Share/Learn a Random Fact

[Maniakkid25]

Today I learned there is a board game that simulates the wet dream of war gamers everywhere: a land invasion of the US by foreign powers. It's called Fortress America, and the game is basically specially rigged such that the US has a fighting chance against the three other factions invading, representing pretty much the rest of the world.

The funny part is that this rigging is not actually out of the question; most sensible people will argue that fighting a conventional war on American soil would be like pulling teeth. Even if we handwave away the fact that the US Navy will get a say in the matter, trying to reinforce an amphibious assault over the Atlantic or Pacific oceans would strain the logistical capabilities of even the world. Add into the fact that the US has basically enough resources to meet minimum requirements for both civilian and military needs (including food), and oh yeah, LITERALLY MORE GUNS THAN PEOPLE, meaning an armed civilian force can and will be able to fight you, makes the prospects of invading at least the Mainland US...bleak, to say the least.

[Moonface]

...and oh yeah, LITERALLY MORE GUNS THAN PEOPLE, meaning an armed civilian force can and will be able to fight you, makes the prospects of invading at least the Mainland US...bleak, to say the least.

Would any decent percentage of the people armed in the US actually be worth a damn against actual trained military combatants? Removing all of the gun owners who have zero clue how to properly use one, I doubt even those remaining that have gone through adequate training with whatever firearm they own would have even half of them know how to handle themselves in a combat situation against an armed military force who will likely engage in a firefight at long distance, which doesn't seem like something even most of the competent gun owners would be able to hold up against because why would a good amount of civilians with guns even consider to learn that sort of stuff? I know hunters would be a class of people that would have some experience with shooting long range, but hunting doesn't involve tactical movement and whatnot against something else armed with a gun. XD

That's even ignoring that any armed force could just go roll down the street in armoured vehicles or whatever to just take people out without even having to be exposed. But I just question how capable armed civilians would be against a well-oiled military enemy when it comes to a straight up shoot out unless the invading forces are as utterly incompetent as the Russians are in Ukraine.

[Maniakkid25]

Two words: Guerilla insurgency. While a random motley group of folks may not have much against, say, an armored regiment, they can effectively neutralize the supporting elements of the armor (foot troops, fuel supply, etc.) to render that regiment basically worthless. We actually saw this exact situation in Ukraine. The Russian tanks ran out of fuel and were abandoned, and then farmers came and towed them away. Guerilla warfare, especially against an enemy you aren't certain of, was the nightmare that soldiers had in the Vietnam War. Hell, in the game, there are actually rules that let the US be reinforced by those hypothetical guerillas and civilian forces! Add in the fact that the likely places of invasion are urban, and you have a scenario that keeps generals up at night, hoping to God it never happens to their army.

Urban Warfare is notorious for being hellacious. Just ask West Point, the famed Army Officer school! It's not hard to find scenarios that seem apocalyptic to us in terms of fighting. Arnhem, Manila, Sarajevo; all of these were nightmare-inducing to anyone with an understanding of the battleground they were in. Snipers hiding in buildings, artillery raining down on the city just because it was safer than try to wade through the violence, and even rocket teams hiding in basements! There's no limit to the horror story urban combat brings, and pretty much every border city would be inviting that scenario on an invading army. And that's just to break into the interior! That's not even where the strategic resources are!

And this is before we count the fact that, hey, since they're working with us, why not arm the citizens with cheap, easy to use anti-tank rockets? It's not like we have to ship them, and training can be done in a few hours! That sounds facetious, but that's literally what the US did in Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded it in the 80s! Sure, that did not end well for us, but these are desperate times! Okay, fine, maybe you want to avoid a full-on "American Taliban" situation. Then you can circulate anti-tank tactics that do NOT require heavy weaponry. You'd be surprised how much this video from the 40s is still true today! A tank is not an invulnerable behemoth, after all. We think it is because of Hollywood and video games, but any tanker will immediately tell you they are blind and lumbering, even when the crew is switched on.

So, in summary, as one-sided as "trained personnel versus armed citizen" sounds, there are a lot more factors that play into such a situation. It's not just a stand-up one-on-one fight; an armed, informal militia can absolutely do devestating damage to an army, especially if those troops or equipment cannot be replaced easily (which they wouldn't be, given they'd have to, at minimum, cross an ocean). This isn't even a "Murica" thing. Switzerland lets their conscripts keep the rifle they are trained on for this specific reason, and Sweden has it as official policy that, if the nation is occupied by a foreign power, the citizenry will start an armed revolt and not stop until that occupier leaves. If it were as simple as "tank beats civilian", no one in their right mind would do something like this. So, either the government is willing to throw all of its citizenry into the meat grinder for time, or they know that this can still be effective (or hell, why not both?).

[Moonface]

^^I do want to comment on the above but still need time to formulate my thoughts/response, but I just wanted to come in here to share that I just discovered that I had thought for a little while now that the EU was recommending a significantly higher intake for salt than the US, with 6g versus 2.3g. Turns out that I had been overlooking that the EU uses the term "salt" while the US uses the term "sodium", and that both regions come to the same result on sodium intake when salt is converted to sodium using the rough measurement of "salt x 0.4 = sodium".

Still no clue why the EU chooses to use the term salt on all food labels though if sodium is the only thing that matters in salt intake. If sodium is the only measurement to care for them just use sodium measurements and ignore the salt.

[ShiraNoMai]

Yeah it's very interesting choice that the EU/BHA specifically used Salt as their unit of measure and not the Sodium in question, being the probable problematic element to look out for in dietary intake. At least they're all in agreement that sodium intake should be limited because of it how it functions in excess in your body.

Cute video on what happens when you reduce, outright quit, or overindulge on salt intake:

[Moonface]

It does make me wonder if the EU/UK choosing to measure salt rather than sodium is why I rarely heard anyone worry about the amount of sodium in their food. Maybe it's just because the Publix I work at is surrounded by retirement communities but the amount of people who've questioned me about the amount of sodium in something is insane to me. My old job in the UK had old people who would shop too but I never had a single one of them ask or complain about the salt content of a food product to me.

[Kyng]

It does make me wonder if the EU/UK choosing to measure salt rather than sodium is why I rarely heard anyone worry about the amount of sodium in their food. Maybe it's just because the Publix I work at is surrounded by retirement communities but the amount of people who've questioned me about the amount of sodium in something is insane to me. My old job in the UK had old people who would shop too but I never had a single one of them ask or complain about the salt content of a food product to me.

I suspect it's largely because people know what salt looks and tastes like, so they understand what it means when a food product 'contains salt'. However, it's harder to understand what it means when their food 'contains sodium'.

(Then again, people don't have any trouble understanding the health benefits of calcium, which isn't any more 'visible' than sodium!)

[Maniakkid25]

So, this is sonething I've known about for a long while, and every once in a while, I remember it, and it makes me giggle every time. It is my favorite image to have ever come out of the US National Archives (where the US stores all its old paperwork).



This is a DECLASSIFIED picture of an anti-tank rock. Not a rockET; a rock. And yes, by being declassified, it was at one point Classified, which makes it even funnier.

So the story of the anti-tank rock is very simple; around the time that World War 2 was getting going, the US was conducting tests to see what might make effective improvised anti-tank weapons. So, they stuck rifles in the tracks (which were obliterated), and eventually shoved this giant rock in the track. As you can see from the gigantic section that is clearly missing, the tank sheared the rock in two undisturbed.

It's worth noting that within 3 years of this test, they would have developed the M4 Sherman, which is arguably one of the best tanks of the entire war. That should give you the idea of the ABSURD speed at which US army development and procurement went during World War 2.

In case you are curious, I do have a second favorite image to come out of the National Archives. It is a picture of the only surviving fully-built T28/T95 (long story) being found in a field after being left there for 27 years. No, seriously, the US lost an 87-tonne tank in a completely open field for nearly thirty years. This will never not be funny.

[Mr EliteL]

I suppose they still had to test for them "anti-tank" ideas just to be sure even if it was going to be obvious what was going to happen to the rifles or even a pretty heft rock. For some reason I first thought the rock was going to be used as a sort of weapon against a tank to see if the armor could withstand something heavy and hard as a rock, but it was for possibly stopping the tracks of a tank.

Also like the title of the reddit post for the lost tank. Dang it was just in field...hiding not really submerged in a bush.

[Moonface]

Before I read your write up for it @Maniakkid25 I was expecting that rock to actually have stopped a tank by being that shape and the treads having an awful time dealing with going over it or something. I'm guessing the US was also just testing this stuff to use against enemy tanks rather than find weaknesses in their own, given they were advancing so quickly with new tanks that they would probably be making their tests redundant very quickly.
I do wonder though what the simplest thing is that has stopped a tank. I'm used to just seeing land mines or stuff like that used to screw over any land vehicle rather than some unga bunga method like sticks and rocks. XD

[Maniakkid25]

This very much depends on how you define "Stop a tank". And that's not being pedantic, either; Anti-tank warfare defines 4 types of kill: Mobility Kill (or M-Kill), Firepower Kill (F-Kill), Mission-Kill, and Catastrophic-Kill (K-Kill).

Mobility Kills are just that: you stop the tank from being able to move. The tank theoretically is still capable of fighting in this condition, but it's not going anywhere under its own power. The simplest way an M-Kill has happened probably goes to the Japanese. The article where the Anti-Tank Rock comes from makes a passing mention that Steve Zaloga (a former M103 crewman and noted US Armor historian) found a document saying that the Japanese liked to shove metal rods in the sprocket wheel holes of tanks in an attempt to immobilize them. It must have worked, otherwise why would they put out a bulletin for it?

Firepower Kills are also in the name: you make the tank unable to shoot. This can mean the gun is damaged, or the ammo is depleted, but whatever happens, the tank cannot fight anymore. And before you ask: yes, you can shoot out the barrel of a tank gun to make it unable to fire effectively. It's a damn hard target, but it has happened.

Mission Kills are probably the type of kill you are talking about: the tank has been shot or damaged in a way that means it can no longer fight, but it can be repaired, potentially. It's called "Mission" Kill because once this happens, the mission for the tank is over. If the crew is lucky, they were able to get out of it before it caught fire, and survived to fight another day. The simplest Mission Kill I can think of is just shooting it with an anti-tank gun. In terms of cost-effectiveness, that pretty much beats all other methods. Unless you're talking about modern tanks, in which case you are going to have to start getting into "fancy" territory if you want something relatively "cheap". And before you mention it: there is that time someone destroyed a tank by shoving the grenade down the barrel. Unless the crew were particularly incompetent, though, don't expect that to happen, because the breech is sealed. What's more likely to happen is you just destroy the gun.

Catastrophic Kills are shit like this happening. You see that pan shaped object flying into the air? Yeah, that's a turret from a T-72. That's a 12+ tonne hunk of metal and composite material (long story) being chucked into the air because the ammunition blew up under it. K-Kills mean that the tank is no longer repairable; it is just scrapped and you move on. This is where the pyrotechnics happen, and you can imagine that the crew do not have much chance of surviving something like that. That specific "turret flying into the air" thing, by the way? It has it's own name: The Jack-in-the-Box Effect.

[Moonface]

This very much depends on how you define "Stop a tank". And that's not being pedantic, either; Anti-tank warfare defines 4 types of kill: Mobility Kill (or M-Kill), Firepower Kill (F-Kill), Mission-Kill, and Catastrophic-Kill (K-Kill).

Mobility Kills are just that: you stop the tank from being able to move. The tank theoretically is still capable of fighting in this condition, but it's not going anywhere under its own power. The simplest way an M-Kill has happened probably goes to the Japanese. The article where the Anti-Tank Rock comes from makes a passing mention that Steve Zaloga (a former M103 crewman and noted US Armor historian) found a document saying that the Japanese liked to shove metal rods in the sprocket wheel holes of tanks in an attempt to immobilize them. It must have worked, otherwise why would they put out a bulletin for it?

Well, since the rock was being used to try and make the tank just outright stop moving I was at the time thinking solely of what would classify as a M-Kill. I also appreciate you sharing that the known simplest way to achieve such a kill is someone just running up to a tank and shoving a metal stick in it.

Firepower Kills are also in the name: you make the tank unable to shoot. This can mean the gun is damaged, or the ammo is depleted, but whatever happens, the tank cannot fight anymore. And before you ask: yes, you can shoot out the barrel of a tank gun to make it unable to fire effectively. It's a damn hard target, but it has happened.

Does it also work in reality to shove a rock in the barrel of a tank gun like in Indiana Jones?

Catastrophic Kills are shit like this happening. You see that pan shaped object flying into the air? Yeah, that's a turret from a T-72. That's a 12+ tonne hunk of metal and composite material (long story) being chucked into the air because the ammunition blew up under it. K-Kills mean that the tank is no longer repairable; it is just scrapped and you move on. This is where the pyrotechnics happen, and you can imagine that the crew do not have much chance of surviving something like that. That specific "turret flying into the air" thing, by the way? It has it's own name: The Jack-in-the-Box Effect.

Holy shit that video was actually cool to watch! It reminded me of those anvil launching competitions that people do but on a much more spectacular scale.  


Speaking of war stuff, I saw this image on Reddit showing men queuing up to enlist in World War 1, and it's crazy to see how happy and excited the majority of that crowd looks. I know that no one at that time could have known just what exactly World War 1 would be like since it was the first, but it makes me wonder what idea people had of war in any degree back then to not show any concern about heading into a fight against another country using firearms. I can't even comprehend signing up to enter a fight against other countries (that at the time is so bad multiple countries have gotten involved) and being excited about lining up to join in.
Then I saw this mentioned in the comments about Pal Battalions that caused whole towns of men to just be completely wiped out due to all being put together in a single squad. I guess maybe signing up for war under one of those things maybe takes away a lot of the severity of the situation that I'd expect to see weighing on peoples faces in that photograph but it's scary to think of whole towns of men being happy to sign up for this and nobody seemed to be concerned about maybe seeing their friends die next to them or none of them coming back at all.

[Maniakkid25]

Does it also work in reality to shove a rock in the barrel of a tank gun like in Indiana Jones?

Actually, yes. Yes it does. Okay, to be fair, this wasn't a rock (if I found the correct picture, this was a Bore Sight Device -- a little laser that let's you see where your aim is), but the effect is the same: the gun was absolutely obliterated. I've heard this described once as "Petaling", but can't seem to find anyone else calling it that.

As far as WWI goes, the world had a very different understanding of war back then. War was considered something you did to get what you needed; it was a lot more casual, and often seen as "honorable", and the battles often reflected that. While there are some brutal battles in the past (Antietam, looking at you), it wasn't on the scale of a single day. World War I changed that, basically waking everyone up with the Battle of the Frontiers, where 27,000 French casualties happened in a single day, cut down by machine gun fire. This was the START of World War I!

The generals of the day still had a very Napoleonic style of commanding their troops, expecting mass formations and long fields of fire. On top of this, the public wasn't being exposed to the horrors of The War. We know NOW that The War was a brutal, drag out, all-or-nothing war, but this was the time when everyone said The War would be over by Christmas. We learned a lot of lessons the hard way with that war, and it's important that we remember what it taught us.

Lest We Forget.

[Moonface]

We know NOW that The War was a brutal, drag out, all-or-nothing war, but this was the time when everyone said The War would be over by Christmas. We learned a lot of lessons the hard way with that war, and it's important that we remember what it taught us.

Lest We Forget.

I question if we learned a lesson about not underestimating how long a war could take when my first thought reading this part of your post was "This sounds like a similar expectation versus reality situation for time that was applied to the War in Iraq." Then there's also the Ukraine war where Putin expected that to be a walk in the park and be over before dinner and yet it continues to this day. Not that I expect every war to actually get an accurate end date prediction/goal but it doesn't seem like the lesson to not get ahead of yourself on time frames hasn't been applied too well to a decent number of modern cases.


On a side note and why I came hunting this topic down (and remembering I never replied to the last post in here when I thought I had...) was I just learned that the lines on the back windows of cars are thin filament wires used to heat up that window for defrosting purposes. I always thought they were some really shit way of measuring distance when using your rear window for reversing, like those HUD's on aircraft that use lines to judge target distance and stuff.

[Maniakkid25]

So, I just learned something impressively dumb from academia. In 1975, a seemingly innocuous paper on low-temperature atomic physics was published in the journal Physics Review Letters. It had two authors: Jack H. Hetherington and F.D.C. Willard.

F.D.C. stands for "Felis Domesticus, Chester". F.D.C. Willard is a cat.

See, the story goes that when Hetherington wrote up the paper, he used the first person plural ("we") instead of singular ("I"), despite being the sole author. A colleague then commented that it would immediately get rejected on those grounds. In the greatest act of laziness I have ever seen, rather than rewrite the paper to change the pronoun or just find some random dude who was willing to co-author, he wrote down his cat as his co-author.

No, this is not a troll! This is the paper in question, and the paper went on to be highly influential in its field! According to the cat's Wikipedia article (?!), F.D.C Willard would also go on to be the sole author of another article, but I haven't tried to track that one down.