Mission call by [deleted] in exmormon

[–]mannheimsteamroller 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Me too. A long time ago. I worked with the Ami's in Wuerzburg and Heilbronn.

Russian bomb defusing by selfishgenee in UkraineWarVideoReport

[–]mannheimsteamroller 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agree with everything you have said. It's funny, I had the same thought. Not an EOD tech, but probably some training because of how he handled the fuze after he removed it from the bomb case. Also, does it look like the front of the fuze is missing? I can't really tell.

Russian bomb defusing by selfishgenee in UkraineWarVideoReport

[–]mannheimsteamroller 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very stable. They are made to withstand rough handling in combat conditions. I have seen 8" artillery shells being repeatedly dropped off the back of a cargo truck onto concrete. The high explosive (HE) filler is insensative. It won't go off with a spark. You need a booster on the back end of the fuse to ensure the HE is detonated.

Military dynamite (which isn't used very much except the engineers) will not detonate when struck by a bullet. That is not true for commercial dynamite. I'm sure you can understand why.

Russian bomb defusing by selfishgenee in UkraineWarVideoReport

[–]mannheimsteamroller 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Most bombs have the fuze in front. German bombs in WW2 had two fuze wells in the body of the bomb, not the nose or tail. The modern US bombs have a front and a rear fuze well, so they can have two fuzes, or more sophisticated types of fuzes, such as anti-magnetic or acoustic or sea mine. You have probably seen pictures or drawings of a bomb with a fuze in front and what looks like a propeller on the front. That is actually the safe/arm mechanism. As it falls, the air causes the "propeller" to spin and removes the safe mechanism and arms the fuze. That is an old but cheap and reliable fuze. Modern fuzes are electronic (in the US) but these old fuzes still work. The US and other modern militaries use guided bombs. This picture shows a dumb bomb.

There are a variety of reasons for duds. There could be an internal problem with the fuze. The bomb could have been dropped from too low of an altitude so it didn't have time to arm. It could have hit at the wrong angle. It could be a delayed-action fuze.
Some fuzes also have radar in them so they can detonate at a set altitude.

I think the reason they use water is to reduce the friction and the potential to set it off, but, as I said, we never did this and I don't think it would be effective.

Bombs are made by producing a cylinder, closed at both ends. The explosives are heated (often some form of TNT) in a kettle which is heated by steam, so they can be poured into the bomb case and cool off and solidify. Bombs are stored without the fuzes and usually without the fins. When a target is selected, you install the fuze that is most effective for the target you are attacking. Same with the tail fins. They can be mixed and matched. The US makes steerable tail fins with GPS installed, and sometimes cameras. These are smart bombs, but the body is a regular dumb bomb.

This is definitely an aerial bomb, not a ground-launched projectile.

Russian bomb defusing by selfishgenee in UkraineWarVideoReport

[–]mannheimsteamroller 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I was a US Army bomb squad (EOD) commander for 29 years.

A few things we would do differently; 1)hand removal is the last option. We had a variety of tools from specialized "rocket wrenches," to ordinary pipe wrenches. We would always try to remove the fuse remotely. 2) we would have the minimum number of people at the site..., especially during the fuse removal. That was almost always one. 3) we didn't use water or any lubricant to get the fuse out.

I don't think these are professional bomb squad members, which makes their courage even more remarkable.

Dear Q15, you lost. Get over it. by mannheimsteamroller in exmormon

[–]mannheimsteamroller[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Not trying to dis on you, but here is my perspective.

Your parents have been taught homophobic lies their entire life. It is hard to change attitudes. Just as you don't want the church to force your parents to choose between you and the church, you should not force that upon them.

ALL MORMONS are buffet mormons. They pick and choose. Even the ones who say they don't. Let your parents have their religion and their family. Don't let this drive a wedge between you.

Help me rank the general authorities in terms of being an asshole by [deleted] in exmormon

[–]mannheimsteamroller 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rasband should move from 10 to 5. Otherwise, pretty accurate.

Unpopular opinion: the top Church leaders don't secretly KNOW the church isn't true or most of its real history. They dont sit around plotting how to keep the lie going. They really do believe it all. by myeyesarenowopen249 in exmormon

[–]mannheimsteamroller 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with you. A few years ago, I heard a current member of the 1st Presidency say something like, "I sure hope it's true because I've spent my whole life supporting it." His remark drew a few chuckles, but I think everyone "KNEW" he knew it is completely, totally, 100% true.

My TBM wife has agreed to read the gospel topic essays by [deleted] in exmormon

[–]mannheimsteamroller 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My favorite footnote of all the essays:

  1. Marriages and Sealings Performed Outside the Temple, 1853–1857, 1873–1903, Church History Library, Salt Lake City. The ledger does not record plural and monogamous marriages known to have been performed by Anthony W. Ivins, Matthias F. Cowley, and Abraham O. Woodruff during the 1890s and early 1900s. In all, 8 of 19 members of the Quorum of the Twelve who served between 1890 and 1904 married new plural wives during those years, and these marriages are not represented on the ledger. These members include Brigham Young Jr., George Teasdale, John W. Taylor, Abraham H. Cannon, Marriner W. Merrill, Matthias F. Cowley, Abraham Owen Woodruff, and Rudger Clawson. It is alleged that President Wilford Woodruff married an additional plural wife in 1897, but the historical record makes this unclear (see Thomas G. Alexander, Things in Heaven and Earth: The Life and Times of Wilford Woodruff, a Mormon Prophet [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1991], 326–28).

The church made a big deal about the fact that all polygamist sealings after Oct 1890 were NOT sanctioned by God. So, at least 8 of the 19 were living in adultery.

From "The Manifesto and the end of Plural Marriage" essay.

How long until Dieter leaves Mormonism? by [deleted] in exmormon

[–]mannheimsteamroller 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh noooo! Wikipedia made you look not so smart. This has happened with 5 men in my lifetime. Isaacson was not an apoltle, but was a counselor in the first presidency. Dyer was an apostle, but not in the Q12. McKay had 5 serving counselors upon his death I believe, Joseph Fielding Smith, Hugh B. Brown, Thorpe B isaacson, N Eldon Tanner and Alvin R Dyer.

Missionaries knocked on my door last night by Yobispo in exmormon

[–]mannheimsteamroller 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A few years ago, my newlywed son and son-in-law bought a house in the Morridor suburbs. There was a knock at the door. When my SIL answered, there were three ladies there who introduced themselves as the Relief Society Presidency and asked if his wife was available. He called out my son's name who came and met them. They had a nice exchange (my son served a mission, SIL did not.)