.38 Special

The .38 Smith & Wesson Special, also commonly known as .38 S&W Special, .38 Special, .38 Spl, .38 Spc, (pronounced "thirty-eight special"), or 9x29mmR is a rimmed, centerfire cartridge designed by Smith & Wesson. It is most commonly used in revolvers, although some semi-automatic pistols and carbines also use this round. The .38 Special was the standard service cartridge for the vast majority of United States police departments from the 1920s to the 1990s, and it was also a common sidearm cartridge used by United States military personnel in World War I, World War II, Korean War, and Vietnam War. In other parts of the world, it is known by its metric designation of 9×29.5mmR or 9.1×29mmR.
Known for its accuracy and manageable recoil, the .38 Special remains one of the most popular revolver cartridges in the world more than a century after its introduction. It is used for target shooting, formal target competition, personal defense, and for hunting small game.
Overview.
The .38 Special was designed and entered production in 1898 as an improvement over the .38 Long Colt which, as a military service cartridge, was found to have inadequate stopping power against the charges of Filipino Muslim warriors during the Philippine–American War. Upon its introduction, the .38 Special was originally loaded with black powder, but the cartridge's popularity caused manufacturers to offer smokeless powder loadings within a year of its introduction.
Despite its name, the caliber of the .38 Special cartridge is actually .357 inches (36 caliber/9.07 mm), with the ".38" referring to the approximate diameter of the loaded brass case. This came about because the original .38-caliber cartridge, the .38 Short Colt, was designed for use in converted .36-caliber cap-and-ball Navy revolvers, which had untapered cylindrical firing chambers of approximately diameter that required heeled bullets, the exposed portion of which was the same diameter as the cartridge case.
Except for case length, the .38 Special is identical to the .38 Short Colt, .38 Long Colt, and .357 Magnum. This nearly identical nature of the three rounds allows a .38 Special round to be safely fired in revolvers chambered for .357 Magnum. It also allows .38 Short Colt and .38 Long Colt rounds to be safely fired in revolvers chambered for .38 Special. Thus the .38 Special round and revolvers chambered for it have a unique versatility. However, the longer and more powerful .357 Magnum cartridge will usually not chamber and fire in weapons rated specifically for .38 Special (e.g., all versions of the Smith & Wesson Model 10), which are not designed for the greatly increased pressure of the magnum rounds. Both .38 Special and .357 Magnum will chamber in Colt New Army revolvers in .38 Long Colt due to their straight walled chambers, but this should not be done under any circumstances, due to dangerous pressure levels up to three times what the New Army is designed to withstand.
History.
The .38 Special was designed and produced in 1898 to be a higher velocity round, with better penetration properties than the .38 Long Colt that was in Government Service in the Philippines during the Spanish–American War. The .38 Long Colt revolver round would not penetrate the insurgent Philippine Morro warrior shields, and the Government contracted the new revolver round to Smith & Wesson. The .38 Special held a minimum of 21 grains of black powder, which was 3 grains more than the current .38 Long Colt, and it was 100 to 150 feet per second faster with a 158 grain bullet.
During the late 1920s, and in response to demands for a more effective law enforcement version of the cartridge, a new standard-velocity loading for the .38 Special was developed by Western Cartridge Company. This .38 Special variant incorporated a round-nosed lead 'Lubaloy' bullet, the ".38 Super Police". Remington-Peters also introduced a similar loading. Testing revealed that the longer, heavier .357-calibre bullet fired at low velocity tended to 'keyhole' or tumble upon impact, providing more shock effect against unprotected personnel. At the same time, authorities in Great Britain, who had decided to adopt the .38 caliber revolver as a replacement for their existing .455 service cartridge, also tested the same bullet in the smaller .38 S&W cartridge. This cartridge was called the .38 S&W Super Police or the .38/200. Britain would later adopt the .38/200 as its standard military handgun cartridge.
In 1930, Smith & Wesson introduced a large frame .38 Special revolver with a 5-inch barrel and fixed sights intended for police use, the Smith & Wesson ".38/44 Heavy Duty". The following year, a new high-power loading called the ".38 Special Hi-Speed" with a metal-tip bullet was developed for these revolvers in response to requests from law enforcement agencies for a handgun bullet that could penetrate auto bodies and body armor. That same year, Colt Firearms announced that their Colt Official Police would also handle 'high-speed' .38 Special loadings. The .38/44 high-speed cartridge came in three bullet weights: , , and , with either coated lead or steel jacket, metal-piercing bullets. The media attention gathered by the .38/44 and its ammunition eventually led Smith & Wesson to develop a completely new cartridge with a longer case length in 1934, this was the .357 Magnum.
During World War II, some U.S. aircrew (primarily Navy and Marine Corps) were issued .38 Special S&W Victory revolvers as sidearms in the event of a forced landing. In May 1943, a new .38 Special cartridge with a , full-steel-jacketed, copper flash-coated bullet meeting the requirements of the rules of land warfare was developed at Springfield Armory and adopted for the Smith & Wesson revolvers. The new military .38 Special loading propelled its bullet at a standard from a revolver barrel. During the war, many U.S. naval and Marine aircrew were also issued red-tipped .38 Special tracer rounds using either a bullet for emergency signaling purposes.
In 1956, the U.S. Air Force adopted the "Cartridge, Caliber .38, Ball M41", a military variant of the .38 Special cartridge designed to conform to the rules of land warfare. The original .38 M41 ball cartridge used a 130-grain full-metal-jacketed bullet, and was loaded to an average pressure of only , giving a muzzle velocity of approximately from a barrel. This ammunition was intended to prolong the life of S&W M12 and Colt Aircrewman revolvers equipped with aluminum cylinders and frames, which were prone to stress fractures when fired with standard .38 ammunition. By 1961, a slightly revised M41 .38 cartridge specification known as the "Cartridge, Caliber .38 Ball, Special, M41" had been adopted for U.S. armed forces using .38 Special caliber handguns. The new M41 "Special" cartridge used a 130-grain FMJ bullet loaded to a maximum allowable pressure of for a velocity of approximately in a solid test barrel, and about from a revolver barrel. The M41 ball cartridge was first used in .38 revolvers carried by USAF aircrew and Strategic Air Command security police, and by 1961 was in use by the U.S. Army for security police, dog handlers, and other personnel equipped with .38 Special caliber revolvers. A variant of the standard M41 cartridge with a semi-pointed, unjacketed lead bullet was later adopted for CONUS (Continental United States) police and security personnel. At the same time, .38 tracer cartridges were reintroduced by the US Navy, Marines, and Air Force to provide a means of emergency signaling by downed aircrew. Tracer cartridges in .38 Special caliber of different colors were issued, generally as part of a standard aircrew survival vest kit.
A request for more powerful .38 Special ammunition for use by Air Police and security personnel resulted in the "Caliber .38 Special, Ball, PGU-12/B High Velocity" cartridge. Issued only by the U.S. Air Force, the PGU-12/B had a greatly increased maximum allowable pressure rating of 20,000 psi, sufficient to propel a 130-grain FMJ bullet at from a solid test barrel, and about 950–980 ft/s from a revolver barrel. The PGU-12/B "High Velocity" cartridge differs from M41 "Special" ammunition in two important respects—the "PGU-12/B" is a much higher-pressure cartridge, with a bullet deeply set and crimped into the cartridge case.
In response to continued complaints over ineffectiveness of the standard .38 Special 158-grain cartridge in stopping assailants in numerous armed confrontations during the 1950s and 1960s, ammunition manufacturers began to experiment with higher-pressure (18,500 CUP) loadings of the .38 Special cartridge, known as .38 Special +P. In 1972, the Federal Bureau of Investigation introduced a new .38 +P loading that became known as the "FBI Load". The FBI Load combined a more powerful powder charge with a 158-grain unjacketed soft lead semi-wadcutter hollow-point bullet designed to readily expand at typical .38 Special velocities obtained in revolvers commonly used by law enforcement. The FBI Load proved very satisfactory in effectively stopping adversaries in numerous documented shootings using 2- to 4-inch barreled revolvers. The FBI Load was later adopted by the Chicago Police Department and numerous other law enforcement agencies.
Demand for a .38 cartridge with even greater performance for law enforcement led to the introduction of the +P+ .38 Special cartridge, first introduced by Federal and Winchester. Originally labeled "For Law Enforcement Only", +P+ ammunition is intended for heavier-duty .38 Special and .357 Magnum revolvers, as the increased pressure levels can result in accelerated wear and significant damage to firearms rated for lower-pressure .38 Special loadings (as with all .38 Special loadings, the .38 Special +P+ can also be fired safely in .357 Magnum revolvers).
Performance.
Due to its black-powder heritage, the .38 Special is a low-pressure cartridge, one of the lowest in common use today at 17,500 PSI. By modern standards, the .38 Special fires a medium-sized bullet at rather low speeds. In the case of target loads, a bullet is propelled to only . The closest comparisons are the .380 ACP, which fires much lighter bullets slightly faster than most .38 Special loads; the 9×19mm Parabellum, which fires a somewhat lighter bullet significantly faster; and the .38 Super, which fires a comparable bullet considerably faster. All of these cartridges are usually found in semi-automatic pistols.
The higher-pressure .38 +P loads at 20,000 PSI offer about 20% more muzzle energy than standard-pressure loads and places it between the .380 ACP and the 9mm Parabellum; similar to that of the 9×18mm Makarov. A few specialty manufacturers' +P loads for this cartridge can attain even higher energies than that, especially when fired from longer barrels, produce energies in the range of the 9mm Parabellum. These loads are generally not recommended for older revolvers or ones not specifically "+P" rated.
All of the above specifications for .38 loadings, and the .357 Magnum, are applicable when fired from a barreled revolver. The velocity is reduced when using the more standard barreled guns. Power (muzzle energy) will, of course, decrease accordingly.
Although only a few US police departments now issue or authorize use of the .38 Special revolver as a standard-duty weapon, the caliber remains popular with some police officers for use in short-barreled revolvers carried when off duty or for undercover-police investigations. It is also widely used in revolvers purchased for civilian home defense or for concealed carry by individuals with a CCW permit.
Terminal performance and expansion.
There are many companies that manufacture .38 Special ammunition. It can range from light target loads to more powerful defensive ammunition. Because of the relatively low pressure that the .38 Special cartridge and even its more powerful +P version can be loaded to, most 38 Special bullets do not expand reliably, even when using hollow-point designs, especially if fired from a short-barreled or 'snub-nose' revolver. In 2004, Speer Bullets introduced the "Gold Dot" jacketed hollow-point .38 Special cartridge in an attempt to solve this very problem. Another solution is to use an unjacketed soft lead hollow-point bullet as found in the "FBI Load". The latter's 158-grain soft lead hollow point is loaded to +P pressures and velocity, which ensures more reliable expansion in unprotected flesh, even when fired in a 2-inch short-barreled revolver.
Handloading.
The .38 Special is particularly popular among handloaders. The cartridge's straight walls, headspacing on the rim, ready availability of previously-fired cases, and ability to be fired in .357 Magnum firearms, all contribute to this popularity. Additionally, the .38 Special's heritage as a black powder cartridge gives it a case size capable of accommodating many types of powders, from slower-burning (e.g., Hodgdon H-110 or Hercules 2400) to fast-burning (e.g., Alliant Bullseye, the traditional smokeless powder for this cartridge). This flexibility in powders translates directly to versatility in muzzle energy that a handloader can achieve. Thus, with proper care, a suitably-strong revolver, and adherence to safe handloading practices, the .38 Special can accommodate ammunition ranging from light-recoiling target loads to +P+ self-defense rounds. The .38 Special, handloaded with premium to regular lead bullets can be loaded safely to equal the now popular 9x19mm Luger round. The round is as viable today as a self-defense round as it was back in 1898.


Conference at the Highest Court of the Russian Empire

The Conference at the Highest Court (also known as "Ministerial Conference") was the highest state institution of the Russian Empire. It was established in 1756 on the initiative of Chancellor Alexey Bestuzhev-Ryumin. It was abolished in 1762. Formally considered an advisory body, but in most cases acted independently on behalf of the empress. The conference used legislative power, gave instructions and orders to the Senate, the Synod, the colleges and other central institutions of the empire.
Origin.
As a permanent institution, it emerged along the lines of the Austrian "Hofkriegsrat" from the "Conference on Foreign Affairs" — non-periodically convened meetings that replaced the Cabinet of Ministers and gathered at the court according to the decree of Elizabeth Petrovna of December 23, 1741 to discuss the most important foreign policy issues. At a meeting of conference ministers on March 14, 1756, it was announced that the empress was instructed to hold such meetings regularly, on certain days and with a permanent composition of participants.
Powers, working order and composition.
The terms of reference and the terms of reference for the Conference were not clearly defined. Formally, the Conference was equal in its significance to the Senate and the Synod, but by decree of October 5, 1756, it received the right to send them "resolutions to execution" in the form of extracts from the protocols. The conference sent rescripts to the headquarters (on behalf of the empress) and received in response the reports (again addressed to Elizabeth Petrovna).
The objectives and the order of work of the Conference were set forth in the minutes of the organizational meeting of the conference ministers of March 14, 1756. It did not become a body of national importance and solved special tasks, mainly related to conducting a coherent domestic and foreign policy on the eve of and during the Seven Years' War.
The conference consisted of the "presence" of the conference ministers and the office. The "presence" of ex officio included the heads of the diplomatic, military and naval departments, the head of the Office of Secret Investigative Affairs and the Senate Prosecutor General. In addition to them, to the order of the Empress, the members of the "presence" were the most influential senators and (during the first year of the Conference) the heir to the throne, Grand Duke Pyotr Fyodorovich. The secretary of the Conference and the head of its office was Dmitry Volkov, who had a staff of 12 people (secretaries, recorders, translators, couriers).
Activity.
The scope of the Conference’s activities included general management of diplomatic relations through the Collegium of Foreign Affairs, development of draft treaties, conventions, declarations and other documents of an international character, general management of the Russian armed forces, control over the activities of commanders-in-chief, development of plans for military campaigns against Prussia, and management of the Königsberg Province occupied during the war.
It is through the Conference that the most significant projects of Count Peter Shuvalov are being carried out: Shuvalov's 12-pound licornes, formation of the Western Corps, monetary reform and the creation of the Copper Bank.
The conference dealt with many administrative and personnel issues, but its domestic policy activities were selective only to a limited extent limited to the prerogatives of the Senate.
The council met twice a week, on Mondays and Thursdays. In national historiography, a negative assessment of the Conference’s activities has been adopted. So, Anton Kersnovsky, the author of the well-known "History of the Russian Army", finds that the Conference was “under Russian conditions a worsened edition of the notorious "Hofkriegsrat":
Abolition.
After the accession of Emperor Peter III on January 5, 1762, the Conference lost its independent significance and was abolished by imperial decree of February 8, 1762 in connection with the planned withdrawal of Russia from the Seven Years' War. The functions of the Conference were later transferred to the Council under Peter III (Imperial Council, later, under Catherine II, "Council at the Highest Court"), who inherited the office of the Office of the Conference and its office management system.


Anti-submarine mortar

Anti-submarine mortars are artillery pieces deployed on ships for the purpose of sinking submarines by a direct hit with a small explosive charge. They are often larger versions of the mortar used by infantry and fire a projectile in relatively the same manner. They were created during World War II as a development of the depth charge and work on the same principle.
Beginnings.
Anti-submarine warfare did not become an issue of great concern until World War I, when Germany used submarines in an attempt to strangle British shipping in the Atlantic Ocean and elsewhere. The earliest way to counter a submarine was in the form of depth charges, which were large canisters filled with explosives, rolled off the back of a ship and detonated by a hydrostatic fuse. Depth charges served well throughout World War I but were not without flaws. A ship had to pass directly over a submarine to score an effective hit, because of this depth charges were dropped in lines instead of more effective clusters and could only be carried in ships fast enough to avoid the concussion of the explosion. The depth charges were also not as effective as one might think at sinking a submarine - only a very close detonation would sink a submarine, and the problems of scoring a direct hit meant that a submarine was more often damaged then destroyed by depth charges.
After World War I depth charge throwers were developed, which could hurl depth charges some off the side of a ship. These were a significant improvement over the old method, permitting the use of large 'patterns' of up to 10 depth charges from the throwers and stern depth charge rails used together. However they still required a ship to pass very close to a submarine, which entailed loss of sonar (ASDIC) contact during the final stages of the approach. Submarines could and did use this dead interval to take evasive action.
It was the British who developed the first anti-submarine mortars. Several versions appeared in 1917, most notably the BL 7.5 inch Naval Howitzer; however the anti-submarine mortar did not become a truly successful weapon until the advent of the multi-barrelled Hedgehog 25 years later.
WWII anti-submarine mortars.
During World War II submarines once again posed a major threat to Allied shipping, which necessitated the development of more effective anti-submarine mortars. These all had the common characteristic of throwing multiple charges ahead of the attacking vessel, while it was still in sonar contact. The first was the famous Hedgehog, which consisted of 24 small mortar rounds, each one in diameter and weighing 65 pounds with a 35-pound warhead. Each projectile had a range of about and was fired in a circular pattern in front of a ship. While the warhead on a Hedgehog was much smaller than that of a depth charge it scored three times as many kills than its predecessors. This was due to the use of a contact fuse on the projectile, which would only detonate on impact with a target. Since the projectile would only explode on a hit, the long periods of sonar "blackout" from the blast and turbulence of a conventional depth charge explosion were eliminated. In the later stages of World War II the Hedgehog was complemented in Britain by the Squid three-barrelled depth charge mortar, which fired 390-lb depth charges to a range of 250 metres, and in the US by the Mousetrap rockets.
Modern uses.
The homing torpedo has largely replaced the anti-submarine mortar in naval combat, although several examples still exist. The British Limbo system, with three gyro-stabilized barrels, fires 350-pound projectiles to a range of . It remained in service with many British and Commonwealth navies until the 1980s. The Bofors anti-submarine rocket launcher was used until 1980 with the Swedish Navy. It had two or four barrels and fired a 550-pound projectile up to . Due to the poor sonar conditions of the Baltic Sea mortars, rocket and missile launchers still retain a place next to torpedoes. The former Soviet Navy (and by extension, the Russian Navy) is the largest user of anti-submarine mortars. Keeping with the Soviet idea that weapons should be simple, cheap and reliable, several versions of rocket-propelled anti-submarine mortars were developed. Trials were also conducted on destroying oncoming torpedoes with anti-submarine mortars. The most common is the RBU-6000, which fires twelve 160-pound projectiles in a horseshoe pattern up to away. There was also a more extreme version, the nuclear RPK-1 Vikhr, though this is more technically an anti-submarine rocket. It had anti-surface and land-attack uses as well.


List of World War II weapons

World War II saw rapid technological innovation in response to the needs of the various combatants. Many different weapons systems evolved as a result.
Note: This list does not consist of all weapons used by all countries in World War II.


Sovnya

A sovnya () is a traditional polearm used in Russia. Similar to the glaive, the sovnya had a curved, single-edged blade mounted on the end of a long pole. This was a popular weapon with late-medieval Muscovite cavalry and retained use until the mid-17th century.


Companion weapon

The term companion weapon is used in historical European martial arts to refer to an item used in conjunction with the larger weapon in the non-sword hand while fencing with a rapier or sword. The popular companion weapon forms include:
In most cases the off-hand weapon is used to deflect or parry.


Cannon operation

Cannon operation required specialised crew and gunners, who were first enlisted by the Spanish in the 14th century. The nature of cannon operation often depended on the size of the cannon and whether they were breech-loading or muzzle-loading. English cannons of the late 14th century became mobile, while the largest cannon (such as the heavy siege cannon of the Ottoman Turks or the Jaivana cannon of India) required huge crews to transport and operate them.
As the "giant gun" trend disappeared in Europe, in favour of lighter, more manoeuvrable pieces in larger numbers, cannon operating crews became smaller, heralding the early use of true field artillery. While the medieval Dardanelles Gun had required 200 men just to operate it, an 18th-century English cannon required only a dozen men, including two gunners, while during the Napoleonic Wars five gunners were used.
Overview.
Cannon operation is described by the 1771 "Encyclopædia Britannica". Each cannon would be manned by two gunners, six soldiers, and four officers of the artillery. The right gunner was to prime the piece and load it with powder, while the left gunner would fetch the powder from the magazine and keep ready to fire the cannon at the officer's command. Three soldiers stood on each side of the cannon, to ram and sponge the cannon, and hold the ladle. The second soldier on the left was charged with providing 50 rounds.
Prior to loading, the cannon would be well cleaned with a sponge to remove all sparks, filth, and dirt. The powder was added, followed by a wad of paper or hay, and the ball was thrown in. After ramming, the cannon would be aimed with the elevation set using a quadrant and a plummet. At 45 degrees the ball had the utmost range – about ten times the gun's level range. Any angle above the horizontal line was called random-shot. The officer of artillery had to ensure the cannon was diligently served. Water was available to dip the sponges in and cool the pieces every ten or twelve rounds.
In the late 1770s it was said that a 24-pounder could fire 90 to 100 shots a day in Summer, or 60 to 75 in Winter. However, French artillery officers managed to have a cannon fire 150 shots daily during siege. A 16 or 12 pounder would fire a little more, because they were more easily served. The "Encyclopædia Britannica" mentions "some occasions where 200 shots have been fired from these pieces in the space of nine hours, and 138 in the space of five."
Cannon instruments.
Several instruments are used to service a medieval style cannon, as noted in the 1771 Encyclopædia Britannica.
Leaden plates are used to cover the touch-hole, when the piece is charged, to keep dirt from entering the touch-hole.
History.
Pre-Renaissance cannon.
In 1248, Roger Bacon's "Opus Maior" described a gunpowder recipe and recognised its military use:
In Spain, the specialised nature of cannon operation was first recognised, and the Spanish kings at the initial stages enlisted the help of Moorish experts:
Certainly cannon were used at the Battle of Crécy, but how they were deployed, or how many crew were assigned, is unclear. It is known that in the 1380s, however, the "ribaudekin" clearly became mounted on wheels, offering greater mobility for its operation. Wheeled gun carriages became more commonplace by the end of the 15th century, and cannon were more often cast in bronze, rather than banding iron sections together. There were still the logistical problems both of transporting and of operating the cannon, and as many three dozen horses and oxen may have been required to move some of the great guns of the period. Each had its crew of gunner, matrosses and drivers, and a group of "pioneers" were assigned to level to path ahead. Even then, the gunpowder mixture used was unstable and could easily separate out into sulfur, saltpetre and charcoal during transport.
Once on site, they would be fired at ground level behind a hinged timber shutter, to provide some protection to the artillery crew. When the Ottoman Turks used stationary "falcons" at the 1422 Siege of Constantinople, for example, they had to build barricades "in order to receive… the stones of the bombards." Timber wedges were used to control the barrel's elevation. The majority of medieval cannon were breechloaders, although there was still no effort to standardise calibres.
Larger cannon were used in greater numbers during the Fall of Constantinople: Sultan Mehmet II used 68 Hungarian-made cannons, the largest of which was 26 feet long and weighed 20 tons; this fired a 1,200 pound stone cannonball, and required an operating crew of 200 men, as well as 70 oxen and 10,000 men just to transport them. For the defenders, the Walls of Constantinople could not be adapted for the operation of artillery, and towers were not good gun emplacements. There was even worry that the largest Byzantine cannon could cause more damage to their own walls than the Turkish cannon. The changing needs of cannon operation thus led to the development of "trace italienne" of Italy and the Tudors' Device Forts in England, using specially built cannon batteries to their greatest effect.
Renaissance to early 19th century.
While "coal and sulfur" had been recognised as the best weapon for naval warfare as early as 1260, cannon saw their first real naval use in large numbers during the Renaissance. The French "culverin", adapted for naval use by the English in the late 16th century, was of relatively long barrel and light construction, and fired solid round shot projectiles at long ranges along a flat trajectory. The Tudor carrack the "Mary Rose" was equipped with 78 guns (91 after an upgrade in the 1530s), and was one of the first ships to have the theoretic ability to fire a full cannon broadside.
Its Scottish counterpart, the "Great Michael", mounted 36 great guns and 300 lighter guns, with 120 gunners.
In Niccolò Machiavelli's "The Art of War", the Italian Renaissance writer observed that "small pieces of cannon… do more damage than heavy artillery. The best remedy against the latter is making a resolute attack upon it as soon as possible…" As was the case at Flodden in 1513, the Scottish siege artillery could only fire one round a minute, while the English field guns could fire twice or even thrice as many. Guns also had to be moved back into position after recoil, and the speed of this would reflect the gunners' experience.
A description of the Gunner's techniques is given during the English Civil War period (mid-17th century) by John Roberts, covering the modes of calculation and the ordnance pieces themselves, in his work "The Compleat Cannoniere", printed London 1652 by W. Wilson and sold by George Hurlock (Thames Street). In the 17th century, large wheels were typical of field guns, as opposed to the lighter carriages used for fortress and naval cannon. At coastal fortifications, furnaces would be used for heating red-hot shot to be used against ships. The lower tier of English ships of the line at this time were usually equipped with demi-cannon — a naval gun which fired a 32-pound solid shot. A full cannon fired a 42-pound shot, but these were discontinued by the 18th century as they were seen as too unwieldy.
The introduction of carronades at the end of the 18th century also resulted in guns that were easier to handle and required less than half the gunpowder of long guns, allowing fewer men to crew them than long guns mounted on naval garrison carriages.
During the Napoleonic Wars, a British gun team consisted of 5 numbered gunners - fewer crew than needed in the previous century. The "No.1" was the gun commander, and a sergeant, who aimed the gun. The "No.2" was the "spongeman" who cleaned the bore with the sponge dampened with water between shots; the intention being to quench any remaining embers before a fresh charge was introduced. The "No.3", the loader, inserted the bag of powder and then the projectile. The "No.2" then used a rammer, or the sponge reversed, to drive it in. At the same time, the "No.4" ("ventsman") pressed his thumb on the vent hole to prevent a draught that might fan a flame. The charge loaded, the "No.4" pricked the bagged charge through the vent hole and filled the vent with powder. At the "No.1"'s command the "No.5" would fire the piece with his slow match. Friction primers replaced slow match ignition by the mid-19th century.


Vieil-Hesdin

Vieil-Hesdin (Eng: Old-Hesdin) is a commune in the Pas-de-Calais department in the Hauts-de-France region of France.
Geography.
Vieil-Hesdin is situated 6 kilometres southeast of Hesdin, on the banks of the river Canche on the D 340 highway.
History.
Once just simply known as Hesdin, this little village was, in the Middle Ages, a large and prosperous town. Its position in the heart of the county of Artois, once part of the Spanish Netherlands, led to its downfall.
From 1471 until its destruction in 1553, it suffered many sieges and sackings, as a result of fighting between the Kings of France, the Holy Roman Empire, Henry VIII of England and several French nobles.
The end of Hesdin, as it was then known, came at the hands of Charles V. His 60,000 strong army had already ravaged Metz and razed Thérouanne in April 1553 and he ordered the city and the castle completely destroyed. A month later, the wreckers had finished their work. Only the convent and chapel were spared.
Some months later, the demolition material was used to found a new city 6 kilometres downstream, at a village then called Maisnil. This new town took the name Hesdin-fert, then Hesdin-fort, eventually becoming Hesdin. The ruined town was known for a while as Hesdin-le-Châtel, then eventually as Vieil-Hesdin (Old-Hesdin).


Paris protest against General Ridgway

On May 28, 1952, French communists marched in protest against a visit by American General Matthew Ridgway. The communists accused him of using biological weapons in the Korean War.
During the Korean War, after a successful counteroffensive by United Nations troops under the command of General Ridgway, the international communist movement accused the United States of using biological weapons in Korea and in China. This accusation was false, and was contested by the United States Army, but nonetheless led to heavy criticism of Ridgway; the communist press called him "Ridgway the plague" (""Ridgway la peste")" or the "microbe general" ("le général microbien").
On May 2, 1953, the Kremlin sent the Soviet ambassador to Beijing, V. V. Kouznetsov, to send the following message to Mao Zedong:
Demonstration and Violence.
On May 28, 1952, the Mouvement de la paix, led by the Communist party, called a demonstration in Paris against General Ridgeway's coming to France for his appointment as the Supreme Allied Commander Europe in NATO. The mass protest included many communist sympathizers and it rapidly degenerated into conflicts with security forces, resulting in many injuries. Two demonstrators were shot: Hocine Belaïd, a commune employee, and Charles Guénard, a factory worker. They died some days later. 372 police officers were hurt in the conflict, 27 seriously. Many people were arrested and the headquarters of the French Communist Party was raided.
Arrest of Duclos and the Pigeon Plot.
The same evening, Jacques Duclos, the acting head of the French Communist Party in the absence of Maurice Thorez (who was ill, and convalescing in Moscow), was arrested and charged with endangering state security after the discovery of a 7.65mm pistol and some pigeons in the trunk of his car. The trunk also contained his notes on the proceedings of the Secretariat and Political Bureau of the French Communist Party. He had written: "We are working toward the certain defeat [of the French Army] in Vietnam, Korea, and Tunisia" (""Nous travaillons pour la défaite certaine [de l'armée française] au Viêt Nam, en Corée, en Tunisie")." To Interior Minister Charles Brune, the two birds were carrier pigeons, and evidence that Duclos was a traitor to France. This was quickly contradicted by the police, since the pigeons had in fact been dead; according to Duclos, they were killed by hunting and were destined to be eaten. After being incarcerated for a time in La Santé Prison, Duclos was freed.


Brian Spillett

Brian Spillett GC (21 July 1937 – 16 January 1965) was posthumously awarded the George Cross, the highest British (and Commonwealth) award for bravery out of combat. Spillett died of burns he received while trying to save a neighbour in Lodge Crescent, Waltham Cross, Hertfordshire in Chase Farm Hospital in Enfield. He was a Territorial Army Lance-Bombardier in P Battery, 289 Parachute Light Regiment, Royal Horse Artillery and in civilian life worked as a fitter. His George Cross was announced in a supplement to the London Gazette of 25 June 1965, and dated 29 June 1965.
The "London Gazette" citation describes how Spillett became aware that there was a fire at a neighbouring house where three generations of a family lived. Spillett arrived, still only partly dressed, to learn that the father Mr Palmer of the family was still in the house. The whole house was already well alight, but he went in despite being held back by other neighbours. He managed to fight his way upstairs but was unable to get through to the trapped man. He himself became trapped and had to escape the flames by jumping from a first floor window. Once the fire was over, he was found in the garden of a neighbour after crawling down the garden, through the alley and thinking he was crawling to his own back door to his wife, ended up at the back door of a neighbour, badly burned and with other serious injuries, from jumping and falling through the leanto. He was taken to hospital but died a week later. He was survived by a young wife Jean and four-month-old daughter, Jacqueline Spillett.


P. Devakumaran

Paranirupasingam Devakumaran was a minority Sri Lankan Tamil Television journalist who reported for the Maharaja Television which operated MTV English, Sirasa TV in Sinhala and Sakthi TV in Tamil in Jaffna. He and his friend Mahendran Varadan were hacked to death in Navanthurai near Jaffna on 28 May 2008.
Background.
This incident is part of a series of killing, violence, and intimidation against journalists and human rights activists. The killing of journalists have not been investigated leading to conviction of anyone and attacks have continued. He had married one year prior to his murder.
Incident.
P. Devakumaran and Mahenthiran Varathan were returning home in an area under Sri Lankan army control on 15 May 2008 at about 4.00 pm when they were hacked to death and the assailants escaped.


German auxiliary cruiser Stier

Stier (HSK 6) was an auxiliary cruiser of Nazi Germany's "Kriegsmarine" during World War II. Her "Kriegsmarine" designation was Schiff 23, to the Royal Navy she was Raider J.
The name "Stier" means "bull", and represents the Taurus constellation in the German language. She was the last German raider to break out into the Atlantic in World War II.
Early history.
Built by Germaniawerft in 1936 as the freighter "Cairo", she was operated by the Atlas Levant Line (ALL) until being requisitioned for Kriegsmarine services in November 1939. After merchant warfare operations in the Baltic Sea, she was converted into a mine layer and was planned to be used during Operation Sea Lion. After this operation was canceled, the now renamed "Stier" was modified into an auxiliary cruiser in April 1941, first at the Wilton shipyard Rotterdam and later at Oderwerke, Stettin, and Kriegsmarinewerft, in Gotenhafen (Gdynia).
Raiding voyage.
On 10 May 1942 she left Germany for operations in the Atlantic. Moving by stages down the English Channel, and after an engagement with British coastal forces on the 13th which saw the loss of two torpedo boats (German) and one MTB (British), "Stier" reached Royan in occupied France on the 19th. From there she departed under the command of "Fregattenkapitän" (later "Kapitän zur See") Horst Gerlach for operations in the South Atlantic. After a cruise of 4½ months, in which she engaged and sank three ships, on 27 September 1942 the ship was sunk during a battle with an American cargo ship, the , which was also lost.
During her operation the "Stier" sank four ships, totalling 29,409 tons (GRT).
Final engagement.
On 27 September 1942 "Stier" encountered the Liberty ship "Stephen Hopkins" en route from Cape Town to Paramaribo.
Closing in foggy conditions, the two ships sighted each other around 08:52 at a distance of 4,000 yards. Gerlach sent his men to action stations; the master of the "Stephen Hopkins" was suspicious of the unidentified vessel and did the same. The "Stephen Hopkins" had a small defensive armament (1 × 4 inch gun astern, 2 x 37mm guns of an unknown model forward and 6 x machine guns), but when firing commenced, around 08:55, she put up a spirited defence. She scored several hits on "Stier", damaging her engines and steering gear. However, overwhelmed by fire from "Stier", the "Hopkins" drifted away; by 10 am she had sunk. Forty-two of her crew were killed in the action, and three more died later; the fifteen survivors finally reached Brazil 31 days later. "Stephen Hopkins"'s commander, Captain Paul Buck, was posthumously awarded the Merchant Marine Distinguished Service Medal for his actions. So was US Merchant Marine Academy cadet Edwin Joseph O'Hara, who single-handedly fired the last shots from the ship's 4-inch gun.
Meanwhile, "Stier" had been fatally damaged; unable to make headway, and not responding to the helm, Gerlach made the decision to abandon ship. "Stier" exploded and sank at 11:40. All but two of her crew survived and were rescued by the German supply ship , which was accompanying "Stier" at the time of the action, and returned to France on the blockade runner.


Length of pull

Length of pull (sometimes abbreviated as LOP) is the distance from the trigger to the part of a rifle or shotgun which fits against the shoulder of the shooter. Length of pull is an important ergonomic factor for ease of use; and optimum length of pull may vary with the size of the shooter, the thickness of chest clothing and body armor being worn, and whether the shooter is firing from a standing, sitting, or prone position.
Variation.
Many rifles and shotguns are manufactured with a standard length of pull assumed to fit most shooters. This is often approximately for rifles and about longer for shotguns. Shooters with short arms may find the buttstock dragging along the underside of their arm as they attempt to raise the firearm into firing position. Shooters with broad shoulders or a long neck may experience face injuries from collision with the telescopic sight or thumb of the trigger hand as the firearm recoils. Modern firearms may be equipped with a telescoping stock or removable spacers to adjust the length of pull. Gunsmiths may adjust the length of pull of custom-built firearms or older firearms by cutting off a portion of the buttstock or adding a recoil pad to the buttstock. Some sources suggest a shooter's optimum length of pull will allow the butt of the firearm to exactly reach the inside of the elbow when the hand of that arm grips the unloaded firearm with a finger on the trigger. Other sources suggest a more appropriate determination may be made using a non-firing "try-gun" resembling a firearm with an adjustable buttstock. When a properly adjusted try-gun is held in a firing position, the shooter's nose should be about two finger-widths behind the thumb of the trigger hand.


Plotting board

A plotting board was a mechanical device used by the U.S. Army Coast Artillery Corps as part of their fire control system to track the observed course of a target (typically a moving ship), project its future position, and derive the uncorrected data on azimuth (or direction) and range needed to direct the fire of the guns of a battery to hit that target. Plotting boards of this sort were first employed by the Coast Artillery around 1905, and were the primary means of calculating firing data until WW2. Towards the end of WW2 these boards were largely replaced by radar and electro-mechanical gun data computers, and were relegated to a back-up role.
Although several different types of plotting boards were used by the Coast Artillery over the years, the example described here is the Whistler-Hearn Plotting Board, Model of 1904 which was widely employed by the Coast Artillery between about 1905 and 1925. This description is primarily derived from two manuals of the period, each of which leaves certain aspects of the board's design and use unexplained. A 1940 manual also describes the Whistler-Hearn board.
Overview.
The Whistler-Hearn plotting board (see Plate XXV at right, top) was a semicircular wooden table about 7.5 feet in diameter with a mechanism on top that could be configured to represent the geography of the harbor area in which it was used, including the locations of the base end stations that observed targets for the gun battery it controlled and the location of the gun(s) of that battery. The guns were located with reference to their directing point, the point for which the firing data were calculated. Making the firing data relative to the position(s) of the gun(s) was called the relocation of these data. Relocation was part of the analog function of the plotting board and was enabled by adjustments to the gun arm center of the board (see plate and explanation below).
The mechanism of radial arms and adjustable slides, arcs, and gears converted observations that had been telephoned in from the base end stations into firing data for the guns.
The plotting board for a given gun battery was located in the plotting room for that battery (shown at right, bottom), a space often attached to an observation post or protected within a reinforced concrete bunker or casemate. It was served by a large crew (often more than a dozen soldiers) who were part of the Range Section of the battery personnel.
To locate a target, plotting board operators used two radial arms (called the primary and auxiliary arms), and "locked-in" the ends of these arms along on the notched azimuth scale that ran around the circumference of the board at the azimuths of the sightings that were telephoned in to them by the two base end stations. These locked arms and the baseline arm (along the base of the arc) then formed a triangle whose vertices were the two observation stations and the target. This located the target on the board, and its position was then marked by punching a hole in the paper placed over the plotting board. Next, another radial arm, called the gun arm, was swung over the plotted position of the target, and the resulting range and azimuth for firing were read off the gun arm and an azimuth scale on the gun arm center. These data were corrected or adjusted for some other variables, and telephoned to the gun(s).
The figure at left shows the actual relationship between the distant target (at top), the two base end stations (at either end of the baseline), and the directing point of the battery's guns, as reflected onto the plotting board. The triangle formed by the B1 (primary) arm, the B2 (secondary) arm and the base line arm is the small triangle at the base of the plotting board, and the gun arm is shown swung over the intersection of the other two arms in order to read the range and azimuth to the target. Another helpful diagram is shown on the base end station page—the cutaway diagram of a battery's plotting room (with its plotting board), shown next to the two base end stations, and behind the directing point of the battery, between its two guns.
Customizing the plotting board to its site.
Before it was used, a Whistler-Hearn board had to be set up and customized to the geography of the area at which it was to be used and for the location of the guns in the battery it was to direct.
First, the primary block (representing the primary base end station) was slid onto the bronze base-line arm (that extended all the way across the bottom diameter of the table) and secured at the exact center of that arm. Then, the secondary block (representing the secondary base end station) was slid onto the left or right end of the base-line arm (depending of the layout of the site) and set at a distance from the primary block that was equal to the (scaled) length of the base line at that site.
Both the primary and the secondary block had a pintle, or pin, attached to it which represented (on the board) the surveyed position of the observing instrument in the primary or secondary base end station.
The secondary arm was installed on the pintle of the secondary block. On the pintle of the primary block were installed the primary arm, the auxiliary arm, and the gun arm, as well as the complex gun arm center mechanism that was used to adjust the board for the location of the guns' directing point, to read the azimuth to the target, to adjust the firing data, and to tally the motion of the target between successive plotted positions. Plate XXVI (below, at right) shows a close-up of the gun arm center mechanism.
The arc of the board was notched at one-degree intervals. To identify these notches with actual degrees of azimuth for a particular site, a zinc strip, with numbers of degrees of azimuth inscribed on it, was slipped into a slot on the surface of the board, towards its outer edge. The azimuth indicated by left edge of the base line arm was arbitrarily determined to be whatever azimuth fit the site, and adjusting screws with a vernier scale allowed for up to 0.5 degrees of "tweaking" of the base line arm's orientation.
Next, two index boxes were slid onto the notched circumference edge of the board and the ends of the primary and auxiliary arms were inserted into these boxes. These boxes could be locked in position at whole-degree intervals (their teeth engaged the azimuth notches around the board), and each index box had a geared dial on its surface (with 100 teeth) that could be turned through one hundred parts of a degree, enabling each arm to be adjusted to within .01 degree of azimuth.
Next, the gun arm center mechanism was slid from side to side and/or up and down with relation to the base line arm to account for the location of the battery's directing point to one side or the other of the primary base end station or behind or in front of the base line. These adjustments resulted in relocating (relating) the firing data sent to the guns to the actual (surveyed and calculated) positions of these guns. A further adjustment might need to be made by the gun crew to account for the distance of an individual gun from the battery's directing point, called its displacement.
After these adjustments, the plotting board represented a true analog of the harbor being defended (see figure at left above) and was ready for use in fire control.
This customization of the board to its site, however, was also a weakness. It meant that the battery's fire control system was limited to using only the one baseline and only the two base end stations associated with that baseline. If one of the two base end stations was put out of action (due to enemy fire or a communications casualty) the battery would have to switch to a less precise method of fire control, such as vertical base observation (using a depression position finder), the use of a self-contained rangefinder instrument, or aiming its guns directly, using their own telescopic sights.
Using the plotting board.
Using the plotting board required a team of five or six soldiers to handle the board itself, five or six more to handle equipment used to correct and adjust the resulting target coordinates and a minimum of four more in the two distant base end stations. Many of the plotting board functions described below were performed repeatedly, during several successive observation/firing intervals (see Figure 1 below, left) that were indicated throughout the harbor defense system by the ringing of time interval bells.
The process began when a target (e.g., an enemy ship) was identified by the harbor command and assigned to a given gun battery. Observers in the two widely separated base end stations for the chosen battery tracked the target, using either azimuth scopes or more sophisticated depression position finders (DPFs). Azimuth scopes were only capable of locating the target in azimuth (bearing), while a DPF could be used for azimuth readings alone or could also measure the range from the base end station to the target.
At the signal from the time interval bell, the reader in each base end station would read the azimuth of the target off of the instrument (to hundredths of a degree) and (using a headset phone) call this reading to the arm setter covering that station at the plotting board. Each of the two arm setters at the board moved his assigned arm (the primary or auxiliary arm) to the position on the notched azimuth scale (which ran around the circumference of the board) that corresponded to the azimuth reading (in whole degrees) he had just received by phone from his base end station. The arm setter then locked his arm at that position, using the index disk clamp at the end of the arm. Hundredths of a degree were indicated by turning the geared index disk, a wheel with 100 teeth that enabled adjusting the angle of the arm very precisely.
With both arms set, a small block called the targ was slid up to the intersection of the arms and a mark was made on the plotting paper at the target's indicated position.
This process of observing, setting the arms on the plotting board, and marking the target's position at the arms' intersection was repeated at the end of each observing interval for the battery. Since the firing of the gun(s) often occurred when the interval bell rang, the interval was also called a firing interval. The interval was usually set at 20 seconds. After tracking a target for a short time, there would a string of plotted positions indicated on the board (e.g., the blue circles shown in Figure 1 above, left). This would then be sufficient for the plotting room to "connect the dots" with a projected course line (the black line in Figure 1) and estimate the target's speed.
Next, a slide rule-like device called a set forward rule was used to mark off the set forward point (the green square in Figure 1) for the target. The set forward point was the anticipated position of the target at the end of the dead time plus the time of flight (see Figure 1). The speed of the target was calculated from the time it took to cover the distances between the previously plotted points on its track. This type of fire control in the Coast Artillery was based upon the assumptions that the target steered in straight line and did not alter its speed during the 20-second (or longer) observing interval (or multiple intervals).
It was the set forward point that the guns were targeted to hit. This was accomplished by bringing the gun arm of the plotting board over this point, and reading the range from the directing point to the target off the range scale on the edge of that arm and the azimuth from the directing point to the target off of azimuth circle of the gun arm center. To see how this and further steps in the fire control process were accomplished, our attention shifts to the mechanisms of the gun arm center, shown in Plate XXVI at the right.
Plate XXVI shows the gun arm (although the range scale on its edge is not visible), which points here toward the top of the photo (in the 11:30 position). It also shows the window (labeled at bottom center) through which the azimuth of the gun arm was read. Many of the other features of the gun arm center were used in correcting the firing data.
Corrections in range were applied by turning the knob attached to a gear wheel (labeled "pinion" in Plate XXVI) at the center of the correction box, which slid the gun arm towards its circumference or back, with the adjustments indicated by index numbers visible through the window to the left of the pinion. Corrections in azimuth were achieved by turning the knurled knob at the right edge of the worm gear located at the bottom of the gun arm, with its pointer being used to read off index numbers and turn the gun arm through its arc.
The dials on the face of the gun arm center were used to calculate the angular travel (in degrees and hundredths) of the target between successive plotted points on the board, a quantity that could be corrected (using output from a deflection board) and then applied to calculating the set forward point.


5 in/54 caliber Mark 45 gun


Ngao (weapon)

Ngao (ง้าว,ของ้าว) is a pole weapon that was traditionally used during the 18th century in Thailand.


Red Roberts (American football)

James Madison "Red" Roberts (August 23, 1900 – June 27, 1945) was an American football player and coach. He played football for the Centre Praying Colonels in Danville, Kentucky. Roberts was thrice selected All-Southern, and a unanimous choice for the "Associated Press" Southeast Area All-Time football team 1869-1919 era. After college Roberts, played in the early National Football League (NFL) for the Toledo Maroons and the Akron Pros. He also played in the first American Football League for the Cleveland Panthers. Roberts served as the head football coach at Waynesburg College—now known as Waynesburg University—in Waynesburg, Pennsylvania for one season, in 1923. He later made a run for the office of Governor of Kentucky as a Democrat in 1931, losing in the primary to Ruby Laffoon who went on to win the election.
Playing career.
Roberts entered Centre in 1918, and was the most prominent Kentucky native on the 9–0 1919 team and the 1921 team which upset Harvard. Roberts once saved Roscoe Brumfield, the Centre College mascot, after someone pushed him into the lake and he could not swim and went down the second time.
Roberts played fullback and end for the Centre Colonels football team along with such teammates as Norris Armstrong, Bo McMillin, Red Weaver, Sully Montgomery, and Matty Bell. Roberts was chosen as end on Centre's all-time football team chosen in 1935. He was 6'2" and 235 pounds.
Texans McMillin and Weaver happened to meet up with Roberts at Somerset High, and came to Centre due to boosters, meeting up with a slew of former Texas hands in coach Robert L. Myers and players Matty Bell, Sully Montgomery, Bill James, and Bob Mathias. The team posted a 7–1 record in 1917, ostensibly so good that Myers needed a better coach and hired Charley Moran.
1921.
McMillin scored the one 32-yard touchdown of the Harvard game, but the interference was furnished by Roberts. After a scoreless half and early in the third quarter, Roberts told McMillin "it's time to score, ride my hump", and McMillin rushed for the lone touchdown of the game." He also scored the first touchdown in the 35 to 14 loss to Harvard the previous year. Roberts was selected by Walter Camp as a first team All-American at the end of the regular season and became the fifth first-team player designated by Camp, joining teammates "Bo" McMillin and Red Weaver, who were picked in prior years. Roberts received Camp's honorable mention in 1922.
Roberts gave his blood to save his sister.
Coaching career.
Roberts was the head football coach at Waynesburg College—now known as Waynesburg University—in Waynesburg, Pennsylvania for the 1923 season. His coaching record at Waynesburg was 3–4–1.
Death.
Roberts died at 1 p. m. on June 27, 1945 from burns suffered when a fire broke out on the third floor of the Cumberland Hotel in Middlesboro, Kentucky, where he was the manager. Mrs. Anny Teapa Roberts, a native of Vienna, Austria, whom he married the previous April, also badly burned, said she had fallen asleep in the bedroom while her husband was talking with a guest in the living room of their suite. Roberts apparently fell asleep on the living room couch after his guest had left, she said, and neither she nor Roberts awakened until fire flashed out in the living room. Roberts' wife said the flash seemed to come from an electrical fixture in the room. She said she ran into the room to bring Roberts out but he was badly burned by the time she reached him.


Poignard

A poniard or poignard (Fr.) is a long, lightweight thrusting knife with a continuously tapering, acutely pointed blade and crossguard, historically worn by the upper class, noblemen, or the knighthood. Similar in design to a parrying dagger, the poniard emerged during the Middle Ages and was used during the Renaissance in Western Europe, particularly in France, Switzerland, and Italy.
The armed forces of Safavid Iran (1501–1736) used the poniard; it was considered a weapon especially typical to have for soldiers who originated from the Caucasus region, particularly Circassians, Georgians, and Armenians.
Modern use.
In modern French, the term "poignard" has come to be defined as synonymous with "dague", the general term for "dagger", and in English the term "poniard" has gradually evolved into a term for any small, slender dagger. In literary usage it may also mean the actual act of stabbing or piercing with a dagger.
The Fairbairn–Sykes fighting knife may be thought of as a modern version of the "poignard".
In culture.
In Shakespeare's "Hamlet" (Act V, scene ii; line 3795), Laertes wagers "six French rapiers and poniards, with their assigns, as girdle, hangers, and so" against six Barbary horses owned by King Claudius that in a fencing match Laertes will defeat Hamlet by three or more touches.
In the Gothic novel "The Monk" by Matthew Lewis, the novice monk Rosario threatens to commit suicide with a poignard during an argument with the senior monk Ambrosio.


Avalanche Alley

Avalanche Alley is a 2001 live action Canadian television film directed by Paul Ziller and starring Ed Marinaro, Nick Mancuso, Kirsten Robek and Wolf Larson.


Special Report on Emissions Scenarios

The Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) is a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that was published in 2000. The greenhouse gas emissions scenarios described in the Report have been used to make projections of possible future climate change. The SRES scenarios, as they are often called, were used in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), published in 2001, and in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), published in 2007.
The SRES scenarios were designed to improve upon some aspects of the IS92 scenarios, which had been used in the earlier IPCC Second Assessment Report of 1995. The SRES scenarios are "baseline" (or "reference") scenarios, which means that they do not take into account any current or future measures to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (e.g., the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change).
Emissions projections of the SRES scenarios are broadly comparable in range to the baseline emissions scenarios that have been developed by the scientific community. The SRES scenarios, however, do not encompass the full range of possible futures: emissions may change less than the scenarios imply, or they could change more.
SRES was superseded by the Shared socio-economic pathways (SSPs) in preparation for the 2022 IPCC sixth assessment report.
Purpose.
Because projections of climate change depend heavily upon future human activity, climate models are run against scenarios. There are 40 different scenarios, each making different assumptions for future greenhouse gas pollution, land-use and other driving forces. Assumptions about future technological development as well as the future economic development are thus made for each scenario. Most include an increase in the consumption of fossil fuels; some versions of B1 have lower levels of consumption by 2100 than in 1990. Overall global GDP will grow by a factor of between 5-25 in the emissions scenarios.
These emissions scenarios are organized into families, which contain scenarios that are similar to each other in some respects. IPCC assessment report projections for the future are often made in the context of a specific scenario family.
According to the IPCC, all SRES scenarios are considered "neutral". None of the SRES scenarios project future disasters or catastrophes, e.g., wars and conflicts, and/or environmental collapse.
The scenarios are not described by the IPCC as representing good or bad pathways of future social and economic development.
Scenario families.
Scenario families contain individual scenarios with common themes. The six families of scenarios discussed in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report (TAR) and Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) are A1FI, A1B, A1T, A2, B1, and B2.
The IPCC did not state that any of the SRES scenarios were more likely to occur than others, therefore none of the SRES scenarios represent a "best guess" of future emissions.
Scenario descriptions are based on those in AR4, which are identical to those in TAR.
A1.
The A1 scenarios are of a more integrated world. The A1 family of scenarios is characterized by:
There are subsets to the A1 family based on their technological emphasis:
A2.
The A2 scenarios are of a more divided world. The A2 family of scenarios is characterized by:
B1.
The B1 scenarios are of a world more integrated, and more ecologically friendly. The B1 scenarios are characterized by:
B2.
The B2 scenarios are of a world more divided, but more ecologically friendly. The B2 scenarios are characterized by:
SRES scenarios and climate change initiatives.
While some scenarios assume a more environmentally friendly world than others, none include any climate-specific initiatives, such as the Kyoto Protocol.
Atmospheric GHG concentrations.
The SRES scenarios have been used to project future atmospheric GHG concentrations. Under the six illustrative SRES scenarios, the IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001) projects the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide () in the year 2100 as between 540 and 970 parts per million (ppm). In this estimate, there are uncertainties over the future removal of carbon from the atmosphere by carbon sinks. There are also uncertainties regarding future changes in the Earth's biosphere and feedbacks in the climate system. The estimated effect of these uncertainties mean that the total projected concentration ranges from 490 to 1,260 ppm. This compares to a pre-industrial (taken as the year 1750) concentration of about 280 ppm, and a concentration of about 368 ppm in the year 2000.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency has also produced projections of future atmospheric GHG concentrations using the SRES scenarios. These projections are shown opposite, and are subject to the uncertainty described earlier regarding the future role of carbon sinks and changes to the Earth's biosphere.
Observed emissions rates.
Between the 1990s and 2000s, the growth rate in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and industrial processes increased (McMullen and Jabbour, 2009, p. 8). The growth rate from 1990-1999 averaged 1.1% per year.
Between the years 2000-2009, growth in emissions from fossil fuel burning was, on average, 3% per year, which exceeds the growth estimated by 35 of the 40 SRES scenarios (34 if the trend is computed with end points instead of a linear fit). Human-caused greenhouse gas emissions set a record in 2010, a 6% jump on 2009 emissions, exceeding even the "worst case" scenario cited in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
Views and analysis.
MER and PPP.
The SRES scenarios were criticised by Ian Castles and David Henderson. The core of their critique was the use of market exchange rates (MER) for international comparison, in lieu of the theoretically favoured PPP exchange rate which corrects for differences in purchasing power. The IPCC rebutted this criticism.
The positions in the debate can be summarised as follows. Using MER, the SRES scenarios overstate income differences in past and present, and overestimate future economic growth in developing countries. This, Castles and Henderson originally argued, leads to an overestimate of future greenhouse gas emissions. The IPCC future climate change projections would have been overestimated.
However, the difference in economic growth is offset by a difference in energy intensity. Some say these two opposite effects fully cancel, some say this is only partial. Overall, the effect of a switch from MER to PPP is likely to have a minimal effect on carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. Castles and Henderson later accepted this and acknowledged that they were mistaken that future greenhouse gas emissions had been significantly overestimated.
But even though global climate change is not affected, it has been argued that the regional distribution of emissions and incomes is very different between an MER and a PPP scenario. This would influence the political debate: in a PPP scenario, China and India have a much smaller share of global emissions. It would also affect vulnerability to climate change: in a PPP scenario, poor countries grow more slowly and would face greater impacts.
Availability of fossil fuels.
As part of the SRES, IPCC authors assessed the potential future availability of fossil fuels for energy use. SRES assumptions about availability of fossil fuels is largely based on a 1997 study done by Rogner, who goes to great lengths to claim that there are enough fossil resources, i.e. hydrocarbon molecules in the crust, to theoretically sustain production for an extended period of time.
The issue of whether or not the future availability of fossil fuels would limit future carbon emissions was considered in the "Third Assessment Report"; it concluded that limits on fossil fuel resources would not limit carbon emissions in the 21st century. Their estimate for conventional coal reserves was around 1,000 gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), with an upper estimate of between 3,500 and 4,000 GtC. This compares with cumulative carbon emissions up to the year 2100 of about 1,000 GtC for the SRES B1 scenario, and about 2,000 GtC for the SRES A1FI scenario.
The carbon in proven conventional oil and gas reserves was estimated to be much less than the cumulative carbon emissions associated with atmospheric stabilization of CO2 concentrations at levels of 450 ppmv or higher. The "Third Assessment Report" suggested that the future makeup of the world's energy mix would determine whether or not greenhouse gas concentrations were stabilized in the 21st century. The future energy mix might be based more on the exploitation of unconventional oil and gas (e.g., oil sands, shale oil, tight oil, shale gas), or more on the use of non-fossil energy sources, like renewable energy. Total primary energy production from fossil fuels in the SRES outlooks range from a mere 50% increase from year 2010 in the B1 family to over 400% in the A1 family.
Criticism.
Direct quote from abstract of Wang et al:
 Climate projections are based on emission scenarios. The emission scenarios used by the IPCC and by mainstream climate scientists are largely derived from the predicted demand for fossil fuels, and in our view take insufficient consideration of the constrained emissions that are likely due to the depletion of these fuels.
This persistent problem has been criticized for a long time as many assumptions used for fossil fuel availability and future production have been optimistic at best and implausible at worst. The SRES and RCP scenarios have been criticized for being biased towards “exaggerated resource availability” and making “unrealistic expectations on future production outputs from fossil fuels. Energy cannot be seen as a limitless input to economic/climate models and remain disconnected from the physical and logistical realities of supply.
A recent meta-analysis of the fossil energy outlooks used for climate change scenarios even identified a "return to coal hypothesis", as most mainstream climate scenarios foresee a significant increase in world coal production in the future. Patzek and Croft (2010, p. 3113) made a prediction of future coal production and carbon emissions. In their assessment, all but the lowest emission SRES scenarios projected far too high levels of future coal production and carbon emissions (Patzek and Croft, 2010, pp. 3113–3114). Similar results was reached by other long-term coal projections
In a discussion paper, Aleklett (2007, p. 17) viewed SRES projections between the years 2020 and 2100 as “absolutely unrealistic”. In Aleklett's analysis, emissions from oil and gas were lower than all of the SRES projections, with emissions from coal much lower than the majority of SRES projections (Aleklett, 2007, p. 2).
Select Committee report.
In 2005, the UK Parliament's House of Lords Economics Affairs Select Committee produced a report on the economics of climate change. As part of their inquiry, they took evidence on criticisms of the SRES. Among those who gave evidence to the Committee were Dr Ian Castles, a critic of the SRES scenarios, and Prof Nebojsa Nakicenovic, who co-edited the SRES. IPCC author Dr Chris Hope commented on the SRES A2 scenario, which is one of the higher emissions scenarios of the SRES. Hope assessed and compared the marginal damages of climate change using two versions of the A2 scenario. In one version of the A2 scenario, emissions were as the IPCC projected. In the other version of A2, Hope reduced the IPCC's projected emissions by a half (i.e., 50% of the original A2 scenario). In his integrated assessment model, both of these versions of the A2 scenario lead to almost identical estimates of marginal climate damages (the present-day value of emitting one tonne of CO2 into the atmosphere). Based on this finding, Hope argued that present day climate policy was insensitive to whether or not you accepted the validity of the higher emission SRES scenarios.
IPCC author Prof Richard Tol commented on the strengths and weaknesses of the SRES scenarios. In his view, the A2 SRES marker scenario was, by far, the most realistic. UK Government departments Defra and HM Treasury argued that case for action on climate change was not undermined by the Castles and Henderson critique of the SRES scenarios. They also commented that unless effective action was taken to curb emissions growth, other bodies, like the International Energy Agency, expected greenhouse gas emissions to continue to rise into the future.
Comparison with a “no policy” scenario.
In a report published by the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Webster "et al." (2008) compared the SRES scenarios with their own “no policy” scenario. Their no-policy scenario assumes that in the future, the world does nothing to limit greenhouse gas emissions. They found that most of the SRES scenarios were outside of the 90% probability range of their no-policy scenario (Webster "et al.", 2008, p. 1). Most of the SRES scenarios were consistent with efforts to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Webster "et al." (2008, p. 54) noted that the SRES scenarios were designed to cover most of the range of future emission levels in the published scientific literature. Many such scenarios in the literature presumably assumed that future efforts would be made to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations.
Post-SRES projections.
As part of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the literature on emissions scenarios was assessed. Baseline emissions scenarios published since the SRES were found to be comparable in range to those in the SRES. IPCC (2007) noted that post-SRES scenarios had used lower values for some drivers for emissions, notably population projections. However, of the assessed studies that had incorporated new population projections, changes in other drivers, such as economic growth, resulted in little change in overall emission levels.
Succession.
In IPCC Fifth Assessment Report released in 2014, SRES projections were superseded by Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) models.


8 cm kanon vz. 28

The 8 cm kanon vz. 28 (Cannon model 1928) was a Czech field gun used during World War II.
Design & history.
The origins of the 8 cm kanon vz. 28 began in 1928 at the Škoda Works in Pilsen. The design attempted to combine the field gun, mountain gun, and anti-aircraft gun roles into one weapon. The vz. 28 combined a two-wheeled box trail carriage, horizontal sliding wedge breech, hydro-pneumatic recoil system, muzzle brake, high angle elevation and a firing table for 360° degree traverse. For the mountain gun role it could be broken down into three pieces for transport, a feature also shared by the contemporary 10 cm houfnice vz. 28 and the later 8 cm kanon vz. 30 and 10 cm houfnice vz. 30 guns.
The vz. 28 proved to be fairly successful as a field and mountain gun, but was a failure as an anti-aircraft gun. The Czech Army used the vz. 28 in limited numbers, but ordered its successor the vz. 30 in larger numbers. The vz. 30 lacked the vz. 28's firing table, otherwise their configuration, dimensions, and performance were largely the same.
The Yugoslav Army ordered the vz. 28 who referred to it as the 80 mm M.28. The Romanian Army also ordered a 75 mm version the 75 mm Skoda Model 1928 which it used during World War II. Guns captured from Yugoslavia by the Germans were given the designation 7.65 cm FK 304(j).


Treaty of Rarotonga

The Treaty of Rarotonga is the common name for the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, which formalises a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the South Pacific. The treaty bans the use, testing, and possession of nuclear weapons within the borders of the zone.
It was signed by the South Pacific nations of Australia, the Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu on the island of Rarotonga (where the capital of the Cook Islands is located) on 6 August 1985, came into force on 11 December 1986 with the 8th ratification, and has since been ratified by all of those states.
The Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau are not party to the treaties but are eligible to become parties should they decide to join the treaty in the future.
Protocols binding other states.
There are three protocols to the treaty, which have been signed by the five declared nuclear states, with the exception of Protocol 1 for China and Russia who have no territory in the Zone.
In 1996 France and the United Kingdom signed and ratified the three protocols. The United States signed them the same year but has not ratified them. China signed and ratified protocols 2 and 3 in 1987. Russia has also ratified protocols 2 and 3 with reservations.
Scope of applicability.
The treaty's different provisions apply variously to the Zone, to the territories within the Zone, or globally.
"South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone" means the area :
plus three projections north of the Equator to include the territory and territorial waters of Papua New Guinea, Nauru, and Kiribati,
but minus the northwest corner beyond Australian territorial waters and near Indonesia (and the Southeast Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone).
Several islands in the Indian Ocean also belong to Australia and are therefore part of the zone.
"Territory" means internal waters, territorial sea and archipelagic waters, the seabed and subsoil beneath, the land territory and the airspace above them.
It does not include international waters.
Article 2 says "Nothing in this Treaty shall prejudice or in any way affect the rights, or the exercise of the rights, of any State under international law with regard to freedom of the seas."
The Treaty is an agreement between nation-states and as such of course cannot apply to those who have not signed the treaty or protocols, for example, the four countries not signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, who are all nuclear powers.


Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton

Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton is the major West Coast base of the United States Marine Corps and is one of the largest Marine Corps bases in the US. It is on the Southern California coast, in San Diego County, and bordered by Oceanside to the south, Cleveland National Forest, San Clemente, and Orange County to the north, Riverside County to the northeast, and Fallbrook to the east.
The base was established in 1942 to train U.S. Marines for service in World War II. By October 1944, Camp Pendleton was declared a "permanent installation," and by 1946 it became the home of the 1st Marine Division. It was named after Major General Joseph Henry Pendleton (1860–1942), who had long advocated setting up a training base for the Marine Corps on the West Coast. Today it is home to myriad Operating Force units, including the I Marine Expeditionary Force and various training commands.
History.
Prior to World War II.
In 1769, a Spanish expedition led by Captain Gaspar de Portolá explored northward from Loreto, Baja California Sur, seeking to reach Monterey Bay, something never before done overland by Europeans. On July 20 of that year, the expedition arrived in the area now known as Camp Pendleton, and as it was the holy day of St. Margaret, they christened the land in the name of Santa Margarita. The expedition went on to establish military outposts and Franciscan missions at San Diego and Monterey.
During the next 30 years, 21 missions were established, the most productive one being Mission San Luis Rey, just south of the present-day Camp Pendleton. At that time, San Luis Rey Mission had control over the Santa Margarita area.
After 1821, following the Mexican War of Independence from Spain, some of the former members of the Portolà expedition who had stayed on (mostly garrison soldiers) were awarded large land grants ("ranchos") by Mexican governors. The retired soldiers were joined as "rancheros" by prominent businessmen, officials, and military leaders. They and their children, the Californios, became the landed gentry of Alta California.
In 1841, two brothers, Pio Pico and Andrés Pico, became the first private owners of Rancho Santa Margarita. More land was later added to the grant, giving it the name of Rancho Santa Margarita y Las Flores, which stayed with the ranch until the Marine Corps acquired it in 1942. The design of the ranch's cattle brand is seen in the base's logo today.
In 1863, an Englishman named John (Don Juan) Forster (Pio Pico's brother-in-law) paid off Pico's gambling debts in return for the deed to the ranch. During his tenure as owner of the ranch, he expanded the ranch house, which was first built in 1827, and developed the rancho into a thriving cattle industry.
Forster's heirs, however, were forced to sell the ranch in 1882 because of a string of bad luck, which included a series of droughts and a fence law that forced Forster to construct fencing around the extensive rancho lands. It was purchased by wealthy cattleman James Clair Flood and managed by Irishman Richard O'Neill, who was eventually rewarded for his faithful service with half ownership. Under the guidance of O'Neill's son, Jerome, the ranch began to net a profit of nearly half a million dollars annually, and the house was modernized and furnished to its present form.
World War II.
In the early 1940s, both the Army and the Marine Corps were looking for land for a large training base. The Army lost interest in the project, but in February 1942 it was announced that the of Rancho Santa Margarita y Las Flores was about to be transformed into the largest Marine Corps base in the country. It was named for Major General Joseph Henry Pendleton who had long advocated the establishment of a West Coast training base. Construction began in April but the base was considered a temporary facility so it was built to minimum standards of wood frame construction. After five months of furious building activity, the 9th Marine Regiment, under then Colonel Lemuel C. Shepherd Jr., marched from Camp Elliott in San Diego to Camp Pendleton to be the first troops to occupy the new base. On September 25, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt officially dedicated the base. Wartime training facilities at the base included landing craft school, amphibious tractor school, beach battalion school, amphibious communications school, and a medical field service school at the naval hospital at Santa Margarita Ranch, now Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton. This facility was also used as a base for discharging soldiers returning from Europe and Asia after World War II ended in 1945, and for the processing of their discharge documents for same.
Post-World War II.
During the Korean War, $20 million helped expand and upgrade existing facilities, including the construction of Camp Horno. When Camp Pendleton trained the country's fighting force for the Korean and Vietnam Wars, approximately 200,000 Marines passed through the base on their way to the Far East.
Beginning in 1954, Camp Pendleton has hosted a variation of Basic Training familiarization for teenagers age 14 to 17. This training, called "Devil Pups", promotes physical fitness, instills discipline and promotes love of country and the Marine Corps.
The camp's stables display a plaque and statue commemorating a horse, Sergeant Reckless, which served with the Marine Corps in Korea.
In 1975 Camp Pendleton was the first military base in the U.S. to provide accommodations for Vietnamese evacuees in Operation New Arrivals; over 50,000 refugees came to the base in the largest humanitarian airlift in history.
Camp Pendleton has continued to grow through renovations, replacing its original tent camps with more than 2,626 buildings and over 500 miles of roads.
Efforts today continue to preserve the heritage of Camp Pendleton's founders and the Marine Corps' history. The original ranch house has been declared a National Historic Site as well as the Las Flores Adobe.
21st century.
The base's diverse geography, spanning over , plays host to year-round training for Marines in addition to all other branches of the U.S. military. Amphibious and sea-to-shore training takes place at several key points along the base's of coastline. The main base is in the Mainside Complex, at the southeastern end of the base, and the remote northern interior is an impact area. Daytime population is around 100,000. Recruits from nearby Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego spend four weeks at Pendleton's Edson Range receiving field training; after graduating from recruit training, newly-minted Marines return to the base's School of Infantry for further training.
Camp Pendleton remains the last major undeveloped portion of the California coastline south of Santa Barbara, save for a few relatively small state parks. In 2015 the site was proposed for a large civilian airport.
Since August 2004, Camp Pendleton has been one of five locations in the Department of Defense to operate the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) air radar. The STARS radar allows the facility to simulate air traffic for training purposes.
Camp Pendleton's five-man color guard has participated in many sporting events in San Diego and at the 1996 Republican National Convention, accompanying national anthem performers. Among the more famous performers who were accompanied by the Camp Pendleton color guard have been Frankie Laine, Herb Alpert, Wilson Phillips, Jewel, Trisha Yearwood and the Dixie Chicks, all of whom had performed the National Anthem at either a World Series game, Super Bowl, or, in Wilson Phillips' case, a Major League Baseball All-Star Game that was played at what is now SDCCU Stadium.
In a 2002 letter to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Marine Corps Commandant J.L. Jones stated to the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA), who operates the toll roads in Orange County, “Frankly, my preference is that the proposed toll road not be constructed on or near Camp Pendleton. This construction is one more encroachment venture that will hinder [our] ability to prepare for war. It will also result in additional losses of natural areas that support endangered species, thus placing an even greater burden on Camp Pendleton to protect the region’s biodiversity.” In 2008, after the rejection of the proposed toll road extension of SR 241 through San Onofre State Beach Park for environmental reasons, the TCA filed for permission to build on the northwestern portion of the base. A spokesman for Camp Pendleton denied the request in 2010, stating that they could only allow the toll road to run through the San Onofre State Beach Park because their training missions could not be completed without the proposed land. In fact, the California gnatcatcher, an endangered species, resides on the northwestern portion of the base. The TCA funded a study in 2013 to remove the California gnatcatcher from the endangered species list, which would have made it easier to negotiate the construction and planning of the 241's extension through the San Onofre State Beach Park.
Areas of Camp Pendleton.
Areas 11-16 are collectively known as "Mainside."
Ecology.
Camp Pendleton was built on a wide swath of coastal land that once supported an estuary at the mouth of the Santa Margarita River and extensive salt marsh habitat. Outlying land within the base is made up of floodplain, oak woodlands, coastal dunes and bluffs, coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and several types of wetlands, including ephemeral wetlands such as vernal pools. Wildfire is not uncommon. Research in ecology takes place in undeveloped areas of base, which contain examples of rare and endangered California habitat types. The Department of Defense has issued management plans for various ecosystems on this territory.
Land within the base still includes breeding habitat for birds such as the western snowy plover and California gnatcatcher. The coastal bluffs have many of the few existing specimens of the Pendleton button-celery, which was named for the base. Rare mammals on the base include the Pacific pocket mouse and Stephens's kangaroo rat. Non-native American bison were introduced in the 1970s and are known to roam throughout the base.


RB 04

The RB-04 (Robot 04) is a long-range fire-and-forget air-to-surface, anti-ship missile. The missile was known as the "RB-304" during development and early service years.
While interest in guided anti-ship missiles was subdued in the 1950s, it was not entirely extinct. In 1949, the Swedish government placed a request for a radar-guided, air-launched anti-ship missile. The request materialized as the SAAB "Robot-Byrån (RB) 04", which was first test launched by a Saab 29 Tunnan fighter in early 1955.
The early versions of the missile suffered teething problems in regards to the two targeting modes, which were area attack, for striking a big group of ships (like an invasion fleet), and select targeting, where the missiles home in on a single vessel. In the area attack the missile would only target a ship in the group if they were within 1,000 meters of another vessel, this was also in the early electronic age, and changes in this distance required hardware modifications in a workshop.
Many components of the missile were reused when the RBS-15 was developed, including the main body and warhead, although the motor and main wings were the most obvious external changes.
The missile has never seen combat; the closest thing it has come to being used was during the "Whiskey on the Rocks" incident in 1981, when a Soviet (NATO code Whiskey Class) submarine ran aground outside the naval station in Karlskrona. Swedish AJ37 Viggens with RB-04E's mounted under their wings, taken from top secret storage bunkers, stood on high alert for a possible Soviet incursion.
On one occasion, when a Soviet rescue operation seemed to be underway, aircraft were scrambled with the intent to intercept Soviet ships.


Silsbee, California

Silsbee is a former settlement in Imperial County, California. It was located west-southwest of El Centro.
A post office operated at Silsbee from 1902 to 1909. The name honors Thomas Silsbee, rancher. The town was destroyed by an overflow of the Colorado River.


Tiro de Diu

The Tiro de Diu is a 16th-century siege cannon, specifically a large-calibre basilisk, which saw action in the First Siege of Diu in 1538.
History.
The Tiro de Diu was cast in bronze in 1533 during the reign of Sultan Bahadur Shah of Gujarat and was used during the First Siege of Diu in 1538.
The basilisk is cast in one solid piece and has no ornaments whatsoever except for some laudatory Arabic inscriptions that can be roughly translated as follows:
"From our Lord the Sultan of Sultans of all ages; life-giver of the tradition of the Prophet of the Merciful God; the one that fights for the exaltation of the precepts of the Koran; the destroyer of the arguments of the supporters of wickedness; the one that casts away the houses of worshipers of idols; the Victor of the day when the two armies will meet; heir to the kingdom of Solomon; the one who trusts in the God the Benefactor; the possessor of all the virtues – Bahadur-Shah"
After the defeat of the Muslim forces, the gun was sent to Lisbon, first being set in the Castle of São Jorge and, after 1640, in the Fortress of S. Julião da Barra, in Oeiras, to defend the mouth of the River Tagus.
By mid 18th century the gun was again removed, this time being sent to the Arsenal in Lisbon to be melted so that the metal could be used to cast a statue of king D. José I. However, a scholar noticed the Arabic inscriptions on the gun and after discovering the historical value of the piece, the gun was spared.
It is now on display on the Pátio dos Canhões at the Military Museu of Lisbon.


Aircraft artillery

Aircraft artillery are artillery weapons with a calibre larger than 37 mm mounted on aircraft. First used for ground attack roles during World War I, aircraft artillery has found its use in the present day, most notably on the AC-130.
History.
Aircraft artillery was first used for ground attack roles during World War I. A notable user of aircraft artillery was the fighter ace René Fonck.


5 mm caliber

This is a list of firearm cartridges which have bullets in the to caliber range.
All measurements are in mm (in).


Bergmann Mars

The Bergmann Mars was Theodor Bergmann's first successful military pistol design. The pistol was originally designed for the 7.63 Mauser cartridge, but was soon changed to the proprietary 9mm Bergmann cartridge.
Military service.
The Mars was adopted by the Spanish government in 1905, however, later they were evidently not delivered or fielded. Prototype Mars pistols in .45 ACP were submitted for military testing by the United States in 1906, but were not selected for adoption.


Obturating ring

An obturating ring is a ring of relatively soft material designed to obturate under pressure to form a seal. Obturating rings are often found in artillery and other ballistics applications, and similar devices are also used in other applications such as plumbing, like the "olive" in a compression fitting. The term "O-ring" is sometimes used to describe this kind of pressure seal.
Ballistics uses.
Obturating rings are common in artillery, where the hard steel casing of the shell is too hard to practically deform to provide a tight seal for the propellant gases. An obturating ring or driving band made of a softer material is the typical solution. Mortar bombs also use obturating rings to provide a seal around the projectile. Recoilless rifles and some artillery use rings with a reverse impression of the rifling cut in them for a tighter seal even at very low pressures.
Some artillery shells use an obturating ring at the rear of the shell to provide a tight seal for the breech. This allows a mostly caseless ammunition without the sealing issues generally encountered in such ammunition. The obturating ring provides the sealing that would normally be provided by a cartridge case.


Garcia-Reynoso revolver

The Garcia-Reynoso was a revolver of Argentine origin, developed by captain Antonio García Reynoso. The weapon was chambered in the 7.8x30mm Reynoso round and featured automatic ejection.
The design was then acquired from Leige and further developed by Henri Pieper. Pieper then obtained a German patent, number 81930 of 27 May 1894.