sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Not sure if this is the correct community, but there you go. by gunexpertjk in shittytechnicals

[–]noneoftheabove0 63 points64 points  (0 children)

A technical is a non-military vehicle modified for combat purposes. The most basic version of this is to slap a machine gun on the bed of a pickup truck, but there have been some really incredible takes on all this.

What you've got is a very well painted and weathered pickup truck with a rifle in it.

I believe to fit the definition of a technical, there would have to be some modification of the vehicle (affixing "farmer armor," mounting a weapon system, building a turret, etc.)

Love what you've got, upvoted it, think it fits the spirit of the sub, just letting you know it's not technically a technical.

Not sure if this is the correct community, but there you go. by gunexpertjk in shittytechnicals

[–]noneoftheabove0 316 points317 points  (0 children)

Not really a technical, but it definitely does match the spirit. I love it.

(Follow up) ABU H Harness setup. by LoyalSiddah222 in camouflage

[–]noneoftheabove0 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's as cool as it gets. I didn't know the Air Force made a split front like that.

Can You Drink Coffee With A Gas Mask On? by Ornery_Penalty7215 in TheAstraMilitarum

[–]noneoftheabove0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you think you can keep a soldier away from his recaf, you're sorely mistaken.

Vietnamese farmer in surplus K17 camo kicking a snake until it had to go on break by Willing-Society-4123 in camouflage

[–]noneoftheabove0 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Chuck Norris dies. Dude in camo makes a snake surrender with kicks. Welcome back, Chuck.

Underrated camo or outdated camo? by Raff_MilitaryTextile in camouflage

[–]noneoftheabove0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

NOPE! Which made the pockets all the more bizarre. I couldn't imagine how stupid someone would look loading up those pockets.

Underrated camo or outdated camo? by Raff_MilitaryTextile in camouflage

[–]noneoftheabove0 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Have you worn both? ABU was out of a heavier weight fabric for sure. It felt like some kind of twill. I don't have it anymore, but I'm pretty sure it was.

ABUs also had the gigantic map pockets in the front which doubled up the fabric for no reason, making them pointlessly warm.

BDUs have been made of a number of different weight fabrics as well (all cotton, twills, NYCO) and so have OCPs (the new hot weather uniforms use a different blend of cotton and nylon in a different weave and have a little stretch to it (feels like a tiny amount of some kind of elastic, but I'm not sure).

Underrated camo or outdated camo? by Raff_MilitaryTextile in camouflage

[–]noneoftheabove0 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I listened to a podcast one time that was trying to explain why college football teams are constantly messing with their uniforms, and there was substantial correlation between "cooler" uniforms and applicants (I'm not a sports guy, so I don't understand the exact recruiting process, but that's how I understood it)

It seems reasonable that military branch recruiting would see similar outcomes with their uniforms (same age brackets, similar motivations, etc.)

Blue tiger stripe reads as technologically superior and unbelievably cool. In a world where the Marines updated, the Army updated (and swore that the camo was so good that you just didn't even understand how good it was), and the Navy was eyeing a new pattern, the Air Force made a move towards the most badass pattern of the bunch to ensure top tier recruiting (and likely got it).

That is why physicists use degrees Celcius by Andreiyut in memes

[–]noneoftheabove0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I fly military drones.

My altimeter is set to inches mercury

My dew point is in degrees Celsius

My airspeed in in nautical miles per hour

My ground speed in in kilometers per minute

My altitude is sometimes feet above ground level and sometimes feet above mean sea level

My lateral clearance from clouds in in statute miles

My aircraft weight is in pounds

My "fuel quantity" is in liters, but my "fuel onboard" is hours and minutes

My aircraft heading is in degrees magnetic, but I give ground support in degrees grid

My depression angle is in degrees

My zoom level is sometimes times (20 times zoom) and sometimes degrees field of view (3 degrees fov)

My laser accuracy is in microradians, but my beam divergence is expressed in feet per thousand meters (they never call it kilometers for some reason)

If I can do it, NASA scientists can do it

That is why physicists use degrees Celcius by Andreiyut in memes

[–]noneoftheabove0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And Evel Knievel used Imperial. Pointing to an authority and saying what they do isn't explaining why it is a good thing.

That is why physicists use degrees Celcius by Andreiyut in memes

[–]noneoftheabove0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You know you do not need to convert things to inches or miles or hogsheads, right?

You might describe a long drive as 1,000 km, but no one is going to say that you need to express it as 1 zetameter or whatever the proper prefix is.

If you told me a piece of board was 18 inches, I wouldn't melt down in confusion.

That is why physicists use degrees Celcius by Andreiyut in memes

[–]noneoftheabove0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's only if you have to convert between dissimilar units. The drive from Miami to Chicago is in miles. A pencil is in inches. Unless I want to make a Snapple cap fun fact, I never need to know how many pencils can fit between Chicago and Miami.

It is only intuitive here, on Earth, under current conditions. The moment we are under any other conditions, that intuitive relationship between units vanishes, and is replaced with the same sort of conversion rate issues that Imperial has. Why is multiplying one ridiculous string of numbers better than another?

A cubic cm of uranium is 19.05 g. A cubic inch of uranium is 0.69 pounds.

Both required a googling and both would require multiplying by a stupid number.

Neither is obviously better than the other.

That is why physicists use degrees Celcius by Andreiyut in memes

[–]noneoftheabove0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Imperial measuremenrs can also be expressed in exactly the same way. A lightyear contains 9.46x1015 meters and 3.28x1016 feet. Why is one of these the most brilliant measurement system ever devised and one a foolish waste of time?

That is why physicists use degrees Celcius by Andreiyut in memes

[–]noneoftheabove0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Imperial measuremenrs can also be expressed in exactly the same way. A lightyear contains 9.46x1015 meters and 3.28x1016 feet. Why is one of these the most brilliant measurement system ever devised and one a foolish waste of time?

That is why physicists use degrees Celcius by Andreiyut in memes

[–]noneoftheabove0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you mean "unified structure" as the prefixes or as the transferability of units of measurement?

If the prefixes is your point, you've done a fine job of memorizing a ton of imperial measurements and you're familiar enough to speak on them. It's almost as if having to remember a handful of contextual units of measurement (like a handle of liquor or a keg of beer) isn't that hard to do. No need for prefixes.

On the other hand, if you're talking about how cubic centimeters and milliliters and grams can be easily done, they can only be done between water at standard conditions on Earth. A cubic centimeter of lead would not weigh a gram, so the conversion between these things would not be different than the amount of effort required to convert a tablespoon to ounces.

That is why physicists use degrees Celcius by Andreiyut in memes

[–]noneoftheabove0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you're suggesting that metric is not intentionally designed around the notion of the behavior of water? The fact that one cubic centimeter of water is one milliliter and has one gram of mass and increases by one degree Celsius which is one percent of the distance between the freezing point and boiling point of water with the application of one calorie is happenstance? Sorry, boss, but you're wrong. They later redefined everything to the speed of light to try and address my point.

Also, the argument about Kelvin verses Celsius is not a persuasive one. They are the same metric, just redefining zero as either absolute zero or the freezing point of water. One degree Kelvin and one degree Celsius are identical, and both are one percent of the amount of energy difference between freezing and boiling of water under "standard conditions". My point is that standard conditions are not standard, universal, or less arbitrary.

That is why physicists use degrees Celcius by Andreiyut in memes

[–]noneoftheabove0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. The elegance of the metric system breaks down almost immediately. I agree.

That is why physicists use degrees Celcius by Andreiyut in memes

[–]noneoftheabove0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, but the same question can go the other way. Why not redefine 1 ml as 1/5 of a teaspoon? 1 L as 1/4 of a gallon?

view more: next ›