>>5957 Oh well. Could just remake it I guess.

>>5959 idk if this is any better. i tried strelok

>>5961 It doesn't matter anway, I was just saying if you had it. Making it into a png after it's already been compressed into a jpg will not magically bring the data back lad.

>>5990 Fraid Im technologically inept strelok.

>>5961 hopefully this formatting won't turn out too reddit tier, but i tried to make it less cancerous than a large text block >high altitude at 15,000 feet. >what are you smoooooking????? That statement that they have more red bloodcells is partially incorrect. Having more redblood cells is actually a cause for alt sickness in people. High altitude dwellers in Asia Mainly Tibet/Nepal, not sure if Indians have high denisovan ancestry, E. Asia doesn't at least have double the nitrous oxide in blood and double the blood vessel density in the limbs (esp the arms) in ADDITION to the EPAS1. NO2 casues vasodilation which is thus responsible for the increased bloodhound. Obvious the gene has its tradeoffs. I'm not geneticist so I don't understand the whole part about EPAS1 inhibiting reproduction (something about Hybrid incompatibility). Also, you probably don't want to suffer health issues at sea level probably (Tibetans can and will get a sort of "oxygen poisoning" if they stay at sea level for too long and it supposedly leads to cardiovascular issues if the chinese paper is to be trusted. Personal experience warning, you might drop dead before me at higher altitudes. Strelok, I've been at 19,000+ for a day before. You need to acclimate and it IS partially dependent on genetics outside of the EPAS1 gene and be physically fit and not too tall or male no women on /k/ lets be honest. Although even in alpine populations below 16,000, the genes in the Tibetan population still have issues coping with cardiovascular issues (heart attacks will kill most males in range age 35-45 in Tibet. The hardest transition is around the 10,000 feet area to be honest (3000 meters), average people have their heart rate skyrocket to around 110 and the O2 oxygenation drop to the low 80s on a good day. I had a heart rate of 75 and a O2 of 96. Personally for the average strelok without muh superior alpine genes and isn't a fat fuck, I think the highest effective combat altitude would be around 14700 feet (4500m). Sure you can carry a combat load possibly up to 16400, but take it from someone who was physically who acclimated well, I could barely run past 16,400 feet. And at 17,000 its a nightmare, it felt like trying to run with pneumonia and walking badly through ice. I have bradycardia and hypotension, and at that altitude my heart rate was damn near 87 resting with 130s/90s at 17,000 with only a regular set of clothes and some water on me.. Thankfully in burgerland we don't have that much of a altitude shitshow here except in california. Also, unless your from Papa New Guinea or Tibet aka high Denisovan anscestry you won't have those genes. Basically non-existent in most europeans unless you're russian or maybe finnish. > tl;drUnless you live in Alaska, leaflandl injun territory, or south central spicland mexico proper not the southern US you only need to worry about mount whitney in commiefornia at 14,505 feet.

>>4526 Poorfag here. Noguns. I live in a bad state. I'm not yet 21 and it's looking like I'm going to be shit out of luck, sadly. I'm hoping I can scrape together some money soon. Get a cheap rifle. Probably a Henry AR7 since it's the cheapest I can legally get, and it'll takedown and fit in a bag since I don't want to have problems with people about it. So I'd rather they not even know I have one. When I turn 21 I'd like to get a RIA M206 revolver. again, really cheap. Bad idea or what? I turn 21 only after election day. So I would rather at least have something before then.

>>5687 If you can, get a 10-22 takedown instead of the Henry. It's a lot more versalite. A .38 revolver is a great choice but you can probably just get any old used one that's in decent shape and feels solid. Doesn't have to be that specific model. If you are getting the M206 for conceal, go for the spurless if possible.

>>5687 >RIA M206 Pretty sweet. Just know that RIA sometimes contradict themselves when the +P question comes up. Common sense would say that yes it could handle +P but not consistently the same way a classic gun from long ago could probably but you wouldn't want to fuck one of those up, which realistically wouldn't matter since the 206 is about blasting it in anger and then forgetting about it in the evidence locker while you go ogle some other new guns.

Bought a redhawk early this year along with an SLR106, overall bretty good

>>5367 A ptr is probably best bang for your buck in the battle rifle market. Ar10s are good nice too and if you can afford 6.5creed it's a tack driver. >>5687 A ruger 10-22 is probably the best .22lr option. Getting a child sized .22 bolt action is unironicly a solid option for an extremely light and small rifle that will kill as good as any other .22lr.

>>4212 F Do any of the LHDs even have a viable strategic and tactical purpose outside of gunboat diplomacy and legalized contractor scams?

The goddamn ship has been on fire for 5 days.

>>4212 Looking at the damage, in all likelihood the US just lost an LHD, at the dock in peacetime. For one thing, if they can't put out an accidental fire in port, do they really expect to be able to survive combat? For another, what does this mean for the F-35? The ship was in the middle of a "deep maintenance cycle", which by my understanding includes the upgrades meant to ready it for F-35B deployment. >>4304 The fire is finally out now.

>>4306 >For another, what does this mean for the F-35? Not much given almost every branch of the military is converting or building everything to conform to the various F-35s they have.

The news is about a month old now, but as of August 26 the Navy was reporting that they considered the fire an arson and that they were investigated accordingly.

>>817 thats quite the book my guy

Figured someone should upload this condidering the chimpouts in Minneapolis and elsewhere.

Since the upload keeps shitting out at ~65% on me, here's where you can take your pick of which edition you want of the Ranger Handbook: https://archive.org/search.php?query=SH%2021-76%20Ranger%20Handbook They have the 1992, 2000, and 2011 editions. Take your pick.

>>245 https://the-eye.eu/public/murdercube.com/

>>5225 Losing fat mostly boils down to calories in, calories out. Eating less and cutting out all processed crap is a good place to start. >sugar companies It's just the other end of the spectrum and their propaganda (ketofags). Although, the nutritional science of all fat = bad did turn out to be bullshit in the 2000s despite running until the late 90s. Margarine is just fat. Plant based fat, but fat regardless. Sometimes less fat than butter, which is pure butterfat, as margarine usually has water mixed in with it, so less calories. I don't think fat minimisation is specifically a bad thing, as you can usually find plenty of fat in meat and eggs already which you should always be eating, so trimming it in other areas and doubling down on salads instead is fine. I don't think the traditional idea of having your plate be 50% carb, 25% meat, 25% salad (alternatively a third each, or 10% less carb and put that into meat and salad) is a particularly bad place to start, even if it goes way deeper than that. >juice You might as well drink sugar water, juice is not much more than that but with some vitamins and fibre. Better to eat fruit directly. I just drink probably a few litre of tea every day since it's what I enjoy and there's zero proven ill effects from it. Alcohol is proven to be a good digestive aid, wine, cider and dark beer specifically, so a drink after a meal no more than once a day or once every other day is fine. Other anon mentioned plain coffee. I think saying it's good for you is walking a line, the caffeine is one thing but the acidity probably harms your digestive health if in too great quantities. Just opinion. >Also is sugarless as in no sugar or sweetener added ice cream acceptable? I'm not a fan of non-fermented dairy products, milk doesn't contain much more than calcium, sugar and fat. In limited quantities it won't be bad, but since ice cream is a rather concentrated product you are probably just better off eating nuts and raisins if all you want is a snack. My opinion is that nutritional science is still a bit of a mess and as it happens, it's simply everyone else's opinion and them trying to win over other people. Take everything with a grain of salt.

Just a tip, the pictures, especially that one screencap is way too compressed to be legible, i'd also put in more pics for various things, it really helps to make things clear even to the most retarded of retards. Otherwise I really like what's being done here, good job. t.(former) Yugoslav man.

>>5285 Done.

>>5225 > Is animal fat bad for you if you are trying to lose body fat? No, unless you're eating large amounts. Lean meat has a little fat, but it's not excessive. > sugar companies paid off scientists to say bad things about fat so they could sell more sugar and margarine. Kind of true, yes, but not quite so clear-cut as that sounds. Sugar is a shitty thing to eat because it causes insulin spikes- most people with diabetes have it because of their shitty, high-sugar diet. > besides water, what would you recommend? Water. Buy a water filter if your local tapwater tastes like ass. A little booze now and then, in moderation. > Is home made orange juice or grape juice okay? Probably, as an occasional treat. Go easy on it though. > Also is sugarless as in no sugar or sweetener added ice cream acceptable? I'd suggest no more than one ice-cream cone a week, occasionally. Moderation isn't that hard guys. > And one final thing, what are the best species of cock roaches to make into protein shakes?

Hey guys been busy recently with stuff so only a small update. Enjoy.

>rim fire revolver with swappable barrels and cylinders like ruger single 6 and dan wesson revolvers >various .22s .17s whatever rim fire >nagant revolver style action for that cylinder to barrel seal >threaded barrel comes standard >raised sights or no sights just pic rail >.22 version used with colibris or other subsonic to create the greatest one handed rat blaster Probably only would appeal to a farmer with a rat problem who also wants to have fun, but not enough to warrant an exterminator or letting loose a bunch of dogs. Maybe a trapper but they probably won't need to worry about the noise a standard .22 and ammo would cause if at all. My particular dream though >at BBQ with friends >wave dicks about who's grill is better >moves onto BBQ guns >fags whip out stag handled 1911s or SAA clones >I end the conversation by quick drawing my revolver and quietly blasting a squirrel >only those who were looking at me noticed I popped a squirrel without disturbing the others with loud noise >add it's meat to my grill >only my BBQ gun can actively participate in the BBQing process

>>5304 Seems like a problem you can solve with a barrage of cheap unguided missiles running alongside it. Though at that point why bother with the guided ones?

>externally powered Hotchkiss revolving machine gun Rather self-explanatory: take the Hotchkiss revolving cannon, redesign it to for a rifle cartridge, and then add a belt-feeding device and an electric motor to it. The actual mechanism has significantly fewer parts inside than the Gatling, and a it wouldn't need a delinker: https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=cQEs6i4fwLA A nice bonus is that the barrel is stationary in the moment of firing, therefore it should be relatively accurate. I think a version with just 3 barrels wouldn't be an overkill even for a tank or an IFV, and with an electric motor you could easily vary the rate-of-fire for your needs. >pseudo belt-fed sniper rifle Real super hyper elite snipers use their rifles as single-shot weapons, because keeping the ammunition in the magazine might change its temperature, thus affecting the ballistics. So make a a precision rifle with no magazine but a belt-feeding device specifically designed to be useful for single loading. You place a single cartridge where you'd place the first one of the belt, work the bolt, and now it's loaded. And you can place a second one in the belt-feeding device if you need an immediate follow-up shot for whatever reason. But if once in your lifetime you need to fire 5 or 10 or 20 or even more shots in quick succession with that rifle, then you can use a belt. Really, it's just an excuse to give snipers a single-shot rifle without actually giving them one.

>>5459 >take the Hotchkiss revolving cannon, redesign it to for a rifle cartridge >rifle cartridge Weak. Why not scale it up to Russian 57mm ammo like the S-60 AA gun uses?

>>5461 Why not make it fire the Schwerer Gustav's 80cm shells? Because I want something that would be actually practical, and a Hotchkiss is much better than this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_RMG_7.62

Is it true that Germany kicked off WW2 ahead of their re-armament schedule? If so, how big of a difference would it have made it they hadn't fallen for the bait until they were properly prepared?

>>5403 They have bigger problems than the Abwehr, and the Abwehr was iirc, irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

>>5406 I'm not an expert, but reading through a wiki page on him and the Abwehr, I am actually shocked that anyone put up with the bullshit from him and his branch. There are no scenarios in which an intelligence agency actively opposing and undermining your war effort and politics is "irrelevant". Even if they simply under perform, that's still devastating because you're still losing out on actually having functional intelligence gathering and counter espionage capabilities. Germany's military failures are probably mostly due to being utterly outclassed by perfidious albion's spooks. Probably more so than any other single reason.

>>5405 Yes, they were in middle of their re-armament program when the war started. As to how big of a difference it would have made, well the Soviets would have been in Berlin if they were given a two or three years after communist in Germany started their shitshow, supported by France, Great Britain, and to some extend power-tripping Polish leadership. It was fairly commonly believed that the communist in German society and military would have started causing a shitshow back in 1941 after the war with the Soviet Union started. Troops getting to see the wonders of communism first hand and telling what they saw to the civilian population fixed that problem quickly enough.

>>5400 >Malta was a particularly hilarious case. The bongs thought the island indefensible and therefore took it falling for granted while the Germans thought Malta an indestructible fortress that had to be navigated around. >If they had done even a little bit of recon, they could ave secured a safe supply route to the Afrikakorps which would have helped Rommel immensely. It also didn't help that the Germans refused to give the Italians sufficient fuel to properly operated in the med. The RM were by far the most competent branch of the Italian armed forces and taking Malta would have hinged on them anyway. >The overall lack of strategic planning in the OKH was at times truly baffling. >The same indecisiveness resulted in the strategic failure of Barbarossa in which none of the three strategic targets were achieved which ultimately led to Stalin's victory. In general the Prussian model was excellent tactically/operationally but poor strategically. That meant they consistently won battles but lost wars, at least against anyone who had staying power or who couldn't be defeated with a single decisive blow. >>5405 A delay until 1941 would have been even more useful for the Italians who frankly could have waited even as the war actually happened had Mussolini not been obsessed with winning his seat at the negotiation table which would have potentially provided a decent ally for once.

>>5322 Obviously with this comes strong self-defense protections and ideally making duels and honor killings legal.

>>5271 Yep. The more decentralized you can make an institution while keeping yourself at the top, the more profit there is to be made/power to be held. This is why most organized crime tends to be exceptionally bottom-up structures given the fact that they're only ruled by a select few. You might want (not need but want) a more centralized financial base/power base to invest in a more trained military for operations into neighbors (bread and circuses), but the more you rely on your local warlords or community leaders to handle local issues while only fulfilling the bare minimum of your end of the contract (namely, providing them protection), most folks don't mind paying a more powerful group to deal with invaders and trouble makers while otherwise being left to their own devices. Plus you can just turn any rebellious elements into sex slaves/soylent green for the rest of the population and no one (who matters) will complain.

>>5306 Russia is Upper Volta with atomic ramjets now so I'm not sure where they fall on the spectrum.

>>5306 India they became a superpower this year.

>>5263 >If we are talking about invading other countries and such, not a chance. Tell that to Rwanda, they had a very effective and profitable time invading the Congo back in the 70's/80's. Basically an African Prussia.

>>5044 The rifle is an AR-18 roughly beaten into the shape of a blocky AR-15, so this is basically a somehow better-looking SCAR. The pistol is some plastic fantastic HK thingy. Japs can do so much better than this.

>>5092 I say that and accidentally post a nork type 73. On that note, any news from Best Korea?

It looks like the navy is starting work on a new fighter not even that well into the F-35's service life. http://archive.is/zna6R

>>5093 A question regarding the 2nd image, what kind of rifle grenades are those and how come we don't see any forces in Europe and America use them anymore? I heard they were hard to use because they required a blank bullet to use and more training than an under-barrel grenade launcher. Are there any Streloks here that have used rifle grenades?

>>5147 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_grenade

>>4845 I have never been sodomized by a garden gnome before but I can't think of a better description for the feeling I have after watching television. It isn't pleasant for anyone and is so absurd just wondering "Why?" doesn't cut it anymore. I know Elvis supposedly shot TVs but how rich would you have to be to summarily execute any TV that has the audacity to be on in your presence and get away with it?

>>4854 Pretty much. A war distracts the population from internal problems too.

>>4861 The wars also result from the policies to pacify the population. In order to obtain the resources to satisfy the plebs at the lowest expense military image is used to extort them from abroad. This leads to foreign discontent and rebellion, which the plebs are then called to put down with the promise they will be rewarded with the spoils. They get shilled that it will be easy due to their superiority in material but also contradictingly that it is a dire threat to the national body. Neither is true but both are necessary to defend the lies of the political court. Army gets mauled, war costs more than anyone planned, soldiers get nothing in the end because the top gets paid first. There is no reckoning of leadership and no accounting of grievances; the objective was to conserve the decay for another generation.

>>4853 TBH the biggest hurdle to any sort of entrenched tyranny is true "education". I'm not talking the current tier bs they pull, I'm talking someone who has been very well versed in history (to see the mistakes of the past), logic (to deduce the fallacies they use), and rhetoric (because muh ad hominem). It's scarry how we are mirroring the later Roman republic era, especially if you subsitute the rape/racist allegations with sexual deviancy being a bottom gay bitch in roman courts... The question is, who is Marius and who is Sulla? >>4863 The question is has the US reached the limits of spoils that can be acquired from abroad with relative ease? I think the answer is no. Not for another few years I think.

>>4872 The US could still attain the spoils if it focused on one enemy at a time, however when its forces are stretched across the globe, like when the Roman Army became a giant border guard, it decays as a warfighting force to become an occupation force. Diminishing returns at the frontier and internal disorder would force the return of military forces from abroad to maintain domestic order. The curtailment of democratic rights would further continue to preserve government power. The US would ironically become much like the authoritarian regimes it loves to criticize, and the likelihood is that a fall will take many years as such an arrangement can be maintained for decades before meeting its fate. The party system will be of no difference as both serve the same interests, the allegiance of leadership holding purely nominal value. Like the Western Roman Empire plodding along while its citizens became the indentured serfs of the medieval era, though one can only guess at the force which would end central authority in Washington. Perhaps a corporate coup executed by disloyal mercenary companies, as such a conspiracy against the presidency had existed before. At present the United States government derives its legitimacy at a surface level from the consent of the governed, but once the governed have been converted into slaves their consent will no longer be of necessity for effective rule.