An Explanation Is Due

I Do Beg Your Pardon!
I know you'll forgive me, I have a winning smile.  Yesterday I went on about various artillery pieces as if you already knew what was what, which is something I find truly objectionable with other authors.  
     Okay, I know that to you, gentle reader, every artillery piece ever is a "gun" but in fact it's not that simple. O no.
    This is a bit technical so you might want to go brew a pot of tea.
    To an artilleryman, or gunner, a "gun" is typically a long-barrelled weapon with a limited degree of elevation - that is, how much you can tilt it upwards.  Art?

The eighteen-pounder field artillery piece or gun

     If you look at the example above, you can see it has a "pole" trail, which obviously limits how high you can elevate the barrel.  This gun above will fire a shell in a shallow parabola out to a considerable distance, as the long barrel allows the shell to be accelerated to about Mach 1.5.
     There.  That's a "gun".  A howitzer - Art?
                    

     - typically has a relatively short barrel, meaning that the shell flies at a lower velocity.  Said barrel can be elevated to a very high angle; notice the split "box" trail of the 4.5 inch howitzer above which allows such elevation.  A shell from a howitzer will fly in a high parabola, meaning you can drop it behind cover or right on top of some unsuspecting bunker.  Art?

4.5 inch gun

     That's a gun with the same calibre, but an obviously completely different design.  Utterly fascinating stuff, I'm sure you'll agree.
     Then you have the mortar - but that might be too much of a good thing.  Conrad will reserve describing them for another day.
     At this point I can only dream of inflicting a cruel and amusing torment on the motley.  I wonder - did we ever throw it into a swimming pool full of liquid mercury?  <eyes glaze over in malicious enjoyment>*

A man can dream ...

     Okay, enough Intro, let's get this parade of piffle underway!  Oh - and we've had a word with R J MacReady; he promises not to try and hijack the blog again.

Making "Michael"
You know Conrad, interested in everything TANK, so when I saw David Fletcher standing in front of a Sherman, I looked closer, because it didn't seem quite right.  Art?

Look!  You can see the differences, right?

     I'll show you another view from the front.  Art!

All those differences!  Look at them!

     Okay, for the average gentle reader who is barely familiar with TANK, let me point out that the return rollers on the track units are not offset, as they were in normal Shermans.  The co-axial machine gun in the turret has a barrel protruding from the turret, again not so in normal Shermans, and you can see two (nearly) fixed machine guns sticking out of the hull front.
     A bit of digging reveals that "Michael" was a prototype Sherman, not a production model, which is why the differences.  Nobody can really explain why the driver was given two machine-guns to fire, unless it was to combat boredom?  "Thirty miles with nothing happening - think I'll brass something up."

The kind they made 49,000 of.

     In fact that example is the A2, with a welded hull, rather than the smoother and curvier cast hull of the A1, which is again probably bordering on too much of a good thing.  Later for more.

"Stranger Things"
I liked the way Alexei described Chief Hopper as "a fat Rambo", which, to be fair, he took in good stead.

Come on, Hop, lighten up, it was funny.

     Anyway, what I wanted to say is that I've now watched 7 episodes and still haven't looked anything up on teh interwebz about how many episodes there are.  Probably 8?
  I'm guessing there, but things look as if they're moving to a climax.  The disgusting Glop Monster (which they call the "Mind-flayer") is making it's move, literally.  The Russian Terminator is hot on the heels of Hop and Co., and Dustin, Erica, Steve and Robyn are still trapped underground.

CAUTION!  Do not feed the Mini-Glop Monster
(yes, this is a baby one)

     The thing 

"Did somebody say THE THING!?"

     Mac - you promised!  I bet you had your fingers crossed, didn't you?
     AS I WAS SAYING the th - crux of the matter is that I'll need to wait until Thursday to see that last episode - if it is the last episode - when I can have The Mansion's lounge all to myself.
     Grrrr!
     <gently escorts Mac out of the room, careful not to get in front of him>

A Case Of Irony
Ahum. Also, ahem.  I see that there is now a live-action version of "The Lion King" to complement the cartoon version.  Really?  Conrad wonders at the South Canadian mindset, because they did, after all, fight a war in order to escape monarchical rule and become a republic.  Heck, even one of their film studios was called "Republic".

Proof

     Yes, this is one of the rare times that Your Humble Scribe will actually acknowledge that the American Revolutionary War ever happened and that we lost it.  So - why the fascination with kings and monarchy and the like?  

More proof.  Also, no thanks

     It's not just Disney - don't forget "The Princess Bride" and <thinks hard> "King Ralph", and there was "The Princess Diaries" (although that was Disney, to be honest).
     Why!  Enquiring minds** want to know!

Finally -
I only needed about 7 words to hit the Composition Ton, and that was them.  More seriously, I notice the cars hissing past my window (yes a Doors quote) rather than squishing, as it has - oh frabjous day! - stopped raining.  It's not certain how long this break in the winter weather will last, so I need to stop typing this shizzle and take my constitutional stroll into Royton.
     Catch you later!




*  Mister Hand needs no embellishment there.  Conrad:  officially a terrible person!
**  Okay, me.