subcultured
post some cool facts here:

After you die, your body starts to dry out creating the illusion that your hair and nails are still growing after death.

Pumpkins are fruits, not vegetables.

If you fart consistently for 6 years and 9 months, enough gas is produced to create the energy of an atomic bomb.

A pig's orgasm lasts for 30 minutes.

The male praying mantis cannot copulate while its head is attached to its body. The female initiates sex by ripping the male's head off.

The pig one made me lawl.

subcultured
post some cool facts here:

I can turn my bellybutton inside out!

Arashi_san

subcultured
post some cool facts here:

I can turn my bellybutton inside out!

You know my first thought was that you could flip your intestines onto the outside of your body somehow.

Must make getting a navel piercing easy.

Dogs have anti-septic saliva.

Arashi_san
I can turn my bellybutton inside out!

Oh yeah, well I can turn another lovely hole on the other side of my body inside out!

If I could find that picture...

Some women wear corsettes to make their waistlines as thin as 13". However, you can also see where their internal organs get displaced. eww...

Lonnehart
If I could find that picture...

Some women wear corsettes to make their waistlines as thin as 13". However, you can also see where their internal organs get displaced. eww...

They say that the only reason "fainting" became so popular in pop-culture from the 19th C and a bit before was due to women wearing corsets all the time. Which is also the reason that it doesn't really happen much at all anymore.

The standard weight of a soldier's combat gear has usually been around 30 pounds from Greek Hoplites to the gear worn by a standard modern soldier.

Additional armor and gear can raise the load significantly, but the load for optimum combat effectiveness is 30 pounds, whether a Hoplite, Legionaire, grumbler, Tommy Atkins, Doughboy, G.I., Panzer Grenadier to the modern "grunt"

That's funny because I was just reading about armour weights... heavy armour has tended any where from 20kg (about 44 lbs) to over 40kg (88lbs), but mostly kept within that range- high 20s and low 30s (55-77 lbs)- from the Scythians to the Romans, to Indian princes to European knights. And considering most men then were shorter and slighter than today's beefy average that's quite amazing.
-we know this from the skeletons and the armour itself who's dimensions are an excellent indicator and not open to interpretation.

Makes me wonder at the stamina of those people... Pretty damned incredible. o_O
-------------------

Though I'd rather the heavier load than the lighter grunt one... The grunts likely had to bear their's a LOT longer and without the support that the heavier armoured nobles and specialist troops received. Not to mention the reduction in protection. :(

ozoneocean
That's funny because I was just reading about armour weights... heavy armour has tended any where from 20kg (about 44 lbs) to over 40kg (88lbs), but mostly kept within that range- high 20s and low 30s (55-77 lbs)- from the Scythians to the Romans, to Indian princes to European knights. And considering most men then were shorter and slighter than today's beefy average that's quite amazing.
-we know this from the skeletons and the armour itself who's dimensions are an excellent indicator and not open to interpretation.

Makes me wonder at the stamina of those people... Pretty damned incredible. o_O
-------------------

Though I'd rather the heavier load than the lighter grunt one... The grunts likely had to bear their's a LOT longer and without the support that the heavier armoured nobles and specialist troops received. Not to mention the reduction in protection. :(

Most of the heavier armor types were most often worn by mounted troops, not foot soldiers. The typical chain mail thigh length shirt with a leather gambeson, helmet, shield, sword would be about 40-50 pounds total. That's a full combat load with extra stuff. A Napoleonic Curaissier's full load weighed 60 pounds+ The infantryman was only carrying 30-40. Armor wearing types used to start training with their armor in their early teens if not sooner. Using a compound bow or a sword also builds heavy upper body mass so wearing that hauberk isn't so hard.

A full suit of plate armor is 60-80 pounds but the weight is so well distributed that it almost feels like you're not wearing it. (Cartwheels) A full length chain mail hauberk is 40-60 pounds except the weight is on the shoulders. (no cartwheels) So foot soldiers unaccustomed to it wouldn't often be wearing it (they'd sell it). They would only keep the helpful bits that didn't weigh them down.

Height doesn't have much to do with carrying them weights, it's muscles. A power lifter's skeleton and mine look the same with no flesh. Additionally a lean, thin guy who's been carrying around 40 pounds of gear and armor his whole adult life wouldn't have any problem. (or flinging 60 pound Sabot rounds around the inside of a cramped turret interior after the intensive physical training of Basic/AIT. Soldiers have to do 40+ push-ups in 2 minutes for a reason) I dump that load on Joe Dirt the lounge potato and he's gonna be hurting.

Special forces carry 100 pounds and even more, and they have few problems with it because of their work-out regimin and physical health. (talk about 60 push-ups without breaking a sweat) Though at the end of the day, their back hurts too. :)

I do 50 every morning and evening in under 1 minute. I could do more, but 50's a nice number ^_^

But, with pushups, they get easier the more you do them, and I'm quite light and strong for my size so stuff involving me reacting against my own weight is easier for me than some other people. -so in my case they're not really as good an indicator of strength or stamina.

---------------

The biggest limiting factor in armour was actually flexibility. This is why we have the myth of nights being useless without horses and them having to be hoisted onto horses with cranes.

The only truth in that comes from special examples like Henry the 8th who was too fat and ill in his later years, and suffering a leg injury, and men in jousting armour which is 100% pure sport armour- ONLY intended for riding in a joust and nothing else, so the weight and flexibility can make mounting impossible: arm and leg parts are often fixed in place.

Flexibility and heat endurance... I once made a suit of plate from various bits and pieces as an art project. you have to make interesting compromises to get the flexibility and protection balance.
Yeah, heavy chain mail is as heavy as plate, heavier to wear because it hangs, offers less protection because it's not rigid, but you have a LOT more flexibility in it.

-restricted vision and hearing is another... like for a driver in a tank :)
But, like a tank crew, your protection enables you not to have to worry as much about the threats you can't see (to an extent)... And like a driver or Commander can get a better view when they feel it's safe, the knight can always remove his helmet.

fun fact: doing over 30 push-ups in a minute is more detrimental than beneficial. :)

And why's that? You could also take all day doing them...
Not one of those things based on average body statistics is it? Because those are really unreliable. Things like Body Mass Index are quite useless to a lot of people.

-----
Fact- while Nitroglycerin is an amazingly volatile explosive, it's also very good as a heart medicine. :)

Just the tongue of a blue whale weighs as much as an adult elephant.

ozoneocean
And why's that? You could also take all day doing them...
Not one of those things based on average body statistics is it? Because those are really unreliable. Things like Body Mass Index are quite useless to a lot of people.

It has to do with several variable including proper form, the abrasion of your muscles, and their recovery rate. Doing them rapidly or excessively can rupture the muscle or the ligament, as can doing them wrong. Push-ups particularly are dangerous because it's really easy to hurt your back even by slightly bending it the wrong way, which alone can cause spinal trauma and severe back problems.

If you want to improve your push-up abilities or strength via push-ups, what you could do is raise the surface of where you place your feet (on stairs or a bed or something like that), do push-ups slower (just raising and lowering your body to the ground at a slower rate), instead of doing them on the palms of your hands, do them on your knuckles or fingertips, or do more throughout perhaps ten minutes, but do them in repetitions of 25-50.

And no, I do not reference BMI for the reason you just stated.

The Physcial training test is based on just push-ups. Prepping for it involves varied types of push-ups which work out the entire upper torso. Also the type of push-up done in the test is no longer defined. Spread arm and elevated push-ups are accepted. Pull-ups are also done by Special Forces types. Then there are also the sit-ups and run.

A well-fitted suit of full plate was actually as flexible if not more as a suit of chain because of the weight distribution. The shoulders and upper back took all the weight of the chain thereby limiting movement. I've tried moving with chain, you feel like someone is standing on your chest. With the weight evenly distributed movement it is so much easier. This is one reason personal equipment has had shoulder straps and now is configured as a vest with a belt. The butt pack and canteen on the vest is so much easier to carry and the MOLLE stuff looks so much easier to carry than the old ALICE packs I was stuck with. But as a tanker I could just throw mine into the bustle rack. Though I understand that in Iraq tankers try not to do that as all the RPGs and IEDs will shred it and even cause exterior fires, and I had some neat stuff in there. :)

My old unit just deployed to Iraq. I've been out for 10 years and I wish my medical condition allowed me to re-enlist. (My shoulder, hip, wrist, elbow and neck are f*@#ed)

Plate does have limitations, however well hinged you make it- more flexible armour means wider openings, which means bigger vulnerabilities. You can stop those up with extra padding, chain, leather... but it's a compromise.
The other method is very cleverly articulated plate. The trouble there is that you have less openings for heat to escape.

-----
The tank and armour thing reminds me of a fact: there's no such thing as an ultimate weapon.

All weapons and methods of warfare rely on the conditions of the time and cultures that use them, they're in constant competition and fluctuating balance.

Not even a nuclear missile or aircraft carrier is proof against suicide bombers for instance.

Imagining the damage that the Forest Fire (USS Forrestal)sustained off Vietnam and various Kamikazee damage in World War II a USS NIMITZ and modified NIMITZ class would shrug off what a suicide bomber could have. One guy or one speed boat couldn't pack the explosives that a Japanese plane or a misfired missile can.

After the evaluation of the Bikini Explosion on the USS Saratoga, it was determined that a carrier would survive a nearby nuclear explosion. Modern US carriers have extensive cleansing capacity to take care of any contamination. Also a "suitcase" nuclear weapon is more like a trunk.

Crashing a jet airliner into a carrier deck would probably do similar damage to what occured to Forrestal, but the Nimitz' are better prepared and equipped and crew better trained because of that incident. And that plane would have to get through the air defences. I doubt a modern suicide bomber would get 30 or so light planes and attack like Kamikazees.

The US Navy once landed a large four engined C-130 cargo plane on an aircraft carrier,(USS Forrestal) just to see if it could be done. The plane was able to turn around on the deck and take off again.

I don't mean 1v1, I mean conceptually: "an ultimate weapon", one that is considered in isolation as being particularly potent. Sorry for the misunderstanding. :)

My favourite fact about warships is that the only class of ship able to withstand and survive a near nuclear blast with only the need for minor repairs and with the capacity for the crew to survive, is the battleship. Similarly, no battleship ever suffered serious harm from a kamikaze during WW2.

-And while they definitely weren't ultimate weapons in the end (being surpassed as everything will be), they were still more impervious than any other ship.

It is difficult to drown an ant because water doesn’t penetrate their minuscule breathing tube; the ants will suffer, however, from too much carbon dioxide, which knocks them out. It takes awhile, but they will eventually die.

ozoneocean
I don't mean 1v1, I mean conceptually: "an ultimate weapon", one that is considered in isolation as being particularly potent. Sorry for the misunderstanding. :)

My favourite fact about warships is that the only class of ship able to withstand and survive a near nuclear blast with only the need for minor repairs and with the capacity for the crew to survive, is the battleship. Similarly, no battleship ever suffered serious harm from a kamikaze during WW2.

-And while they definitely weren't ultimate weapons in the end (being surpassed as everything will be), they were still more impervious than any other ship.

You're biased towards battleships. :) Battleship admiral eh? ;) Armored deck carriers (HMS Illustrious class) also shrugged off kamikazees in WWII.

A modern Super-carrier like the Nimitz class would have no problem (as much as I love the Iowas.)

I glance over at my shelf and models of USS North Carolina, DKM Deutschland, USS Washington, HMS King George V, HMS Rodney, HMS Iron Duke, HMS Hood, DKM Graf Zeppelin and USS Enterprise(CV-6) all sail proudly. (along with the destroyers Cambeltown, Cossack, Z-21 and Hotspur) (I do have Wisconsin and Iowa in the to-build stash along with members of every British, German and US BB class from WWII)

US Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Truman and Reagan got carriers. Jimmy Carter got a submarine. Sure Carter served on submarines but really... you never read in the news about a submarine being deployed nowhere like you do about carriers.

George H.W. Bush is next for a carrier. He served on carriers in WWII (there was a special issue of a model of his TBM Avenger, I want the markings for McKain's Skyhawk) Reagan served in the USAAF during WWII and the closest he came to the Navy was a movie about submariners called Hellcats of the Navy . Though his movie about how to take on the Zero is a classic war training film.

A rollipoli doesnt digest in a human body when its rolled up.

The platapus is the only mammal to lay eggs.

During the 18th century in Paris there was an underground market for fine food. Meals which were left unfinished by the high society were smuggled into gradually less savory hands until finally the scraps were discarded. The entire process could last up to 4 or 5 steps ending with a phase called "harlequin" because of it's jumbled look (much like the costume).

Like humans can generally tell what direction a sound comes from, moose can discern where a smell is coming from. Their eye sight, however, is pretty poor.

Similar to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, in Oman there is a story of the wealthy city of Ubar which housed people so greedy and sinful that after ignoring the warning of a prophet, the desert swallowed the metropolis whole. While the specifics of the city are more detailed than aforementioned story, over a dozen possible "Ubar"s have been found.

It is taboo in some Inuit groups for boys to play the string game "cat's cradle" because it is/was believed that this action might determine the same child getting caught in a fishing while an adult, and in this risking death.

The inspiration to develop the tank in World War One came from a science fiction short story by H.G. Wells called "Land Battleships" The Royal Navy started the programme.

The depiction of the bombing of a city like London in the movie Things to Comeso frightened the British population that they pushed Parliament and the RAF to improve Fighter Command and develop the early warning systems that would prove so useful during the German bombing attacks in World War Two. Things to Come was based on a story by H.G. Wells.

The same movie had the image of a mushroom cloud superimposed on the year "1950" during a montage of passing time.

bravo1102
The inspiration to develop the tank in World War One came from a science fiction short story by H.G. Wells called "Land Battleships" The Royal Navy started the programme.

I read about the early tank programme. :)
Yeah, it's interesting. I mean there were working practical prototypes for trench crossing machines using caterpillar tracks before the British tank effort. I know of at least two; one in Australia and one in the U.S.A., but the British seem to be the only ones who actually took it past the interested inventor stage.

I think the Royal Navy were probably in charge because they were the only specialists in mechanised warfare up to that point in the British armed forces. And the programme was actually called "The Landship" programme! Or committee or something...

It also required naval expertise to design the sponson guns on the early tanks- because of the track design they couldn't really fit a turret up top and those types of gun emplacements were very common on warships at the time.

I thought Leonardo da Vinci invented the tank. Along with the parachute, and the helicopter.

Fenn
I thought Leonardo da Vinci invented the tank. Along with the parachute, and the helicopter.

He invented the doodle... lol!

Personally, my opinion on that is if you make a testable prototype, then you "invented" it. If you come up with the notion, or do a picture of it or whatever, well, you've just got a notion and a picture.

But as for "tanks", if you want to broaden the definition to any armoured battle machine, then the Persians, Chinese, Greeks, Romans etc probably have a better claim there somewhere.

during wwII the US took on the "liberty ship" program, where they built entire vessels on an assembly line as fast as they could.

at the beginning, it took upwards of 230 days to finish one ship, near the middle and end, they had cranked it down to 40 days.

one ship the Robert E. Peary took only 4-3/4 days. (however, there still was much to do on the insides)

The USA built over one million jeeps in WWII. There seemed to be so many that the Germans joked that every US soldier was issued one.

The USA also built over one million 2 1/2 ton trucks, enough to equip nearly every ally with sufficient motor transport including the Soviet Union. This freed up Soviet industry to build over 100,000 tanks and other armored vehicles. The "USA" painted on all the American supplied equipment was taken to mean (in Russian) "to Kill that Son of a bitch Adolf"

In World War II only two armies were completely motorized with trucks etc. The USA and Great Britain. The Germans actually cut the amount of motor transport at unit level as the war continued.

Nisson stood for "Nippon auto company". When the manufactuer first introduced tis product to the USA the name was changed to "Datsun" to avoid anti-Japanese sentiment left over from WWII.

bravo1102
The USA also built over one million 2 1/2 ton trucks, enough to equip nearly every ally with sufficient motor transport including the Soviet Union. This freed up Soviet industry to build over 100,000 tanks and other armored vehicles. The "USA" painted on all the American supplied equipment was taken to mean (in Russian) "to Kill that Son of a bitch Adolf"

My paternal grandfather used to wax lyrical over the massive engines in the big U.S. trucks they drove.

The Russians also operated a lot of English Matilda tanks and U.S. Sherman tanks. The Matildas were crappy because the ice and snow got caught up in the big armoured track guards and stopped the tanks (they were designed for the desert to let sand go through). They preferred the Shermans, especially since the Americans sent company representative along to personally check on the tanks and would even make improvements to them upon request, (they'd go back to the factory with the info and do what they could). The English just ignored their complaints.

Disadvantages of Sherman tanks in Russia:
-The rubber pads would go hard and smooth in frozen conditions, making them steer like a "drunken cow" on icey roads.
-The engines had two massive fans to cool them, right under the crew, they'd blow up freezing air right up the guys arses. It made it colder inside than out.
-They came with a set of Tommy guns for defence of the crew, of with the Russians had a very low opinion. They'd apparently amuse themselves having gun duels using them. Their thick padded gear would stop the bullets. Apparently...

More Shermans were produced than any other tanks. Although inferior to German tanks, they were upgraded many times during the course of the war and could take on any German tank and win (depending on the crew of course), even if they had to do it in teams of three Shermans to one Tiger.