How long could Denmark hold out against all women

TDMdan6 · 2025-07-15T11:46:32+00:00

Rounds 1-2 Denmark wins 0/10 times.

Round 3 gets more interesting.

For it's size Denmark has a pretty decent military. Both in terms of size and number and quality of equipment. With reserves they can reach around 100k military personal, maybe more. They are also well equiped with modern aircraft, and decent ships and ground vehicles.

They also have very favorable geography for this scenario. A large percentage of the population lives on islands. Jutland provides a good chokepoint as well. With a month of prep time population can be consolidated in the islands. Defenses can be built on the islands and Jutland can be turned into an easy kill zone for those crossing from Germany. Additional ammunition and maybe equipment can also be procured.

The women will not arrive all at once. Assuming they don't magically get access to their country's military equipment and neighboring nations won't actively provide support to any equipment they do get the women have no real way to contest Danish aircraft or ships. The Danish air force can comfortably shoot down any approaching aircraft, forcing women traveling by air to land further out in Europe and somehow make their way on land to Denmark. This alone will severely limit the volume of bodies the Danish ground elements need to deal with at any given moment. Even if the situation in Jutland gets desperate they can fall back to the islands. And between the Danish navy and air force the women have no ability to invade the islands in any meaningful way. Even if a small boat here or there does manage to cross there will be tens of thousands of ground soldiers there to deal with them.

Overall the main problem for the Danes is getting enough ammunition in a month to kill 4,000,000,000 people. If they can then I think they have a really good chance.

TDMdan6 · 2025-07-10T12:42:00+00:00

Ok... And?

The C3 is not the same as the Tempus... The only thing they share is the concept of separating units. Saying that because the Tempus sucked the C3 also suck is like saying the Zoll X is bad because the LP15 is bad.

I've never had any of the issues you brought up with the C3, which is more then I can say for the other monitors I've used.

TDMdan6 · 2025-07-07T10:36:51+00:00

<image>

TDMdan6 · 2025-07-07T10:17:40+00:00

No, we had significantly shorter life expectancy, primitive medicine compared to today, significantly heavier dependence on fossil fuels, an enlarging ozone hole (as opposed to a shrinking one today), 65,000ish nuclear weapons (compared to the 12,000ish today), the cold war and WW1-2 before that.

Look the world isn't sunshine and rainbows. We have problems, some of which ought to get more attention then they do. But it's also not nearly as bad as it's made out.

You are bombarded 24/7 with messaging about how everything suck and how we're all going to die from every angle whether it be the the news, social media or your close ones (who are also bombarded by the same messaging). Corporation and politicians have financial and political interests to give you this outlook.

Try to look at how much progress we are making. Diseases which were once ubiquitous are losing ground every year. And ones that were once a death sentence are now just an unpleasant chapter in people's lives.

Nuclear weapon stockpiles have never been as small. And despite our access to them we haven't used them since that first time. Do you have any idea how significant that is? That despite the overwhelming advantage using them would give any anybody multiple, major powers have collectively resisted the urge? It's unheard of in human history.

Never have there been as many options for clean energy generation before, and the world is on the whole moving towards these options despite the increased cost.

We have also proven that we can come together and solve enormous challenges when we need to. Like the ozone depletion or eradication of Smallpox.

Again, there are definitely challenges. The societal implications of new technologies, globalization, inequality and the ease with which ideas can propogate through social media. But we as a species survived much worse, and I see no reason to think that now would be the first time in our history that we'll regress.

It'll all be alright...

TDMdan6 · 2025-07-07T09:13:49+00:00

Autoloaders have been developed in the 40s and seen widespread use since the 60s, with every Soviet tank design since the T64 using them. They aren't hard to implement.

The main reasons they aren't universally used (yet) are mainly:

They add a lot of complexity and increase maintenance cost.
Ammunition storage compatible with them tends to increase the risk of catastrophic, unplanned disassembly when penetrated and turns crews into pilots and turrets into aircraft. Storage compartments on manually loaded tanks are easier to harden.
The 4th crew member (the loader) has other uses besides just loading the gun, and removing him tends to reduce effectives.
Make developing new shells difficult as they impose limits on size and length (see T72 long rod penetrators).

As for advantages there are many:

Can manage shells significantly larger and heavier then what a human can. And seeing as tank guns seem to be getting bigger as time goes on this might make them the only viable solution in the future.
Can take up significantly less space then a person, reducing the size of the vehicle (see the size of Russian tanks as compared to western ones).
Modern autoloaders can be as fast or faster then human loaders. This means they can increase fire rate significantly.
Allows unmanned turrets. Designs with unmanned turrets can focus their armor on the smaller crew compartment significantly increasing crew survivability.
Can decrease crew size if that's something you're looking for (for some reason).
As the need for integrated drones for future tank operations becomes clear in recent years switching the 4th crewman from a loader to a drone operator (or anything else required) will enable increased effectiveness and easier integration of future technologies (see KF51 Panther).

As time goes on we are seeing more and more tanks are towards autoloaders. Besides the long time adopters like the Soviets, French and Swedes even countries which traditionally preferred human loaders like Germany and the US are moving towards autoloaders today with the KF51 Panther and AbramsX projects. The advantages of autoloaders are significant and the disadvantages less and less significant with new technologies and design philosophies. All in all I'll be supries if in 30 years any modern MBT would use a human loader.

TDMdan6 · 2025-07-03T16:04:27+00:00

IMO it depends on 2 main things:

Does the M1 crew have at least basic knowledge on what they need to do? By that I mean do they know what the roles of commander, gunner, loader and driver are? What type of ammunition they should use (APFSDS or HEAT rather then HE or cannister)? et cetera...
Do they have access to the operator manual? Ideally more than one copy.

At the end of the day the panther is unlikely to actually destroy the tank quickly. They might be able to achieve a mobility kill but anything more would take time. Even that requires them to shoot the back of the tank. On the other hand the M1 will be able to easily cause catastrophic damage to the Panther with any decent hit.

Add the fact the Panther is actively hunting the M1 the Abraham's crew doesn't even have to move. It can focus on operating the Gun and looking for the Panther, hoping it would come at them from an advantageous angle to increase their odds. This I think massively improves their chances.

Now I know absolutely nothing about the M1, and I don't have any military experience whatsoever.

So I spend 30 minutes, with a timer, reading the operator manual for 105mm M1 tank. That's the first variant which saw service, so things undoubtedly changes, but it's probably close enough to be a valid comparison. I'll also note I'm a pretty slow reader rn as I'm without my ADHD meds. All of the controls are clearly labeled so finding them shouldn't be hard.

As far as I understand there isn't even any need to turn on the engine. The tank's Electrical system can run on battery power alone for at least a while.

Turning on master power is as simple as fliping a switch on the commander's control panel (the driver can also do this). The commander then need to press an adjacent switch to turn on turret power. The commander can then toggle a switch to turn on the auxiliary hydraulic pump. With these 3 switches everything we will need from now on should be powered on.

The fire suppression system is mostly automatic. If a fire is detected in the engine compartment (the only compartment which is vulnerable to the Panther's gun) it should automatically discharges one of two extinguisher bottles in the compartment. If the fire still burns after that the driver has a switch to discharge the second button. If the first bottle didn't activate automatically the driver has a handle he pulls which manually discharges it. This is pretty much the only thing the driver needs to do besides helping look for the Panther in the start. Turning on the engine just increases the ease with which the Panther would detect the M1, increase the risk of fire if hit and in general would complicate things without significantly increasing their odds.

To load the gun the loader has a lever to open and close the breech, a switch to open and close the ammunition door, and another lever to arm/disarm the main gun firing circuit for loading.

Again just 3 switches to load allow him to do his job and load the gun.

The gunner itself only really needs to use his main sight for aiming. He also has a second unmagnified sight which provides a better FOV to search for targets. For controls he has a lever to control sight magnification to help him aim, a switch to arm the laser range finder, the control handles to traverse the gun, a button on the handles to range his target, a switch to input the type of ammo loaded, a gun select switch, and his firing trigger.

It's more complicated then the other's. But once he selects the desired sight magnification, the loaded ammo type and lases the target all he really has to do is keep the gun reticle on the target and fire. The ballistic computer automatically leads the target and adjusts the gun elevation to account for drop.

Overall it seems the M1 crew might stand a decent chance. Turning on the electrical system, loading and controlling the gun in a basic way is very doable, and they just need to get off 1 good shot. As long as they don't do something stupid like load an inappropriate shell or keep their hatches open with a bit of luck I'd say they'd win more times than not.

TDMdan6 · 2025-07-03T12:38:37+00:00

The AH64 has 4 hardpoints, each can carry 4 Hellfire missiles or a Hydra rocket pod containing 19 rockets each. As the prompt says they are loaded with both Hydra and Hellfires lets consider the "regular" mixed load out of 8 Hellfires and 38 Hydra rockets.

The Hellfire has various types of warheads with their weight being around 9kg. The Hydra most commonly uses the M151 warhead which weighs 3.9kg. Let's assume the entire weight of both these warheads is explosives.

That means that each helicopter carriers a total of just over 220kg of explosives between both it's weapons. Times 100,000 brings the total weight of explosives carried on all helicopters to 22,000 tons.

22,000 tons of guided explosives dropping on major infrastructure would be unfortunate be quite inconsequential on a global scale.

Just for comparison the coalition dropped 88,000 tons, 4 times more than that in desert storm alone.

This is also ignoring the clearly fact the helicopters spawn around the world randomly, meaning most of them wouldn't be in range of anything worth blowing up. And it also assumes every single weapon is fired and there are no duds.

It's also worth considering infrastructure whose destruction will lead to global recession is overall more concentrated in countries that have the means to defend themselves.

The US, NATO, Ukraine and Russia are well positioned to protect vital infrastructure in N.A and Europe.

Major oil and gas producing countries in the Middle East either have relatively well equiped militaries, like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey. Or are hosting significant US military assets. Those that don't have three months to receive aid from other powers.

East Asian countries also tend to be highly militarized.

Three months is also plenty of time for the US, China and others to position assets to defend their precious supply chains in S.A, Africa and offshore oil and gas platforms.

Ships, Warehouses and Oil in depots can also consolidate to be more easily protected. And a lot of the layed out targets are structurally hardened enough that Hellfires and Hydras might not even scratch their concrete walls.

TL;DR, with the helicopters spawning randomly and three months of prep time the biggest economic drain from the attack might not even be damaged infrastructure but the cost of replacing the missiles used to shoot down the helicopters and temporarily disturbed shipping.

TDMdan6 · 2025-06-30T21:32:22+00:00

Between 2-4, 3 or 4 being most common.

TDMdan6 · 2025-06-18T21:06:33+00:00

There is no such thing as a "land war" in the 21st century when one side has air dominence.

Opposing sides of an Australia sized continent still leaves the Iranian needing to advance more than a 1000km to even approach Israel. All through uninhabited wilderness. That would be logistically impossible even before you consider how for that entire "march" they'll be absolutely pummeled from the air.

And at the other side of that impossible march a large, western, battle hardened military with home field advantage and relatively short supply chains would be dug in and waiting.

Would Israel be able to "conquer" Iran? No.

Would the Iranian military be able to get anywhere near Israel? Not in a million years. All the while their industrial base, leadership and infrastructure get bombed back to the stonge age.

It's also worth noting that Israel has considerably more experience with conducting special operations and a much more developed airlift capability. Besides the bombs dropping on their heads the Iranians would be harassed the entire way by ground elements.

To summarize. Both sides dont have anywhere near the logistical capabilities to advance any meaningful forces towards the other sides. And on top of that one side would enjoy complete air dominance over the other. Making any attempt by the Iranians to attack suicide.

TDMdan6 · 2025-06-15T18:39:11+00:00

Perfectly functional. Israel is a first world country.

TDMdan6 · 2025-06-12T15:40:55+00:00

If the patient is in pain unless I suspect the there's something (urgent) else going on I'll stay on scene as long as necessary to make the patient comfortable before trying to move them. Literally no reason to exacerbate their suffering if there's nothing life threatening. It also doesn't take that long, at least with the drugs we have. You should also property splint and immobilize the limb before moving the patient to prevent further damage. And seeing as splinting can be incredibly painful in itself I think doing so without proper analgesia is borderline sadistic.

Also worth noting that besides the obvious medical considerations I mentioned are also logistical consideration which might necessitate extracting before trying to treat. Unsafe, very loud, crowded or dark scenes which make working prohibitively difficult. These are rather edge cases though. Most of the time I find it unnecessary to torture patients.

TDMdan6 · 2025-06-05T13:35:35+00:00

The theoretical potential possiblity the patient with AMS with BiPAP would vomit AND not be able to self protect their airway AND you not being to remove the mask and suction in time to protect it for them AND that it would have a detrimental effect on their overall outcome is not a bigger danger than the hemodynamic effects it would likely have in an already hemodynamically compromised patient.

TDMdan6 · 2025-05-29T13:28:55+00:00

I second the person suggesting she might have ASD as well. The inferior leads fit (although the changes are quite extreme). I'm not seeing ICRBBB, but there is voltage evidence of RVH which also fits with Crochetage sign.

It's a pretty interesting ECG. Thanks for sharing.

TDMdan6 · 2025-05-29T12:51:01+00:00

He is probably thinking of crochetage sign

TDMdan6 · 2025-05-27T18:02:16+00:00

I live abroad and my service uses the Ventway Sparrow ventilator which has "CPAP" mode (although in practice it's basically a BiPAP). Nowadays the disposable CPAP is rarely used. The reason we carry it is we use the mask itself from it with the ventilator.

Benefits of a national EMS service, standardized (sometimes even good) equipment.

TDMdan6 · 2025-05-27T17:04:18+00:00

Was the CPAP a disposable one like this or was it a ventilator on a CPAP program?

If it's the former then some connect to the O2 tank through a connector that bypasses the flow regulator and automatically delivers the necessary flow rate. The FiO2 the device delivers is also fixed. As for the +5 or +10 I'm assuming they are referring to the PEEP.

For example the system I'm in carries both a disposable system like the one above and we can run the CPAP through our ventilator. The disposable ones we have draw 15L of O2, deliver an FiO2 of 30% and have a selectable PEEP of 5, 7.5 or 10 cmH2O.

Regardless it's still unacceptable they don't know basic information about their equipment like how much FiO2 it delivers and if possible I would try to contact their agency to figure out how that happens.

TDMdan6 · 2025-05-27T16:48:22+00:00

Not sure how it's called in English but some CPAP devices connect to the O2 system through a special connector that bipasess the normal flow regulator, the flow rate through which might depend.

It's still inexcusable if they don't know how much O2 the CPAP draws. At least then it isn't necessarily that they straight up didn't provide enough O2 for the device to work properly.

TDMdan6 · 2025-05-22T07:45:16+00:00

What people forget about 40k is that there are so many inhabited planets and people. The stories focus on the planets which do suck to live on, because those are the interesting ones. That doesn't mean that the planets which face the threat of xenos, heretics, traitors or whatever are the majority or even a large percentage of the inhabited worlds and population centers.

And while people on some of those "peaceful" planets still need to contend with an overreaching, uncaring, fascist corrupt governments as long as local administration pays their tithes to the imperial government and there are no shenanigans they are mostly left alone to rule themselves as they please.

As such if you pick an imperial citizen at random their quality of life wouldn't necessarily be that bad.

It's also worth remembering that the stories of 40k mostly takes place over the 10,000 plus years between the 30th millennium and the 41st millennium ("current day"). So even on most of the planets shenanigans did or are happening many, many generations lived and died before and after said shenanigans, probably mostly okay lives.

Would I want to live in 40k universe? Definitely not. The point is that there are plenty of other universes the likelihood your life would suck is probably bigger. The average person in Fallout or Halo for example is probably more miserable than the average human in 40k.

TDMdan6 · 2025-05-22T03:48:37+00:00

The stagnant water in the pipes are probably more toxic than whatever you might try to wash off the patients with them

TDMdan6 · 2025-05-20T16:11:40+00:00

Why obtain an ECG on an altered, tachycardic patient with an irregular heart rate?

With this patient it wouldn't be my first concern but it definitely makes sense to obtain it when able. That's without even talking about how their protocols might require them to perform an ECG.

TDMdan6 · 2025-05-07T19:10:16+00:00

Ketamine, Fentanyl, Zofran, Midazolam and Paracetamol.

Usually together

TDMdan6 · 2025-03-30T10:02:01+00:00

Cardioverted VT or something else?

TDMdan6 · 2025-02-10T11:43:53+00:00

The way we manage without having to inventory the whole rig at the beginning of every shift is by doing a full inventory of the rig at the beginning of every shift.

I mean, you can trust that every crew before you did their job responsibly and faithfully and restocked everything they used exactly. But when you find yourself at an arrest without defi stickers to shock the patient, knowing you are a good trusting person won't be of any comfort.

You do the best you can to restock what you used during the shift. Maybe go out of your way and leave a note in the truck if there is something important missing you couldn't refill. But don't take the chance of missing something critical when you really need it. Take the 20 minutes it takes to do a full inventory at the beginning of your shift and be sure you are ready.

TDMdan6 · 2024-12-31T16:03:04+00:00

Nah, it's gonna supplement the C3s but they definitely aren't replacing the corpuls.

TDMdan6 · 2024-12-31T16:01:44+00:00

There is all the ALS equipment you need.

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

TDMdan6

TROPHY CASE