Maggie’s Funny & awesome pics, vids and memes thread (work safe, no nudity)

tumblr_ac708718227c459082071f6299dffdcc_3aef03b2_540.gif
 
Cool. Never heard of it before.
Almost all the the steam turbine power plants use it. The hydraulic actuators fire the stop and control valves would turn into flame throwers on a leak when the steam lines and turbine are 500+ degrees. It is nearly like brake fluid, it will remove paint from anything it touches and it's slick as hell.
 
Nobody cares. They make the best blades.
Spineless, lazy mutherfuckers with no principles don't care. FIFY!

Allowing bullshit like this to stand is why companies think they can push all this woke bullshit down our throats.

You're wrong. Some care, and I wouldn't use their blades now even if they were free.
 
They didn't carry their sabres, either. Dunno how much that would've mattered, but if it came down to hand-to-hand I'd rather have a few feet of sharp steel than an empty carbine.
Not sure a Gatling Gun would have made a difference as both sides were intermingled according to passed down testimony of Indians. Repeating rifles and bows and arrows won the day for the Indians.

Sending troops into battle with single shot Springfield carbines against an enemy armed with Winchester Yellowboys and Henrys was stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Makarios031
Not sure a Gatling Gun would have made a difference as both sides were intermingled according to passed down testimony of Indians. Repeating rifles and bows and arrows won the day for the Indians.

Sending troops into battle with single shot Springfield carbines against an enemy armed with Winchester Yellowboys and Henrys was stupid.
The Gatling would definitely have made a difference once “the last stand” perimeter was created and the column collapsed into a fire sack.

But if you have never walked the battlefield, you don’t understand that it is not just a park with a smooth hill on it. All around are gully’s and streambeds and washes and high grass…. Perfect country for horses and cavalry. But very very bad for wheeled Gatling guns and the numerous limbers needed to feed them.

Little Bighorn Was not a planned battle for the Cavalry. They were in a patrol and a show of force and Custer intended to attack an encampment— an offensive deployment. Gatling guns were not offensive weapons. They were rampart and perimeter weapons. Cavalry technique was to ride in and form a skirmish line attacking the encampment or enemy force. Not set up Gatlings.

But, Custer became the defender after Reno stirred up the hornets nest. And Custer didn’t listen to his scouts about size of opposition or comprehend it their strong organization and motivation.

He has always been criticized for not bringing his Gatling guns. But a. It was not that kind of mission. b. Not only would they have slowed them down, they could not have maneuvered at all in that terrain. c. Custer failed at such an epic level that Gatlings were the least of his compounded errors.

The argument could probably have been made that if he brought them, be never would have ended up at Little Bighorn. Maybe true. But that is the thing about complex battle analysis. You can always find a couldda, wouldda, shouldsa and then pin the outcome on that. Trace the Butterfky effect back far enough and there is always some thing that folks pin the outcome on.

Actually, Custer screwups were mainly in his pre-battle Intel (he ignored it) and his assumptions about the enemy (size and capability and intentions). Once the battle started, he ran a fairly masterful defense.

The again, so did de Castries at Dien Bien Phu. And Heinriki and Student at Berlin. They just had no way to win against the numbers and force moving in on them.

But, yes, in the pocket defense at little big horn the Gatlings probably could have saved some troopers if they had enough ammo. But that like saying “If we had all our air cover up over Pearl Harbor, the Arizona would have been afloat today.” Yup. Probably. But that’s not how history rolled the dice that day.

Cheers, Sirhr

Ps. Go visit Little Bighorn. It is an amazing place in the middle of a lot of other amazing places!
 
Last edited:
The Gatling would definitely have made a difference once “the last stand” perimeter was created and the column collapsed into a fire sack.

But if you have never walked the battlefield, you don’t understand that it is not just a park with a smooth hill on it. All around are gully’s and streambeds and washes and high grass…. Perfect country for horses and cavalry. But very very bad for wheeled Gatling guns and the numerous limbers needed to feed them.

Little Bighorn Was not a planned battle for the Cavalry. They were in a patrol and a show of force and Custer intended to attack an encampment— an offensive deployment. Gatling guns were not offensive weapons. They were rampart and perimeter weapons. Cavalry technique was to ride in and form a skirmish line attacking the encampment or enemy force. Not set up Gatlings.

But, Custer became the defender after Reno stirred up the hornets nest. And Custer didn’t listen to his scouts about size of opposition or comprehend it their strong organization and motivation.

He has always been criticized for not bringing his Gatling guns. But a. It was not that kind of mission. b. Not only would they have slowed them down, they could not have maneuvered at all in that terrain. c. Custer failed at such an epic level that Gatlings were the least of his compounded errors.

The argument could probably have been made that if he brought them, be never would have ended up at Little Bighorn. Maybe true. But that is the thing about complex battle analysis. You can always find a couldda, wouldda, shouldsa and then pin the outcome on that. Trace the Butterfky effect back far enough and there is always some thing that folks pin the outcome on.

Actually, Custer screwups were mainly in his pre-battle Intel (he ignored it) and his assumptions about the enemy (size and capability and intentions). Once the battle started, he ran a fairly masterful defense.

The again, so did de Castries at Dien Bien Phu. And Heinriki and Student at Berlin. They just had no way to win against the numbers and force moving in on them.

But, yes, in the pocket defense at little big horn the Gatlings probably could have saved some troopers if they had enough ammo. But that like saying “If we had all our air cover up over Pearl Harbor, the Arizona would have been afloat today.” Yup. Probably. But that’s not how history rolled the dice that day.

Cheers, Sirhr

Ps. Go visit Little Bighorn. It is an amazing place in the middle of a lot of other amazing places!
I've yet to visit Little Bighorn but that is the no. 1 spot on my to do list. I may have to do it alone because my g/f asked "...Why?" and I'm not going to be rushed or put up with rolling eyes or the "I'll just wait in the truck" bullshit.

I've studied that battle for years, and am finally getting a grasp of it. I think Custer was self disillusioned about his inflated super powers ever since he routed the larger Confederate cavalry at Gettysburg, which in my opinion, may have helped win the battle. However, his big medicine didn't work on Sitting Bull and the other chiefs at Little Bighorn.

I've never seen a Gatling gun being used live but it always impressed me as an unwieldy, robotic weapon for one person to run. It was designed to work on a level battle field against a mass charge such as Picket's charge but not for pop up and disappear targets on hilly broken terrain such as Little Bighorn.

If Custer's men had full auto M4s, AKs, fighting shotguns and lots of ET-MPs to toss down the hill he may have stood a chance.
 
Last edited:
I've yet to visit Little Bighorn but that is the no. 1 spot on my to do list. I may have to do it alone because my g/f asked "...Why?" and I'm not going to be rushed or put up with rolling eyes or the "I'll just wait in the truck" bullshit.

I've studied that battle for years, and am finally getting a grasp of it. I think Custer was self disillusioned about his inflated super powers ever since he routed the larger Confederate cavalry at Gettysburg, which in my opinion, may have helped win the battle. However, his big medicine didn't work on Sitting Bull and the other chiefs at Little Bighorn.

I've never seen a Gatling gun being used live but it always impressed me as an unwieldy, robotic weapon for one person to run. It was designed to work on a level battle field against a mass charge such as Picket's charge but not for pop up and disappear targets on hilly broken terrain such as Little Bighorn.

If Custer's men had full auto M4s, AKs, fighting shotguns and lots of ET-MPs to toss down the hill he may have stood a chance.
When you visit...

Spend about 2 hours at the visitors center. Then put on a ruck. Get plenty of water. And spend the next day and a half not only walking the battlefield, but driving it. Remember, the 'battlefield' was encampments 15+ miles away. Cavalry actions were not infantry actions. Cavalry could cover 100 miles a day. Not easily. But they could do it. The battle 'space' that ended with the stand at Little Bighorn is immense. More the size one would expect in a WW2 armored action.

Also, it is the only national battlefield where the headstones are placed exactly where the troopers fell. You can see the 'pockets' where they were herded in and reduced. You can walk out hundreds of yards (in one case a couple of miles) and find graves where 1 or 2 or 3 men tried to escape as a group or solo from the perimeter and were run down and killed by the Indian horsemen. You can 'feel' the battle unfolding much better than on many battlefields where there may be some markers. But the graves are remote and all lined up.

Once you get a mile or so from the park.... even the grass fights you. You step into unseen ditches or chuck holes. It looks smooth and undulating. But under it all is some totally savage dirt and terrain.

Geographic determinism is a major force in history, especially military history. Terrain shapes the battle. Such a good example of it at Little Bighorn.

Cheers,

Sirhr

PS. Gatling Gun was a 4 - 6 man crew. Plus they travelled with 2 - 3 limbers each. So that meant horse teams for each gun and limber. And horsemen to manage those. Then an officer or NCO in charge. Then a loader, and an operator who worked in shifts. And extra men for the setup and digging in as well as security ( infantry and cavalry charging cannon positions was common). A Gatling battery was an artillery battery, for all intents and purposes. So... not one guy by any means. And a definite burden to a cavalry company.
 
Spineless, lazy mutherfuckers with no principles don't care. FIFY!

Allowing bullshit like this to stand is why companies think they can push all this woke bullshit down our throats.

You're wrong. Some care, and I wouldn't use their blades now even if they were free.


Bought a double edge that had been restored - a 1950s Gillette - they got no money and I buy blades 100 at a whack - not Gillette - though I did love their Blue Blades that came in my trial pack.

Fuck them.
 
They didn't carry their sabres, either. Dunno how much that would've mattered, but if it came down to hand-to-hand I'd rather have a few feet of sharp steel than an empty carbine.
There wasnt much hand to hand unless one of the Native Americans was looking to make a name for himself in the pictogram record.

Basically the worlds greatest light cavalry decimating heavy cavalry that was using their animals as breastworks.
 
Not sure a Gatling Gun would have made a difference as both sides were intermingled according to passed down testimony of Indians. Repeating rifles and bows and arrows won the day for the Indians.

Sending troops into battle with single shot Springfield carbines against an enemy armed with Winchester Yellowboys and Henrys was stupid.

Underestimating the enemy was stupid.

The equipment was a secondary issue.

As usual politics played a role.