1632 Series personnal comment

Hans.TakeThisOut@Kill-All-Spammers.com wrote in
news:QRqrc.2156$JA6.1930@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com:

> Read your history! Ask a Doctor!
>
> The sailors and the rest of the world today are all carrying to some
> degree these diseases. We have all built up immunities to the strains
> that we are carrying. The new world had no such immunities... it hit
> them like an ATOMIC BOMB!
>
> BTW this happened to ALL of the native Americans who came in contact
> with the European sailors. Some survived... some died... most got
> very sick!
>
>
>
> John G. Morrison wrote:
>
>> Hans.TakeThisOut@Kill-All-Spammers.com wrote in
>> news:D9arc.51706$_x1.30346@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com:
>>
>>
>>>They were dying from SMALL POX and BUBONIC PLAGUE... which came over
>>>with Cortez!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Small Pox, unlikely there were any active cases given the length of
>> the journey. Anybody who had the disease would have exposed and
>> essentially killed everybody else on that ship, either from the
>> disease itself or the other crews sinking it, to keep from being
>> infected. Bubonic Plague, is also unlikely. Again, anybody catching
>> it would have essentially doomed the entire ship on the voyage over.
>> Even if you claim that it came from the rats, it wasn't such an
>> efficient disease vector so as to race through the jungle and beat
>> Cortez to the Aztecs, that takes years to accomplish, especially when
>> entering a virgin territory.
>>
>> Cortez's reports did not specify either disease, both which were well
>> known to him and others, so it was more than likely a native disease
>> or a varint. Considering that the disease had been working at a
>> small scale for years before his arrival, it is not likely that it
>> was something he brought with him.
>>

I said Active Cases. By the way, the number of people who survive an
atomic weapon is usually 0% of the population.
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

Verily I say unto thee, that on Mon, 24 May 2004 17:11:02 -0400,
"David" <drorer.RemoveThis@fuse.net> spaketh thusly:

>
> "Polack" <nospam.RemoveThis@rtc.coop> wrote in message news:40b51243.98669321@news.restel.net...
> > Verily I say unto thee, that on Sun, 23 May 2004 17:29:16 GMT, Ross
> > Ashley <brashley46DELETETHECAPS.RemoveThis@rogers.com> spaketh thusly:
> >
> > > Heh. If that were true, m'boy, Eric and I would have ushered the US into
> > > the Socialist tomorrow a few decades ago ...
> >
> > Ross? Please explain.
> >
> > Also, anyone: IIRC, Eric's (or maybe Dave Freer's, I can't find it
> > now) mini-bio in one of my books says he's a Trotskyite Communist.
>
> Well--Well--one more reason to dislike Eric, he wants everyone to be equally poor!!!

Perhaps.

As something much closer to an anarchist or libertarian (my beliefs
are rather difficult to pigeonhole) I don't have much use for what
passes for Communism in this world, but that doesn't prevent me from
attempting to understand either it or the minds of its' supporters.

Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge makes me happier overall.

Furthermore, I can respect (as different from 'like') an individual
who stands up for his/her beliefs and can debate them intelligently,
even if I disagree with them, a lot more than I can some wishy-washy
puke who changes their opinions based on their audience.

-- A crazy old Polack
E-mail replies to polack@[Romeo][Tango][Charlie].coop
Send e-mail as straight text only.
E-mail received in any other format is automatically deleted unread.

Ah, the thrill of modern dance!
The sweeping musical majesty.
The joy of poetic motion.
The challenge of stuffing a dollar bill into a bouncing bikini briefs.
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

On Tue, 25 May 2004 01:19:32 +0000, John G. Morrison wrote:

> I said Active Cases. By the way, the number of people who survive an
> atomic weapon is usually 0% of the population.

Actually, quite a lot of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki survived. It
depends on how close you are to ground zero, intervening features, luck,
and many other factors.

--
Mac :})
Give a hobbit a fish and he eats fish for a day.
Give a hobbit a ring and he eats fish for an age.
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

Michael A Chase <mchase.DeleteThis@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:pan.2004.05.25.23.29.26.690803@ix.netcom.com:

> On Tue, 25 May 2004 01:19:32 +0000, John G. Morrison wrote:
>
>> I said Active Cases. By the way, the number of people who survive an
>> atomic weapon is usually 0% of the population.
>
> Actually, quite a lot of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki survived. It
> depends on how close you are to ground zero, intervening features, luck,
> and many other factors.
>

Not one of them survived being hit by it, only the effects of the
explosion.
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

If by 'hit by' you mean physical contact, no one has ever been killed or
injured that way by an atomic weapon being used. The explosions were air
bursts.

On 26 May 2004, John G. Morrison wrote:

 > Michael A Chase <mchase DeleteThis @ix.netcom.com> wrote in
 > news:pan.2004.05.25.23.29.26.690803@ix.netcom.com:
 >
  > > On Tue, 25 May 2004 01:19:32 +0000, John G. Morrison wrote:
  > >
   > >> I said Active Cases. By the way, the number of people who survive an
   > >> atomic weapon is usually 0% of the population.
  > >
  > > Actually, quite a lot of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki survived. It
  > > depends on how close you are to ground zero, intervening features, luck,
  > > and many other factors.
  > >
 >
 > Not one of them survived being hit by it, only the effects of the
 > explosion.
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

On 26 May 2004 09:10:02 GMT, "John G. Morrison"
<Labyrsmn.TakeThisOut@eskim-remove-o.com> wrote:

>Michael A Chase <mchase.TakeThisOut@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>news:pan.2004.05.25.23.29.26.690803@ix.netcom.com:
>
>> On Tue, 25 May 2004 01:19:32 +0000, John G. Morrison wrote:
>>
>>> I said Active Cases. By the way, the number of people who survive an
>>> atomic weapon is usually 0% of the population.
>>
>> Actually, quite a lot of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki survived. It
>> depends on how close you are to ground zero, intervening features, luck,
>> and many other factors.
>>
>
>Not one of them survived being hit by it, only the effects of the
>explosion.

if you look at it that way it's more a case of not a single person
died from being struck by a falling nuclear wpn.
W M Manufacturing Ltd.
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

On Mon, 24 May 2004 17:07:52 -0400, "David" <drorer.DeleteThis@fuse.net> wrote:

>"Guns, Germs, and Steel" got trashed on both soc.history and soc.archaeology for its
>flawed reasoning.
>BTW second the "plonk".
>
>"Offbreed" <Offbreed_106.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:7P-dnSTCA8MLhS_dRVn-jg@scnresearch.com...
>> Hans.DeleteThis@Kill-All-Spammers.com wrote:
>> > Read your history! Ask a Doctor!
>> >
>> > The sailors and the rest of the world today are all carrying to some
>> > degree these diseases. We have all built up immunities to the strains
>> > that we are carrying. The new world had no such immunities... it hit
>> > them like an ATOMIC BOMB!
>> >
>> > BTW this happened to ALL of the native Americans who came in contact
>> > with the European sailors. Some survived... some died... most got very
>> > sick!
>>
>> May I recommend "Guns, Germs, and Steel" for a better understanding of
>> the specifics of the epidemics, and "Harbrace College Handbook" for a
>> better understanding of the use of the exclamation point?
>>
>> BTW, "plonk".

The book isn't the best. There is a lot of flawed logic in
it. What killed the Incas and Aztecs were a combination of factors.
Disease, but this worked both ways as american diseases worked havoc
with the europeans, all those nasty veneral diseases.
Cortez was super lucky, turned up at about the right time for
a prophecy of a white god, diseases and plagues amongst the locals,
slave revolts and in-fighting amongst the various kingdoms. Some who
supported Cortez as a god, others who hated him as a devil.
Firearms were shock value only, they were too few in number
and useless by today's standards. The whole period makes interesting
reading and worth a read. It's hard to imagine how an entire
civilization went down so fast so quickly, but it did. makes me want
to go back and reread my old course notes from my history course in
Colonialism.

=== You're reading the words of Toni ===
We shall see to which one the Olympian grants the glory.
Email: taiat.DeleteThis@mail.NYETSPAMcom (sub the NYETSPAM for guess what?
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Michelle Steiner wrote:

:In article <ea2dcca7.0406091046.4487843e.TakeThisOut@posting.google.com>,
: mcb26.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com (Mudbunny) wrote:
:
:> It also depends on how the gun is used. Two fashions are
:> possible:Direct fire and indirect fire.
:>
:> Direct fire is where your trajectory is, more or less straight. In
:> this case, you pack in all 7 charges, put the barrel horizontal, and
:> line up the barrel by eye.
:>
:> Indirect fire is where the trajectory is an arc.
:
:More precisely, direct fire is when the gun's elevation is 45=B0 or less;
:indirect fire is when the elevation is greater than 45=B0.
:
:Mortars always are indirect fire weapons, for instance.
:
:The advantage of indirect fire is that it can shoot over obstacles. The
:advantages of direct fire are that it can knock down obstacles.
:
:Also, the flight time of a direct-fire round is shorter than that of an
:indirect-fire round.

The biggest evolution in artillary pieces came just before the first
world war when the french developed a recoilless rifle (which the
austrians, germans, and russians then copied without restraint). This
allowed you to fire at the enemy and then adjust your fire onto the
target rather than starting over from scratch again. It was one of THE
major innovations that lead up to the war.

I don't recall the title of the book right now, but the author is David
Herman, a historian out of (at the time) Tulane...
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 12:05:53 -0700, Michelle Steiner <michelle RemoveThis @michelle.org> wrote:
>In article <ea2dcca7.0406091046.4487843e RemoveThis @posting.google.com>,
> mcb26 RemoveThis @hotmail.com (Mudbunny) wrote:
>
>> Again, this is opn the 105mm howitzers I trained on, although it the
>> theories are transferrable to cannons/cannonballs.
>
>What are the differences between a cannon and a howitzer?

Angle and length of barrel.

Cannons have longer barrels and fire at a lower angle, howitzers have
shorter barrels and fire at a higher angle.

--
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est.
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Ben Bishop wrote:
:The biggest evolution in artillary pieces came just before the first
:world war when the french developed a recoilless rifle (which the
:austrians, germans, and russians then copied without restraint). This
:allowed you to fire at the enemy and then adjust your fire onto the
:target rather than starting over from scratch again. It was one of THE
:major innovations that lead up to the war.
:
:I don't recall the title of the book right now, but the author is David
:Herman, a historian out of (at the time) Tulane...

My appologies for replying to myself, but the book is:

"The Arming of Europe and the Making of the First World War"
by David G. Herrmann

"The French invention constituted a revolution in the deadliness of
artillary. Suddenly the possible rate of file quadrupled. The old guns
were theoretically capable of firing up to five rounds a minute, though
precise reaiming each time took longer. By contrast, the French 75mm
gun could fire twenty rounds per minute once trhe shells began hitting
the target." pg 17

Ob 1632: "It's rate of fire, stupid!"
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 21:46:52 -0400, Ben Bishop <aci DeleteThis @shore.net> wrote:
>
>"The Arming of Europe and the Making of the First World War"
>by David G. Herrmann
>
>"The French invention constituted a revolution in the deadliness of
>artillary. Suddenly the possible rate of file quadrupled. The old guns
>were theoretically capable of firing up to five rounds a minute, though
>precise reaiming each time took longer. By contrast, the French 75mm
>gun could fire twenty rounds per minute once trhe shells began hitting
>the target." pg 17

That's max rate-of-fire, not sustained.

The sustained rate of fire is determined by the rate at which the gun
can shed excess heat.

>Ob 1632: "It's rate of fire, stupid!"

IIRC, an M16 can fire 140 rounds before reaching temps that give you a
danger of cook-off.

--
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker
that we expect our supper, but from their regard to their own interest.
- Adam Smith, "The Wealth of Nations"
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

Piggy-backing 'cause I don't see Michelle's post. I assume she is
using X-no archive...

> On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
> :In article <ea2dcca7.0406091046.4487843e.RemoveThis@posting.google.com>,
> : mcb26.RemoveThis@hotmail.com (Mudbunny) wrote:
> :
> :> It also depends on how the gun is used. Two fashions are
> :> possible:Direct fire and indirect fire.
> :>
> :> Direct fire is where your trajectory is, more or less straight. In
> :> this case, you pack in all 7 charges, put the barrel horizontal, and
> :> line up the barrel by eye.
> :>
> :> Indirect fire is where the trajectory is an arc.
> :
> :More precisely, direct fire is when the gun's elevation is 45 or less;
> :indirect fire is when the elevation is greater than 45.

I don't think it is as cut-and-dried as that, but that is just
nit-picking.

> :Mortars always are indirect fire weapons, for instance.
> :
> :The advantage of indirect fire is that it can shoot over obstacles. The
> :advantages of direct fire are that it can knock down obstacles.

Indirect fire is also much more useful if you are trying to get at
something that is dug into the ground.

Marcel
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment