Gun superstitions/phrases

[Nom de Forum]

Actually looks like a late model bubble top jug, (P47) mostly becuse those are not lamilar flow wings....

Kevin

Kevin you are correct it is a P-47, in fact a very famous P-47. Those other guys are smoking funny cigarettes if they think any P-51 had four .50cal ammunition trays needed to feed four .50s in a wing. The photo is of Francis Gabreski's P-47D.

 

[Nom de Forum]

there was at one point a proposal during the 1787 constitutional convention, to give the federal government the right to suppress any seceding state. James Madison outright rejected it.

"A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”

the father of the constitution, James Madison, believed it was constitutional.

not to mention several states that ratified the constitution said they would not sign on if they lost all right to resume sovereignty.

Ultimately James Madison did not agree that states had a constitutional right to secede. He did however agree they would have the right to revolt if they were intolerably oppressed. The only people in the southern states who were intolerably oppressed were human slaves and they had been unsuccessfully revolting even before there was a United States.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Any state or group of states has the Constitutional right to secede at any time for any reason.
Those who spew the Union Government propaganda would do well to to research the subject and not let their arrogance and ignorance override their intelligence.

The CSA was a soverign nation that was illegally invaded by the USA under the guise of forcing them to stay in the Union.
However, after the end of the war, the Southern States were forcibly kept out of the Union, until they were thoroughly looted/bankrupted by corrupt US appointed state/local governments.

BTW, OilyPablo, the South did not "get it's butt kicked".
The CSA out killed the USA 3 to 1 while being outnumbered between 3-5 to 1 (depending on when duding the war).

The CSA lost a war of attrition. No more, no less.
That, and the CSA were not willing to commit the atrocities and war crimes that the USA was, because the ends do not justify the means.

We could argue the Northern propaganda you've been fed your entire life, but the facts simply aren't on your side, and the mods will shut this thread down if we do.


BTW, "bust a cap?" How about we go really old school and say "chip a flint"?

Jaymo,

The only arrogance and ignorance being displayed in this thread is the foolishness in your post #97.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Look at the 10th Amendment:

The Constitution does not delegate to the United States the power to coerce states to stay within the union. Therefore the power to stay or leave is reserved to the states or to the people.

Nice try, close but no cigar, and a far too simplistic an attempt at justification. The Supreme Court decision on Texas versus White in 1869 does not support the contention that the 10th Amendment conveys to the States the right to secede unilaterally. That is only a small example of the failure of any State or portion of a state succeeding in proving a constitutional right to secede.

I sure wish Southern Apologists would just take pride in the outstanding military accomplishments of the South and acknowledge that, just like the outstanding German Military accomplishments in WWII, it was all in support of an unjustifiable and illegal cause and stop try to convince the World otherwise. No matter how eruditely or literate Southern Apologists present themselves, ultimately they come-off as whining losers obfuscating the truth with misinformation and lies.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I heard for the first time about a superstition that says it is bad luck to light 3 or more cigarettes with one match. Apparently this originated from WW1 when doing so could get you killed by a sniper. I don't know how true this is, since I don't smoke but I was wondering what other common superstitions or expressions come from gun firearms.

I'm thinking the real origin of this didn't have anything to do with getting killed by a sniper. Very likely it had more to do with burning your fingers trying to light a bunch of cigarettes off of a single match.

If a sniper is going to shoot someone, then the light of a single glowing cigarette will give them all they need.


But a favorite nautical term related to gunfire is "shiver me timbers!"

A wooden beam or mast that has a big honkin' cast iron cannonball blasting through it "shivers"...and if you want a rather picturesque description, you can translate "shivers" to "explodes into wooden shrapnel" and you're on the money.

A cannonball that blasts through a bulkhead on its way through a compartment can literally kill every living creature in the compartment this way.


EDIT:

As a retired Sailor, the phrase "cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey" has nothing to do with the hypothetical scenario of iron cannonballs on a brass monkey carriage. It was never used this way historically. Historically, the brass monkey referred to in such phrases literally was a monkey figure made out of brass. Several ludicrous phrases of exaggeration referring to such brass monkeys were used to colorfully express extremes...like "hot enough to melt the nose off a brass monkey" and "cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey".

Cannonballs were stored in shot racks for ready use and in shot lockers otherwise. They were never, EVER stored in those neat pyramid-looking stacks on ships at sea. If you want to consider exactly why this wasn't done, consider that cannonballs weighed anywhere from 4 to 42 pounds each, with the 42 pounders being 6.68 inches in diameter. Now consider what it would be like on a ship sailing on the open ocean with a bunch of 42 pound cannonballs rolling around the gun deck and how much damage that could cause...and this isn't even considering the havoc that would be created in combat.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I am surprised somebody has not yet mentioned "Lock and Load". An old phrase that has different meanings depending on who uses it and when it was used.

 

[Nom de Forum]

But a favorite nautical term related to gunfire is "shiver me timbers!"

A wooden beam or mast that has a big honkin' cast iron cannonball blasting through it "shivers"...and if you want a rather picturesque description, you can translate "shivers" to "explodes into wooden shrapnel" and you're on the money.

A cannonball that blasts through a bulkhead on its way through a compartment can literally kill every living creature in the compartment this way.

Great post. While reading it I could not help but think about what happened to the U.S.S. Chesapeake when H.M.S. Shannon demonstrated the value of accurate and concentrated cannon fire on specific target areas. That incident is a good reminder of why we should strive for tight groups of shots on human assailants. It also supports striving for tight buckshot patterns.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

The U.S.S. Chesapeake/H.M.S. Shannon exchange wasn't necessarily a demonstration of precision shooting, though.

The tactics of naval warfare in the days of wooden ships and iron men wasn't to "sink" a ship by gunfire. In fact, that was a pretty inefficient way of doing battle.

The object was to place the enemy ship under one's complete mercy. The way to do this was to limit or eliminate the enemy's ability to maneuver, not to try sinking it by hulling the ship. To that end, anything which took down sails or masts or which damaged the rudder or helm would either slow/limit maneuverability or render the ship dead in the water.

A ship that can't sail can neither flee nor can it maneuver to aim its big guns. At that point, it's literally a sitting duck to an enemy that can stand off and attack at a distance or maneuver for boarding.

And the first ship to score such damaging hits was very likely to be the winner of such an engagement, even if it was a smaller ship with smaller guns. But, given the accuracy of such weapons at the time, the advantage of ships engaging in warfare at sea was to those who had the longer range guns and/or were capable of a higher rate of fire.

And, of course, the key to victory often lies with those who train to fight their ships effectively. The Chesapeake's problem with this particular battle wasn't in the fact that the Shannon crew had preferentially trained to fire on the hulls of other ships to take out gun emplacements, it was the fact that half the officers and a quarter of the crew were new and untrained and they had conducted absolutely no training at firing the big guns or their small arms. Had this not been the case, the battle would not have been nearly so one sided and the Chesapeake very well might have been victorious instead.

These were issues (the state of the Chesapeake's crew) that Captain Broke of the HMS Shannon was likely very well aware of when he issued his challenge to the USS Chesapeake (which, by the way, the Chesapeake never got since they were already underway by then).

As it was, it was the deliberate British firing upon the quarterdeck of the Chesapeake which seriously damaged the Chesapeake's maneuvering capabilities that likely did them in for this battle. It was right at that time when the Chesapeake lost forward sails as well. Then the ships ended up locked together in such a position that the Chesapeake's guns could not fire on the Shannon...however, the Shannon's guns COULD. And so they did.

Actual time of engagement? Not much more than 10 minutes.


Naval warfare tactics of those times were really fascinating. Interesting to note is that the hulls of some of those naval vessels could be three feet thick on the sides. That's three feet of Oak. The stern of the ships, however, was nowhere near so thick. Thus a ship which managed to sail behind another ship, where the enemy's stern was exposed to their broadsides, could be effectively gutted by volley after volley of main guns as each successive set of guns along the broadside passed the stern of the enemy's ship. This happened to the Santa Ana, I believe, at the Battle of Trafalgar.

 

[76shuvlinoff]

"Never ever shoot a hornets nest as they will follow the heat right back to between your eyes and kill you"

Saw a real old boy get his ass totally kicked by shooting a nest and the critters following the shot back to him. However, he was using a garden hose. He's lucky he lived.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Originally Posted by Vern Humphrey View Post
Look at the 10th Amendment:

The Constitution does not delegate to the United States the power to coerce states to stay within the union. Therefore the power to stay or leave is reserved to the states or to the people.

Nice try, close but no cigar, and a far too simplistic an attempt at justification. The Supreme Court decision on Texas versus White in 1869 does not support the contention that the 10th Amendment conveys to the States the right to secede unilaterally. That is only a small example of the failure of any State or portion of a state succeeding in proving a constitutional right to secede.

I sure wish Southern Apologists would just take pride in the outstanding military accomplishments of the South and acknowledge that, just like the outstanding German Military accomplishments in WWII, it was all in support of an unjustifiable and illegal cause and stop try to convince the World otherwise. No matter how eruditely or literate Southern Apologists present themselves, ultimately they come-off as whining losers obfuscating the truth with misinformation and lies.

The truth is that the Constitution does not prohibit a state from leaving the Union. There are many things a state is prohibited form engaging in while a member of the Union, but secession is no among them.

Woody

 

[Nom de Forum]

The tactics of naval warfare in the days of wooden ships and iron men wasn't to "sink" a ship by gunfire. In fact, that was a pretty inefficient way of doing battle.

I agree it was difficult to sink those wooden warships by holing the hull and sinking was not desirable because it eliminated the reward of prize money. Receiving prize money could be a life changing financial event for both officers and men.

]The U.S.S. Chesapeake/H.M.S. Shannon exchange wasn't necessarily a demonstration of precision shooting, though.

I have to disagree. The crew of the Shannon was specifically trained in a close range fight (the battle was fought at less than 50 yards) to use gun modifications and gunnery techniques that were far superior to those normally used for firing as fast as a hit can be made anywhere and/or attempting to de-rig and de-mast. This training in precision firing was conducted far in advance of the battle and was considered to be very unorthodox. The crew of the Shannon were given specific targets, the enemy crew manning the guns and helm/rudder, because their captain believed that was the best tactic to incapacitate an enemy ship. The crew also were trained to concentrate shots closely together into those targets to maximize destructive effect. I think it compares well to using equipment and techniques to fire pistol shots in the “5 zone” rather than firing as fast as a hits can be made anywhere on the opponent and the superiority of tight patterns of buckshot being more effective than open patterns in rapid incapacitation. A ship firing at the rigging is similar to man shooting at the legs and hips of an assailant. Both techniques can immobilize the opponent but does not eliminate the ability of the opponent to hit you with fatal gunfire. There have been incidents where a ship and a man has been fatally hit and then fatally wounded the adversary. A modern example of this in ship to ship battle is the WWII battle between the inferior German Raider Kormoran versus HMAS Sydney. Kormoran though technically inferior in all ways had superior gunnery.

And the first ship to score such damaging hits was very likely to be the winner of such an engagement, even if it was a smaller ship with smaller guns. But, given the accuracy of such weapons at the time, the advantage of ships engaging in warfare at sea was to those who had the longer range guns and/or were capable of a higher rate of fire.

The captain of the Shannon created a crew that could get the maximum accuracy possible from their guns. Furthermore believing longer range guns and faster firing was an overwhelming advantage does not explain the popularity of the short range “smashers” known as carronades that were quite popular and on these ships. At the time of the engagement more than a third of the armament of both Chesapeake and Shannon was carronades. The fire from those carronades on both ships were major factors in the battle. The long range guns on both were 18 pounders and the carronades were almost all 32 pounders. The Chesapeake never had the distance or time for effective long range fire. Firing was conducted at shouting distance.

The Chesapeake's problem with this particular battle wasn't in the fact that the Shannon crew had preferentially trained to fire on the hulls of other ships to take out gun emplacements, it was the fact that half the officers and a quarter of the crew were new and untrained and they had conducted absolutely no training at firing the big guns or their small arms. Had this not been the case, the battle would not have been nearly so one sided and the Chesapeake very well might have been victorious instead.

I think some American over confidence in the superiority of the Chesapeake’s design played a part in the loss. I also think the Chesapeake’s crew while not as well trained as Shannon’s was considered adequately trained and their firing rate and hits scored in the battle support this belief. The Chesapeake fired fast and accurate but ineffectively because of the location of the hits.

Then the ships ended up locked together in such a position that the Chesapeake's guns could not fire on the Shannon...however, the Shannon's guns COULD. And so they did.

Partly due to the modifications made to the Shannon’s gun mounts long before the battle. Just like the Captain of the Shannon did it is worthwhile for us as individuals to find/create superior equipment and techniques to incapacitate before the foe has the time to deliver a fatal blow to us that may be more due to luck and repetition than skillful delivery.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Kevin you are correct it is a P-47, in fact a very famous P-47. Those other guys are smoking funny cigarettes if they think any P-51 had four .50cal ammunition trays needed to feed four .50s in a wing. The photo is of Francis Gabreski's P-47D.

You are absolutely correct on not only the airframe type, but also the specific airframe in question. That is without a doubt P-47D 226418.

For anyone that still doubts the ID being a P-47D instead of the claimed P-51D, here is the P-51Ds wing ammunition bay open for servicing:



Notice the gun service door is forward on the wing, not aft. Also note fewer ammunition feed trays.

 

[Nom de Forum]

The truth is that the Constitution does not prohibit a state from leaving the Union. There are many things a state is prohibited form engaging in while a member of the Union, but secession is no among them.

Woody

The States are a part of an indivisible entity know as a nation and the writers of the constitution would have specifically provided written instructions for secession if they believed the nation could be divided by anything other than revolt/revolution. Had the founding fathers wanted it otherwise they would have kept the states as a Confederation instead of joining them in a Federation. The 10th Amendment permits the States to exercise non-specified powers as part of the Nation. It does not give the States the legal power to disincorporate from the body of the Nation they are a part of and owe allegiance.

Good luck getting a modern Supreme Court to disagree with this 19th century Supreme Court opinion:

"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Nice try, close but no cigar, and a far too simplistic an attempt at justification. The Supreme Court decision on Texas versus White in 1869 does not support the contention that the 10th Amendment conveys to the States the right to secede unilaterally. That is only a small example of the failure of any State or portion of a state succeeding in proving a constitutional right to secede.

The Supreme Court has all too often ruled in violation of the Constitution. There is no power granted the Central Government to coerce states to stay in the Union.

While you're at it, look up the Constitutional prohibition of creating new states out of the territory of an existing state and explain West Virginia.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

While you're at it, look up the Constitutional prohibition of creating new states out of the territory of an existing state and explain West Virginia.

West Virginia was not formed from the territory of an existing state. It was formed from the territory of a foreign nation. Virginia had seceded from the United States at the time.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

West Virginia was not formed from the territory of an existing state. It was formed from the territory of a foreign nation. Virginia had seceded from the United States at the time.

So Virginia DID have a right to secede?

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

So Virginia DID have a right to secede?

Having a right to or not, they did.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Then their secession is constitutional, is it not?

 

[Claude Clay]

the whole 9 yards, I was told originated when cement mixers were built to hold that amount. so when someone needed to order cement for a project it was ordered and billed by the yard. a big project would be ordered as 'The whole 9 yards'

...so I was told

 

[JRH6856]

It was Lincoln's hope that once the hot-head secessionists had had their say and vented their rage, cooler heads would prevail in the South. He wanted to allow this to happen much like a parent might allow a child to lay on the floor and kick and scream and cry until exhausted. In pursuit of this hope, the policy that Lincoln initially chose to follow in regards to the CSA was non-recognition. But this policy had it's flaws. Most particularly, Lincoln refused to recognize any state or Confederate title to US property within the CSA. He did not have the authority to surrender this property and had sworn and oath to protect and defend it. This was the basis for his resupply of Fort Sumpter and his response to the subsequent bombardment by South Carolina. Lincoln then called for volunteers to put down this "insurrection" and fulfilled Madison's prophecy quoted above.

Whether or not the southern states had a constitutional right to secede is irrelevant. Whatever the arguements pro or con, once a question is settled by force of arms, these arguments are rendered moot by the losing sides forced acceptance of the victor's will.

Did the 13 colonies have the right to declare independence? Irrelevant. The colonies prevailed by force of arms.

Did Texas have the right to declare independence from Mexico? Irrelevant. Texas prevailed by force of arms.

Did the US have a legitimate complaint against Mexico that justified the annexation of the southwest? Irrelevant. The US prevailed by force of arms.

Did the US have a legitimate complaint against Spain? Irrelevant. The US prevailed by force of arms.

Force of arms does not determine which view is correct, but it does determine which view will apply.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Force of arms does not determine which view is correct, but it does determine which view will apply.

That is correct. What is NOT correct is to assume the outcome of a trial of arms establishes a legal precedent.

For example, the Nazis conquered most of Europe and exterminated European Jews. That does not make it LEGAL.

 

[Nom de Forum]

You are absolutely correct on not only the airframe type, but also the specific airframe in question. That is without a doubt P-47D 226418.

For anyone that still doubts the ID being a P-47D instead of the claimed P-51D, here is the P-51Ds wing ammunition bay open for servicing:



Notice the gun service door is forward on the wing, not aft. Also note fewer ammunition feed trays.

I do not think that is the wing of a P-51D. Note there are only two M2s which would typically be found on an "A", "B", or "C" model of the P-51.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The Supreme Court has all too often ruled in violation of the Constitution....

Perhaps contrary to your view of the Constitution, but as between you and the Supreme Court your view doesn't count. The Founding Fathers assigned to the federal courts the authority to exercise the judicial power of the United States to decide cases arising under the Constitution (Article III, Sections 1 and 2):

Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ...​

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,...​

 

[Nom de Forum]

The Supreme Court has all too often ruled in violation of the Constitution. There is no power granted the Central Government to coerce states to stay in the Union.

The Federal Government does have the right to punish treason according to Article 3 Section 3. Treason is a felony. Felons cannot exercise legitimate political power just because they have not been apprehended and convicted.

While you're at it, look up the Constitutional prohibition of creating new states out of the territory of an existing state and explain West Virginia.

There is no prohibition against creating new states out of the territory of an existing state only procedures that must be followed to do so. The procedures in Article 4 Section 3 were followed when West Virginia was created. The legitimate legislature of the State of Virginia (the one recognized in Wheeling not illegitimate one composed of treasonous felons a.k.a. rebellious traitors located in Richmond) and the Congress of the United States consented to the creation of a new state.

ClickClickD'oh - West Virginia was not formed from the territory of an existing state. It was formed from the territory of a foreign nation. Virginia had seceded from the United States at the time.

West Virginia was formed from the state of Virginia in accordance with Article 4 Section 3.

Vern Humphrey - So Virginia DID have a right to secede?

Nope, that causes multiple violations of the provisions of Article 1 Section 10.

ClickClickD'oh - Having a right to or not, they did.

Virginia did not secede from the United States; portions of it treasonously rebelled without having the justification of suffering intolerable oppression.

Vern Humphrey - Then their secession is constitutional, is it not?

It is not. According to Article 1 Section 10: “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; ......”

 

[Frank Ettin]

The truth is that the Constitution does not prohibit a state from leaving the Union....

Perhaps your private truth on your Fantasy Island. However, the truth here in the real world is that the Constitution does prohibit a State from unilaterally leaving the Union, as the Supreme Court so ruled in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869).