Categories
Allies War

The Battle of Hong Kong: Britain’s First Defeat By Japan

Categories
Born again Cynic!

And Trump is going to spend $4 BILLION MORE TO IT

From: Kim du Toit

Let Africa Sink

May 26, 2002
11:40 AM CDT

When it comes to any analysis of the problems facing Africa, Western society, and particularly people from the United States, encounter a logical disconnect that makes clear analysis impossible. That disconnect is the way life is regarded in the West (it’s precious, must be protected at all costs etc.), compared to the way life, and death, are regarded in Africa. Let me try to quantify this statement.

In Africa, life is cheap. There are so many ways to die in Africa that death is far more commonplace than in the West. You can die from so many things: snakebite, insect bite, wild animal attack, disease, starvation, food poisoning… the list goes on and on. At one time, crocodiles accounted for more deaths in sub-Saharan Africa than gunfire, for example. Now add the usual human tragedy (murder, assault, warfare and the rest), and you can begin to understand why the life expectancy for an African is low — in fact, horrifyingly low, if you remove White Africans from the statistics (they tend to be more urbanized, and more Western in behavior and outlook). Finally, if you add the horrifying spread of AIDS into the equation, anyone born in sub-Saharan Africa this century will be lucky to reach age forty.

I lived in Africa for over thirty years. Growing up there, I was infused with several African traits — traits which are not common in Western civilization. The almost-casual attitude towards death was one. (Another is a morbid fear of snakes.)

So because of my African background, I am seldom moved at the sight of death, unless it’s accidental, or it affects someone close to me. (Death which strikes at total strangers, of course, is mostly ignored.) Of my circle of about eighteen or so friends with whom I grew up, and whom I would consider “close”, only about eight survive today — and not one of the survivors is over the age of fifty. Two friends died from stepping on landmines while on Army duty in Namibia. Three died in horrific car accidents (and lest one thinks that this is not confined to Africa, one was caused by a kudu flying through a windshield and impaling the guy through the chest with its hoof — not your everyday traffic accident in, say, Florida). One was bitten by a snake, and died from heart failure. Another two also died of heart failure, but they were hopeless drunkards. Two were shot by muggers. The last went out on his surfboard one day and was never seen again (did I mention that sharks are plentiful off the African coasts and in the major rivers?). My experience is not uncommon in South Africa — and north of the Limpopo River (the border with Zimbabwe), I suspect that others would show worse statistics.

The death toll wasn’t just confined to my friends. When I was still living in Johannesburg, the newspaper carried daily stories of people mauled by lions, or attacked by rival tribesmen, or dying from some unspeakable disease (and this was pre-AIDS Africa too) and in general, succumbing to some of Africa’s many answers to the population explosion. Add to that the normal death toll from rampant crime, illness, poverty, flood, famine, traffic, and the police, and you’ll begin to get the idea.

My favorite African story actually happened after I left the country. An American executive took a job over there, and on his very first day, the newspaper headlines read:
“Three Headless Bodies Found”.
The next day: “Three Heads Found”.
The third day: “Heads Don’t Match Bodies”.

You can’t make this stuff up.

As a result of all this, death is treated more casually by Africans than by Westerners. I, and I suspect most Africans, am completely inured to reports of African suffering, for whatever cause. Drought causes crops to fail, thousands face starvation? Yup, that happened many times while I was growing up. Inter-tribal rivalry and warfare causes wholesale slaughter? Yep, been happening there for millennia, long before Whitey got there. Governments becoming rich and corrupt while their populations starved? Not more than nine or ten of those. In my lifetime, the following tragedies have occurred, causing untold millions of deaths: famine in Biafra, genocide in Rwanda, civil war in Angola, floods in South Africa, famine in Somalia, civil war in Sudan, famine in Ethiopia, floods in Mozambique, wholesale slaughter in Uganda, and tribal warfare in every single country. There are others, but you get the point.

Yes, all this was also true in Europe — maybe a thousand years ago. But not any more. And Europe doesn’t teem with crocodiles, ultra-venomous snakes and so on.

The Dutch controlled the floods. All of Europe controls famine — it’s non-existent now. Apart from a couple of examples of massive, state-sponsored slaughter (Nazi Germany, Communist Russia), Europe since 1700 doesn’t even begin to compare to Africa today. Casual slaughter is another thing altogether — rare in Europe, common in Africa.

More to the point, the West has evolved into a society with a stable system of government, which follows the rule of law, and has respect for the rights and life of the individual — none of which is true in Africa.

Among old Africa hands, we have a saying, usually accompanied by a shrug: “Africa wins again.” This is usually said after an incident such as:

  • a beloved missionary is butchered by his congregation, for no apparent reason
  • a tribal chief prefers to let his tribe starve to death rather than accepting food from the Red Cross (would mean he wasn’t all-powerful, you see)
  • an entire nation starves to death, while its ruler accumulates wealth in foreign banks
  • a new government comes into power, promising democracy, free elections etc., provided that the freedom doesn’t extend to the other tribe
  • the other tribe comes to power in a bloody coup, then promptly sets about slaughtering the first tribe
  • etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam, ad infinitum.

The prognosis is bleak, because none of this mayhem shows any sign of ending. The conclusions are equally bleak, because, quite frankly, there is no answer to Africa’s problems, no solution that hasn’t been tried before, and failed.

Just go to the CIA World Fact Book, pick any of the African countries (Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, Malawi etc.), and compare the statistics to any Western country (eg. Portugal, Italy, Spain, Ireland). The disparities are appalling — and it’s going to get worse, not better. It has certainly got worse since 1960, when most African countries achieved independence. We, and by this I mean the West, have tried many ways to help Africa. All such attempts have failed.

Charity is no answer. Money simply gets appropriated by the first, or second, or third person to touch it (17 countries saw a decline in real per capita GNP between 1970 and 1999, despite receiving well over $100 billion in World Bank assistance).

Food isn’t distributed. This happens either because there is no transportation infrastructure (bad), or the local leader deliberately withholds the supplies to starve people into submission (worse).

Materiel is broken, stolen or sold off for a fraction of its worth. The result of decades of “foreign aid” has resulted in a continental infrastructure which, if one excludes South Africa, couldn’t support Pittsburgh.

Add to this, as I mentioned above, the endless cycle of Nature’s little bag of tricks — persistent drought followed by violent flooding, a plethora of animals, reptiles and insects so dangerous that life is already cheap before Man starts playing his little reindeer games with his fellow Man. What you are left with is: catastrophe.

The inescapable conclusion is simply one of resignation. This goes against the grain of our humanity — we are accustomed to ridding the world of this or that problem (smallpox, polio, whatever), and accepting failure is anathema to us. But, to give a classic African scenario, a polio vaccine won’t work if the kids are prevented from getting the vaccine by a venal overlord, or a frightened chieftain, or a lack of roads, or by criminals who steal the vaccine and sell it to someone else. If a cure for AIDS was found tomorrow, and offered to every African nation free of charge, the growth of the disease would scarcely be checked, let alone reversed. Basically, you’d have to try to inoculate as many two-year old children as possible, and write off the two older generations.

So that leaves only one response, and it’s a brutal one: accept that we are powerless to change Africa, and leave them to sink or swim, by themselves.

It sounds dreadful to say it, but if the entire African continent dissolves into a seething maelstrom of disease, famine and brutality, that’s just too damn bad. We have better things to do — sometimes, you just have to say, “Can’t do anything about it.”

The viciousness, the cruelty, the corruption, the duplicity, the savagery, and the incompetence is endemic to the entire continent, and is so much of an anathema to any right-thinking person that the civilized imagination simply stalls when faced with its ubiquity, and with the enormity of trying to fix it. The Western media shouldn’t even bother reporting on it. All that does is arouse our feelings of horror, and the instinctive need to do something, anything — but everything has been tried before, and failed. Everything, of course, except self-reliance.

All we should do is make sure that none of Africa gets transplanted over to the U.S., because the danger to our society is dire if it does. I note that several U.S. churches are attempting to bring groups of African refugees over to the United States, European churches the same for Europe. Mistake. Mark my words, this misplaced charity will turn around and bite us, big time.

Even worse would be to think that the simplicity of Africa holds some kind of answers for Western society: remember Mrs. Clinton’s little book, “It Takes A Village”? Trust me on this: there is not one thing that Africa can give the West which hasn’t been tried before and failed, not one thing that isn’t a step backwards, and not one thing which is worse than, or that contradicts, what we have already.

So here’s my (tongue-in-cheek) solution for the African fiasco: a high wall around the whole continent, all the guns and bombs in the world for everyone inside, and at the end, the last one alive should do us all a favor and kill himself.

Inevitably, some Kissingerian realpolitiker is going to argue in favor of intervention, because in the vacuum of Western aid, perhaps the Communist Chinese would step in and increase their influence in the area. There are two reasons why this isn’t going to happen.

Firstly, the PRC doesn’t have that kind of money to throw around; and secondly, the result of any communist assistance will be precisely the same as if it were Western assistance. For the record, Mozambique and Angola are both communist countries — and both are economic disaster areas. The prognosis for both countries is disastrous — and would be the same for any other African country.

The West can’t help Africa. Nor should we. The record speaks for itself.

Categories
All About Guns

Colt Burgess Unique Ejector

Categories
War

Russia’s Vacuum Bomb Sucks the Air Out of Your Lungs | WSJ Equipped

Categories
Gear & Stuff

Now that is a knife !!

or these which might be more handyI started carrying one of these Huntsman back when I was in Reagan’s Army. Frankly I lost count of how many times I used it successfuly. Grumpy
Categories
All About Guns War

The Anti-Tank Machine Gun

Categories
All About Guns

Turnbull Restoration & Manufacturing on “How It’s Made”

Categories
All About Guns

Some Garand porn anyone?

Categories
N.S.F.W.

What a real woman looks like sans tatts, piercings or ugly jewelry N.S.F.W.

Categories
All About Guns

Open Bolt vs. Closed Bolt By Robert A. Sadowski

While we might hear the terms “machine gun” and “submachine gun” a lot, a more detailed discussion will often touch on the terms “open bolt” and “closed bolt.” But, what do these terms mean?

Firearms engineers choose between open and closed bolt configurations based on intended use and performance priorities. Each design offers distinct trade-offs in manufacturing cost, accuracy, and heat dissipation.
Firearms engineers choose between open and closed bolt configurations based on intended use and performance priorities. Each design offers distinct trade-offs in manufacturing cost, accuracy, and heat dissipation.

The Differences Between Open and Closed Bolts

The difference between a firearm with an open-bolt design versus a closed-bolt design is the position of the bolt prior to firing the gun. On an open-bolt gun, the gun is ready to fire when the bolt is locked open and there is no cartridge in the chamber.

When the trigger is pulled, the bolt moved forward and strips a round from the magazine. As the bolt closes, the round is fired and the cycle continues until the trigger is no longer depressed or the gun runs empty. In a closed-bolt design, is it the opposite.

The bolt is closed and a round is in the chamber prior to firing the gun. Pulling the trigger drops the hammer, the round is fired, the action is cycled, and this continues until the trigger is released or the magazine is empty.

The MP-40 exemplifies classic open bolt engineering from World War II. German forces relied on this submachine gun’s simple, reliable design throughout the conflict. Image: Sa-kuva
The MP-40 exemplifies classic open bolt engineering from World War II. German forces relied on this submachine gun’s simple, reliable design throughout the conflict. Image: Sa-kuva

Examples of a closed-bolt design firearm include the AR-15, the Springfield Armory Hellion, MIA rifles and the Kuna pistol, to name just a few. For examples of open-bolt designs, you really need to look back at submachine guns designed during World War II.

The Sten gun’s bolt assembly shows just how simple open bolt designs really are. British engineers stripped away everything unnecessary to create an incredibly cheap and effective submachine gun. Image: International Military Antiques Inc.
The Sten gun’s bolt assembly shows just how simple open bolt designs really are. British engineers stripped away everything unnecessary to create an incredibly cheap and effective submachine gun. Image: International Military Antiques Inc.

Some of the most common and icon submachine guns during the war were an open-bolt design. The American M3 Grease GunBritish Sten SMG, and the German MP-40 Schmeisser were all open-bolt designs. Also developed during the war was the American M1941 Johnson light machine gun and the German FG 42. These two example are unique because they incorporate an open bolt in full auto and a closed bolt in semi-auto fire.

Open Bolt Design Firing Cycle

Here’s the layman’s explanation of the cycle of operation on an open-bolt design and a closed-bolt design.

Armed with an open bolt M3A1 Grease Gun, PFC Jose Ledoux-Garcia guards his M60A3 tank in West Germany during REFORGER ’85. Image: NARA
Armed with an open bolt M3A1 Grease Gun, PFC Jose Ledoux-Garcia guards his M60A3 tank in West Germany during REFORGER ’85. Image: NARA

To fire an open bolt design, whether a semi-automatic or a full-auto firearm, the first step is to  insert a magazine and then retract the bolt. In an open-bolt design, the bolt remains rearward. It is literally open and the firearm is ready to fire. Press the trigger and the sear releases the bolt, driving the bolt forward, pushing a cartridge out of the magazine and into the chamber and firing the cartridge in one swift motion. The bolt then cycles back ejecting the spent case and then moves forward to start the process over.

In a closed-bolt design, the process is different. Insert a loaded magazine and pull back on the charging handle and release it. The bolt flies forward, strips a cartridge from the magazine and runs a cartridge into the chamber. The bolt is literally closed and ready to fire. Press the trigger and either a hammer is tripped or striker released, which fires the cartridge.

Pros and Cons

In an open-bolt system, as the trigger is pressed to fire the gun the weight and mass of the bolt moves forward, jolting the gun as it slams closed. That movement can interfere with the shooter’s aim.

In a submachine, that’s not much of an issue. In a closed-bolt design, the bolt is forward and a press of the trigger releases the hammer or striker, so there is no movement in the bolt prior to firing the shot. A closed bolt design is more conducive to better accuracy.

Swedish military personnel conducting an amphibious landing operation while carrying Carl Gustaf m/45 submachine guns with water splashing around them as they move from boats to shore. Open bolt firearms function in wet conditions. Closed bolt guns require careful protection. Carl Gustaf m/45 used open bolt design. Swedish submachine guns emphasized reliability. Open bolt systems resist water damage. Amphibious operations demand robust weapons. Military firearms handle extreme environments. Open bolt mechanisms maintain operational readiness.
Swedish military personnel conducting an amphibious landing operation while carrying Carl Gustaf m/45 submachine guns. Also known as the Swedish K, the m/45 was an open bolt design. Image: Swedish Army Museum/CC BY 4.0

The advantage of an open-bolt design is realized in full-auto guns. High rates of fire create extreme heat in the chamber and barrel, which can create a dangerous situation called a “cook off.” This is where a cartridge in a heated chamber fires without the trigger being pulled. In an open-bolt design, since the bolt is open and there is no cartridge in the chamber, air cools the chamber and will prevent the risk of a cook-off.

The British Sten gun embodied open bolt design at its most basic and economical. At roughly $10 to produce, it proved you didn’t need expensive manufacturing to create an effective weapon. Image: Will Dabbs, MD
The British Sten gun embodied open bolt design at its most basic and economical. At roughly $10 to produce, it proved you didn’t need expensive manufacturing to create an effective weapon. Image: Will Dabbs, MD

Another advantage of an open-bolt design is that it generally uses fewer parts than a closed bolt design. In an open-bolt design, the firing pin is generally machined as part of the bolt. Because of the inertia caused by the bolt closing when the trigger is pressed, the fixed firing pin strikes the cartridge primer without the need for a hammer and firing pin.

A Finnish soldier crouched in a bomb crater firing a German MP-40 submachine gun during the Continuation War. Image: Sa-kuva
A Finnish soldier crouched in a bomb crater firing a German MP-40 submachine gun during the Continuation War. Image: Sa-kuva

Since open-bolt guns are inexpensive to make and use fewer parts, they were mass produced during WWII.

The American M3 Grease Gun for example cost about $20 to produced compared to other submachine guns that cost upwards of $70 at the time. The British Sten gun cost only about $10 to make during the war. Both of these open-bolt design weapons were inexpensive and quick to produce.

Sergeant Bruce E. Strickler wading through the Cu De River while carrying an M3A1 Grease Gun during a patrol mission into Elephant Valley searching for Viet Cong positions during 1967. Image: U.S.M.C.
Sergeant Bruce E. Strickler wading through the Cu De River while carrying an M3A1 Grease Gun during a patrol mission into Elephant Valley searching for Viet Cong positions during 1967. Image: U.S.M.C.

Conversely, closed-bolt designs are more complex and expensive, but can fire more accurate shots and are generally more “refined” designs. Examples of full-auto closed bolt designs would be rifles like the M16 and the M14.

Conclusion

So there you go. If you’re reading up on a machine gun design and they reference “open bolt versus closed bolt,” you’ll now understand what it means. Now that you understand the firing sequence, it’s and an open and closed case from there.