Talk About A Loaded Question
Do you see what I - O you do. It's still a valid question. No doubt the National Rifle Association members who devour these pages - don't laugh, there is a non-zero chance it might happen - will be imagining gun porn stuff. If that's a thing. Is it? Irrelevant anyway because this is BOOJUM! and we are still SFW.
So, you are all thinking about that film based on the 'Police Squad' television series - Art!
Yes, starring Leslie Nielsen, who was Captain Adams in 'Forbidden Planet' you know and would you like to - No? You don't want to hear my 5,000 word monograph on that film and it's influence on later sci-fi media? You're sure?
Well, your loss. Art!
The tricky sport of Big Bullet-Balancing
Well, let us now abruptly change tack and focus instead on one of the best sci-fi films ever made, although you wouldn't have known it from the box office performance when it came out in 1982, as it was more of a sleeper hit. Although it gave all sorts of ideas to artistic and creative people in the film industry. Art!
Yes, 'Blade Runner'. Which is significantly absent of blades, now I come to think of it. Plenty of running, mind. What is one of the more iconic props in the film that Deckard wields at the slightest provocation? Art!
This hot puppy is the Pfläger-Katsumata Series D, and a brute of a handgun it looks, too. Incidentally, that name is an in-joke as it references Philip Kendred Dick, who wrote "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?" upon which the film is based. 'Based' as in 'not exactly the same', even if PKD saw the rushes and was wowed by them, quoting 'How did you get inside my head?' to Ridley Scott, the director.
Well, you need a gun like this to be able to stop a Nexus 6 Replicant, given that they are much stronger and more resilient than Hom. Sap. Art!
It takes two shots to - er - 'retire' Zhora, who had previously done her best to make Deckard's head rotate through 360º, so you can't really blame him. It may interest you to know that the PKsD is actually based around a functional weapon, meaning that it could be used to fire blanks in realistic fashion: if you move between the frame above and the previous one you can see the muzzle climb slightly as it's fired, which you won't get with an inert prop. Art!
Jumping tracks once again, here is Ian McCollom of 'Forgotten Weapons', whom has gotten his hands on a replica of the film prop, which disappeared for 24 years after the film wrapped. He had been loaned this replica by the maker, one Phil Steinshneider, who is a gun and prop designer. Ol' Phil calculated that the PKsD was a blend of 2 separate guns: a Steyr-Mannlicher rifle and a Charter Arms .44 Magnum revolver. Art!
Ian then proceeds to dismantle the replicant - sorry, clone - sorry, replica, and remove all the extra attachments, or what you might call pistol-prosthetics, using Allen keys to do so. Art!
Here he shows that the revolver's chamber can be swung out if a covering plastic addition is removed, but thanks to the pistol grips reloading would be awkward and slow. Let it! Because he's not going to be reloading on camera. Art!
This is the bolt-action part of the Steyr rifle's receiver and here is Ian deftly removing the bolt. Art!
Here is the PKsD broken down into it's naked form, with the Charter Arms revolver clearly on display here. That forward trigger is simply an inactive add-on, it doesn't do anything. Apart from looking cool.
To put a realistic dampener on this firearm, Ian blankly refused to take it out to the range and fire it, being very sensibly worried about breaking or damaging it. Ol' Phil spent $600 on acquiring the two guns in order to make a replica, and to that you have to add on labour costs, so the end price for one of these weapons is going to be north of $800.
Not only that, it has no sights. You can handwave this away in the film and argue that the electronic components do that for you, but not in real life.
So, there you have it. A legend and replica disassembled*. Or - am I overthinking things again?
More Sherman? Sure Man!
We are back with the second part of John Delaney's analysis of what the M4 Sherman tank was designed and intended for and what it did in reality, rather than Wehraboo fantasies. Art!
One thing the Wehraboos don't like to consider is Reliability, as the under-powered and over-engineered heavy Teuton tanks were notoriously unreliable and difficult to retrieve or salvage when broken down. Who would have guessed that recovering a 60-ton tank is much, much more difficult than recovering a 30-ton tank!
John - I can call him that, we're tremendous mates - makes an hilarious comparison that shows the ineptness of various comparisons made between the Sherman and heavy Teuton tanks, using the analogy of a Ford Escort versus a Ferrari. The Ferrari will win in a straight-line speed test every time; where the Escort triumphs (do you see what I - O you do) is in rate of production and cheapness. Art!
This is the humble Panzer Mk IV, which never had a name, poor baby. This, and the Sturmgeschutz III, was the kind of metal a Sherman was far more likely to meet, and is a far better comparison. Don't forget, the M4 was NOT intended to fight other tanks; that's what tank destroyers and anti-tank guns were for.
The Sherman's propensity to catch fire once it suffered a penetrating hit was not a myth, it was a consequence of how the ammunition inside it was stored. Initially the response was to weld extra plates of armour over the side of the tank where the ammunition was stored, which not only did not work, it gave the Teutons a splendid aiming mark. Art!
The real solution was 'wet stowage', where the shells were stored in boxes with hollow sides, which were filled with suppressing liquids. From a 70% chance of catching fire, this reduced down to 12%. The Chieftain (a.k.a. Nick Moran) has done research into crew casualties in Shermans, and found that crew survivability was high, thanks to the ease of departing the tank even with hatches down. About half a second, because fear lends wings.
Okayyyyyy we're going to have to call a halt there, or this item will take over the entire blog. What a shame, now you'll have to wait for Part 3.
How Perfectly Shocking
Or, 'How To Disable A Cable'. Because, one suspects, that the Finns are not people to muck about with either half-measures or fancy language.
"Russian "Rostelecom" reported damage to its underwater cable in the Baltic Sea due to "external influence." Meanwhile, two other Russian cables in the Gulf of Finland are also undergoing repairs. Looks like this game can be played by both sides" Art!
We'll see if the orcs continue to damage and destroy undersea cables now. Expect a lot of pity-party whining from them.
Tee hee!
Get A Load Of This
The digital camera I ordered from Amazon is due today. As a side perk, Your Humble Scribe got access to Amazon Prime Television. Guess what's available as of right now? Art!
"Invincible" Season One. These are looooong episodes, 50 minutes each. They are notably different from the comic book in detail if not in themes, but they do retain the extreme violence and the odd swear word, so definitely not suitable for little Jonquil or Wilhemina. A lot of Commenters on the official trailer were quite flabbergasted at the end of Episode 1, which completely turned the old superhero trope on it's head, and then jumped up and down on it. To coin a phrase.
Finally -
Time to don the old Shower Boot and undertake the ritual scrape and scrub. Laterz, pilgrims.
* First one to mention 'Short Circuit' gets PKsD'd.
No comments:
Post a Comment