---

Interesting link.

Personally, I can't buy the "sexual repression" take that the film-maker has, but the zealotry angle is credible.

Has to do with the heresy of Mohammed, whose invented religion, while based in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, veers off and denies the Trinity. For Christians, the Trinity affirms (infinitely) love.

posted by Dad29 on October 28, 2005 12:41 PM

---

That's pretty chilling, when you think about it. We are fighting a war, but the cause of it is something that hasn't even been addressed, really.

posted by Barb on October 28, 2005 2:31 PM

---

you know, the writer might not be totally wrong on the repression issue. I think when people see that they automatically think of freudian concepts of the Oedipus complex. But, if you really understood what this guy was saying (and what freud meant) is that the guys are missing tenderness, closeness and womanly love which is generally considered to be the softening touch.

you know, who told you to stop fighting more? your mom or your dad?

In the western culture we have a tradition of romantic heroes that do things for the love of a woman. Islam used to have that tradition, but it got stomped out in the intervening years of religious duty over taking secular pleasures.

Think about why the Spanish inquisition was able to go on and last so long. Or why burning witches/heretics at the stake was popular in some countries. You almost always see extreme cruelty occur in periods of extra special puritanical behavior. the fervor for god replaces the fervor for secular and sexual pleasure; it's the replacement emotional outlet that, when practiced in it's extreme is quite orgiastic.

You ever see a man speak in tongues?

Even when some of these men are married, it is very likely that they were virgins at the time. Not a bad thing in a general sense but when that includes the idea that sex is sinful (which they already get the idea from the pre-marital life) and they probably have some functional issues considering all the repression to that time that can damage the ego.

And think, why would the mother believe that it is better to die a shaheed and have virgins in heaven than to live and give her grandchildren? Can you imagine the repressed life of a woman behind the veil married to a man who believes that women are only useful as child bearers and house keepers? She most likely has not experienced any pleasure herself. Better the son dies than to inflict or suffer the same fate. We are talking about the subconscious here, not necessarily a conscious decision making

posted by kat-missouri on October 28, 2005 3:06 PM

---

My heavens, you run a good blog, John. I don't even read the posts some days just to get to the discussion you trigger.

posted by Alan on October 28, 2005 9:31 PM

---

I just have an eclectic readership, Alan.

I'm just the catalyst...

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 28, 2005 10:04 PM

---

« Dismissed, Soldier!

In the hand-thrown configuration, this grenade came with a drogue attached to the end (attached via a loop screwed in where the rod goes on this grenade) that provided drag to keep the grenade oriented nose-first. This is necessary because you have to generate enough wind-passage through the holes in the nose for the propeller to spin to arm the striker pin... to me, a completely un-needed feature - but this is not the only grenade that does something similar. The Brits had at least two, one of which *also* resides in the Castle Armories... gee, we might see *that* later, ya think? After you've done that, it still needs to be nose-first, because function relies on the square impact on the nose to explode the grenade. Another consequence of the drogue? You lose range, due to the drag. And training to account for that probably took a while, and you had to have a different set of muscle memory for tossing a standard grenade.

You can see the guts in this diagram from an Italian manual on the subject. This drawing represents a slightly different nose profile for the grenade, I haven't been able to find out if it pre- or post-dates the more rounded contour of the Castle's example. You can see the drogue and it's attachment to the loop on the bottom. The cord wrapped around the body until used. The friction (delay) fuze extending from the side is removable before use, if you intend to use the percussion contact fuze.

On the right side of the diagram you can see a cutaway of the internals, shown in this photo, below. On the left is the rod, which fit in the barrel of the rifle. In the center is the friction fuze (what's left after being made safe), removed. On the right, top to bottom: Nose (the brass part - anybody know why it's made of brass and not steel?) with the lower hole being where the fuze went in. On my grenade that part is *not yet* removable, but we'll get there with patience. Next is the explosive container, followed by the fragmentation sleeve, followed by the grenade body. Keeping in mind that this grenade is about as big as a hot dog (that rod fits into a 7.9mm rifle bore) all those layers reduce the internal volume considerably. Here's another shot showing all the bits partially nested.

In all probability, this was *not* a very powerful or impressive grenade in use. And given all the engineering that had to go into it - hardly worth the effort or expense, either, I would guess. Which might explain why it both didn't have a long service life... and when recovered from the high alpine battlefields of the Italian/Austro-Hungarian battlefields, they are many times found in groups, as several had to be thrown to get one to work properly. At least those were battlefields with some decent rock in them... vice the mudbaths of the Western Front. Well, except for when it was snowy...

Oh, yeah - the brass part. Brass is *much* easier to work than steel, and - since the percussion fuze relies on compressing the cap - it's also much softer. At least that's my take on it. Not a whole lot out there in English, and not a whole lot more in Italian or German, either.

Lastly - you can go visit Inert-Ord.net and see a nicely preserved model (which shows the propeller disassembled, too, which I can't yet do). He and I have the same references, too, I see.

« Secure this line!

---

But, but, but, when do you finish the evolution of firearms series?(wipes nose on sleeve like 5 year old)

posted by ry on October 27, 2005 4:50 PM

---

Great! I check out for a couple of days, and I miss a great Name That Fiddy Bit Round of Game.

Carica di Scopplo!!! Looove the Italian Stripped Schematics.

posted by Boquisucio on October 27, 2005 4:51 PM

---

Yay me! I was right for a change heh!

posted by BloodSpite on October 27, 2005 4:56 PM

---

Teach ya to play hooky, Boq. Say... howzabout a translation? Then can *add* to internet knowledge (at least for English-speakers).

Neffi - where's my bayonets? Snerk!

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 27, 2005 5:00 PM

---

John, I've been caught up in the grenade series- but I'll have a bayo story to you this weekend.
If there's any interest there will be more...

posted by Neffi on October 27, 2005 7:02 PM

---

John, sweetheart....
Don't you know by now the Ya-Ya's aren't interested in mere hot dogs? It takes at least a Big Red Smokie to get *our* attention.....

posted by Were-Kitten on October 27, 2005 9:33 PM

---

I know I've probably missed a great deal of this as it's difficult to keep up with you guys.. but where's the stuff I might see in the Stan?

Time is getting short! I can't freakin wait!

Oh and another question.. anyone.. ANYONE know of anything cool that chicks can do?

Since we can't go to sniper school, or do high speed, low drag, kick in door stuff?

I need a new goal.. and although I appreciate 'The Company' I doubt they'd take me.

Email any advice please!
;)

posted by Army Girl on October 27, 2005 10:17 PM

---

See my email, Ms. Girl!

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 27, 2005 10:27 PM

---

« Dismissed, Soldier!

---

mmmmmm.... looks like fun, John!

purrrrr

posted by Were-Kitten on October 26, 2005 9:41 AM

---

Hmmm, "hand tools" huh?

At least there aren't any sharp edges. :-)

posted by Masked Menace© on October 26, 2005 10:38 AM

---

You tease, John! :)

posted by Fuzzybear Lioness on October 26, 2005 10:48 AM

---

MM-
Hand tools: GOOD
Sharp edges: BAD. VERY bad.

posted by Were-Kitten on October 26, 2005 11:20 AM

---

"For a Good Time, call John"
*snerk*

posted by Barb on October 26, 2005 11:25 AM

---

Ladies - the men in your lives inadequate or something?

Geez.

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 26, 2005 1:26 PM

---

Not going near the "hand tools" remarks. A guy could hurt himself.

Although those could simplify the tool box. After all, a proper amount of explosives can solve *any* problem...

...except how to fill in the resultant crater.

posted by UtahMan on October 26, 2005 1:40 PM

---

#82,
Not everyone is as lucky as SWWBO.

posted by Were-Kitten on October 26, 2005 1:49 PM

---

UM- if your use of explosives is leaving craters where you don't wish them... then you aren't using your explosives correctly.

I've seen a 155mm HE round safely disposed of while on the porch of a house... with almost no damage to the house except some scorch marks on the concrete of the porch.

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 26, 2005 2:16 PM

---

Hmmm... Wouldn't happen to be your house, would it, John? ;)

posted by Fuzzybear Lioness on October 26, 2005 2:21 PM

---

No, of course not. I don't own any explosive ordnance capable of exploding!

I am a good boy, I am.

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 26, 2005 2:30 PM

---

*sneaks behind john... uncrosses his fingers*

riiiiiiight

posted by Were-Kitten on October 26, 2005 2:47 PM

---

Potato smashers. YIPEEE!!

posted by CDR Salamander on October 26, 2005 2:51 PM

---

When I first flipped to the page, i thought that John was going my way and showing us some maces. LOL Then I realized those were really grenades and I came to the conclusion that the shape of percussion weapons really hadn't changed much in 800 years. ;)

posted by kat-missouri on October 26, 2005 4:52 PM

---

Well, they haven't. Not really.

This is a WWI trench mace of the Royal Inniskillings...

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 26, 2005 5:08 PM

---

The M1917 spud-masher is missing the bakelite cap that originally covered the friction fuze pull-string... but I bet that's not what yer looking for, eh?

posted by Neffi on October 26, 2005 5:33 PM

---

Nope. Wouldn't expect to find that on a battlefield pick-up, either... but since I didn't make that clear, no penalty.

But you *are* close, in a cosmic way.

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 26, 2005 5:47 PM

---

...no penalty... PHEWWW... [wipes sweaty brow]
Thanks fer the break, John.
heh

posted by Neffi on October 26, 2005 7:02 PM

---

ps- re the streamers on the impact-fuzed Brit jobbies... you should prolly elucidate, since this is an educational post. Dinna forget that most of us are iggerant...

posted by Neffi on October 26, 2005 7:11 PM

---

That would why it was termed... "Preview of Coming Attractions..."

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 26, 2005 7:55 PM

---

...love it. Bring it on...!

posted by Neffi on October 26, 2005 8:45 PM

---

We're not confused, John. We're just creative and resourceful with common battlefield objects. You should see what we can do with modern weapons. *grin*

posted by Were-Kitten on October 26, 2005 8:52 PM

---

Four of your Brit toys have red/green markings, save the No19. Was that the 1WW mark for inert or practice toys?

Cheers

posted by J.M. Heinrichs on October 27, 2005 6:56 AM

---

The red band means the grenade is filled (i.e., doesn't have to be filled by the ultimate user or some lower-level ordnance operation.

The green band means the grenade is filled with Baratol, TNT, Trotyl, or Amatol.

The Mills also has the Red Xs, which means the grenade is filled and sealed for use in tropical (moist) climates.

The bronze painted body of the Mills also indicates it's a drill grenade. I'm not sure if drill grenades got filler markings, etc, for training purposes, or if the collectors took drill grenades and added the markings, keeping the bronze color so as not to cause hissyfits among EOD personnel.

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 27, 2005 7:03 AM

---

Wait... you mean these AREN'T primitive Neanderthal corn-dogs found at an archeological dig in Ethiopia? :-)

posted by Harvey on October 27, 2005 7:37 PM

---

« Dismissed, Soldier!

---

As I understand, the French Archers all had the runs that day. Cholera certainly played a part in its outcome.

posted by Boquisucio on October 25, 2005 8:30 AM

---

I saw a rather interesting show the other day that looked at this. They looked at the bodkin arrowhead vs. the chestplate common amoungst the French knigits. A metalurgist claimed to show that the arrow couldn't penetrate using a haydraulic ram to smash the arrow point into a reproduction chest plate. The arrowhead bent.
So what won Agincourt in the show's opinion? Mud and Generalship. Henry chose the field expertly to his advantage. THe French make the mistake of trying to emulate the Brits by having the knigits fight on foot, and when they fall over they drown IN MUD.
I don't know if I buy it, but would go a long way to show that 'an army of lions lead by a deer cannot defeat an army of deer lead by a deer'. Or any damn fool can lead his army to be slaughtered.

posted by ry on October 25, 2005 9:28 AM

---

The penetration potential of a clothe-yard shaft from an English longbow may be open to discussion- though I would hate to be the one in the armor...
But archers on foot don't shoot at the man- they go for the horse. Bring down the charger and the armored knight- sprawling in the mud and unable to drag himself to his feet- is easy prey for any knave with a bodkin.
That was the true humiliation for the French at Agincourt (and Crecy)- that the flower of French nobility was slaughtered like pigs by peasants who had been doing just that before the campaign...

posted by Neffi on October 25, 2005 9:51 AM

---

Neffi's correct--you shoot the horse and the rider becomes a battlefield pickup. And archers were trained to loose in volleys at the center of mass of an approaching force, rather than taking aimed shots at individuals--the archers' function was to break or slow the attacker's momentum.

And, even though a breastplate will deflect an arrow (but not a crossbow quarrel), there are plenty of weak spots in a suit of plate (or a visored casque) that a clothyard shaft can penetrate and discomfit the inhabitant.

posted by cw4(ret)billt on October 25, 2005 10:52 AM

---

I've got a reference that says that the French knights fought on foot ever after the defeat at Crecy(someone remind me to look it up later). So if they're on foot how do you shoot a horse?

I get NEffi's point about not wanting to be on the recieving end of even a non-penetrating shot. BUt that's the thrust of the show's claim. In piss poor footing even a non-penetrating shot could cause a knight to fall down in the mud, get trampled by a succeeding line of dismounted knights, and drown in the mud before the peasnat army could slit throats. This would be the disruption that the Chief speaks of, no?

Maybe we should get Kat to comment on this. She seems to have been doing a bit of study on armor of late. Oh, and Kat, somewhere there's a Darpa page that has a link for guidelines on white paper submissions(not at home, don't have that in the favorites here). YOur ideas on shoulder/armpit protection could proll'y go through that process.

posted by ry on October 25, 2005 11:19 AM

---

Was this the last time the French had an army that actually fought?

posted by Jim on October 25, 2005 11:50 AM

---

Jim - I for one have never argued with the bravery and skill of the French soldier. I won't slander the men who held Verdun, or fought at Dien Bien Phu, or who died on Wellington's bayonets and grape at Waterloo.

I slam their Generalship and the political systems they serve.

But not the soldier.

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 25, 2005 12:00 PM

---

The majority of the knights at Agincourt fought mounted, although there were reportedly dismounted knights who fought in the ranks of the men-at-arms (heavy infantry), who were fairly-well chain- or scale-mailed themselves.

Part of the chaos in the French lines was caused by wounded, panicked horses slamming into the advancing ranks of infantry (the knights moved from the flanks to the van too soon, before the infantry had a chance to clear the archers and their anti-cavalry stakes).

I managed a fifty-yard dash wearing a 40-pound chicken plate during a mortar attack, but I wasn't in any shape to swing a broadsword afterwards, and full armor (plate, leather or chain underoos and padding) in the 14th-15th Centuries weighed in the neighborhood of eighty pounds. No way a large force of dismounted knights would be able to move far enough, fast enough to avoid being rendered combat-ineffective by 800 archers--visualize thirty King Tigers moving hub-to-hub, jostling to squeeze into a space twenty Stuarts wide...

posted by cw4(ret)billt on October 25, 2005 12:12 PM

---

... or an Apache trying to slip through a tree lane wide enough for a LOACH.

Cheers

posted by J.M. Heinrichs on October 25, 2005 2:38 PM

---

Heh. Somebody else who obviously saw that "O, Ye of Little Faith" video...

posted by cw4(ret)billt on October 25, 2005 4:14 PM

---

I've always wondered if French officers (alliances notwithstanding)shared a quiet snicker when HMS Cressy, Aboukir, and Hogue- all named after British victories over the French- were sunk by U-9 back in '14...

posted by Neffi on October 25, 2005 6:02 PM

---

Well, I did read up on this from multiple sources. There is a question of how effective a long bow and clothe yard shaft is against plate armor. What seems to be recurrent is that at less than a 100 yards a well trained archer could effectively place an arrow just about anywhere he wanted and that included vulnerable places of the armor.

So, the first mistake was that the French, being superior in number, chose to send (or they chose themselves) appx 150 knights at a time down the narrow open field allowing each successive waive to be slaughtered. The arrows en masse killed horses and occasionally killed a man landing in a vulnerable part of the knight. As the horses fell, the charge slowed. As they approached the line of archers, the archers then took more careful aim and killed more knights. by the time the men had reached the line of archers, there were very few and they were further disrupted by the stakes in the ground.

If you look at my website you'll see I note weapons from the period for foot soldiers. By this time, foot soldiers had invented ingenious weapons to pull mounted men from their horses and pry them from their armor.

Now, it is false that a man in armor, once on the ground, was doomed. But, it is true that a man in armor trapped in the mud is less mobile. The other important fact is that these men spent nearly life times in their armor. They were well conditioned. They needed to be to survive on the battle field since 15 minute battle is like three hours to us. But, even geography and mud can be a big deal when only a 150 men charge 3000.

That was a product of arrogance and poor leadership. The reason that only 150 at a time went down the line wasn't just about the narrowness of the field. As noted, they had two weak leaders appointed by the king. The nobles brought their own sworn knights and men at arms. These men cared nothing for battle tactics so much as the glory of the battle and their own ignorance. The first waives of knights were not sent out from a single battle line to be slaughtered but rather formed up and charged when they reached the battlefield, not waiting for their whole contingent to join them or receive orders.

One report by the English said that they kept coming like that for an hour and that, at some point, the men at arms and archers had to climb over the horses and the dead to reach the knights. At another point, the french leadership attempted to send their foot soldiers forward, but other knights seeing their fellow knights being mowed down, charged in and disrupted the foot soldiers charge, then being caught between again to be mowed down.

One thing that we should remember is that, of all the casualties and dead, about 1500 were from after the battle was actually over. Almost 1500 men were taken prisoner for ransom. You understand that pay was extremely low and that the knights and footmen thrived on the ranosm they received from prisoners, horses and equipment. So, while there was much slaughter during the battle, there were equal numbers of men who were pulled behind the lines to safety as prisoners.

Recall also that knights expected to be ransomed as an honorable part of battle. Unfortunately for these men, the fleeing knights and baggage train was perceived as a flanking movement by a re-enforcing force. Thus, after such a stirring speach, Henry V almost all 1500 men put to the sword. He had to convince his soldiers to do it because they presented a danger behind his lines. he could spare no guards. The men did not want to kill the prisoners, not just from any sense of chivalry, but because it meant the loss of money in their pockets. When somebody finally told Henry that it was just the fleeing column, he ordered the slaughter stopped but it was too late for 900 men.

So, remember that when we talk of the slaughter of the French that they didn't all die on the battlefield.

posted by kat-missouri on October 25, 2005 7:23 PM

---

Thanks Ry, for the DARPA suggestion.

posted by kat-missouri on October 25, 2005 8:23 PM

---

Okay, any questions on the lessons?

Good. Friday's essay test will cover the sociopolitical consequences of messing with Robin Hood's descendants.

posted by cw4(ret)billt on October 26, 2005 7:25 AM

---

Give me a M82A1 a good field of fire and a ghille suit anyday.

Keep the armor. And they call paratroopers nuts. Shesh.

Love the new comments disclaimer btw lol

posted by BloodSpite on October 26, 2005 8:34 AM

---

« Dismissed, Soldier!

---

That was a very sad day, thank you for the reminder.
*bows head in honor*

posted by Barb on October 23, 2005 1:08 PM

---

I want to thank you for your Blog. It is more then awesome! The things you write, the pictures...everything. Thank you!
Thank you for your service to our country. I am very proud of our Military.

posted by Wild Thing on October 23, 2005 6:21 PM

---

I had friends serving at that time 1983. I can never forget and thank you for this post you did about it.

posted by Wild Thing on October 23, 2005 6:23 PM

---

Yer welcome ma'am. Now... Duck! (for that to make sense, visit her blog...)

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 23, 2005 7:17 PM

---

The words I was taught had 'safely rest' as the second to last line.

posted by Stormy Dragon on October 23, 2005 8:19 PM

---

THE MILITARY TAPS

Day is done,
gone the sun,
From the hills,
from the lake,
From the skies.
All is well,
safely rest,
God is nigh.

Go to sleep,
peaceful sleep.
May the soldier
or sailor,
God keep.
On the land
or the deep,
Safe in sleep.

Love, good night,
Must thou go,
When the day,
And the night
Need thee so?
All is well.
Speedeth all
To their rest.

Fades the light; And afar
Goeth day,
And the stars
Shineth bright,
Fare thee well;
Day has gone,
Night is on.

Thanks and praise,
For our days,
'Neath the sun,
Neath the stars,
'Neath the sky,
As we go,
This we know,
God is nigh.

Words to Taps
While there are no words to Taps per se;
those given above are likely the most common.

There is a poignant myth about the origin of Taps that is circulating about the Internet. The true story is that in July 1862, after the Seven Days battles at Harrison's Landing (near Richmond), Virginia, the wounded Commander of the 3rd Brigade, 1st Division, V Army Corps, Army of the Potomac, General Daniel Butterfield reworked, with his bugler Oliver Wilcox Norton, another bugle call, "Scott Tattoo," to create Taps. He thought that the regular call for Lights Out was too formal. The custom, thus originated, was taken up throughout the Army of the Potomac and finally confirmed by orders." Soon other Union units began using Taps, and even a few Confederate units began using it as well. After the war, Taps became an official bugle call. Col. James A. Moss, in his Officer's Manual first published in 1911, gives an account of the initial use of Taps at a military funeral:

"During the Peninsular Campaign in 1862, a soldier of Tidball's Battery A of the 2nd Artillery was buried at a time when the battery occupied an advanced position concealed in the woods. It was unsafe to fire the customary three volleys over the grave, on account of the proximity of the enemy, and it occurred to Capt. Tidball that the sounding of Taps would be the most appropriate ceremony that could be substituted."

More about the history of Taps can be found at: http://www.west-point.org/taps/Taps.html

posted by twolaneflash on October 23, 2005 8:20 PM

---

I've linked that before, too.

For the record - the words as I put them I learned as a Boy Scout in Germany, in 1970... before the Internet as we know it.

posted by John of Argghhh! on October 23, 2005 8:41 PM

---

Thank you for noticing. Not many do.

posted by nimbus on October 24, 2005 5:28 PM

---

« Dismissed, Soldier!