation.  You kill everything.  A much simpler decision tree ).

*

One thing I LOVE talking about is the retards that run the military.  The reason for this is that I love to rant and rave, but also because in this country we seem to be in a period of serious gayboy love towards the institution and if you strive to emulate them it will get you killed.  Almost nothing the military does is a good idea.  If you are able to impartially cherry pick, that is fine and dandy.  Otherwise, beware!  You should, 99% of the time, just do the exact opposite of what they do and if you are following some super ninja dude who is making his living preaching military tactics to you, you should be aware that 99% of what he is teaching you will get you killed.  The military is in the business of killing its members.  That is what they do.  Sure, in WWII Patton played the crowd with his “let the other dumb bastard die for his country”, but in practice you were just another machine sent to clash with the enemy and if you broke there was another replacement to take your place. 

*

A warrior fights despite the danger of death, but a soldier fights to die.  The first uses tactics that minimize the poor odds, the second fights in a way which maximize his chances of death.  If you are working for the state rather than the tribe, your chances of retirement in wartime equal lottery odds.  Why do you think soldiers eventually do their empire no favors, losing their martial spirit?  They don’t start minimizing risks because they lose their bravery, they start pushing back as rewards diminish.  They know what they are gambling with and refuse to do so for diminishing returns at the same time leadership qualities diminish.  Draftees in the trenches in WWI died in large numbers, far more casualties than in Vietnam.  By that latter war, draftees were unwilling to risk their lives.  Why?  It wasn’t that the older generation was better, it was the fact the empire had already withdrawn sharing the spoils with the lower classes, who then understood there was no point in risking their lives ( baring certain cultures such as the southern mountain poor which were always neglected by their empire, whichever one they were in, and used the military as an escape, while being raised fighting.  A rare combination, and hence the exception ).  Just because people are poor doesn’t make them stupid, you ignorant Yuppie twat!

*

Well, the other night I’m watching the new Kong movie, Skull Island or whatever, since it was free.  A typical popcorn movie, so dripping with political correctness I should have been snacking on my own vomit the entire movie.  I might be wrong, but I wasn’t aware of the wholesale use of Black officers in Vietnam, certainly not in aviation specialty units.  The female lead Kong falls for is depicted as having super strength, the males are all just dumb animals, the dumb animals on the island seemed just a bit too large for the ecosystem, the native dudes had female warriors which is absurd, and of course there simply HAD to be a love interest ( although subtle ) with a Black and Asian scientist.  I’m really surprised the transgenders didn’t have a role.  But you know, I could ignore most of that because I kept noticing that one soldier had a M203 and that was bugging me the entire time.  Were those even issued in Vietnam, or was it an anachronism? 

*

Well, don’t rush to your Wiki searches, in fact the weapon was adopted in 1969 and by the early ‘70’s some were seen in the war, so I was wrong.  But I just couldn’t get that out of my mind.  Damn M203, a very crappy replacement for the specialty M79 ( the M79 was a single shot break open grenade launcher, nicknamed the Blooper after its launching noise, issued to the grenadier.  The M203 was a hunk of plastic crap joined underneath to the M16 where you used the carbines magazine as a pistol grip and slid a round into a very short tube ).  Firing the 203 was a HUGE pain in the ass.  The sites blow and the whole arrangement is not in the slightest agronomic.  The military trains you in its use for a very short period, gives you three shots with training rounds ( powder dye rather than explosive ), then expects you to pick up the unit years later with no remedial training and use it to good effect.  They became, at least in my unit, more status symbols than anything else as the senior sergeant carried one.  They never trained on it, you understand. 

*

Now, here is the thing.  A grenadier used to actual serve a very needed purpose, delivering small bombs on target.  He was a mobile embedded mortar man with a fire team or squad.  The M79 was an improvement in just tossing a grenade like a baseball, the range far beyond muscle powered.  Now your squad had its own artillery.  Bullets tend to be fired horizontally and your enemy takes cover accordingly, but a mortar round or a grenade comes in over your head, dropped from above.  And it is high explosive fragments which does much nicer damage than a bullet.  From the very beginning of the war the M79 was in use, issued to a dedicated grenadier, and it was very popular with the troops.  Because it, you know, actually worked well in saving their asses.  Now, I tend to dismiss most of the efforts of the military because of their leadership, and for very good reason, but one thing you have to give them credit for was the ability to eventually get themselves pretty good weapons, eventually, with all that Military Industrial Complex spending going on, from 1939 to about 1963-5.  Prior to that date the military wasn’t needed to support the economy ( or, wasn’t allowed to anyway ), nor was it yet an imperial force, and after that date which was the effective end of empire, military weapons went from economic stimulus with high utility in defense, to merely an economic stimulus, period, with diminishing utility.

*

You can clearly see the trend which started with the M16 and just got worse and worse ( the same would apply across most weapons systems, I‘m sure, from tanks and ships to aircraft, but I‘m only familiar with infantry weapons, merely picking up the occasional disillusionment with other weapons as I read widely ).  A prototype of this did exist in the M14, but that was just doctrinal rather than in the equipment.  The M14 was a vast improvement over the Garand, mostly replacing what sucked and keeping what worked, mostly.  The problem was that the military wanted to replace three weapons with one.  The BAR, a portable squad machine gun ( always problematic with capacity but you could saw down trees with the bastard.  It weighed about as much as a tree, too.  But at least it wasn’t an M60 ), the submachinegun and the Garand.  But the M14 only replaced the Garand competently.  Using it as a machinegun didn’t work in the slightest since the rifle didn’t weigh enough and it weighed way too much to replace a submachinegun.  So, what was the solution there?  Making a squad automatic gun from a rimfire carbine which was supposed to also be a sniper rifle.  But, that came long after the effective collapse of a useful military ( today there is even question if our nuclear deterrent is even effective, as testing was banned and old weapons must be replaced by new, but we can’t test the new.  We test on a computer.  A Blue Screen Of Death computer, I have no doubt ).  In the meantime they just kept introducing one weapon crappier than the last. 

*

We simply couldn’t keep a weapon that the actual end users voting their confidence in, could we?  We’ve become so blinded by bigger and bigger explosives, our religiously fervorish adherence to Second Generational Warfare only seeing volume rather than quality deliverance, a single shot grenade wasn’t acceptable.  We had to have automatic fire added in with that.  The grenadier had to spray and pray with the rest of the men.  Never mind he didn’t hit anything, because of that old horizontal fire thing, and then when he had to use a grenade he still couldn’t hit anything because the frigging rifle got in the way of aiming the grenade PLUS it only got half the range of the specialty weapon it replaced, with a non specialized user no less, never mind all that because there was more rounds down range.  Same with the 223 replacing the 308, same with the 9mm replacing the 45.  As the number of personnel in the military was drastically shrunk in tune with our imploding economy, each soldier now had to fire a lot more.  Aiming was secondary.

*

We now had two soldiers, a grenadier and a marksman, replaced by one guy with a submachinegun who on very rare occasions ineffectively lobbed a very anemic grenade in the kinda sorta general direction of the enemy.  The quantity shrank up to 90% and the quality followed suite.  We now need to equip our carbines with electronic sites that cost double the amount of the gun it is mounted on, so that we can come close to hitting something-with a friggin submachinegun!  I guess the military is too busy learning gender sensitivity, sexual orientation sensitivity, not to mention rapid magazine changes because volume is more important than hits, that they can’t be bothered with marksmenship, fielding weapons that work or unencumbering their troops of all that bullet resistance clothing so the poor bastards can run out of the way rather than standing there like RoboCop, absorbing lead awaiting his turn to electronically target the perpetrator with a cool low weight high velocity burst.  Seriously, dude, go back and watch the movie RoboCop.  You’ll never look at military tactics the same.

*

Notice here that I am NOT wasting time decrying the serious decay of our military.  That process started before I was even born, and as I no longer have any dog in that fight I don’t seriously care anymore.  I’m not taking another opportunity to hate on the M16 ( you’ll notice I heroically restrained myself ).  I’m pointing out the idiocy of our military, trying to get you to see reason so you don’t emulate or even much fear them.  Understanding your enemy gives you a more intelligent way to oppose them. 

END ( today's related link http://amzn.to/2uZBVOW )
 
Please support Bison by buying through the Amazon ad graphics at the top of the page. ***You can make donations or book purchases through PayPal ( www.paypal.me/jimd303 )
*** Unless you are in extreme poverty, spend a buck a month here, by the above donation methods or buy a book. If you don't do Kindle, send me a buck and I'll e-mail it to you.  Or, send an extra buck and I'll send you a CD ( the file is in PDF.  I’ll waive this fee if you order three or more books at one time ).  My e-mail is: jimd303@reagan.com  My address is: James M Dakin, 181 W Bullion Rd #12, Elko NV 89801-4184
*** Pay your author-no one works for free.  I’m nice enough to publish for barely above Mere Book Money, so do your part.***   Land In Elko*  Lord Bison* my bio & biblio*   my web site is www.bisonprepper.com *** Wal-Mart wheat***Amazon Author Page
* By the by, all my writing is copyrighted. For the obtuse out there

 

 

35 comments:

  1. Now I want an M79. I guess the frugal have to settle for the Molotov.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One of the Paladin Press gang wrote the usually expensive book on a homemade M79. It seemed all pretty easy except for the exploding part. Ragnar, perhaps? Can't remember the author or book name.

      Delete
  2. What! not emulate our Military?!?! But I want to have a logistics tail that can reach around the globe, and spend nearly a trillion dollars a year!
    Oh.
    You mean I can only spend the money I have (or can get with my credit), and can only rely on myself and maybe that tiny number of people who voluntarily will help me prepare for the coming collapse. That is a shock, I tell you. A total shock. The ex navy seal airborne ranger on the other site told me to send tens of thousands of the expensive depleted uranium rounds down range to ensure that I could be one of the chosen ones.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The FLIR, dammit, don't forget the FLIR!!!

      Delete
    2. Well of course a FLIR and an entire optical analyzis kit so you know exactly to the fraction of a millimeter away the oponent is, and how fast they are moving, until, you know, the smoke they start using obscures your view then you can only measure the smoke and fires.

      Delete
    3. Ahhh....."Predator" type variable vision equipment?

      Delete
  3. for those who missed it-

    Survey
    https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/FBNFH6N

    link to results
    https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-6LY6KXWZ/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting so far. After a day or two a summation may be in order. If I forget, please remind me.

      Delete
    2. I will be away from the net for most of this coming week. I'll post the summary late next week.

      Delete
  4. Two ressources I recommend, inspired by the topic :
    Belgian strategy specialist (in French) Des armes à tout faire ? Modularité et polyvalence des équipements militaires ( https://www.ifri.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fs54henrotin.pdf )

    RAND foundation's “Commonality in Military Equipment” :
    ( http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG719.pdf )

    The article from RAND rounds up the problematic quite well.

    There is nothing wrong with making “general-purpose” weapons, such as the Germans did with the MG34 for instance, which I'll use as an example here. “General-purpose” is only working when you know exactly what the purposes look like.

    The Reichswehr (even before Nazi madness) wanted a light MG that could also be used for sustainable fire. This was only possible through the development of the quick-change-barrel feature.

    The quick-change barrel feature was not a “gimmick” but it was integrated into a very well defined doctrine. This is why European countries (Belgium, Sweden) developped it on their M1918 BAR, but the USA didn't.

    And this is where we come to the M203 + M16 issue. At one given moment the doctrine could not be defined by the enemy. The enemy was simply everybody, from industrial nations (USSR) to low-level insurgents, from Urban Combat to the Jungle to the Desert.

    So, as you said, the doctrine was defined for its users. Westerners were growing weaker from their lifestyle (agriculture was now mechanized, and even present-day Appalachians would not have had the same endurance as any farmer's son in 1914) and had to be motivated rather than forced. So everything was motorized (helicopters in Viet-Nam, Humvees etc) and the logisitcal trail grew exponentially.

    But the qualification of the soldiers actually decreased, as the qualification of an entire country. Simply put, on average people were getting dumber and one had to scrape the barrel's bottom (here a great conference about "McNamara's morons" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J2VwFDV4-g )

    So instead of a dedicated weapon which required training and practice, a simplification was issued (the M203). The idea was IMHO not to save on training, but to acknowledge the limitations of the troops. I'm not talking about various "elite" forces (nowadays, the word "elite" simply says the guys had proper training) but disposable grunts. This is also why initiative, on any level, is discouraged and the army turned out as moronic as the office jobs themselves.

    ( The M14 was retained, but as a Designated Marksman Weapon, who received some level of training, and is less expendable.)
    IMHO a nation's army and a nation's school system are very comparable (hence the mercs, who turn out to be as inept as the natinal army).

    Now it's Ritalin while you're in school and it's going to be Captagon in the army (with some assorted illegal drugs in between, US occupation forces in Germany were known for drug issues).

    Can youy homeschool / hometrain soldiers ? Only up to a certain degree, after that you need specialists and it's expensive (annual schooling cost of a mid-school pupil in France : 8,500 Euros)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, the High Tech Soldier, well trained, is as artificial as his equipment's potency, if the weapons were made to fit the soldier. That explains the M-16 rather well, also ( ouch! Recoil! Oooh, aiming! ). I think you are correct in that schooling and the military are similar, as well as a reflection of culture. So, no, no way around the fact that all our military training is going to be OJT ( on the job training ).

      Delete
    2. >> So, the High Tech Soldier, well trained, is as artificial as his equipment's potency, if the weapons were made to fit the soldier.

      Yes, the weapon should fit the mission, of which the soldier is only an element. That said, the Soviet bloc was not better, the AK47 was designed for a conscript army with next to no training.

      Nowadays there is a gap between high-tech multipliers (missiles, very costly, high training, high footprint) and what grunts do. This is why the "Hybrid Warfare" model is so popular, boots on the ground are now some local dudes with very little training, but the theater-changing elements are always high-tech.

      Once the collapse is here, high-tech becomes impossible, and so is the logistical train. What people will have is lots of time (and experience...). So training will, by necessity but also for want of any other component, become again very important. The preferred weapon for this environment would be : accurate (much fewer ammunition to go around, even if only for logistical reasons - every shot must be aimed) and durable (no replacement parts, harsh environment).

      After the collapse, the machine-gun and even semi-automatic weapon will be unpractical, because it's not the Great Depression but a COLLAPSE, meaning that many things nowadays taken for granted are absent.

      Now this is a mission-specific doctrine :)

      Delete
    3. Oh, we can get the basics, and, if we are smart we can figure out the logistics beforehand (adapting to suit the needs and resources of the time).
      But the big problem with the current US military is one of resources that they cant improve (recruits, that have to be 'volunteers') and other resources that can obscure the faults of the resources that are lacking (money without realistic end). This makes for a massive drive towards having every thing provided in as simple a form as possible for the average soldier, and setting up a supply chain that reaches everywhere, and a doctrine that relies on the supply chain and the 'elite' soldiers and technologies to fight enemies. Enemies whose supply chain consists of what they can scrounge from around themselves and a rifle and handful of ammunition. Those enemies managing to remain unconquered and bleeding our military dry.

      Delete
    4. I was in from 74-78 and 1 M203 was issued per 12 man squad (line company standard). I carried one several times and didn't like the additional weight. I qualified with it and did hit the target - a disabled tank turret, several times. Same with the LAW.

      Going through basic (Fort Knox), probably 90% qualified with the M16 as Marksman (lowest level) and at least half of them got passed on by drill sgts even though they couldn't hit the target. There was extensive cheating through out basic.

      At one point the CO asked who had a drivers license and out of about 175 swinging dingu's only me and 4 or 5 others had one. I was stunned at how many people did not have a dl. They needed someone to drive the International 2.5t lunch truck out to the range. It had a stick shift and of the 5 that had dl's I was the only one that could work a manual transmission, so I drove that day and everybody else walked. YAY!

      Delete
    5. I had learned on a manual myself, which only meant I was the idiot driving under blackout, trying not to kill us. No biscuit for me. At least it was still the Willy's instead of the goat humping Hummer.

      Delete
    6. Ave & JJ: I am hardly claiming that the average recruit is any great shakes, but the officers in charge of everything are as bad if not worse. The AK was made for peasants and peasants all over the world can use them. Thee tiny ones can use the M16, but why bother when it jams and can't put down a small rabid monkey?

      Delete
    7. Those old LAW’s were manually sighted, so I can imagine that it must have been a total bitch to hit anything with one. Nothing like the later TOW which was optically sighted (You simply put the red dot on whatever you wanted to hit, and it went there). Same with those 2.75” rockets that you used to see mounted in pods on the Huey helicopters. Horribly inaccurate, and really only good for strafing.

      I too am amazed at how few people know how to drive a manual transmission, and many of them are my age, in their 50’s. I suppose that it’s safe to assume that there is no shortage of people that can walk and chew gum at the same time 🙁

      Delete
    8. I don't even recall much training on the LAW. I think they just demonstrated in front of the class, then told us the instructions were printed on it.

      Delete
    9. I used to joke that a technique of the anti-US left was to make each piece of equipment and every trooper so expensive that 1) there wasn't enought of them to make a difference, and 2) nobody would dare use them because of the expense.

      Maybe that isn't a joke any more.

      I now read that the Air Force is looking for a cheap light attack aircraft so as to 'avoid wear on the more expensive systems."

      Yep.

      Not much good news this morning.

      Kaffir

      Delete
    10. When you use up your military equipment and can't replace it, you know your empire might be crumbling.

      Delete
    11. i'm almost 70 wanted to learn on a manual but it wasn't taught anymore due o no one wanting it.

      Delete
    12. Manual is much better driving on snow and ice. A shame auto became the standard.

      Delete
  5. Amen on the superiority of the M79 over the M203. Former AF cop during the Carter Administration assigned to SAC. (RIP!) M203 was issued to the passenger in all SAT vehicles - I always felt I was carrying a prototype for a new toy in Mattel's "Agent Zero M" line. The ammo box of twelve grenades was a tad unwieldy but SAC did do bandoleers. I talked the armorer into issuing me both an M16 and M79 (SAC was issuing .38 S&W revolvers as sidearms in those days with Korean War vintage hardball ammo - we threw NOTHING away.) when I was riding SAT patrol. Not only was the M79 compact and easy to haul around, it actually worked for its actual purpose - and in fairness is likely the source of my affection for break-open single-shot shotguns to this day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Strategic Air Command is no more? Aren't they like kind of important? Did we go to subs primarily? I feel like I missed something major here-color me a dumbass.

      Delete
    2. About '89, when the USSR went Tango Uniform, most of what the USAF did went obsolete. TAC was designed to defend against Soviet tactical air over the Fulda Gap; SAC was designed to counter Soviet threat via MAD. Air Force was evaluated (I was a member of one of the committees) and found wanting. It seemed to me that the only thing they did worth a bucket of warm spit was MAT, moving real soldiers around the world relatively quickly.

      So, the USAF underwent a major reorg. SAC and TAC went away, replaced, in small part by 'composite' air wings, made up of bits and pieces of SAC and TAC.

      It seemed that the Navy did strategic deterrence better. In fact nothing the Air Force did couldn't be done better by the other branches, except bus and truck service. For example, troops wanted close air support, rapidly mobile artillery, such as provided by the A-10, and the Air Force hated the A-10.

      There were lots of major changes, but the funny one was the resultant surplus of flag officers in the Air Force; they were a dime a dozen. So, whereas SAC wing commanders were colonels, the new composite wings were commanded by 0-7s, to find a home for all these surplus brigadiers.

      That was a long time ago and my lack of interest in such things has led to a corresponding lack of memory, but it was something very close to that.

      LeMay was the last real warrior in the Air Force. I could tell you some stories about what happened the day he retired.

      I expect someone might disagree with my assessment. Their turn now, I guess.

      Delete
    3. Most interesting, thank you. I'd say 88 to 95 was rather insular for me, rather divorced from the larger world around me. In between careers, marriage, kids and a long stretch of graveyard shifts. What little I followed was political and ground based military. So, appreciated, your summary was great.

      Delete
    4. You are quite welcome; it was my pleasure. I enjoy your work, your obvious passion for your topic, as well as your interesting point of view.

      kaffir

      Delete
    5. Glad you like it. My hair, also, I'm assuming.

      Delete
    6. I recall in reading one of Ragnar Benson's books, of the description of Phillapine guerrillas having a DIY M79, using break open shotgun and a cartridge having a piece of dynamite as the projectile. Lobbed under a vehicle, it made great fireworks.

      At least, that is what I remember.

      Delete
    7. What confuses me, although it shouldn't, is that the M79 was a wonderful improvement on the rifle fired grenade, then they screwed that up. To the equivalent of the device you describe.

      Delete
  6. If I could get the ammo, I would take 2 of these...

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Lake_grenade_launcher

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you were to give me one I wouldn't turn it down, but I think I'd much prefer the regular Blooper for reliability.

      Delete
  7. Always your hair, Jim. A source of great jealousy here. I was sad to have SAC go the way of the dodo. And kaffir is dead right about LeMay - the shift toward more political Generals was occurring as he approached retirement but really picked up steam during the Carter years and flat left the rails during Obama.

    It is still funny to me that a fighting General stands out as odd and noteworthy today (Mattis), when in WWII and Korea you could not swing a dead cat without hitting one. Politicians and lawyers can screw up a free hot dog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Politicians and lawyers, but you usually repeat yourself, could screw up a free harem and room of gold next to a all you can eat bacon buffet with a stocked full auto firing range inside.

      Delete

I must moderate-trust me. Criticize ideas, NOT the people behind them. Be civil. You will be warned twice and the third time just deleted. No N-Bombs. If you disagree with me, you must praise my hair first.